Regarding Online simulation Yugioh on this site etc.

[Turbo]

I did respond to 33 you seem to misunderstand something.

Let me get this straight… You’re saying you did in fact read all of my post # 33 and understood it as well? Ok… I won’t argue with you on that

However, you have again tried to generalize everything that I’m saying. Please, I can only request, do not do that.

Please address Post# 33 specifically.

If you do not agree with any point I mentioned in post # 33, Please use quotations and say something like
I do not agree with specifically this point “etc. etc.” because 'This, This reason'. I know this is time consuming but please bare with me so that I can perhaps see exactly where my model is lacking.

Please refrain from just generalizing the entire post. Again, I thank you for your previous responses but if you do not want to proceed this way or by another effective communication method that actually addresses the model itself and/or the specific points I make, perhaps it will be best that you let someone else look into the topic.

Thanks

[Genexwrecker]

If you dont want generalized responses then dont post a generalized topic. Your suggestions are all for things on the site that are down to a judges judgment and We judges are free to rule things differently and that is perfectly fine the only thing that should always be consistant is actual game mechanics we rule which is something we dont make up ourselves. You want opinionated judge calls to have 1 answer or range and that simply will not happen or be considered for the many reasons i have stated.

[Turbo]

If you don't want generalized responses then don't post a generalized topic. Your suggestions are all for things on the site that are down to a judges judgment and We judges are free to rule things differently and that is perfectly fine the only thing that should always be consistent is actual game mechanics we rule which is something we don't make up ourselves. You want opinionated judge calls to have 1 answer or range and that simply will not happen or be considered for the many reasons i have stated.

With the model I descried in post # 33, I’m trying to make the judge calls regarding miscommunication issues mentioned in post#33 to be without just personal opinion and consistent with all judges- only if it is determined to be the better way to do things.

I tried to specifically describe the scenarios in which this model will be useful but perhaps I should have been more clear. In any case the way I see it is: if there is a better way than the one being used right now regarding the specific miscommunication scenarios that I mentioned in Post# 33, then we should implement it.

I am in the process of restructuring the model that I made in post#33 to simplify it even further and to make it clear how and why I believe it is a better method than the one being used right now.

Please give me some time on this.


***Also in the mean time could you please approve the suggestion I made earlier about Lag? -- of mentioning in the policies/rules page something like:

“Lag will not be taken into account at all by judges on this site - Please make sure you have a good connection before you join the rated pool and/or tournament or play at you own risk”.

Literarily almost every player ends up finding out the fact that lag by it-self is not something judges take into account when the judge actually comes to give a ruling in-game. This should definitely be mentioned in the Rules and/or policies page.

Thank you

[Renji Asuka]

If you don't want generalized responses then don't post a generalized topic. Your suggestions are all for things on the site that are down to a judges judgment and We judges are free to rule things differently and that is perfectly fine the only thing that should always be consistent is actual game mechanics we rule which is something we don't make up ourselves. You want opinionated judge calls to have 1 answer or range and that simply will not happen or be considered for the many reasons i have stated.

With the model I descried in post # 33, I’m trying to make the judge calls regarding miscommunication issues mentioned in post#33 to be without just personal opinion and consistent with all judges- only if it is determined to be the better way to do things.

I tried to specifically describe the scenarios in which this model will be useful but perhaps I should have been more clear. In any case the way I see it is: if there is a better way than the one being used right now regarding the specific miscommunication scenarios that I mentioned in Post# 33, then we should implement it.

I am in the process of restructuring the model that I made in post#33 to simplify it even further and to make it clear how and why I believe it is a better method than the one being used right now.

Please give me some time on this.


***Also in the mean time could you please approve the suggestion I made earlier about Lag? -- of mentioning in the policies/rules page something like:

“Lag will not be taken into account at all by judges on this site - Please make sure you have a good connection before you join the rated pool and/or tournament or play at you own risk”.

Literarily almost every player ends up finding out the fact that lag by it-self is not something judges take into account when the judge actually comes to give a ruling in-game. This should definitely be mentioned in the Rules and/or policies page.

Thank you

You've been told it isn't going to happen many times, just stop.

[Runzy]

Imagine wanting my judgement on a situation to be something that's not my judgement. Idk I feel like you have been told why your idea won't work. As stated many times situations are different and our Judgement on the matter decides the way we rule such as communicating with the players to find out the intent etc. Also missclicks can be mistakes/accidents saw genex say otherwise I disagree on that. The model you are proposing won't be useful. Lag can sometimes be taken into account in some scenarios as there is a way we can check but mostly it's not. Those type of calls will never be consistent nor does it need to be, if users have an issue with it they can appeal no change is needed just properly communicate.

[Debt]

There's no reason to engage with the OP. He's decided that he's right from the get go. From the start he's dismissed the crux of Genex and Renji's thesis as misinformed because it doesn't align with his. Then has the gall to use a logical fallacy (loaded question) in a bid to force the two to say he's right. If he won't argue in good faith then why continue?

[Turbo]

Imagine wanting my judgement on a situation to be something that's not my judgement.

