Duelingbook Forum

Sound4 wrote:The judge call could have been shorter if N3sh just answered my questions as I saw flaws.

No because you would just keep talking in circles as N3sh tries to explain how you're in the wrong, as this ENTIRE thread is.

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:The judge call could have been shorter if N3sh just answered my questions as I saw flaws.

No because you would just keep talking in circles as N3sh tries to explain how you're in the wrong, as this ENTIRE thread is.

Show the logs where he tried to "explain".

you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.

Sound4 wrote:

Christen57 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:At 4:07 I explained and said my nachster 2nd eff and seeing on how he was fine with my nachster 1st eff there is a good chance he was already aware of the 2nd eff as well especially when he didn't say anything about not knowing ng its 2nd eff.

What do you mean by "a good chance"? Unless your opponent explicitly says they having no hand traps or anything else they can or want to respond with, you can't assume they would know and be okay with Nachster's second effect. You made an incorrect assumption.

I explained its 2nd eff and said "hold on" at 4:24. I was already beginning to resolve as well. "on eff" means nothing as well Furthermore, I had already begun resolving.

Your opponent was the one saying "hold on," not you, and they said "on eff" and "on summon" after you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy," meaning they wanted to respond to Nachster's field effect which you should have let them do instead of wasting N3sh's time.

What I mean by "good chance" is that there is a high percentage that my opponent already knew about te nachsters 2nd effect. This is supported even further as he didn't say anything not knowing my card or was reading but for some reason which he didn't provide didn't respond. You did not get the main reason from my post.

I meant he said "hold on" which at was 4:24 when I had already activated my nachster 2nd eff explaining it to him which you didn't say anything on. I was clear as possible on my communication. I can not be held responsible for other people not responding.

Your opponent was responding though. [4:17] "on eff" was the response.

I think the problem here is that you, at some point, thought Cyber Dragon Nachster's "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect, and it'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, were all one single effect, as if you were resolving something like Conquistador of the Golden Land, and you thought that since your opponent was okay with Nachster's first effect, that means they would also be okay with it's second separate effect. Turns out they weren't in this case.

The reason I think you thought this, is because of what was said here:

[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"

You saying "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster" suggests to me that you thought those 2 effects of Cyber Dragon Nachster were all one single effect, since players don't normally say "I also get to do X thing" when activating 2 separate effects. Players usually say "I also get to do X thing" when performing multiple different actions to resolve 1 single effect, like with conquistador. In the case of conquistador, players would, for example, activate it, special summon it as a monster, then say "I also get to destroy X card since I control Eldlich the Golden Lord" to indicate that they were also choosing to apply the second portion of conquistador's effect to destroy a face-up card.

These things were also said:

[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"

Which further suggests that you thought that the opponent being "ok" with the first Nachster effect meant that they were also "ok" with the second effect, and again, it turned out they weren't, and the fact that you proceeded to resolve the second effect of Nachster, without making sure the opponent was also "ok" with that as well, further shows that you must have thought those 2 effects of Nachster were all one single effect as if you were resolving a Conquistador of the Golden Land.

If he responded quicker I would have allowed the response.

The total time it took for the response was 10 seconds, from [4:07] where you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy" to [4:17] when the opponent said "on eff".

However, I think the real other problem here is that you thought that since the opponent didn't specifically chat the word "response," then they have no response and you can keep playing, even if they say other things that would indicate that they have a response, such as "on eff of summon," which they did say.

Look at what was said after you proceeded to resolve both effects of Nachster:

[5:42] "i said on eff of summon"
[5:46] "when you summoned it"
[5:52] "i even said hold on"
[6:36] "That does not mean anything if you have a response you say "response" I saw nothing in chat so I thought I was allowed to continue to play"

This tells me that you don't consider "on eff" or "hold on" to be an indicator that the opponent wishes to respond — only the specific word, "response". This is also wrong. "On eff" was a shorter way of saying "on effect" as in, in this case at least, "on the effect of Cyber Dragon Nachster". Then your opponent would play the card/effect they wished to respond with. Refusing to allow the opponent to respond, because they used "hold on" and "on eff" instead of the specific magic word or whatever, is rule sharking.

Taking all of this into consideration, I doubt you really would "have allowed the response" even if the opponent did respond "quicker".

Lastly, even if your opponent truly did have no quick effects, traps, hand traps, quick-play spells, or trigger effects they could've respond with at that time, guess what? They're still allowed to request that you slow down and "hold on" so they can at least go over the cards you played so far, the cards you're playing currently, and the combos you're doing, just to make sure you're doing them properly, and not (either intentionally or unintentionally) cheating, such as, for example, activating a hard once per turn effect more than once in a single turn (something I actually did catch players, and got caught by players, attempting to do in the past).

Genexwrecker wrote:you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.

Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.

Silence 100% isn't consent. Never has been and never will be.

Sound4 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.

Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.

Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.

Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.

Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.

that would 100% have been my ruling on that situation with all the context i have and all the "discussion" sound4 has offered on the matter.

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.

Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.

Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.

We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.

Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.

We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.

Because sometimes judges make mistakes... I kinda want this thread locked now that were reaching the point where everything that needed to be discussed has been.

Christen57 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

Christen57 wrote:
What do you mean by "a good chance"? Unless your opponent explicitly says they having no hand traps or anything else they can or want to respond with, you can't assume they would know and be okay with Nachster's second effect. You made an incorrect assumption.



