Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

Here you can discuss just about whatever you want
I Only Play Water Decks
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:58 pm
Reputation: 3
Mood:

Re: Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

Post #581 by I Only Play Water Decks » Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:31 am

I don't get the problem here. Kazuki Takahashi even talked about the consent rules of Yu-Gi-Oh.
https://youtu.be/IvkNeXkF5CY (its like 5 minutes, with English sub titles)

itsmetristan
User avatar
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:16 am
Reputation: 35

Post #582 by itsmetristan » Tue Jan 18, 2022 3:09 am

Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I will not discuss the details of the report. Just know everything and possible scenarios are taken into account when reviewing.


So you did take into account this potential sharking issue Sound4 brought up after all...

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know anyway, not necessarily any of the remaining details of the report.

Another question I have though is: Can Sound4 check the details of his appeals himself that are responded to and see what exactly he wrote in those appeals? He should be able to after all since they're his appeals, but I've never filed an appeal for anything on this platform myself, only reports against various rule-breaking users, so I can't tell, but what I do know is that when those reports of mine are answered, I'm able to see specifically what I wrote in the report itself, not just the admin's response, but I don't know yet if the same holds true for appeals.
https://imgur.com/a/1ws8gXn

Image

Yes, they can. If your report is responded to, you should be able to see exactly what you said in your initial report
Image

RC-2
PC-1

Senior Admin

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

Post #583 by Christen57 » Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:18 am

itsmetristan wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I will not discuss the details of the report. Just know everything and possible scenarios are taken into account when reviewing.


So you did take into account this potential sharking issue Sound4 brought up after all...

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know anyway, not necessarily any of the remaining details of the report.

Another question I have though is: Can Sound4 check the details of his appeals himself that are responded to and see what exactly he wrote in those appeals? He should be able to after all since they're his appeals, but I've never filed an appeal for anything on this platform myself, only reports against various rule-breaking users, so I can't tell, but what I do know is that when those reports of mine are answered, I'm able to see specifically what I wrote in the report itself, not just the admin's response, but I don't know yet if the same holds true for appeals.
https://imgur.com/a/1ws8gXn

Image

Yes, they can. If your report is responded to, you should be able to see exactly what you said in your initial report


Sound4 was saying he couldn't do it, but now it looks like he could but just didn't know how to.

I literally asked Genexwrecker to show the appeal I sent as I can't go back to it only Genexwrecker can but Genexwrecker obviously didn't show it all for no reason.


So, for a user to check their appeals that get responded to, they just have to go to Private messages like I did when I checked all my past reports that got responses, right, itsmetristan?

itsmetristan
User avatar
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:16 am
Reputation: 35

Post #584 by itsmetristan » Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:59 am

Yes
Image

RC-2
PC-1

Senior Admin

Sound4
Posts: 921
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 8

Post #585 by Sound4 » Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:01 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:I will not discuss the details of the report. Just know everything and possible scenarios are taken into account when reviewing.

I don't care about the details of the report. I asked for you to show the appeal not your appeal reply. You intentionally did not show it for no reason.

Sound4
Posts: 921
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 8

Post #586 by Sound4 » Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:14 pm

8-)
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Any way you could move the thread to serious discussion? I know it was possible to move threads around back on dueling network's forum. This clearly doesn't belong in spam paradise.

It was originally posted in serious discussions. We moved it to spam paradise since it was just a troll trolling and not an actual serious logical debate


Genexwrecker and itsmetristan, could either of you check Sound4's appeal regarding this freeze to see if Sound4 mentioned anything about the duel having to be stopped due to this sharking issue that was brought up, and show us what Sound4 said in the appeal this time instead of just what Genexwrecker's response was?

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Well, as itsmetristan just confirmed, neither himself nor Genexwrecker can move threads, but I still think you can request for it to be locked.



Okay, and did you include this important detail in your appeal when you were appealing this matter to Genexwrecker? Let's go back to when she shared her screenshot of her denying your appeal. https://forum.duelingbook.com/viewtopic.php?p=74493#p74493



You see, the reason I asked you, Sound4, if you included that important detail in the appeal is because Genexwrecker denied your appeal due to being under the impression that the sole issue was the slowplaying/AFK'ing and thus you should've tried to continue the duel to the best of your ability while waiting for the judge instead of simply doing nothing as you waited for said judge, but if Genexwrecker wasn't aware of this sharking part as well, she wouldn't have known that the game, in that case, "had to be stopped" since, as you said, sharking is something that would need a judge and isn't something you can simply keep continuing the game over until it's resolved like slowplaying and AFK'ing are.



If you knew you needed to be informed as to why your opponent was calling the judge, and your opponent wasn't informing you, you should've stepped up and told them to. What was so difficult about that? If people forget to tell you these kinds of important things, you need to remind them to, or else you risk being held responsible for failing to remind them.



