Regarding Online simulation Yugioh on this site etc.

[Turbo]

Edit: Please anyone who is joining us you can just jump to Post#21 as everything that I'm advocating for is mentioned from there.

Also if there is any post that should definitely be read in this topic, it is Post#33. Please make sure to give your first importance to Post #33. Anything before these posts was preliminary work for me to understand what exactly I believe should be done.

Thanks!

Hello All -

So many things I feel need to be made clear on this site and that are not… I’m specifically talking about online simulation here

a) how many seconds one should wait before they can start resolving a chain that they declared ( still not clear if its 11 seconds, 25 seconds - for instance I have been told 25 seconds is more than enough but even 11 seconds Is sometimes enough - it needs to be clear. for instance During book should officially say something like “if you don’t say anything for 10 seconds it is fair to assume that you have no response on this site”.

b) if you mis-click and “5 seconds” passed it is considered a misplay- no questions asked….

c) if there is lag and you have not written something like “lag wait for my response for each and every effect that you activate and if you feel like I’m taking too long please call for slow play- however, under no circumstance should you continue playing if you haven’t heard ok back from me” then no matter what it will be ruled as if lag does not exist

——I can probably make a a proper list , and I would be willing to actually help make one If I was a judge on this site right now…. but these things should me made clear and standard operating procedure for online simulation topics should be made -

----Also on a side note players should be strongly advised to visit the rules and penalties page of this site( (for instance the first thing in announcements) so they don’t get frozen etc. for something they did not mean maliciously - I don't believe that non regular players are that aware and should be given more of an opportunity to be more aware.

[Renji Asuka]

A - Technically speaking, you can't start resolving chains until your opponent gives you the okay. Now you CAN make the argument of slow play, but just make sure the chains can start resolving and it'd be fine.

B - If you leave a card you didn't intend to play for a long enough time, it isn't a misclick.

C - And this goes back to A.

[Turbo]

@ Renji - in regards to your comment about sub topic A, that technicality actually does not apply to online simulation, at least that is how I have seen it ruled on this site. (for instance if 30 seconds have passed and your opponent has not said anything then it is ruled that your opponent does not have a response and you can resolve the current chain) I'm glad you posted your thoughts as it shows how important it actually is for a Standard operating procedure to be released in such matters as there is a lot of misinformation being spread around as well. IRL i do not disagree with you, but in online simulation there are many factors that need to be take into account, and i believe that is why it is being ruled differently then how it would be ruled irl and this is actual more beneficial, considering online simulation. However, I believe it just needs to be standardized and posted so that everyone can easily just refer to it for all such matters. This will also save a lot of time in the long run from Judge calls taking place .

[Renji Asuka]

@ Renji - in regards to your comment about sub topic A, that technicality actually does not apply to online simulation, at least that is how I have seen it ruled on this site. (for instance if 30 seconds have passed and your opponent has not said anything then it is ruled that your opponent does not have a response and you can resolve the current chain) I'm glad you posted your thoughts as it shows how important it actually is for a Standard operating procedure to be released in such matters as there is a lot of misinformation being spread around as well. IRL i do not disagree with you, but in online simulation there are many factors that need to be take into account, and i believe that is why it is being ruled differently then how it would be ruled irl and this is actual more beneficial, considering online simulation. However, I believe it just needs to be standardized and posted so that everyone can easily just refer to it for all such matters. This will also save a lot of time in the long run from Judge calls taking place .

Say you activated a card and you asked if your opponent has a response, they say nothing. Then what you do is, you wait til they answer. If you don't, you MAY get rule sharked. Alternatively, if you feel enough time has passed, call a judge if you think your opponent is slow playing. This site mimics real life play, so treat it as real life.

[Turbo]

Renji, You have been completely misinformed. This is definitely not the case on this site based on how i have seen Judges rule as well as what the judges have said. I used to think that too once upon a time but this is just not how judges rule here.

