Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

Here you can discuss just about whatever you want
Sound4
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 2

Re: Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

Post #301 by Sound4 » Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:10 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:And you were told why you were wrong. Take the L

Then I provided links to support my claims.

And you're still wrong. Take the L.

Then tell why you couldn't provide any links support your claims.

greg503
User avatar
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:43 pm
Reputation: 97
Location: Flundereeze

Post #302 by greg503 » Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:11 pm

Besides Shifty adding discussion about an incident (which could have been its own thread), nothing new has been contributed by anyone
Buy Floowandereeze

Sound4
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 2

Post #303 by Sound4 » Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:11 pm

greg503 wrote:Besides Shifty adding discussion about an incident (which could have been its own thread), nothing new has been contributed by anyone

It depends

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 114

Post #304 by Christen57 » Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:44 pm

Sound4 wrote:
itsmetristan wrote:
Sound4 wrote:I am simply making a point as I have provided links to support my claims.

None of your links support your claim. The only thing that actually had something going for it here was Shifty's freeze. All of your points have been proven false or explained why it is the way it is.

No one else has provided any links while I have provided official websites to support my claims. How can you prove wrong something when you have nothing to back it up?


A lot of your claims you claim you provided links to support you didn't actually provide any actual links to support. It's more like you sent people on scavenger hunts to find what you're talking about instead of actually linking to those places yourself. You told us things like "check the what does this mean thread" instead of actually linking to that thread, then you were like "this is from an official tournament website" without actually linking to said tournament website, then you were like "i made an abuse report and provided 2 replays" but, again, didn't actually link us to those 2 replays in this thread, and finally, you still won't show us your message history so we can confirm whether or not you received a PM saying your abuse report was handled.

Stop saying you provided links to support these claims when you clearly didn't. Simply saying "go here" or "check there" isn't a link. This is an example of a link.

Renji Asuka
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 153

Post #305 by Renji Asuka » Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:18 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:Then I provided links to support my claims.

And you're still wrong. Take the L.

Then tell why you couldn't provide any links support your claims.

Don't need to provide links when everyone has been telling you. YOU ARE WRONG. You were told why, and YOU won't accept it. Take the L.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

Sound4
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 2

Post #306 by Sound4 » Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:22 am

Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:And you're still wrong. Take the L.

Then tell why you couldn't provide any links support your claims.

Don't need to provide links when everyone has been telling you. YOU ARE WRONG. You were told why, and YOU won't accept it. Take the L.

That is why I have provided links to support my claims.

Sound4
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 2

Post #307 by Sound4 » Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:28 am

Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
itsmetristan wrote:None of your links support your claim. The only thing that actually had something going for it here was Shifty's freeze. All of your points have been proven false or explained why it is the way it is.

No one else has provided any links while I have provided official websites to support my claims. How can you prove wrong something when you have nothing to back it up?


A lot of your claims you claim you provided links to support you didn't actually provide any actual links to support. It's more like you sent people on scavenger hunts to find what you're talking about instead of actually linking to those places yourself. You told us things like "check the what does this mean thread" instead of actually linking to that thread, then you were like "this is from an official tournament website" without actually linking to said tournament website, then you were like "i made an abuse report and provided 2 replays" but, again, didn't actually link us to those 2 replays in this thread, and finally, you still won't show us your message history so we can confirm whether or not you received a PM saying your abuse report was handled.

Stop saying you provided links to support these claims when you clearly didn't. Simply saying "go here" or "check there" isn't a link. This is an example of a link.

I literally said check the "what does this mean" thread as it was not long ago it was created so I twas a "scavenger hunt" I said exactly where to find it. I still have to find the 2 replays involving sahqovum. I can't show my PM I am pretty sure a judge can do it.Also in the N3sh thread I provided the link and quote. Pretty everyone knows it is from the official website so there is no point in providing the link.

Renji Asuka
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 153

Post #308 by Renji Asuka » Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:56 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:Then tell why you couldn't provide any links support your claims.

Don't need to provide links when everyone has been telling you. YOU ARE WRONG. You were told why, and YOU won't accept it. Take the L.

That is why I have provided links to support my claims.

The thing is, your links don't support your claims in fact, they only hurt your claims. End of story.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

Sound4
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 2

Post #309 by Sound4 » Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:28 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:Don't need to provide links when everyone has been telling you. YOU ARE WRONG. You were told why, and YOU won't accept it. Take the L.

That is why I have provided links to support my claims.