So once again, you've made 2 contradictory arguments. You say you couldn't figure out what the call could've been for, but at the same time, you say you did in fact figure out what the call must've been for — that it must've indeed been for AFK — so, which one was it? If you couldn't determine what the call was for, you should've asked, and if you did determine what the call was for — that it was "for AFK" — then you should've tried to continue the duel to the best of your ability while you waited for the judge, as "AFK" didn't relate to the immediate gamestate.



Your opponent didn't have an issue with you pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale. Your opponent had an issue with you not communicating to him that you were no longer reading just the Edge Imp Chain.

You do know that the appeal reply is separate from the first appeal itself? I literally made a very long appeal as after that duel I was a bit angry. I literally asked Genexwrecker to show the appeal I sent as I can't go back to it only Genexwrecker can but Genexwrecker obviously didn't show it all for no reason.

19:08] "You do know I am talking right?"
Once he called the judge for AFK I was trying to say things to prove that I am not AFK. You still ignored all the logs I showed. You are missing important details in my replies which is making your replies flawed and inaccurate.

I said I didn't what was really the point of this call at the time I thought it was for AFK at first but the guy was just so set on getting a judge in. I was already a bit annoyed at the time as I didn't even want ta judge to come in as I just wanted to continue.


You should've continued trying to get the opponent to cancel the call and continued trying to resolve the issue before the judge arrived. "AFK" didn't relate to the immediate gamestate, so you still should've never just agreed to wait for the judge. If you just wanted to continue during the entire time, you should've told the opponent that, and told them you were done thinking and that they could continue, instead of agreeing to wait for the judge.

You are lying now he has quite an issue with me pointing at whale.
32:03] "you payed attention"
[32:05] "how many time time"
[32:10] "he think until i call the judge?"
[32:15] "or you only read what you want?"
[32:33] "i declare edge imp in gy,and he start to point at whale"


He didn't have an issue with you pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale. The issue he had with you was you not communicating to him that you were taking extra time to read the other cards aside from the Edge Imp Chain. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

[18:40] Called a judge for AFK
[18:45] Pointed at "Frightfur Cruel Whale" in M-1
[19:08] "You do know I am talking right?"
[19:18] "I said think"
[19:39] "Also Maniez went offline"
[19:48] "im asking 1 card"
[19:48] "in gy"
[19:51] "for more than 40 seconds"
[19:54] "if you need more than 40 seconds"
[19:58] "to read and think"
[20:01] "about 1 effect in gy"
[20:03] "you are slowplaying"
[20:03] "And usually when his is not on no judges come obline"
[20:10] "now,just get ignored"
[20:14] "until another judge come in the room"
[20:20] "to do something about your slowplaying"
[20:48] "So I'm not allowed to think? Is this a joke"
[21:26] "Well let's wait for 40 minutes"

He accused you of specifically taking "more than 40 seconds to read and think about 1 effect in gy". He mentioned nothing about the pointing-at-whale stuff until after the judge asked him why he began resolving Edge Imp Chain's effect. When the judge arrived, he said "sound4 refusing to play" because that's what his issue was — that he believed you were refusing to play — not that you were pointing at the Frightfur Cruel Whale. He said "and he start to point at whale" not because that's what his issue was, but because he was simply trying to give the judge a brief summary of what happened. The judge asked "Hello, what is the issue," so your opponent provided a brief explanation of what was going on so the judge wouldn't be left completely confused.

In other words, "and he start to point at whale" was just part of your opponent's brief summary as to what had happened. Nothing more. With that brief summary, the judge could quickly understand and address whatever the actual issue was without having to read through the entire log for themselves. The real issue was you "refusing to play" according to the opponent, as that was the first thing the opponent said to the judge when the judge arrived asking what the issue was.

So no, I didn't lie here.

Plus I was only thinking once it is not like I was thinking every ten seconds.


There's no such thing as thinking a certain number of times. We don't do that. We think for certain amounts of time. The judge wanted to know how long you were thinking, not how many times you were thinking. You thinking only "once" says nothing about how long you were thinking, as you could've been thinking once for 40 seconds, or once for an even longer amount of time than that, like 10 minutes.

If I don't know what judge was called for then, I could not continue you keep ignoring this.

Stop denying the proof he said himself that I was pointing at whale and had a problem with it this is why I keep saying you keep ignoring the logs I am showing. He had a problem with me pointing at whale which then he felt like I was refusing to play which is inaccurate. With the brief summary he gave it lead to Maniez not looking at the logs properly and not explaining. Yes you did lie as you said that he never had a problem with me pointing at whale which I showed the log that he did so you did lie.

