Discussion History VideoGame / Disgaea5AllianceOfVengeance

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Or compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage and have her settling down. Neither her conversations or ending with Cyril show any sign of reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) - in fact, their ending doesn\\\'t even reference them on a personal level at all and is in line with her platonic Robin Hood/mercenary/wandering endings with other characters.

Given all that, the only \\\"ambiguity\\\" I see is that their ending doesn\\\'t have a line explicitly saying it\\\'s platonic, I guess.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying stuff like \\\"Shamir and Catherine\\\'s ending doesn\\\'t explicitly reference romance\\\" (which both ignores the text of their A+ support in both languages and also ignores the importance of going to Dagda in the Japanese version) to justify claiming there\\\'s no way it\\\'s a romantic pairing while an entry on the same page leans heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it\\\'s 100% definitely platonic\\\" for Cyril. Given the vastly different levels of text and subtext to support either pairing being romantic, I can\\\'t help but see this as a massive double standard, to put it diplomatically.

That aside, I think their ending being romantic despite them not being, say, S-support options for female Byleth makes sense like it does for Dorothea/Petra. Their strong feelings are made clear even if on opposite sides of the war in Crimson Flower - Shamir even mentions she fears Catherine will be driven to kill her by \\\"mixed emotions of hate and love\\\", and there are good reasons for each character to view the other differently than they would another woman (or character in general) based on their past and emotional issues/general characterization. Both reference their emotional connections to partners they lost in their A+...Catherine\\\'s two most meaningful/strongest relationships are with women after all (Rhea and Shamir)...Shamir shows the most emotion and vulnerability when talking with or (in CF\\\'s case) about Catherine, etc.

Deliberately deleting/removing any references to their relationship even possibly (not even definitely!) being romantic does readers a disservice by providing an incomplete picture of the characters and story. Given the general reception/reaction to their supports/ending I suspect more than a few people would be confused as well.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Or compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage and have her settling down. Neither her conversations or ending with Cyril show any sign of reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) - in fact, their ending doesn\\\'t even reference them on a personal level at all and is in line with her platonic Robin Hood/mercenary/wandering endings with other characters.

Given all that, the only \\\"ambiguity\\\" I see is that their ending doesn\\\'t have a line explicitly saying it\\\'s platonic, I guess.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying stuff like \\\"Shamir and Catherine\\\'s ending doesn\\\'t explicitly reference romance\\\" (which both ignores the text of their A+ support in both languages and also ignores the importance of going to Dagda in the Japanese version) to justify claiming there\\\'s no way it\\\'s a romantic pairing while an entry on the same page leans heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it\\\'s 100% definitely platonic\\\" for Cyril. Given the vastly different levels of text and subtext to support either pairing being romantic, I can\\\'t help but see this as a massive double standard, to put it diplomatically.

That aside, I do feel that Dorothea/Petra is a pretty good reference point, actually. Like those two, Catherine and Shamir are depicted as having a particularly close relationship, Their strong feelings are made clear even if on opposite sides of the war in Crimson Flower - Shamir even mentions she fears Catherine will be driven to kill her by \\\"mixed emotions of hate and love\\\", and there are good reasons for each character to view the other differently than they would another woman (or character in general) based on their past and emotional issues/general characterization. Both reference their emotional connections to partners they lost in their A+...Catherine\\\'s two most meaningful/strongest relationships are with women after all (Rhea and Shamir)...Shamir shows the most emotion and vulnerability when talking with or (in CF\\\'s case) about Catherine, etc.

Deliberately deleting/removing any references to their relationship even possibly (not even definitely!) being romantic does readers a disservice by providing an incomplete picture of the characters and story. Given the general reception/reaction to their supports/ending I suspect more than a few people would be confused as well.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Or compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage and have her settling down. Neither her conversations or ending with Cyril show any sign of reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) - in fact, their ending doesn\\\'t even reference them on a personal level at all and is in line with her platonic Robin Hood/mercenary/wandering endings with other characters.