Again, for instance, If 30 seconds have passed since you declared your chain links as turn player, and your opponent said nothing like thinking or wait, and say you start resolving your chain.... now your opponent is like no... "i have response i was just reading your card because its the first time i am seeing it and of course i ash blossom such a strong effect".... their excuse will be deemed invalid for the judges and they will be told something like "then you should have said thinking/reading wait" or something. Such cases is what i have personally witnessed repeatedly…. when a judge has been called on this site.

This misinformation that you have that "Then what you do is, you wait til they answer" is certainly not what the judges say. However, I feel that you truly believe this is the case like many other people on this site because they think that online simulation is going to be treated exactly like IRL.

This is definitely NOT the case here. Over here if you do not respond by saying thinking etc. and you haven't said something like "wait for my response for every effect that you activate at the beginning of the turn or something" etc. Then you will NOT be allowed to respond to the current chain and it will be assumed by the judge that you chose not to respond/said ok to chain. I hope the Judges/Moderators/Xteven/whoever can make a change sees this issue by reading our conversation here.

As…. what you have said is pretty much EXACTLY the reason why i am making the post. Since like you ….many many other people have this misinformation. Hence, A standardized operating procedure for online simulation is necessary in this case and again will also save a lot of time in the long run of the players as well as the judges (assuming of course DB doesn’t get shutdown like DN etc.) I would love to hear any counter points to my case here.

Please if anyone thinks otherwise, Please speak up and tell us your reason so that we can know what actually SHOULD be done in regards to this issue.

[Renji Asuka]

Renji, You have been completely misinformed. This is definitely not the case on this site based on how i have seen Judges rule as well as what the judges have said. I used to think that too once upon a time but this is just not how judges rule here. Again, for instance, If 30 seconds have passed since you declared your chain links as turn player, and your opponent said nothing like thinking or wait, and say you start resolving your chain.... now your opponent is like no... "i have response i was just reading your card because its the first time i am seeing it and of course i ash blossom such a strong effect".... their excuse will be deemed invalid for the judges and they will be told something like "then you should have said thinking/reading wait" or something. Such cases is what i have personally witnessed repeatedly…. when a judge has been called on this site. This misinformation that you have that "Then what you do is, you wait til they answer" is certainly not what the judges say. However, I feel that you truly believe this is the case like many other people on this site because they think that online simulation is going to be treated exactly like irl. This is definitely NOT the case here. Over here if you do not respond by saying thinking etc. and you haven't said something like "wait for my response for every effect that you activate at the beginning of the turn or something" etc. Then you will NOT be allowed to respond to the current chain and it will be assumed by the judge that you chose not to respond/said ok to chain. I hope the Judges/Moderators/Xteven/whoever can make a change sees this issue by reading our conversation here. As…. what you have said is pretty much EXACTLY the reason why i am making the post. Since like you ….many many other people have this misinformation. Hence, A standardized operating procedure for online simulation is necessary in this case and again will also save a lot of time in the long run of the players as well as the judges (assuming of course DB doesn’t get shutdown like DN etc.) I would love to hear any counter points to my case here. Please if anyone thinks otherwise, Please speak up and tell us your reason so that we can know what actually SHOULD be done in regards to this issue.

Learn to break up walls of text, seriously.

My point stands, its what I have been doing since DN and I have had 0 issues. People who seem to have a problem with it are people who don't want to be social.

[Turbo]

Again, you are completely misinformed though as Online simulation is treated a bit differently then IRL.

Such as the examples I mentioned above " (for instance if you did not say anything relative prior and 30 seconds have passed, since you declared your chain, and your opponent has not said anything then it is ruled that your opponent does not have a response/said ok to your chain and you can resolve the current chain) "

Thanks for your advice though, I am relatively new to posting like this

[Turbo]

Just edited the 2nd reply after your feedback. Thanks again

[Genexwrecker]

players should never EVER be resolving any chain whatsoever without the ok to proceed from the opponent and the opponent should never EVER be sitting there doing nothing for 30 seconds after an effect activation. communication is required or you simply should not be playing a 2 player game. do not be trying to use a timeframe as a response.

the other things you have asked about is simply not possible.

misclicks are all completely different situations and it is up to us what is a misclick and what is not you cant ask for a clearly outlined thing on something that is always up to our opinion and judgment on a situation. every issue with a misclick is diferent so you cant ask for a standard.