Your last point just proves even further that this guy did not know what he was talking and called a judge without even looking at the current situation.

Sound4
Posts: 921
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 8

Post #587 by Sound4 » Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:15 pm

itsmetristan wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I will not discuss the details of the report. Just know everything and possible scenarios are taken into account when reviewing.


So you did take into account this potential sharking issue Sound4 brought up after all...

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know anyway, not necessarily any of the remaining details of the report.

Another question I have though is: Can Sound4 check the details of his appeals himself that are responded to and see what exactly he wrote in those appeals? He should be able to after all since they're his appeals, but I've never filed an appeal for anything on this platform myself, only reports against various rule-breaking users, so I can't tell, but what I do know is that when those reports of mine are answered, I'm able to see specifically what I wrote in the report itself, not just the admin's response, but I don't know yet if the same holds true for appeals.
https://imgur.com/a/1ws8gXn

Image

Yes, they can. If your report is responded to, you should be able to see exactly what you said in your initial report

That is only if your report was quoted Genexwrecker never quoted simply replied which is why I asked for Genexwrecker to show the appeal.

Sound4
Posts: 921
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 8

Post #588 by Sound4 » Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:16 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:No, you answered the first question then proceeded with excuses for the first question. You never answered the other 2.

I literally answered the other two as well. Explain how I did not answer the other two.

No, you did not. You only answered the first question and made excuses for it.

Then explain

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2665
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Post #589 by Genexwrecker » Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:31 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I will not discuss the details of the report. Just know everything and possible scenarios are taken into account when reviewing.

I don't care about the details of the report. I asked for you to show the appeal not your appeal reply. You intentionally did not show it for no reason.

If I did not show the appeal there is obviously a reason i cannoy.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

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

Post #590 by greg503 » Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:57 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:I literally answered the other two as well. Explain how I did not answer the other two.

No, you did not. You only answered the first question and made excuses for it.

Then explain

You gave non-answers for the other 2 because, simply put, you were stalling. Just like you're stalling this thread
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 #591 by Christen57 » Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:53 am

Sound4 wrote:8-)
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:It was originally posted in serious discussions. We moved it to spam paradise since it was just a troll trolling and not an actual serious logical debate


Genexwrecker and itsmetristan, could either of you check Sound4's appeal regarding this freeze to see if Sound4 mentioned anything about the duel having to be stopped due to this sharking issue that was brought up, and show us what Sound4 said in the appeal this time instead of just what Genexwrecker's response was?

Sound4 wrote:You do know that the appeal reply is separate from the first appeal itself? I literally made a very long appeal as after that duel I was a bit angry. I literally asked Genexwrecker to show the appeal I sent as I can't go back to it only Genexwrecker can but Genexwrecker obviously didn't show it all for no reason.

19:08] "You do know I am talking right?"
Once he called the judge for AFK I was trying to say things to prove that I am not AFK. You still ignored all the logs I showed. You are missing important details in my replies which is making your replies flawed and inaccurate.

I said I didn't what was really the point of this call at the time I thought it was for AFK at first but the guy was just so set on getting a judge in. I was already a bit annoyed at the time as I didn't even want ta judge to come in as I just wanted to continue.


You should've continued trying to get the opponent to cancel the call and continued trying to resolve the issue before the judge arrived. "AFK" didn't relate to the immediate gamestate, so you still should've never just agreed to wait for the judge. If you just wanted to continue during the entire time, you should've told the opponent that, and told them you were done thinking and that they could continue, instead of agreeing to wait for the judge.

You are lying now he has quite an issue with me pointing at whale.
32:03] "you payed attention"
[32:05] "how many time time"
[32:10] "he think until i call the judge?"
[32:15] "or you only read what you want?"
[32:33] "i declare edge imp in gy,and he start to point at whale"


He didn't have an issue with you pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale. The issue he had with you was you not communicating to him that you were taking extra time to read the other cards aside from the Edge Imp Chain. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

[18:40] Called a judge for AFK
[18:45] Pointed at "Frightfur Cruel Whale" in M-1
[19:08] "You do know I am talking right?"
[19:18] "I said think"
[19:39] "Also Maniez went offline"
[19:48] "im asking 1 card"
[19:48] "in gy"
[19:51] "for more than 40 seconds"
[19:54] "if you need more than 40 seconds"
[19:58] "to read and think"
[20:01] "about 1 effect in gy"
[20:03] "you are slowplaying"
[20:03] "And usually when his is not on no judges come obline"
[20:10] "now,just get ignored"
[20:14] "until another judge come in the room"
[20:20] "to do something about your slowplaying"
[20:48] "So I'm not allowed to think? Is this a joke"
[21:26] "Well let's wait for 40 minutes"

He accused you of specifically taking "more than 40 seconds to read and think about 1 effect in gy". He mentioned nothing about the pointing-at-whale stuff until after the judge asked him why he began resolving Edge Imp Chain's effect. When the judge arrived, he said "sound4 refusing to play" because that's what his issue was — that he believed you were refusing to play — not that you were pointing at the Frightfur Cruel Whale. He said "and he start to point at whale" not because that's what his issue was, but because he was simply trying to give the judge a brief summary of what happened. The judge asked "Hello, what is the issue," so your opponent provided a brief explanation of what was going on so the judge wouldn't be left completely confused.