Given all that, the only \\\"ambiguity\\\" I see is that their ending doesn\\\'t have a line explicitly saying it\\\'s platonic, I guess.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying stuff like \\\"Shamir and Catherine\\\'s ending doesn\\\'t explicitly reference romance\\\" (which both ignores the text of their A+ support in both languages and also ignores the importance of going to Dagda in the Japanese version) to justify claiming there\\\'s no way it\\\'s a romantic pairing while an entry on the same page leans heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it\\\'s 100% definitely platonic\\\" for Cyril. Given the vastly different levels of text and subtext to support either pairing being romantic, I can\\\'t help but see this as a massive double standard, to put it diplomatically.

That aside, I do feel that Dorothea/Petra is a pretty good reference point, actually. Like those two, Catherine and Shamir are depicted as having a particularly close relationship, Their strong feelings are made clear even if on opposite sides of the war in Crimson Flower - Shamir even mentions she fears Catherine will be driven to kill her by \\\"mixed emotions of hate and love\\\", and there are good reasons for each character to view the other differently than they would another woman (or character in general) based on their past and emotional issues/general characterization. Both reference their emotional connections to partners they lost in their A+...Catherine\\\'s two most meaningful/strongest relationships are with women after all (Rhea and Shamir)...Shamir shows the most emotion and vulnerability when talking with or (in CF\\\'s case) about Catherine, etc.

Deliberately deleting/removing any references to their relationship even possibly (not even definitely!) being romantic does readers a disservice by providing an incomplete picture and narrow picture of the characters. Doing so not only contradicts the stated MO for writing these entries (i.e. avoiding interpretation/implications, relying on text) but also isn\\\'t really in line with how the conversations seem to be viewed in general.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Or compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage and have her settling down. Neither her conversations or ending with Cyril show any sign of reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) - in fact, their ending doesn\\\'t even reference them on a personal level at all and is in line with her platonic Robin Hood/mercenary/wandering endings with other characters.

Given all that, the only \\\"ambiguity\\\" I see is that their ending doesn\\\'t have a line explicitly saying it\\\'s platonic, I guess.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying stuff like \\\"Shamir and Catherine\\\'s ending doesn\\\'t explicitly reference romance\\\" (which both ignores the text of their A+ support in both languages and also ignores the importance of going to Dagda in the Japanese version) to justify claiming there\\\'s no way it\\\'s a romantic pairing while an entry on the same page leans heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it\\\'s 100% definitely platonic\\\" for Cyril. Given the vastly different levels of text and subtext to support either pairing being romantic, I can\\\'t help but see this as a massive double standard, to put it diplomatically.

That aside, I do feel that Dorothea/Petra is a pretty good reference point, actually. Like those two, Catherine and Shamir are depicted as having a particularly close relationship, Their strong feelings are made clear even if on opposite sides of the war in Crimson Flower - Shamir even mentions she fears Catherine will be driven to kill her by \\\"mixed emotions of hate and love\\\", and there are good reasons for each character to view the other differently than they would another woman (or character in general) based on their past and emotional issues/general characterization. Both reference their emotional connections to partners they lost in their A+...Catherine\\\'s two most meaningful/strongest relationships are with women after all (Rhea and Shamir)...Shamir shows the most emotion and vulnerability when talking with or (in CF\\\'s case) about Catherine, etc.

Deliberately deleting/removing any references to their relationship even possibly (not even definitely!) being romantic does readers a disservice by providing an incomplete picture and narrow picture of the characters. Doing so because of personal interpretations of one or two lines in their English A+ also feels odd given the general reception/understanding of that conversation since it goes beyond noting possible ambiguity and comes down firmly on the side of \\\"not romantic\\\", all other evidence be damned.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Or compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage and have her settling down. Neither her conversations or ending with Cyril show any sign of reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) - in fact, their ending doesn\\\'t even reference them on a personal level at all and is in line with her platonic Robin Hood/mercenary/wandering endings with other characters.