The thing is, your links don't support your claims in fact, they only hurt your claims. End of story.

Yet you couldn't explain how they "hurt" my claims

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 114

Post #310 by Christen57 » Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:40 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:No one else has provided any links while I have provided official websites to support my claims. How can you prove wrong something when you have nothing to back it up?


A lot of your claims you claim you provided links to support you didn't actually provide any actual links to support. It's more like you sent people on scavenger hunts to find what you're talking about instead of actually linking to those places yourself. You told us things like "check the what does this mean thread" instead of actually linking to that thread, then you were like "this is from an official tournament website" without actually linking to said tournament website, then you were like "i made an abuse report and provided 2 replays" but, again, didn't actually link us to those 2 replays in this thread, and finally, you still won't show us your message history so we can confirm whether or not you received a PM saying your abuse report was handled.

Stop saying you provided links to support these claims when you clearly didn't. Simply saying "go here" or "check there" isn't a link. This is an example of a link.

I literally said check the "what does this mean" thread as it was not long ago it was created so I twas a "scavenger hunt" I said exactly where to find it. I still have to find the 2 replays involving sahqovum. I can't show my PM I am pretty sure a judge can do it.Also in the N3sh thread I provided the link and quote. Pretty everyone knows it is from the official website so there is no point in providing the link.


I think I found it. https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/rules_guides/

However, don't assume next time that "everyone knows it is from the official website" because I didn't, because I read and go by duelingbook's rules, not some other random third-party website's rules.

Besides, that website you referred me to seems to apply only to tournaments, and what you were in wasn't a tournament, so I'm not sure if that could or would apply in your situation.

However, even if that did apply in your situation, again, what makes you so sure that the 10 seconds your opponent took specifically was "excessive," especially since that website says nothing about how taking 10 seconds or more is excessive, and also since you made another incorrect assumption?

The other incorrect assumption of course, now that I realized, was this:

If am not mistaken he said wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect but at that point the effect was already fully resolved.


Except you are mistake here. Look at the log again and you'll see.

[3:27] "Nachster eff"
[3:32] "ok"
[3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon Core" from hand (1/3) to GY
[3:39] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon Nachster" from hand (2/2) to M-3 (DEF)
[4:07] "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy"

[4:07] "you know you can declare their effs with buttons right?"
[4:14] Viewed GY
[4:17] "on eff"
[4:19] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon" from GY to M-4 (ATK)
[4:19] "of summon"
[4:21] Stopped viewing GY
[4:24] "hold on"
[4:31] "send the cyber dragon back"

[4:31] Overlayed "Cyber Dragon" in M-4 onto "Galaxy Soldier" in M-2
[4:33] Pointed at "Cyber Dragon" in M-2
[4:34] Viewed Extra Deck
[4:57] "What is the mater? Do you have a response?"

[5:02] "i have a response"
[5:05] "send it back"

[5:08] Stopped viewing Extra Deck
[5:13] "so i can response to your natscher summon eff"

Your opponent was explicitly saying they wanted to respond to Nachster's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned: You can target 1 Machine monster with 2100 ATK or DEF in your GY; Special Summon it" effect, not wait until Nachster resolved that effect then respond, like you thought. Also, after looking at that log again, it's clear that your opponent wasn't taking 10 seconds just to respond. They were taking a total of 10 seconds to read what you commented then respond. Both you and the opponent commented at 4:07 at the same time, so if it would've normally taken, let's say, 4 seconds for them to just respond, they would now need an extra 4 seconds to read what you just commented, plus an extra 2 seconds to finally type "on eff" and hit Enter. 10 seconds could not have been excessive here because you typed something at the exact same time as them that they were reading.

You, however, incorrectly assumed that they were giving the okay on that effect when it was only the "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect they were okay with.

[6:49] "on eff of summon means i have a respond"
[7:03] "thats how it usually works. "

[7:08] "What do you mean you said "OK" on nachster eff"
[7:22] "that was the discard ss "
[7:26] "not the on summon eff"
[7:33] "they are both different"

[8:27] "Nachster eff" [3:32] "ok" [3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon"
[8:36] "that was the discard ss"
[8:44] ""You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand""
[8:54] "not the second eff"

[9:58] "Why did it take you almost 40 seconds to say response"
[10:48] "We're you reading my card? You could have read in chat"
[11:01] "Sileeis consent in yugioh"

[11:03] "why? because i was waiting for you to ss it first then give my respond to your on ss eff "
[11:13] "Silence"
[11:13] "they are both different effs"
[11:50] "Looking at logs"
[12:59] "nachster machine ss eff is different than its discarding special summon eff so you cant say i didnt give my response when i said on eff of summon which what i was referring to"

I get that you don't want people taking too long and that you want to ensure that games run smoothy, but at the same time, you can't make incorrect assumptions and then double down on them when you're shown to be incorrect about said assumptions. You assume that the opponent "was already aware of the 2nd eff as well," you assume the opponent "wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect," and you assume we know where all your links are and what websites you're referring to when you don't link to them.

