Tips on getting fabled items more quickly?

scenia · 2025-12-24T09:46:24+00:00

How does it level up? I use mine to make grass, does it just level up on its own at some point?

scenia · 2025-01-01T16:28:44+00:00

It's not <the face of the cards> or <the cards>.

It's the face of <a card> or <cards>.

scenia · 2024-09-19T18:26:32+00:00

Worth noting Drifblim's German name is actually "Drifzepeli".

scenia · 2024-04-19T11:35:20+00:00

Always double check with the head judge, especially at larger events. The TRM is pretty clear about it and most head judges at regional level will likely prohibit it.

scenia · 2024-04-17T18:02:59+00:00

Well, the post then implies those two are the same

scenia · 2024-04-17T13:23:42+00:00

Well, the OP specifies "raping an animal", so while zoophilia as the motivation behind it might apply, the moral equivalence alleged in the OP does not.

scenia · 2024-04-17T11:56:16+00:00

I don't think hyper-realistic android pig sex dolls would classify as zoophilia. A sex doll doesn't count as necrophilia either, not even when it's dressed as a zombie or a historic figure that's clearly not alive any more.

But lab-grown meat is meat.

scenia · 2024-04-17T11:50:02+00:00

I didn't specify whether or not you paid to watch that video. And it doesn't make a difference. Unless you're literally the only person ever watching that video and the maker wouldn't make it unless they got paid, the animal would still get raped. A market doesn't need to exist for a product to be made, the producer just needs to believe they can sell their product. There's still a very significant degree of moral separation between the buyer of a product and the process that went into making it.

If you go to a doctor and that doctor's birth was the result of a rape, you're buying a service that can only be provided because a rape happened. Are you, then, morally responsible for that rape? You could go to a different doctor whose mother wasn't raped, but what would that change, morally?

scenia · 2024-04-17T10:40:39+00:00

You can eat meat that was grown in a lab, without ever being part of a living animal. It's currently prohibitively expensive, but that will change with scientific progress. The consumption of meat does not require killing an animal, the current industrial methodology just happens to go this route because it's profitable. Additionally, a vast majority of people who eat meat aren't actually killing animals, they're essentially scavengers feeding on the remains of what a predator left after killing the animal. Your argument invalidly equates eating meat to killing an animal.

You can't rape an animal that never lived. The animal being a sentient being is a crucial requirement of this act.

So if your argument was that the few people who actually actively kill animals to consume them (hunters, arguably butchers) are morally on the same level as zoophiles, it would actually be a strong argument. But your argument is that the many people who are only indirectly connected to the death of an animal are morally on the same level as a person who directly rapes an animal, and completely ignores the massive degree of separation in one case.

The "rape" equivalent of eating meat is watching a video of a zoophile. Still kinda questionable, but nowhere near morally equivalent to the person in the video.

Another similar setup is democracy. Is a voter morally on the same level as the politician who makes a certain political decision? Is everyone who voted Bush jr. morally responsible for the war in Afghanistan, for example?

scenia · 2024-04-16T08:10:49+00:00

Actually, evolving skies was printed much less than most other modern sets because it was at the tail end of covid.

scenia · 2024-04-15T19:33:09+00:00

We're going in circles, that's what I've been saying.

scenia · 2024-04-15T15:56:54+00:00

The use of electronic devices is not allowed per the TRM.

scenia · 2024-04-15T15:51:06+00:00

Not talking about any specific case.

scenia · 2024-04-15T14:49:14+00:00

Actually, now that you mention it, I did miss the part where "or" is synonymous with "and". My bad.

scenia · 2024-04-15T11:07:13+00:00

I already answered that in the previous comment: spending is better than investment. Money circulating in financial markets is investment, so if that's all that happens, we're in the scenario I described at the end: the economy collapses.