Given all that, the only \\\"ambiguity\\\" I see is that their ending doesn\\\'t have a line explicitly saying it\\\'s platonic, I guess.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying stuff like \\\"Shamir and Catherine\\\'s ending doesn\\\'t explicitly reference romance\\\" (which both ignores the text of their A+ support in both languages and also ignores the importance of going to Dagda in the Japanese version) to justify claiming there\\\'s no way it\\\'s a romantic pairing while an entry on the same page leans heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it\\\'s 100% definitely platonic\\\" for Cyril. Given the vastly different levels of text and subtext to support either pairing being romantic, I can\\\'t help but see this as a massive double standard.

That aside, I do feel that Dorothea/Petra is a pretty good reference point, actually. Like those two, Catherine and Shamir are depicted as having a particularly close relationship, Their strong feelings are made clear even if on opposite sides of the war in Crimson Flower - Shamir even mentions she fears Catherine will be driven to kill her by \\\"mixed emotions of hate and love\\\", and there are good reasons for each character to view the other differently than they would another woman (or character in general) based on their past and emotional issues/general characterization (i.e. Catherine\\\'s strongest emotions and most meaningful relationships are with Rhea...and Shamir. Or how Shamir is by far the most emotional and displays the most vulnerability with Catherine, etc.).

Deliberately deleting/removing any references to their relationship even possibly (not even definitely!) being romantic does readers a disservice and gives an incomplete picture. Doing so because of personal interpretations of one or two lines in their English A+ also feels odd given the general reception/understanding of that conversation.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Or compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage and have her settling down. Neither her conversations or ending with Cyril show any sign of reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) - in fact, their ending doesn\\\'t even reference them on a personal level at all and is in line with her platonic Robin Hood/mercenary/wandering endings with other characters.

Given all that, the only \\\"ambiguity\\\" I see is that their ending doesn\\\'t have a line explicitly saying it\\\'s platonic, I guess.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying stuff like \\\"Shamir and Catherine\\\'s ending doesn\\\'t explicitly reference romance\\\" (which both ignores the text of their A+ support in both languages and also ignores the importance of going to Dagda in the Japanese version) to justify claiming there\\\'s no way it\\\'s a romantic pairing while an entry on the same page leans heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it\\\'s 100% definitely platonic\\\" for Cyril. Given the vastly different levels of text and subtext to support either pairing being romantic, I can\\\'t help but see this as a massive double standard.

That aside, I do feel that Dorothea/Petra is a pretty good reference point, actually. Like those two, Catherine and Shamir are depicted as having a particularly close relationship, Their strong feelings are made clear even if on opposite sides of the war in Crimson Flower - Shamir even mentions she fears Catherine will be driven to kill her by \\\"mixed emotions of hate and love\\\", and there are good reasons for each character to view the other differently than they would another woman (or character in general) based on their past and emotional issues/general characterization. Deliberately deleting/removing any references to this dynamic and Catherine/Shamir being romantic from Shamir\\\'s entry undermines the entry as a whole and ignores very important aspects of their characterization and would do a disservice to someone wanting to use this page to understand them better.

Lastly - while I do think Shamir\\\'s using a joking

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Or compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage and have her settling down. Neither her conversations or ending with Cyril show any sign of reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) - in fact, their ending doesn\\\'t even reference them on a personal level at all and is in line with her platonic Robin Hood/mercenary/wandering endings with other characters.

Given all that, the only \\\"ambiguity\\\" I see is that their ending doesn\\\'t have a line explicitly saying it\\\'s platonic, I guess.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying stuff like \\\"Shamir and Catherine\\\'s ending doesn\\\'t explicitly reference romance\\\" (which both ignores the text of their A+ support in both languages and also ignores the importance of going to Dagda in the Japanese version) to justify claiming there\\\'s no way it\\\'s a romantic pairing while an entry on the same page leans heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it\\\'s 100% definitely platonic\\\" for Cyril. Given the vastly different levels of text and subtext to support either pairing being romantic, I can\\\'t help but see this as a massive double standard.