Lag is something we do not take into account.

[Turbo]

I agree with you Genexwrecker but there's a lot of confusion on what is considered "ok" from the opponent as this is not IRL. I just think that we can all benefit if there is a consensus on what is considered as "ok" from the opponent, if they decide not to reply. Or maybe you can say they must reply ... but then we have to answer that if they don't reply who's fault is that? What im getting with what you said is, it is both players fault really because they did not communicate efficiently.

And yet the Judge must rule in only one persons favor, if this scenario does happen. This actually happens a lot in rated games, in which players say nothing to the chain and then when their opponent decides to resolve the chain after "A" amount of seconds they decide to chain their card.

We just need clear answers to who's side the judge is going to take if "X" scenario happens, since this matter is specifically related to online simulation only. IRL this problem does not exist as you verbally just ask "ok?" and then your opponent verbally replies ok or wait. I hope I'm making sense. If we have clear answers to these scenarios then there wouldn't be any dispute in the first place.

-----
Thanks for you answers on all the other topics too. I understand your responses. I would just recommend:

if something like this can also be mentioned (in the General Policies and/or Rules page) in regards to all matters related specifically to Lag: "Lag will not be taken into account- If you are lagging please do not play in rated duels until you have a good enough connection or you can play at your own risk" it would benefit the community as a whole and will save time by the reduction of judge calls as well.

Also

If something like this can be mentioned (in the General Policies and/or Rules page) in regards to mis-click- Under no circumstance will it be considered a mis-click if more than 5 seconds are passed- if you attempt to correct the mis-click in less than 5 seconds then it is up to the judge to decide. (The upper limit can easily be standardized here ) This will also save time in the long run as people will then not call judge after it has been 5 seconds that they "mis-clicked" . I understand all matters are different in regards to mis-clicks but such a consensus can easily be made about the upper limit - for instance if not 5 seconds, then you can make the upper limit 6 or 7 seconds or whatever you/community thinks is the maximum amount of time a mis-click can be corrected. I hope I'm making sense to you.

[Renji Asuka]

I agree with you Genexwrecker but there's a lot of confusion on what is considered "ok" from the opponent as this is not IRL. I just think that we can all benefit if there is a consensus on what is considered as "ok" from the opponent, if they decide not to reply. Or maybe you can say they must reply ... but then we have to answer that if they don't reply who's fault is that? What im getting with what you said is, it is both players fault really because they did not communicate efficiently.

And yet the Judge must rule in only one persons favor, if this scenario does happen. This actually happens a lot in rated games, in which players say nothing to the chain and then when their opponent decides to resolve the chain after "A" amount of seconds they decide to chain their card.

We just need clear answers to who's side the judge is going to take if "X" scenario happens, since this matter is specifically related to online simulation only. IRL this problem does not exist as you verbally just ask "ok?" and then your opponent verbally replies ok or wait. I hope I'm making sense. If we have clear answers to these scenarios then there wouldn't be any dispute in the first place.

-----
Thanks for you answers on all the other topics too. I understand your responses. I would just recommend:

if something like this can also be mentioned in regards to all matters related specifically to Lag: "Lag will not be taken into account- If you are lagging please do not play in rated duels until you have a good enough connection or you can play at your own risk" it would benefit the community as a whole and will save time by the reduction of judge calls as well.

Also

If something like this can be mentioned in regards to mis-click- Under no circumstance will it be considered a misclick if more than 5 seconds are passed- if you attempt to correct the mis-click in less than 5 seconds then it is up to the judge to decide. (The upper limit can easily be standardized here ) This will also save time in the long run as people will then not call judge after it has been 5 seconds that they "mis-clicked" . I understand all matters are different in regards to mis-clicks but such a consensus can easily be made about the upper limit - for instance if not 5 seconds, then you can make the upper limit 6 or 7 seconds or whatever you/community thinks is the maximum amount of time a mis-click can be corrected. I hope I'm making sense to you.