In other words, "and he start to point at whale" was just part of your opponent's brief summary as to what had happened. Nothing more. With that brief summary, the judge could quickly understand and address whatever the actual issue was without having to read through the entire log for themselves. The real issue was you "refusing to play" according to the opponent, as that was the first thing the opponent said to the judge when the judge arrived asking what the issue was.

So no, I didn't lie here.

Plus I was only thinking once it is not like I was thinking every ten seconds.


There's no such thing as thinking a certain number of times. We don't do that. We think for certain amounts of time. The judge wanted to know how long you were thinking, not how many times you were thinking. You thinking only "once" says nothing about how long you were thinking, as you could've been thinking once for 40 seconds, or once for an even longer amount of time than that, like 10 minutes.

If I don't know what judge was called for then, I could not continue you keep ignoring this.


If you didn't know what the opponent was calling the judge for then you shouldn't have agreed to wait for the judge. You should've asked the opponent to clarify why they were calling the judge.

Stop denying the proof he said himself that I was pointing at whale and had a problem with it this is why I keep saying you keep ignoring the logs I am showing.


He mentioned to the judge just that you were pointing at the Frightfur Cruel Whale so the judge could have a basic idea of what happened. He didn't mention or even indicate that that specifically was what he was having a problem with. I'm still sure his main issue was you "slowplaying" and "refusing to play" as those were the first things he brought up when he was trying to describe the issue.

He had a problem with me pointing at whale which then he felt like I was refusing to play which is inaccurate. With the brief summary he gave it lead to Maniez not looking at the logs properly and not explaining. Yes you did lie as you said that he never had a problem with me pointing at whale which I showed the log that he did so you did lie.


He felt like you were refusing to play because 40 seconds passed from when you first said "think" and by then you still weren't done thinking, which he considered slowplaying and you refusing to play, but if you want to keep insisting that his problem was instead the pointing, you'll have to get in touch with him and ask him yourself. I can't, and won't, continuing arguing with you about that any further, since, ultimately, neither of us knows what exactly was going on in his mind at the time, and we can only make educated guesses about what was going on in his mind at the time from what he was saying prior to the judge's arrival. Did he really have an issue with you pointing but just didn't communicate it clearly enough, or was he just making an issue out of the pointing when he didn't really think it was, like how he accused you of sharking even though we can't see how you sharked? You'll have to continue discussing that with him personally instead of on this forum.

Even if it somehow was the case that his main issue was the pointing, you still should've asked about it so you'd be sure, instead of agreeing to wait for the judge.

Your last point just proves even further that this guy did not know what he was talking and called a judge without even looking at the current situation.


If you could tell that the opponent was, for an invalid reason, calling a judge, you should've tried to get them to cancel it so a judge wouldn't end up coming in and possibly ruling against you like how this judge ruled against you.

It doesn't matter if you think it was the opponent's fault for forgetting to tell you why they were calling the judge, and it doesn't matter anymore if the opponent really had an issue with you pointing or if they just said you were pointing just to briefly describe what was going on and not because they specifically took issue with that. Any time a judge ends up getting involved in any of your duels for any reason, there's always a chance the situation will end in you being issued a game loss or freeze, even if neither a game loss nor a freeze is really appropriate, so you must do what you can to try to resolve any issue before a judge arrives, and in this case, that meant first asking your opponent to tell you why they were calling the judge so you could try resolving the issue before the judge arrived. If the opponent told you they called for a ruling question, you could then try to look up that ruling yourself so you could let them know so they could cancel the call and continue. If the opponent told you they called because of cheating because you, for example, made an illegal move or something earlier that turn, you could try rewinding the gamestate to before said illegal move and continuing from there. If the opponent told you they called because you were being too slow, you can tell them you'll move faster and do so.

Whatever the opponent tells you, you can then try to act accordingly, but you can only act accordingly if the opponent tells you, and if the opponent forgets to tell you, you need to be proactive and ask them to tell you, or else you risk having a judge come in and rule against you.