No wonder N3sh quickly sided with your opponent. You kept making incorrect assumptions about things that you shouldn't have been making assumptions about to begin with, and you were revealed to be incorrect about said assumptions.

Renji Asuka
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 153

Post #311 by Renji Asuka » Thu Nov 25, 2021 4:24 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:That is why I have provided links to support my claims.

The thing is, your links don't support your claims in fact, they only hurt your claims. End of story.

Yet you couldn't explain how they "hurt" my claims

It was ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU.

YOU refused to accept the arguments. Take the L.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

greg503
User avatar
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:43 pm
Reputation: 97
Location: Flundereeze

Post #312 by greg503 » Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:16 pm

Can't wait for this to be a 2 part objection.lol scene
Buy Floowandereeze

Sound4
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 2

Post #313 by Sound4 » Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:12 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:The thing is, your links don't support your claims in fact, they only hurt your claims. End of story.

Yet you couldn't explain how they "hurt" my claims

It was ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU.

YOU refused to accept the arguments. Take the L.

Not exactly

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 238

Post #314 by Genexwrecker » Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:29 pm

I have explained it to you again in dms. Your behavior is no longer going to be tolerated wether here or in ranked play. You are just incorrect on the silence is consent matter and continuing to push this narrative in ranked games that are played will continue to incur furthur penalties. This also applies to anyone else who tries to troll in ranked. Iv seen a few of you not just sound trolling in ranked it needs to stop.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

Renji Asuka
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 153

Post #315 by Renji Asuka » Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:06 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:Yet you couldn't explain how they "hurt" my claims

It was ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU.

YOU refused to accept the arguments. Take the L.

Not exactly

That is it exactly. Anyways GenexWrecker covered it.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

Sound4
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 2

Post #316 by Sound4 » Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:44 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:I have explained it to you again in dms. Your behavior is no longer going to be tolerated wether here or in ranked play. You are just incorrect on the silence is consent matter and continuing to push this narrative in ranked games that are played will continue to incur furthur penalties. This also applies to anyone else who tries to troll in ranked. Iv seen a few of you not just sound trolling in ranked it needs to stop.

Explain a lot of you answer sere very vague when I specifically asked for a full explanation.
Last edited by Sound4 on Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sound4
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 2

Post #317 by Sound4 » Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:52 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
A lot of your claims you claim you provided links to support you didn't actually provide any actual links to support. It's more like you sent people on scavenger hunts to find what you're talking about instead of actually linking to those places yourself. You told us things like "check the what does this mean thread" instead of actually linking to that thread, then you were like "this is from an official tournament website" without actually linking to said tournament website, then you were like "i made an abuse report and provided 2 replays" but, again, didn't actually link us to those 2 replays in this thread, and finally, you still won't show us your message history so we can confirm whether or not you received a PM saying your abuse report was handled.

Stop saying you provided links to support these claims when you clearly didn't. Simply saying "go here" or "check there" isn't a link. This is an example of a link.

I literally said check the "what does this mean" thread as it was not long ago it was created so I twas a "scavenger hunt" I said exactly where to find it. I still have to find the 2 replays involving sahqovum. I can't show my PM I am pretty sure a judge can do it.Also in the N3sh thread I provided the link and quote. Pretty everyone knows it is from the official website so there is no point in providing the link.


I think I found it. https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/rules_guides/

However, don't assume next time that "everyone knows it is from the official website" because I didn't, because I read and go by duelingbook's rules, not some other random third-party website's rules.

Besides, that website you referred me to seems to apply only to tournaments, and what you were in wasn't a tournament, so I'm not sure if that could or would apply in your situation.

However, even if that did apply in your situation, again, what makes you so sure that the 10 seconds your opponent took specifically was "excessive," especially since that website says nothing about how taking 10 seconds or more is excessive, and also since you made another incorrect assumption?