There is no "If they choose not to reply". If a player refuses to reply, they shouldn't be playing the game PERIOD. If 1 player REFUSES to reply, they are at fault not the person asking if the card is good to go to resolve.

[Turbo]

So... this reply is intended to be Read by anyone who can possibly help make a change. I will try to be as clear as I can for the time being.

Renji, You say the person not replying is at fault but the person who is asking, what if he only waits 3 seconds? I’m pretty sure the judge will rule in the person who did not reply's favor as 3 seconds is too less of a time to respond on this site, —— now what if he only waits 5 seconds? Maybe that's too little as well — what if he waits 9 seconds? These are just examples that ACTUALLY happen on this site.

I’m mentioning these examples because you say that the person who doesn’t reply is at fault and yet when the judge comes the ruling is given in favor of sometimes the person who refused to reply and sometimes the person who asked/declared the chain or effect….

The fact of the matter here I believe is that there is really no need for a judge here (except perhaps in very rare cases- where other matters are also at play). …. This information just needs to be standardized and all scenarios just need to be explained ONCE. Since…. These scenarios will continue to happen and confusion will remain and there is no need for this confusion…

All that needs to bee done is a standard for these scenarios should be set and explained—- basically tell us how the judge is going to rule in “x second” scenario , how a judge is going to rule in “y second” scenario and then every judge should rule that way… (There is another factor here that I talk about in the next paragraph) They might already do this but there is no need for personal judgement here…. There should be a standard for each different case, especially considering this site does not take into account “Lag”… In an ideal world everybody would reply something on every effect that is activated on this site but that just does not happen ….

Another factor in this matter is that if a person who asks after 4 seconds or 5 seconds and then decides to resolve the chain without waiting for a reply— how many seconds does it take for the opponent to say “thinking” or “stop”.

----------

I will explain in detail what I mean :

Again, There are 2 factors here
1) The time waited by Player A before an effect/chain resolution is attempted without hearing back from Player B
2) How long It takes Player B to say something after Player A decides to resolve the chain without hearing back from Player B


You can set a fixed acceptable amount of factor 2 (for instance a maximum of 2 seconds if the opponent has given from 0-10 seconds of time to respond) And you can say if the player who declares the chain gives more than 10 seconds , factor 2 is then eliminated and that ample time has been given for the person to respond and now it is too late to respond. (These are just example numbers and the real numbers the judge community has to determine)

There are no other factors here really— another possible factor that is ‘sometimes’ considered right now is how the game has been playing before the said “issue” occurs. This factor is pretty much completely eliminated when a standard explaining these scenarios is made.

There are only a limited amount of scenarios here. And Judges have to rule all these different scenarios based on what they “personally” think at the time. I don't even think its fair to put that pressure on a judge to decide here without a standard already set since again these issues are solely manual online simulation based- IRL such issues just do not occur.


Again, In regard to this matter alone, there are no other factors that I can think of, and if so a standard can and SHOULD be set here rather than a judge being called to personally decide. Then people can also just link the page in which this stuff is mentioned and move on without having to wait for a judge for such seemingly complicated matters which actually do not have to be complicated at all.

All of a sudden this seems a bit lengthy process here… but if the Dueling book judge community can all just once come to a consensus in this matter - of all these limited scenarios- it will not just benefit the Dueling book community but all similar communities that use manual online simulation, since a precedent will have been set - Furthermore once this standard explaining all the limited scenarios is determined, this will motivate everyone to have more of an “effective communication” with their opponent as well.

I understand this has perhaps not been attempted before (maybe because it seemed to hectic or just at the time it was believed that all cases are completely different and hence a judge needs to see each scenario). but it should be since again…there is NO NEED for a judge to “personally” decide here… In fact, leaving it for a judge to decide here WITHOUT a standard is actually counter productive compared to a standard being set, as one judge will rule in favor of the person who did not reply after “x seconds” and then replied after “y seconds”, of opponent trying to resolve the effect, and then for the same exact matter another judge will perhaps rule in the person who asked….