Even if you still think it's the opponent's responsibility to tell you why they make judge calls without waiting on you to ask, it's better to ask anyway if they forget, so from there you try to resolve the issue without the judge getting involved, than to not do anything and then end up with a penalty because you didn't ask. Normally, if a person calls a judge for no reason, they risk getting frozen themselves for wasting both the judge's time and yours, so you may feel like it shouldn't have been up to you to ask why they called the judge, but that risk goes both ways, meaning you can end up frozen instead if the judge determines that your opponent did in fact have a valid reason to make that call to begin with, so it would've been better to not attempt that risk at all and to instead just do the easy thing and ask.

In other words, it would've been better, in this case at least, for you to be proactive but able to walk away with no penalties than to be fixated on being right about everything but end up with a freeze, especially when you didn't turn out to be in the right about everything here.

itsmetristan wrote:Yes


Another question, itsmetristan, to hopefully clear this up with Sound4 once and for all: If you're in a rated duel with somebody, and they call a judge, and you have no idea why they would've done so, should you just be silent and wait for them to tell you why they called the judge, or should you be proactive and ask them why without waiting minutes for them to tell you why, and also maybe ask them to cancel it as well, if you see that they're forgetting to tell you why they called the judge?

Genexwrecker wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I will not discuss the details of the report. Just know everything and possible scenarios are taken into account when reviewing.

I don't care about the details of the report. I asked for you to show the appeal not your appeal reply. You intentionally did not show it for no reason.

If I did not show the appeal there is obviously a reason i cannoy.


I mean, in most of my reports, the people answering them have always quoted what I originally stated in the report so I'm not sure why you couldn't have at least quoted Sound4's appeal when you were responding to it. Did Sound4 include, for example, any inappropriate links/images, or personal information (such as a credit card number), in the appeal? If so, then I could understand why you wouldn't want that getting revealed to the public, but if not, then, are you just not allowed to quote what people say in their reports/appeals unless you're either a head admin like Lantern or a senior judge like Sries Mslaiks? Otherwise, you may as well show him what he wrote since he wrote it to begin with.

No wonder people like to keep bringing up and publicizing their freezes/bans publicly on this forum instead of using the official appealing page for these issues, because when they post the issue publicly on the forum, they can always go back and see what they themselves originally wrote without having to worry about whether or not whoever responds will quote them and let them see later on what they originally wrote, but when they appeal using the official appealing page, they risk not being able to go back and see what they originally wrote unless whoever responds quotes it. I think if those who respond to appeals quote them more often when responding, you'll have less people feeling the need to take to the forums to unnecessarily publicize their freezes/bans and vent out their frustrations like this.

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

Post #592 by Christen57 » Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:07 am

greg503 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:No, you did not. You only answered the first question and made excuses for it.

Then explain

You gave non-answers for the other 2 because, simply put, you were stalling. Just like you're stalling this thread


You two (greg503 and Renji Asuka) can leave this to me.

Question: Why didn't you tell your opponent you were done with your thinking?
Answer: The game was stopped so another judge can come in so they would have been no point in saying "I am done thinking" especially when I didn't think that would lead to an illogical assumption in me thinking for ten minutes. I have never seen or heard of a person having ten minutes to think meaning they are thinking for ten minutes.


I believe this "answer" was addressed already, but in case it wasn't, or was but Sound4 missed it, no, the game wasn't "stopped" here just because the opponent called the judge. The game was stopped here once Sound4 wrongfully agreed to wait without knowing what he was waiting for as well as why he was waiting for it. Sound4 could've, and should've, still asked why the judge was being called so the issue could still possibly be resolved without judge intervention.

Also, as Genexwrecker pointed out for us, Genexwrecker did in fact take into account this possible sharking issue (that Sound4 brought up) before she denied Sound4's appeal, so Sound4's argument that the duel had to be stopped because of possible sharking is no longer valid. Sound4 remained under the assumption (at the time the judge call was made) that it was most likely because of either AFK or slowplay that the opponent called the judge, neither of which related to the immediate gamestate, so Sound4 should've acted accordingly and either tried resolving the issue to the best of his ability, before the judge arrived, so the opponent could cancel the call and continue the duel, or, if Sound4 still needed further clarification as to why the judge call was made, should've asked for the opponent to provide that information instead of waiting.

Question: Why did you hold up the game when you had no response or play to make?
Answer: I was thinking/reading as I was pointing at whale plus seeing my options as I said earlier.


Regardless, Sound4 didn't need to take so long to read just 3 cards. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

Here's what the game state looked like at the time:

Image

As you can see, it was just Live☆Twin Ki-sikil and Frightfur Cruel Whale on the field at the time, along with Sound4's so-called "options" (which really just consisted of Live☆Twin Home in hand, a card he couldn't even activate).