Your opponent was the one saying "hold on," not you, and they said "on eff" and "on summon" after you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy," meaning they wanted to respond to Nachster's field effect which you should have let them do instead of wasting N3sh's time.

What I mean by "good chance" is that there is a high percentage that my opponent already knew about te nachsters 2nd effect. This is supported even further as he didn't say anything not knowing my card or was reading but for some reason which he didn't provide didn't respond. You did not get the main reason from my post.

I meant he said "hold on" which at was 4:24 when I had already activated my nachster 2nd eff explaining it to him which you didn't say anything on. I was clear as possible on my communication. I can not be held responsible for other people not responding.

Your opponent was responding though. [4:17] "on eff" was the response.

I think the problem here is that you, at some point, thought Cyber Dragon Nachster's "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect, and it'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, were all one single effect, as if you were resolving something like Conquistador of the Golden Land, and you thought that since your opponent was okay with Nachster's first effect, that means they would also be okay with it's second separate effect. Turns out they weren't in this case.

The reason I think you thought this, is because of what was said here:

[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"

You saying "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster" suggests to me that you thought those 2 effects of Cyber Dragon Nachster were all one single effect, since players don't normally say "I also get to do X thing" when activating 2 separate effects. Players usually say "I also get to do X thing" when performing multiple different actions to resolve 1 single effect, like with conquistador. In the case of conquistador, players would, for example, activate it, special summon it as a monster, then say "I also get to destroy X card since I control Eldlich the Golden Lord" to indicate that they were also choosing to apply the second portion of conquistador's effect to destroy a face-up card.

These things were also said:

[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"

Which further suggests that you thought that the opponent being "ok" with the first Nachster effect meant that they were also "ok" with the second effect, and again, it turned out they weren't, and the fact that you proceeded to resolve the second effect of Nachster, without making sure the opponent was also "ok" with that as well, further shows that you must have thought those 2 effects of Nachster were all one single effect as if you were resolving a Conquistador of the Golden Land.

If he responded quicker I would have allowed the response.

The total time it took for the response was 10 seconds, from [4:07] where you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy" to [4:17] when the opponent said "on eff".

However, I think the real other problem here is that you thought that since the opponent didn't specifically chat the word "response," then they have no response and you can keep playing, even if they say other things that would indicate that they have a response, such as "on eff of summon," which they did say.

Look at what was said after you proceeded to resolve both effects of Nachster:

[5:42] "i said on eff of summon"
[5:46] "when you summoned it"
[5:52] "i even said hold on"
[6:36] "That does not mean anything if you have a response you say "response" I saw nothing in chat so I thought I was allowed to continue to play"

This tells me that you don't consider "on eff" or "hold on" to be an indicator that the opponent wishes to respond — only the specific word, "response". This is also wrong. "On eff" was a shorter way of saying "on effect" as in, in this case at least, "on the effect of Cyber Dragon Nachster". Then your opponent would play the card/effect they wished to respond with. Refusing to allow the opponent to respond, because they used "hold on" and "on eff" instead of the specific magic word or whatever, is rule sharking.

Taking all of this into consideration, I doubt you really would "have allowed the response" even if the opponent did respond "quicker".

Lastly, even if your opponent truly did have no quick effects, traps, hand traps, quick-play spells, or trigger effects they could've respond with at that time, guess what? They're still allowed to request that you slow down and "hold on" so they can at least go over the cards you played so far, the cards you're playing currently, and the combos you're doing, just to make sure you're doing them properly, and not (either intentionally or unintentionally) cheating, such as, for example, activating a hard once per turn effect more than once in a single turn (something I actually did catch players, and got caught by players, attempting to do in the past).

If you read the "what does this mean" thread which I doubt you did but that idls besides the point. Ntakonta said something very similar about me sayimg "I can also summon a 2100 atk monster from GY" which it seems like I am acting like they are a single effect. I knew they were separate effects. I wanted to make it simple that if I have a 2100 machine monster in gy I can activate its trigger effect.

The reason why "on eff" is a terrible way of responding is because you are not clear. Furthermore, my opponent did not say anything on them having a response until after a while and didn't say anything on why he took so long. As I said in another post there is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect as he never said he was reading my card or nothing. 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.
For some more evidence to support my claims this is from an official tournament website.
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalised".

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.

We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.

Because sometimes judges make mistakes... I kinda want this thread locked now that were reaching the point where everything that needed to be discussed has been.

On another replay where people accused me of sharking Madrest also didn't say anything on me sharking either.

Genexwrecker wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.

Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.

that would 100% have been my ruling on that situation with all the context i have and all the "discussion" sound4 has offered on the matter.

Explain

Just because we didnt say you were sharking during the judge call doesnt mean you were not sharking.

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.

Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.

We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.

You were still sharking, even if N3sh didn't call you out on it. End of story.

Genexwrecker wrote:Just because we didnt say you were sharking during the judge call doesnt mean you were not sharking.

Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.

We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.

You were still sharking, even if N3sh didn't call you out on it. End of story.

Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.

You were still sharking, even if N3sh didn't call you out on it. End of story.

Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.

That doesn't reinforce any argument you have.

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:You were still sharking, even if N3sh didn't call you out on it. End of story.

Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.

That doesn't reinforce any argument you have.

Explain

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.

That doesn't reinforce any argument you have.

Explain

It's the same stupid argument you tried using with N3sh that gets the same rebuttal.