This confusion and this issue will just cease to exist if a standard is set… and a standard should bet set. ( again when I say standard here, it is involving all scenarios and both factors that I mentioned above- you’ll just have to explain these scenarios once…that is all)

Before who ever can decide in this matter and make a decision, I just want you to ask yourself, do we really need a judge to decide in these scenarios and risk different rulings for the same exact matter by another judge? Or do we just need to put in a little bit amount of time and effort to make one standardized document explaining all the “limited” different scenarios?

[Renji Asuka]

So... this reply is intended to be Read by anyone who can possibly help make a change. I will try to be as clear as I can for the time being.

Renji, You say the person not replying is at fault but the person who is asking, what if he only waits 3 seconds? I’m pretty sure the judge will rule in the person who did not reply's favor as 3 seconds is too less of a time to respond on this site, —— now what if he only waits 5 seconds? Maybe that's too little as well — what if he waits 9 seconds? These are just examples that ACTUALLY happen on this site.

I’m mentioning these examples because you say that the person who doesn’t reply is at fault and yet when the judge comes the ruling is given in favor of sometimes the person who refused to reply and sometimes the person who asked/declared the chain or effect….

The fact of the matter here I believe is that there is really no need for a judge here (except perhaps in very rare cases- where other matters are also at play). …. This information just needs to be standardized and all scenarios just need to be explained ONCE. Since…. These scenarios will continue to happen and confusion will remain and there is no need for this confusion…

All that needs to bee done is a standard for these scenarios should be set and explained—- basically tell us how the judge is going to rule in “x second” scenario , how a judge is going to rule in “y second” scenario and then every judge should rule that way… (There is another factor here that I talk about in the next paragraph) They might already do this but there is no need for personal judgement here…. There should be a standard for each different case, especially considering this site does not take into account “Lag”… In an ideal world everybody would reply something on every effect that is activated on this site but that just does not happen ….

Another factor in this matter is that if a person who asks after 4 seconds or 5 seconds and then decides to resolve the chain without waiting for a reply— how many seconds does it take for the opponent to say “thinking” or “stop”.

----------

I will explain in detail what I mean :

Again, There are 2 factors here
1) How long it takes the opponent to say something after a chain is declared/effect is activated
2) How long It takes a person to say something after a player decides to resolve the chain after “x” amount of seconds


You can set a fixed acceptable amount of factor 2 (for instance a maximum of 2 seconds if the opponent has given from 0-10 seconds of time to respond) And you can say if the player who declares the chain gives more than 10 seconds , factor 2 is then eliminated and that ample time has been given for the person to respond and now it is too late to respond. (These are just example numbers and the real numbers the judge community has to determine)

There are no other factors here really— another possible factor that is ‘sometimes’ considered right now is how the game has been playing before the said “issue” occurs. This factor is pretty much completely eliminated when a standard explaining these scenarios is made.

There are only a limited amount of scenarios here. And Judges have to rule all these different scenarios based on what they “personally” think at the time. I don't even think its fair to put that pressure on a judge to decide here without a standard already set since again these issues are solely manual online simulation based- IRL such issues just do not occur.


Again, In regard to this matter alone, there are no other factors that I can think of, and if so a standard can and SHOULD be set here rather than a judge being called to personally decide. Then people can also just link the page in which this stuff is mentioned and move on without having to wait for a judge for such seemingly complicated matters which actually do not have to be complicated at all.

All of a sudden this seems a bit lengthy process here… but if the Dueling book judge community can all just once come to a consensus in this matter - of all these limited scenarios- it will not just benefit the Dueling book community but all similar communities that use manual online simulation, since a precedent will have been set - Furthermore once this standard explaining all the limited scenarios is determined, this will motivate everyone to have more of an “effective communication” with their opponent as well.

I understand this has perhaps not been attempted before (maybe because it seemed to hectic or just at the time it was believed that all cases are completely different and hence a judge needs to see each scenario). but it should be since again…there is NO NEED for a judge to “personally” decide here… In fact, leaving it for a judge to decide here WITHOUT a standard is actually counter productive compared to a standard being set, as one judge will rule in favor of the person who did not reply after “x seconds” and then replied after “y seconds”, of opponent trying to resolve the effect, and then for the same exact matter another judge will perhaps rule in the person who asked….