I'm going to copy and paste each of these card's effects. You guys let me know if it really takes more than 40 seconds to read all of this.

Each time an opponent's monster declares an attack, you gain 500 LP. If this card is Normal or Special Summoned and you control no other monsters: You can Special Summon 1 "Lil-la" monster from your hand or Deck. You can only use this effect of "Live☆Twin Ki-sikil" once per turn.

1 "Edge Imp" monster + 1 "Fluffal" monster
If this card is Fusion Summoned: You can destroy 1 card on both players' fields. Once per turn (Quick Effect): You can target 1 Fusion Monster you control; send 1 "Frightfur" card from your Deck or Extra Deck to the GY, except "Frightfur Cruel Whale", and if you do, the targeted monster gains ATK equal to half of its original ATK until the end of this turn.

Discard 1 card; Special Summon 1 "Ki-sikil" monster or 1 "Lil-la" monster from your Deck, also for the rest of this turn after this card resolves, you cannot Special Summon monsters from the Extra Deck, except "Evil★Twin" monsters. You can only activate 1 "Live☆Twin Home" per turn.


Only took me 20-30 seconds to read all that.

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2665
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Post #593 by Genexwrecker » Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:56 am

I can easily quite in a private message what they wrote in their appeal for them if that is what they want. I'm not publicly posting it. they can do that themselves if they so choose.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

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

Post #594 by Christen57 » Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:03 am

Genexwrecker wrote:I can easily quite in a private message what they wrote in their appeal for them if that is what they want. I'm not publicly posting it. they can do that themselves if they so choose.


Well he's asking for you to show him what he wrote in his appeal so if you have to show him privately so he can then share it with us, that'll work.

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2665
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Post #595 by Genexwrecker » Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:34 am

Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I can easily quite in a private message what they wrote in their appeal for them if that is what they want. I'm not publicly posting it. they can do that themselves if they so choose.


Well he's asking for you to show him what he wrote in his appeal so if you have to show him privately so he can then share it with us, that'll work.

I re sent the reply with the quote so they have it. While I did handle their report I dont think they understand that reports are reviewed by upper judges before we finalize it.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

Sound4
Posts: 921
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 8

Post #596 by Sound4 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:35 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:8-)
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker and itsmetristan, could either of you check Sound4's appeal regarding this freeze to see if Sound4 mentioned anything about the duel having to be stopped due to this sharking issue that was brought up, and show us what Sound4 said in the appeal this time instead of just what Genexwrecker's response was?



You should've continued trying to get the opponent to cancel the call and continued trying to resolve the issue before the judge arrived. "AFK" didn't relate to the immediate gamestate, so you still should've never just agreed to wait for the judge. If you just wanted to continue during the entire time, you should've told the opponent that, and told them you were done thinking and that they could continue, instead of agreeing to wait for the judge.



He didn't have an issue with you pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale. The issue he had with you was you not communicating to him that you were taking extra time to read the other cards aside from the Edge Imp Chain. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

[18:40] Called a judge for AFK
[18:45] Pointed at "Frightfur Cruel Whale" in M-1
[19:08] "You do know I am talking right?"
[19:18] "I said think"
[19:39] "Also Maniez went offline"
[19:48] "im asking 1 card"
[19:48] "in gy"
[19:51] "for more than 40 seconds"
[19:54] "if you need more than 40 seconds"
[19:58] "to read and think"
[20:01] "about 1 effect in gy"
[20:03] "you are slowplaying"
[20:03] "And usually when his is not on no judges come obline"
[20:10] "now,just get ignored"
[20:14] "until another judge come in the room"
[20:20] "to do something about your slowplaying"
[20:48] "So I'm not allowed to think? Is this a joke"
[21:26] "Well let's wait for 40 minutes"

He accused you of specifically taking "more than 40 seconds to read and think about 1 effect in gy". He mentioned nothing about the pointing-at-whale stuff until after the judge asked him why he began resolving Edge Imp Chain's effect. When the judge arrived, he said "sound4 refusing to play" because that's what his issue was — that he believed you were refusing to play — not that you were pointing at the Frightfur Cruel Whale. He said "and he start to point at whale" not because that's what his issue was, but because he was simply trying to give the judge a brief summary of what happened. The judge asked "Hello, what is the issue," so your opponent provided a brief explanation of what was going on so the judge wouldn't be left completely confused.

In other words, "and he start to point at whale" was just part of your opponent's brief summary as to what had happened. Nothing more. With that brief summary, the judge could quickly understand and address whatever the actual issue was without having to read through the entire log for themselves. The real issue was you "refusing to play" according to the opponent, as that was the first thing the opponent said to the judge when the judge arrived asking what the issue was.

