One of the judges doesn't know about PSCT.

Here you can have intellectually stimulating conversations.
ominous
User avatar
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:58 pm
Reputation: 25

Re: One of the judges doesn't know about PSCT.

Post #21 by ominous » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:53 am

^ Tl;DR: "R e A d I n G i S h A r D" pt. 2: Electric Boogaloo
Dont be stupid, Stupid.

Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Post #22 by Renji Asuka » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:57 am

Seems the scrub is broken, too bad.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

ominous
User avatar
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:58 pm
Reputation: 25

Post #23 by ominous » Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:02 am

Renji Asuka wrote:Seems the scrub is broken, too bad.

Damn your broke AND illiterate? sucks to be you, i guess.
Dont be stupid, Stupid.

Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Post #24 by Renji Asuka » Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:04 am

ominous wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:Seems the scrub is broken, too bad.

Damn your broke AND illiterate? sucks to be you, i guess.

Still being a broken record? Or do you actually want to have a discussion? Or are you too childish for that?
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

greg503
User avatar
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:43 pm
Reputation: 199
Location: Flundereeze

Post #25 by greg503 » Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:09 am

Judges more or less have a weekly quota, are you saying that isn't enough?
Buy Floowandereeze

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #26 by Christen57 » Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:13 am

| Hanverid | wrote:Judge allows the player to activate Dark Bribe after the opponent used Pot of Extravagance:
https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=656834-25310734

Judge doesn't allow the player to use Dark Bribe after the opponent used Pot of Extravagance:
https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=637085-25735790

Thoughts?


I believe the correct ruling regarding this interaction between Dark Bribe and Pot of Extravagance is this:

Your opponent has to be able to draw a card for you to be able to activate Dark Bribe, but because Dark Bribe says that your opponent will draw also negate the activation, this means that your opponent does not have to be able to draw a card for you to be able to resolve Dark Bribe (you would still negate the activation when resolving, but they simply would not draw).

Both duelists in these 2 replays who were using Dark Bribe in this scenario, Reylord and Dasch3r, along with judge 5081, believed that because the Problem Solving Card Text Webpage stated that 'In "Do A, also do B", both A and B happen simultaneously. Neither is required for the other to occur,' then you could activate Dark Bribe even if your opponent is currently unable to draw.

I believe this is incorrect. The actual correct ruling on this in my opinion is the one that judge 0271 gave. Here is why:

When the Problem Solving Card Text Webpage states that 'In "Do A, also do B", both A and B happen simultaneously. Neither is required for the other to occur,' that clause only applies when you are resolving Dark Bribe. It does NOT apply when you are first activating Dark Bribe. You still have to be able to make your opponent draw a card in order to first activate Dark Bribe, and then, it's only after you finish activating it, and when you are proceeding to resolve it, that the clause 'In "Do A, also do B", both A and B happen simultaneously. Neither is required for the other to occur' begins to apply.

There is another card that's similar to Dark Bribe. It's called Dragonamid Sheou. This is a Fusion Monster that has the effect, 'When your opponent activates a card or effect (Quick Effect): You can negate the activation, and if you do, destroy that card, also, after that, return this card to the Extra Deck, and if you do, Special Summon 1 "House Dragonmaid" from your Extra Deck.'

Like Dark Bribe, Dragonmaid Sheou also has a "Do A also do B" kind of effect where the clause "Neither is required for the other to occur" would apply when resolving it. However, it was ruled on reddit that even though "Neither is required for the other to occur," you still have to have a House Dragonmaid in your Extra Deck that you can Special Summon with Dragonmaid Sheou's effect to begin with in order to first activate Dragonmaid Sheou's effect. You just don't have to have a House Dragonmaid in your Extra Deck that you can Special Summon in order to resolve Dragonmaid Sheou's effect, because it's only when resolving the card/effect that the "Neither is required for the other to occur" clause would apply, NOT during the initial activation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Yugioh101/comments/g83f6b/quest1JRpfow927XUoPtmgataMC5m5aLewzNYUP/

What this means is that if, for example, your opponent controls Destiny HERO - Plasma which negates the effects of all monsters you control, you control Protector of the Sanctuary which prevents your opponent from drawing outside of the draw phase (but currently has that effect negated due to said Destiny HERO - Plasma), you control Lair of Darkness which lets you tribute an opponent's DARK monster once per turn to activate something, you control DNA Surgery and declared Plant with it to make all monsters on the field Plant monsters, your opponent activates a Spell/Trap, you activate Dark Bribe as Chain Link 2 to negate your opponent's Spell/Trap activation, you activate Pollinosis as Chain Link 3 by tributing the opponent's Destiny HERO - Plasma to negate your Dark Bribe's activation, you activate Seven Tools of the Bandit as Chain Link 4 to negate your Pollinosis, what would end up happening is that when Dark Bribe resolves, since Protector of the Sanctuary's effect is now able to apply due to it's effect no longer being negated by Destiny HERO - Plasma, Dark Bribe would negate the opponent's Spell/Trap activation, but they would not draw.

If you had a Protector of the Sanctuary on your field whose effect was not negated, you would not be able to initially activate Dark Bribe since your opponent would not be able to draw during the activation, but in a scenario such as the one I just described above, since your opponent was able to draw just prior to the activation of Dark Bribe but no longer able to draw during the resolution of Dark Bribe, the clause "Neither is required for the other to occur" would then apply, because it's only during the resolution that those kinds of clauses begin to apply, not during the initial activation.


Runzy wrote:I wrote "wrong" it autocorrected to stupid anyway....We are human and make mistakes I don't see why this thread was needed.
Genexwrecker wrote:Constructive criticism would have been more appreciated
DarkPhenix wrote:I mean, people make mistakes. Broadcasting that for all to see, does not help the judges, as there are a lot of people with misguided notions about judges on this site, and posting stuff like that feeds their narrative.


A judge calling someone "stupid" though, like what judge 0271 did in the replay, might not have been professional, no matter how "stupid" someone really acts, so I'm guessing that judge whoever they are would at least be scolded for that, but could one of you 3 judges (or any other judge) verify that this ruling I just gave is correct?

DarkPhenix
User avatar
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:12 pm
Reputation: 78
Location: The Jungle

Post #27 by DarkPhenix » Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:23 am

The ruling you gave is correct. If a user draws from pot of extravagance, their opponent cannot use Dark Bribe the same turn. The "also" conjunction in the text does not determine card activation legality.
RC-1, PC-1 Konami® Certified Judge

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #28 by Christen57 » Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:48 am

DarkPhenix wrote:The ruling you gave is correct. If a user draws from pot of extravagance, their opponent cannot use Dark Bribe the same turn. The "also" conjunction in the text does not determine card activation legality.


Thanks. Someone's gotta inform judges 5081 and 0271 about this so this error isn't repeated. I tried messaging them but duelingbook doesn't let me message offline judges.

DarkPhenix
User avatar
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:12 pm
Reputation: 78
Location: The Jungle

Post #29 by DarkPhenix » Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:31 am

I want to point out that Resource Judge #0217 got the ruling correct. So there is no need to "inform" 0217. Additionally, I am sure 5081 has had all this communicated to him already, so no need to spam his dm's either. In fact, no need to keep discussing this, as this has already been handled and resolved. Thanks!
RC-1, PC-1 Konami® Certified Judge


Return to “Serious Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 157 guests