This confusion and this issue will just cease to exist if a standard is set… and a standard should bet set. ( again when I say standard here, it is involving all scenarios and both factors that I mentioned above- you’ll just have to explain these scenarios once…that is all)

Before who ever can decide in this matter and make a decision, I just want you to ask yourself, do we really need a judge to decide in these scenarios and risk different rulings for the same exact matter by another judge? Or do we just need to put in a little bit amount of time and effort to make one standardized document explaining all the “limited” different scenarios?

You SHOULD NOT ask for a response then wait "3 seconds". You NEED to WAIT til you get a response, if no response is given in a decent amount of time, CALL A JUDGE.

If I ask if a card's activation is good, and my opponent REFUSES to communicate, yes it is their fault.

Nothing needs to be changed. Treat the game as if you're playing in real life, which is what DB (and DN) was going for.

[Turbo]

Renji, Please read my last post again... What you're saying has nothing to do with to do with what I'm saying.

The point is... The instances mentioned above DO happen anyway and a judgement then needs to be made when they do... This is regarding those judgments...

[Renji Asuka]

Your whole argument is literally based off of "What if this happens? Or what if this other thing happens?" Regarding the time frame how long should you wait before continuing the game. All that doesn't matter. You wait until you are told its good, and if it has been awhile where your opponent hasn't said anything, just...CALL...THE...JUDGE.

[Turbo]

I'm not saying/advocating for how much you should wait before continuing... Ideally everyone would reply after every effect and ideally every person will wait for a response for every effect that they choose to declare.... but this just does not happen all the time...

I'm advocating for making a standard of what should happen when such scenarios do occur... rather than just the Judge rule what they think personally in those scenarios....which is what is happening right now..... I think you will also agree that a judge should NOT personally decide in these instances when there no need for personal judgement in these scenarios.

I'm saying these instance will happen in which a person waits for 3 seconds and does not get a reply or a person waits for 15 seconds and doesn't get a reply etc. then decides to resolve the chain....(These instances happen every day- believe it or not .... its not an ideal world... no one replies after every effect and then problems occur and the judge is then FORCED to make a decision.... There needs to be a standard set for all the different "limited" scenarios so that there is no different/personal judgement being passed depending on which judge comes to rule and so the Judgement is consistent and fair.

[Renji Asuka]

I'm not saying/advocating for how much you should wait before continuing... Ideally everyone would reply after every effect and ideally every person will wait for a response for every effect that they choose to declare.... but this just does not happen all the time...

I'm advocating for making a standard of what should happen when such scenarios do occur... rather than just the Judge rule what they think personally in those scenarios....which is what is happening right now..... I think you will also agree that a judge should NOT personally decide in these instances when there no need for personal judgement in these scenarios.

I'm saying these instance will happen in which a person waits for 3 seconds and does not get a reply or a person waits for 15 seconds and doesn't get a reply etc. then decides to resolve the chain....(These instances happen every day- believe it or not .... its not an ideal world... no one replies after every effect and then problems occur and the judge is then FORCED to make a decision.... There needs to be a standard set for all the different "limited" scenarios so that there is no different/personal judgement being passed depending on which judge comes to rule and so the Judgement is consistent and fair.

And it doesn't matter if it happens every day, people shouldn't be doing it period.

[Genexwrecker]

There is a consensus you are required to communicate to play rated. Any issues not communicating are up to our judgment.

[Turbo]

Renji, I guess you mean there "shouldn't" be any miscommunication -

Also Genexwrecker please hear me out...

The point is...

Do you want these judgments that take place every day regarding miscommunication to be fair and consistent (especially when its easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document) or personal feeling based by whoever the judge is?

[Genexwrecker]

feeling based by whoever the judge is?

Literally what using our judgment means and is the point of having us here. We use logic and our personal judgement to asses every situation differently to find a way to rule it. You cannot demand that I state more than 5 seconds isn’t a misclick and will always be the case.

The things that are concrete are our rules and policies and those don’t cover everything or you would be reading 500 pages of stuff.