The other incorrect assumption of course, now that I realized, was this:

If am not mistaken he said wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect but at that point the effect was already fully resolved.


Except you are mistake here. Look at the log again and you'll see.

[3:27] "Nachster eff"
[3:32] "ok"
[3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon Core" from hand (1/3) to GY
[3:39] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon Nachster" from hand (2/2) to M-3 (DEF)
[4:07] "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy"

[4:07] "you know you can declare their effs with buttons right?"
[4:14] Viewed GY
[4:17] "on eff"
[4:19] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon" from GY to M-4 (ATK)
[4:19] "of summon"
[4:21] Stopped viewing GY
[4:24] "hold on"
[4:31] "send the cyber dragon back"

[4:31] Overlayed "Cyber Dragon" in M-4 onto "Galaxy Soldier" in M-2
[4:33] Pointed at "Cyber Dragon" in M-2
[4:34] Viewed Extra Deck
[4:57] "What is the mater? Do you have a response?"

[5:02] "i have a response"
[5:05] "send it back"

[5:08] Stopped viewing Extra Deck
[5:13] "so i can response to your natscher summon eff"

Your opponent was explicitly saying they wanted to respond to Nachster's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned: You can target 1 Machine monster with 2100 ATK or DEF in your GY; Special Summon it" effect, not wait until Nachster resolved that effect then respond, like you thought. Also, after looking at that log again, it's clear that your opponent wasn't taking 10 seconds just to respond. They were taking a total of 10 seconds to read what you commented then respond. Both you and the opponent commented at 4:07 at the same time, so if it would've normally taken, let's say, 4 seconds for them to just respond, they would now need an extra 4 seconds to read what you just commented, plus an extra 2 seconds to finally type "on eff" and hit Enter. 10 seconds could not have been excessive here because you typed something at the exact same time as them that they were reading.

You, however, incorrectly assumed that they were giving the okay on that effect when it was only the "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect they were okay with.

[6:49] "on eff of summon means i have a respond"
[7:03] "thats how it usually works. "

[7:08] "What do you mean you said "OK" on nachster eff"
[7:22] "that was the discard ss "
[7:26] "not the on summon eff"
[7:33] "they are both different"

[8:27] "Nachster eff" [3:32] "ok" [3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon"
[8:36] "that was the discard ss"
[8:44] ""You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand""
[8:54] "not the second eff"

[9:58] "Why did it take you almost 40 seconds to say response"
[10:48] "We're you reading my card? You could have read in chat"
[11:01] "Sileeis consent in yugioh"

[11:03] "why? because i was waiting for you to ss it first then give my respond to your on ss eff "
[11:13] "Silence"
[11:13] "they are both different effs"
[11:50] "Looking at logs"
[12:59] "nachster machine ss eff is different than its discarding special summon eff so you cant say i didnt give my response when i said on eff of summon which what i was referring to"

I get that you don't want people taking too long and that you want to ensure that games run smoothy, but at the same time, you can't make incorrect assumptions and then double down on them when you're shown to be incorrect about said assumptions. You assume that the opponent "was already aware of the 2nd eff as well," you assume the opponent "wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect," and you assume we know where all your links are and what websites you're referring to when you don't link to them.

No wonder N3sh quickly sided with your opponent. You kept making incorrect assumptions about things that you shouldn't have been making assumptions about to begin with, and you were revealed to be incorrect about said assumptions.

Yes that is the tournament link I was talking about. DB tries to copy irl as much as possible so it is appropriate to use that link as a source to support my claims.

I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect. Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.

I don't like slow games especially when DB is already very slow as it is and it makes it even more difficult with stuff like late responses. I was being logical and seeing it realisticlly nothing more and nothing less.

Sound4
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 2

Post #318 by Sound4 » Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:56 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:It was ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU.

YOU refused to accept the arguments. Take the L.

Not exactly

That is it exactly. Anyways GenexWrecker covered it.

If it is "exactly" then explain your point on why.

Renji Asuka
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 153

Post #319 by Renji Asuka » Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:11 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:Not exactly

That is it exactly. Anyways GenexWrecker covered it.

If it is "exactly" then explain your point on why.

I've already told you why. You choose not to accept any argument as you believe you are correct, when you are in fact wrong. End of story.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 238

Post #320 by Genexwrecker » Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:11 pm

https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu

Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)


Return to “Spam Paradise”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 121 guests