That aside, I do feel that Dorothea/Petra is a pretty good reference point, actually. Like those two, Catherine and Shamir are depicted as having a particularly close relationship, Their strong feelings are made clear even if on opposite sides of the war in Crimson Flower - Shamir even mentions she fears Catherine will be driven to kill her by \\\"mixed emotions of hate and love\\\", and there are good reasons for each character to view the other differently than they would another woman (or character in general) based on their past and emotional issues/general characterization. Deliberately deleting/removing any references to this dynamic and Catherine/Shamir being romantic from Shamir\\\'s entry undermines the entry as a whole and ignores very important aspects of their characterization and would do a disservice to someone wanting to use this page to understand them better.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Or compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage and have her settling down. Neither her conversations or ending with Cyril show any sign of reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) - in fact, their ending doesn\\\'t even reference them on a personal level at all and is in line with her platonic Robin Hood/mercenary/wandering endings with other characters.

Given all that, the only \\\"ambiguity\\\" I see is that their ending doesn\\\'t have a line explicitly saying it\\\'s platonic, I guess.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying stuff like \\\"Shamir and Catherine\\\'s ending doesn\\\'t explicitly reference romance\\\" (which both ignores the text of their A+ support in both languages and also ignores the importance of going to Dagda in the Japanese version) to justify claiming there\\\'s no way it\\\'s a romantic pairing while an entry on the same page leans heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it absolutely 100% isn\\\'t romantic\\\" for Cyril. Given the vastly different levels of text and subtext to support either pairing being romantic, I can\\\'t help but see this as a massive double standard.

That aside, I do feel that Dorothea/Petra is a pretty good reference point, actually. Like those two, Catherine and Shamir are depicted as having a particularly close relationship (their strong feelings are made clear even if on opposite sides of the war in Crimson Flower, Shamir even mentioning she feared Catherine would be driven by \\\"mixed emotions of hate and love\\\") and there are good reasons for each character to view the other differently than they would another woman (or character in general). Deliberately scrubbing any references to this dynamic and Catherine/Shamir being romantic from Shamir\\\'s entry undermines the entry as a whole and ignores very important aspects of their characterization.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage and have her settling down (her Robin Hood/mercenary/wandering type ones are the opposite). Neither her conversations or ending with Cyril show any sign of reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) - in fact, their ending doesn\\\'t even reference them on a personal level at all.

Given all that, the only real ambiguity I see is that their ending doesn\\\'t have a line explicitly saying it\\\'s platonic, I guess.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying stuff like \\\"Shamir and Catherine\\\'s ending doesn\\\'t explicitly reference romance\\\" (which both ignores the text of their A+ support in both languages and also ignores the importance of going to Dagda in the Japanese version) to justify claiming there\\\'s no way it\\\'s a romantic pairing while an entry on the same page leans heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it absolutely 100% isn\\\'t romantic\\\" for Cyril. Given the vastly different levels of text and subtext to support either pairing being romantic, I can\\\'t help but see this as a massive double standard.

That aside, I do feel that Dorothea/Petra is a pretty good reference point, actually. Like those two, Catherine and Shamir are depicted as having a particularly close relationship (their strong feelings are made clear even if on opposite sides of the war in Crimson Flower, Shamir even mentioning she feared Catherine would be driven by \\\"mixed emotions of hate and love\\\") and there are good reasons for each character to view the other differently than they would another woman (or character in general). Deliberately scrubbing any references to this dynamic and Catherine/Shamir being romantic from Shamir\\\'s entry undermines the entry as a whole and ignores very important aspects of their characterization.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage. Cyril\\\'s shows no reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) and their ending doesn\\\'t even touch on their personal relationship.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying there\\\'s nothing about her ending with Catherine to justify even mentioning the possibility their ending/relationship is romantic (including outright ignoring actual in-game text - especially the Japanese version of their A+ - and relying on user interpretation of that text which is at odds with other interpretations ) while also leaning heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it absolutely 100% isn\\\'t romantic\\\" for Cyril when the their supposed possible romance rests entirely on one line of interest from Cyril and no other text.

That aside...