So no, I didn't lie here.



There's no such thing as thinking a certain number of times. We don't do that. We think for certain amounts of time. The judge wanted to know how long you were thinking, not how many times you were thinking. You thinking only "once" says nothing about how long you were thinking, as you could've been thinking once for 40 seconds, or once for an even longer amount of time than that, like 10 minutes.

If I don't know what judge was called for then, I could not continue you keep ignoring this.


If you didn't know what the opponent was calling the judge for then you shouldn't have agreed to wait for the judge. You should've asked the opponent to clarify why they were calling the judge.

Stop denying the proof he said himself that I was pointing at whale and had a problem with it this is why I keep saying you keep ignoring the logs I am showing.


He mentioned to the judge just that you were pointing at the Frightfur Cruel Whale so the judge could have a basic idea of what happened. He didn't mention or even indicate that that specifically was what he was having a problem with. I'm still sure his main issue was you "slowplaying" and "refusing to play" as those were the first things he brought up when he was trying to describe the issue.

He had a problem with me pointing at whale which then he felt like I was refusing to play which is inaccurate. With the brief summary he gave it lead to Maniez not looking at the logs properly and not explaining. Yes you did lie as you said that he never had a problem with me pointing at whale which I showed the log that he did so you did lie.


He felt like you were refusing to play because 40 seconds passed from when you first said "think" and by then you still weren't done thinking, which he considered slowplaying and you refusing to play, but if you want to keep insisting that his problem was instead the pointing, you'll have to get in touch with him and ask him yourself. I can't, and won't, continuing arguing with you about that any further, since, ultimately, neither of us knows what exactly was going on in his mind at the time, and we can only make educated guesses about what was going on in his mind at the time from what he was saying prior to the judge's arrival. Did he really have an issue with you pointing but just didn't communicate it clearly enough, or was he just making an issue out of the pointing when he didn't really think it was, like how he accused you of sharking even though we can't see how you sharked? You'll have to continue discussing that with him personally instead of on this forum.

Even if it somehow was the case that his main issue was the pointing, you still should've asked about it so you'd be sure, instead of agreeing to wait for the judge.

Your last point just proves even further that this guy did not know what he was talking and called a judge without even looking at the current situation.


If you could tell that the opponent was, for an invalid reason, calling a judge, you should've tried to get them to cancel it so a judge wouldn't end up coming in and possibly ruling against you like how this judge ruled against you.

It doesn't matter if you think it was the opponent's fault for forgetting to tell you why they were calling the judge, and it doesn't matter anymore if the opponent really had an issue with you pointing or if they just said you were pointing just to briefly describe what was going on and not because they specifically took issue with that. Any time a judge ends up getting involved in any of your duels for any reason, there's always a chance the situation will end in you being issued a game loss or freeze, even if neither a game loss nor a freeze is really appropriate, so you must do what you can to try to resolve any issue before a judge arrives, and in this case, that meant first asking your opponent to tell you why they were calling the judge so you could try resolving the issue before the judge arrived. If the opponent told you they called for a ruling question, you could then try to look up that ruling yourself so you could let them know so they could cancel the call and continue. If the opponent told you they called because of cheating because you, for example, made an illegal move or something earlier that turn, you could try rewinding the gamestate to before said illegal move and continuing from there. If the opponent told you they called because you were being too slow, you can tell them you'll move faster and do so.

Whatever the opponent tells you, you can then try to act accordingly, but you can only act accordingly if the opponent tells you, and if the opponent forgets to tell you, you need to be proactive and ask them to tell you, or else you risk having a judge come in and rule against you.

Even if you still think it's the opponent's responsibility to tell you why they make judge calls without waiting on you to ask, it's better to ask anyway if they forget, so from there you try to resolve the issue without the judge getting involved, than to not do anything and then end up with a penalty because you didn't ask. Normally, if a person calls a judge for no reason, they risk getting frozen themselves for wasting both the judge's time and yours, so you may feel like it shouldn't have been up to you to ask why they called the judge, but that risk goes both ways, meaning you can end up frozen instead if the judge determines that your opponent did in fact have a valid reason to make that call to begin with, so it would've been better to not attempt that risk at all and to instead just do the easy thing and ask.

In other words, it would've been better, in this case at least, for you to be proactive but able to walk away with no penalties than to be fixated on being right about everything but end up with a freeze, especially when you didn't turn out to be in the right about everything here.

itsmetristan wrote:Yes


Another question, itsmetristan, to hopefully clear this up with Sound4 once and for all: If you're in a rated duel with somebody, and they call a judge, and you have no idea why they would've done so, should you just be silent and wait for them to tell you why they called the judge, or should you be proactive and ask them why without waiting minutes for them to tell you why, and also maybe ask them to cancel it as well, if you see that they're forgetting to tell you why they called the judge?