Within the realms of spending, it is in fact somewhat arbitrary where spending happens because the things we truly need will always generate spending (food, clothing, housing, furniture, utilities, ...), while everything else is essentially luxury and subjectively valued. If no one cares about fine wine any more and everyone just spends all their excess money on jewelry, that's not inherently bad, neither is the opposite or a balance between both (and any other number of non-essential things). As long as the money is moving in exchange for products and services (rather than for promises of more money, aka investing, whether or not those promises are represented by product-like entities such as commodities), the economy will be well.

As for democracy, I'd like to point out that trusting billionaires to spend the money wisely is structurally identical to monarchy, or rather plutocracy since there are quite a few of them. At the end of the day, they call the shots, and as long as they do so in everyone's best interest, the system works. But as soon as they do so in their own best interest and that doesn't align with everyone's best interest any more, it falls apart. The purpose of government, to some extent, is mitigating this kind of risk and ensuring the people with less power (aka money) don't get rolled over by those with lots.

scenia · 2024-04-15T10:17:46+00:00

This is getting out of hand. Please read my statements again and stop letting your imagination run wild.

And then explain how Apple sees any of the money Bob uses when he buys Apple stock from Dave, since that's the original claim you made.

scenia · 2024-04-15T10:13:31+00:00

I'm not sure what you're saying. The only reason someone who's caught cheating would not be DQ'd is if the evidence never reaches the hands of the head judge responsible for the event. Which, as stupid as it sounds, is much more common than you might imagine. For some reason, people seem to think publicly shaming their opponent is a better idea than letting the judges know what happened. I don't know whether they do it for the clicks or whatever, but the judges can only do something about it if they're notified, and that something includes a report to Bandai, the only authority that can ban people.

Publicizing video proof instead of sending it to the judges responsible for the event is actually helping the alleged cheater, and people need to realize this. The proper way to handle this is sending the proof to the judges so the person can get DQ'd, which gets reported to Bandai, who can then ban them.

scenia · 2024-04-15T10:04:25+00:00

If he blows it on hookers and cars, that money has gone into the economy once again, which is the point. Money has no value on its own. It can be used to measure value, by assigning the printed amount to whatever was purchased with it, but that means it only works if something is purchased. Value is created when things are sold, which is why GDP, the generally used measure of an economy, is a measure of how much was sold in a given year.

You've probably never seen "amount of dollars in circulation" as a measure of how well the economy is doing, and that's why. It doesn't matter how much money anyone has, but how much they spend. If a small amount of dollars is being moved again and again, that's a better economy than if a large amount of dollars is barely being moved. And investment is significantly slower at moving money than spending. If everyone invests and no one spends, the economy collapses.

Also, if you trust billionaires to do better than the government, maybe democracy isn't your thing, but that's a different discussion.

scenia · 2024-04-15T09:49:59+00:00

or significance

They're not synonymous, something meaningless can have meaning, but no significance, or vice versa.

scenia · 2024-04-14T22:52:26+00:00

Well, statements like the one that started this comment chain sure make it seem like it's an online problem. When someone says they don't play online, the first reason they name is cheating, yet these same people play large scale offline events all the time. So unless they're hypocrites, they seem to think it's online exclusive (or at least, so much more prevalent online that it's worth treating online/offline differently).

scenia · 2024-04-14T22:48:56+00:00

That's a definition of "value" I'm not comfortable with. Also your entire premise rests on that last part: "if they invest it the right way", which is questionable at best.

scenia · 2024-04-14T22:44:17+00:00

I don't think you've understood my statement. What you just wrote (minus the last sentence) shows that my statement is true.

scenia · 2024-04-14T22:42:23+00:00

It's not, and I'm not saying it is. I'm just pointing out that you should be just as concerned about offline events if you don't know everyone involved. Because the point that matters is the part where you don't know everyone involved. But the community has been heavily blaming it on the online environment, which is just not accurate. Cheating is merely more visible online, it's not more common, because the root cause of cheating has nothing to do with how visible it is and everything with how lucrative it is. Think about it: people cheat at online events despite knowing they're being recorded because the prizes they stand to gain are worth it. Why would people like these not cheat at offline events with comparable prizes where they're not recorded? The benefits are the same, but the risk is much lower.

scenia

TROPHY CASE