I simply don\\\'t see the logic of on one hand stating that \\\"Shamir was just joking\\\" based on personal interpretation while on the other hand claiming that seeing Shamir and Cather

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage. Cyril\\\'s shows no reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) and their ending doesn\\\'t even touch on their personal relationship.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying there\\\'s nothing conclusive about her ending with Catherine to justify even mentioning the possibility their ending/relationship is romantic (including outright ignoring actual in-game text and especially the Japanese version of their A+) while also leaning heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it absolutely 100% isn\\\'t romantic\\\" for Cyril when the their supposed possible romance rests entirely on one line of interest from Cyril and no other text. The different treatment of the two relationships simply doesn\\\'t make sense to me and seems like pretty blatant double standard given some of the statements others have made and the sort of textual and subtextual support in the game for both.

In general, I find the argument that Shamir\\\'s proposal is \\\"just a joke\\\" pretty unconvincing given the different dialogue in the Japanese version of their A+ support and general tone of the conversation. And using that argument to justify totally ignoring the possibility their relationship ends up being romantic seems to be the kind of reliance on interpretation/personal opinion that people earlier in this discussion were claiming was inappropriate for writing these entries.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage. Cyril\\\'s shows no reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) and their ending doesn\\\'t even touch on their personal relationship.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying there\\\'s nothing conclusive about her ending with Catherine to justify even mentioning the possibility their ending/relationship is romantic (including outright ignoring actual in-game text and especially the Japanese version of their A+) while also leaning heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it absolutely 100% isn\\\'t romantic\\\" for Cyril when the their supposed possible romance rests entirely on one line of interest from Cyril and no other text. The different treatment of the two relationships simply doesn\\\'t make sense to me and seems like pretty blatant double standard given some of the statements others have made and the sort of textual and subtextual support in the game for both.

In general, I find the argument that Shamir\\\'s proposal is \\\"just a joke\\\" pretty unconvincing given the different dialogue in the Japanese version of their A+ support and general tone of the conversation. And using that argument to justify totally ignoring the possibility their relationship ends up being romantic seems to be the kind of reliance on interpretation/personal opinion that people earlier in this discussion were claiming was inappropriate for writing these entries.

Sounds like a pretty professional \\\"okay then, let\\\'s move on and get back to work\\\" when you\\\'d expect her to say something to reciprocate if she actually had any romantic interest.

Compare their conversation with her unambiguous romantic supports (I\\\'m ignoring Catherine for this). Shamir\\\'s A supports with Byleth, Hubert and Dedue all include explicit romantic statements/dialogue where she expresses interest in them *and* each pair has endings that specifically state marriage. Cyril\\\'s shows no reciprocation or romantic intent on her part (presumably at least in part because she\\\'s been training him since he was a teen/pre-teen so it\\\'d be a little weird!) and their ending doesn\\\'t even touch on their personal relationship.

Anyway, my point was more about the hypocrisy of on one hand saying there\\\'s nothing conclusive about her ending with Catherine to justify even mentioning the possibility their ending/relationship is romantic (including outright ignoring actual in-game text and especially the Japanese version of their A+) while also leaning heavily on the \\\"well technically it doesn\\\'t explicitly say it absolutely 100% isn\\\'t romantic\\\" for Cyril when the their supposed possible romance rests entirely on one line of interest from Cyril and no other text. The different treatment of the two relationships simply doesn\\\'t make sense to me and seems like pretty blatant double standard given some of the statements others have made and the sort of textual and subtextual support in the game for both.

In general, I find the argument that Shamir\\\'s proposal is \\\"just a joke\\\" pretty unconvincing given the different dialogue in the Japanese version of their A+ support and general tone of the conversation. And using that argument to justify totally ignoring the possibility their relationship ends up being romantic seems to be the kind of reliance on interpretation/personal opinion that people earlier in this discussion were claiming was inappropriate for writing these entries.

There\\\'s no indication that her response to him is romantic though - especially since it\\\'s played as a precocious crush on his part and there\\\'s no reference to their interpersonal relationship in their ending, let alone any romantic implications (his entry here also stretches things by saying they seemingly spend the rest of their lives together when their ending actually refers to rumors/stories about them being heard for years).