I see what you mean but in response I would just say it would still be your judgement, in a way perhaps. For instance, the predetermined values of Factor 2 (the maximum accepted time for How long it takes Player B to stop Player A from resolving their effect, that Player A did not wait enough time for Player B to respond to) , will be pre-determined by Judges like yourself and you would have a say in the ‘pre-determination’ of these values. (Perhaps because there is no need to have them NOT pre-determined)

Anyways, I see the rest of your point too, I will see if I can still somehow work around what you’re saying and then propose a different type of solution, as I still think that there is room for improvement.

Also in regards to

Lag can sometimes be taken into account in some scenarios as there is a way we can check but mostly it's not.

I did not know this was the case as I was not told that officially like you are telling me right now and furthermore in post#9, I was specifically told by Genexwrecker

Lag is something we do not take into account.

If what your’e saying is true Runzy, than please disregard my suggestion regarding Lag.

Thanks

[Renji Asuka]

Imagine wanting my judgement on a situation to be something that's not my judgement.

I see what you mean but in response I would just say it would still be your judgement, in a way perhaps. For instance, the predetermined values of Factor 2 (the maximum accepted time for How long it takes Player B to stop Player A from resolving their effect, that Player A did not wait enough time for Player B to respond to) , will be pre-determined by Judges like yourself and you would have a say in the ‘pre-determination’ of these values. (Perhaps because there is no need to have them NOT pre-determined)

Anyways, I see the rest of your point too, I will see if I can still somehow work around what you’re saying and then propose a different type of solution, as I still think that there is room for improvement.

Also in regards to

Lag can sometimes be taken into account in some scenarios as there is a way we can check but mostly it's not.

I did not know this was the case as I was not told that officially like you are telling me right now and furthermore in post#9, I was specifically told by Genexwrecker

Lag is something we do not take into account.

If what your’e saying is true Runzy, than please disregard my suggestion regarding Lag.

Thanks

Those 2 quotes are a prime example of why your suggestion cannot be implemented.

[Runzy]

Imagine wanting my judgement on a situation to be something that's not my judgement.

I see what you mean but in response I would just say it would still be your judgement, in a way perhaps. For instance, the predetermined values of Factor 2 (the maximum accepted time for How long it takes Player B to stop Player A from resolving their effect, that Player A did not wait enough time for Player B to respond to) , will be pre-determined by Judges like yourself and you would have a say in the ‘pre-determination’ of these values. (Perhaps because there is no need to have them NOT pre-determined)

Anyways, I see the rest of your point too, I will see if I can still somehow work around what you’re saying and then propose a different type of solution, as I still think that there is room for improvement.

Also in regards to

Lag can sometimes be taken into account in some scenarios as there is a way we can check but mostly it's not.

I did not know this was the case as I was not told that officially like you are telling me right now and furthermore in post#9, I was specifically told by Genexwrecker

Lag is something we do not take into account.

If what your’e saying is true Runzy, than please disregard my suggestion regarding Lag.

Thanks

It's not my Judgement if its someone else telling me to rule a situation how I wouldn't lol. You don't need a "workaround" as I don't think any change is needed. There have been a few times lag have been taken into account (when we can actually prove it) otherwise it's mostly not. My opinions will stay the same as I like how its currently handled. People don't think the same and forcing them to is weird.

[Christen57]

----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.

The rule page literally says "The information contained here is subject to change without prior notice. It's your responsibility to stay up to date."

That literally means it's your responsibility to stay up to date.

I understand Christen, I was just saying we could give the other players more of an opportunity to know these rules. I was not thinking about myself here really , I was thinking about all players in this community and the players that would join us in the future.

Also please do read post#33 as what i am advocating for right now is mentioned in it. The earlier posts in the topic was pretty much preliminary work just to understand what should happen. Thanks

I still don't get it. What exactly is your issue?

If your opponent is playing and you have no response, just say "no hand traps" or something like that so they can play and keep the game running fast and smooth.

If your opponent is playing and you have a response, say "wait" and decide if you want to response or not, or if you want to give them the "ok".

If your opponent is playing and you have a response, but can only respond at a certain time, and can still allow your opponent to keep playing for a while before you can respond, let your opponent know to start asking you if it's okay for them to continue after they reach that point. For example, if you have Nibiru in hand and no other response, tell your opponent to keep playing but let you know once they've normal/special summoned 5 or more monsters and then start asking if you have a response.

If you're playing and you think your opponent may have a response but they're lagging, this means that what happens on their screen will take some time to appear on your screen, so playing a little slowly allows them and their screen to "catch up" to what is going on in real time.

If you're lagging too much, it might just be better to leave the game and spare both you and your opponent the trouble of trying to figure out what to do about your slowness and lag.

If you're playing and you think your opponent may have a response, just ask if it's "ok?" If they don't response, decide if you should call a judge or just keep playing. If you choose to keep playing and they come back and said they wanted to respond, rewind the game state to try and fix the issue. If for whatever reason that doesn't work, call a judge and resolve things from there.