Duelingbook Forum

Christen57 wrote:

apocralyph wrote:

Christen57 wrote:
"Narrow scope" meaning?



Where did she give such confirmation?



Well whether she previously did or didn't know, she knows now. The reason for your shadowban was narrowed down to those 2 possibilities: You, or the other user who was on your VPN, posting rule-breaking stuff on the main menu.

No, they dont and you cant prove otherwise.

She just said it. That's the proof.

Christen57 wrote:

Lil Oldman wrote:

Christen57 wrote:
I apologize for quoting the wrong person, but my point regarding your actions still stands, Apocralyph: The reason for your shadowban was narrowed down to 2 possibilities, both of which are correct: You posted rule-breaking stuff on the main menu, and you used a VPN which gave someone else the opportunity to get himself along with you shadowbanned.



What do you need to prove that for? If you're male, you choose the Male option. If you're female, you choose the Female option. If you choose the incorrect option, the worst that ends up happening is you getting mistakenly addressed as one gender when you're the other gender.

Again, why do we have that feature if it is so insignificant. It barely matters if you are a man or a woman, so it is obvious it is for personalization purposes, so why limit it to a considerably narrow scope.

"Narrow scope" meaning?

apocralyph wrote:

Christen57 wrote:

apocralyph wrote:No, they dont and you cant prove otherwise.

She just said it. That's the proof.

So youre claiming youre a judge?

Genexwrecker wrote:I remember people who calmly provide good points in an argument. The people posting arent sucking up to me and their posts dont change how I think of them. I just remember good points made so i can apply it to improvement of the site. Thanks for your concern.

Chrisfen57 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:I remember people who calmly provide good points in an argument. The people posting arent sucking up to me and their posts dont change how I think of them. I just remember good points made so i can apply it to improvement of the site. Thanks for your concern.

Please mommy i told all the bad dumb people who disagreed with you theyre wrong and bad and dumb on the internet please mommy please let me see those toes, lemme get a sniff im mommies good boy please

Lil Oldman wrote:I am not a man with a briefcase head.

greg503 wrote:If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone be impersonated on these forums, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.

I Only Play Water Decks wrote:

Plum Blossom wrote:Defending judges is sad dude.



All jokes aside I haven't seen other judges saying anything homophobic. Plus it's just impossible to have someone online all the time, we have work, school etc.

The homophobic thing is mostly from Genex from their replies on a forum post for someone asking for an NB option.
https://imgur.com/a/AFe9Al6

Renji Asuka wrote:

I Only Play Water Decks wrote:

Plum Blossom wrote:Defending judges is sad dude.



All jokes aside I haven't seen other judges saying anything homophobic. Plus it's just impossible to have someone online all the time, we have work, school etc.

The homophobic thing is mostly from Genex from their replies on a forum post for someone asking for an NB option.
https://imgur.com/a/AFe9Al6

What exactly is "homophobic" to you?

Cause all I see is facts.

If facts are homophobic, then that says more about you than it does about the facts.

troglyte wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

I Only Play Water Decks wrote:
The homophobic thing is mostly from Genex from their replies on a forum post for someone asking for an NB option.
https://imgur.com/a/AFe9Al6

What exactly is "homophobic" to you?

Cause all I see is facts.

If facts are homophobic, then that says more about you than it does about the facts.

Saying that an opinion is a fact does not automatically make it fact. That's not how facts work.

troglyte wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

I Only Play Water Decks wrote:
The homophobic thing is mostly from Genex from their replies on a forum post for someone asking for an NB option.
https://imgur.com/a/AFe9Al6

What exactly is "homophobic" to you?

Cause all I see is facts.

If facts are homophobic, then that says more about you than it does about the facts.

Saying that an opinion is a fact does not automatically make it fact. That's not how facts work.

Renji Asuka wrote:

troglyte wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:What exactly is "homophobic" to you?

Cause all I see is facts.

If facts are homophobic, then that says more about you than it does about the facts.

Saying that an opinion is a fact does not automatically make it fact. That's not how facts work.

Genetics back up what Genexwrecker claims.

Science backs up what Genexwrecker claims.

Women can never become a man.

Gender Dysphoria is classified as a mental illness.

Denying these things doesn't make it true.

troglyte wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

troglyte wrote:Saying that an opinion is a fact does not automatically make it fact. That's not how facts work.

Genetics back up what Genexwrecker claims.

Science backs up what Genexwrecker claims.

Women can never become a man.

Gender Dysphoria is classified as a mental illness.

Denying these things doesn't make it true.

Enough with the tribalistic chanting. Did you copypaste that?

Science did support that claim at one point. But then science changed. There's several fields of science studying gender, sex, and their relationship with each other.

Science may be 'set in stone' but guess what? Stone can be carved.

If these threads have taught me anything, it's that yugioh players are not qualified to be discussing gender politics of any kind. That includes you too, Genex.

Renji Asuka wrote:

troglyte wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:Genetics back up what Genexwrecker claims.

Science backs up what Genexwrecker claims.

Women can never become a man.

Gender Dysphoria is classified as a mental illness.

Denying these things doesn't make it true.

Enough with the tribalistic chanting. Did you copypaste that?

Science did support that claim at one point. But then science changed. There's several fields of science studying gender, sex, and their relationship with each other.

Science may be 'set in stone' but guess what? Stone can be carved.

If these threads have taught me anything, it's that yugioh players are not qualified to be discussing gender politics of any kind. That includes you too, Genex.

History, science.

All this proves what I have stated is a fact.

Name 1 person from 1732 that was a man who gave birth.

Name 1 person in 1507 that was a man who gave birth.

Name 1 person in 1232 that was a woman that changed into a man.

Name 1 person in 1100 AD that was a woman that changed into a man.

Name 1 person in 1843 where a woman impregnated a man.

Odds are, you can't.

There are universal truths and this is one of them.

troglyte wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

troglyte wrote:
Enough with the tribalistic chanting. Did you copypaste that?

Science did support that claim at one point. But then science changed. There's several fields of science studying gender, sex, and their relationship with each other.

Science may be 'set in stone' but guess what? Stone can be carved.

If these threads have taught me anything, it's that yugioh players are not qualified to be discussing gender politics of any kind. That includes you too, Genex.

History, science.

All this proves what I have stated is a fact.

Name 1 person from 1732 that was a man who gave birth.

Name 1 person in 1507 that was a man who gave birth.

Name 1 person in 1232 that was a woman that changed into a man.

Name 1 person in 1100 AD that was a woman that changed into a man.

Name 1 person in 1843 where a woman impregnated a man.

Odds are, you can't.

There are universal truths and this is one of them.

First of all, those are just random dates which I'm guessing you pulled out of a number generator, so I'm just going to ignore that. Gee, it's almost like I'm not talking to a real person.

You missed the point of what I was saying. Back then society (and as a result, scientists as well) didn't understand gender expression and sexuality as well as today. Historians wouldn't understand nor know what to do with that information when it happened back then.

Also, STOP TALKING ABOUT PREGNANT MEN. You're literally the only one here talking about that, and it's creeping me out.

Renji Asuka wrote:

I Only Play Water Decks wrote:

Plum Blossom wrote:Defending judges is sad dude.



All jokes aside I haven't seen other judges saying anything homophobic. Plus it's just impossible to have someone online all the time, we have work, school etc.

The homophobic thing is mostly from Genex from their replies on a forum post for someone asking for an NB option.
https://imgur.com/a/AFe9Al6

What exactly is "homophobic" to you?

Cause all I see is facts.

If facts are homophobic, then that says more about you than it does about the facts.