Genexwrecker wrote:
Sound4 wrote:I don't care about the details of the report. I asked for you to show the appeal not your appeal reply. You intentionally did not show it for no reason.

If I did not show the appeal there is obviously a reason i cannoy.


I mean, in most of my reports, the people answering them have always quoted what I originally stated in the report so I'm not sure why you couldn't have at least quoted Sound4's appeal when you were responding to it. Did Sound4 include, for example, any inappropriate links/images, or personal information (such as a credit card number), in the appeal? If so, then I could understand why you wouldn't want that getting revealed to the public, but if not, then, are you just not allowed to quote what people say in their reports/appeals unless you're either a head admin like Lantern or a senior judge like Sries Mslaiks? Otherwise, you may as well show him what he wrote since he wrote it to begin with.

No wonder people like to keep bringing up and publicizing their freezes/bans publicly on this forum instead of using the official appealing page for these issues, because when they post the issue publicly on the forum, they can always go back and see what they themselves originally wrote without having to worry about whether or not whoever responds will quote them and let them see later on what they originally wrote, but when they appeal using the official appealing page, they risk not being able to go back and see what they originally wrote unless whoever responds quotes it. I think if those who respond to appeals quote them more often when responding, you'll have less people feeling the need to take to the forums to unnecessarily publicize their freezes/bans and vent out their frustrations like this.

1) You still have not explained anything in me thinking for ten minutes and how all this goes to the conclusion of me thinking for ten minutes.

2) You have also not explained anything on the reason on the judge call as for some reason the judge was accusing neof refusing to play which doesn't make any sense.

3) You have not answered anything on me pretty much telling they were no judges online yet I get frozen fir not communicating at all. Why woudI say this if I was refusing to play?

4) He had an issue with me pointing at whale there is no reason why he would bring up this if he didn't have an issue. I don't know why you are denying this.

5) The guy never once informed me on what the judge call was called for. Since he wasn't saying anything I thought it is what he chose AFK. I don't see how I wasn't communicating at all yet this guy was literally ignoring me and was so set on getting a judge in. He could have simply told his issue straight to me. You don't just call a judge for AFK and think that means Slowplay.

Sound4
Posts: 921
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:58 pm
Reputation: 8

Post #597 by Sound4 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:38 pm

ucp.php?i=pm&mode=view&f=0&p=9926 here is the appeal

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

Post #598 by Christen57 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:47 pm

Sound4 wrote:ucp.php?i=pm&mode=view&f=0&p=9926 here is the appeal


I think you have to copy and paste, or screenshot and share, what's in the appeal itself to share it with me since it won't let me view that link itself unless I'm a judge like Genexwrecker or something. https://forum.duelingbook.com/ucp.php?i=pm&mode=view&f=0&p=9926

Image

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:8-)
If I don't know what judge was called for then, I could not continue you keep ignoring this.


If you didn't know what the opponent was calling the judge for then you shouldn't have agreed to wait for the judge. You should've asked the opponent to clarify why they were calling the judge.

Stop denying the proof he said himself that I was pointing at whale and had a problem with it this is why I keep saying you keep ignoring the logs I am showing.


He mentioned to the judge just that you were pointing at the Frightfur Cruel Whale so the judge could have a basic idea of what happened. He didn't mention or even indicate that that specifically was what he was having a problem with. I'm still sure his main issue was you "slowplaying" and "refusing to play" as those were the first things he brought up when he was trying to describe the issue.

He had a problem with me pointing at whale which then he felt like I was refusing to play which is inaccurate. With the brief summary he gave it lead to Maniez not looking at the logs properly and not explaining. Yes you did lie as you said that he never had a problem with me pointing at whale which I showed the log that he did so you did lie.


He felt like you were refusing to play because 40 seconds passed from when you first said "think" and by then you still weren't done thinking, which he considered slowplaying and you refusing to play, but if you want to keep insisting that his problem was instead the pointing, you'll have to get in touch with him and ask him yourself. I can't, and won't, continuing arguing with you about that any further, since, ultimately, neither of us knows what exactly was going on in his mind at the time, and we can only make educated guesses about what was going on in his mind at the time from what he was saying prior to the judge's arrival. Did he really have an issue with you pointing but just didn't communicate it clearly enough, or was he just making an issue out of the pointing when he didn't really think it was, like how he accused you of sharking even though we can't see how you sharked? You'll have to continue discussing that with him personally instead of on this forum.

Even if it somehow was the case that his main issue was the pointing, you still should've asked about it so you'd be sure, instead of agreeing to wait for the judge.

Your last point just proves even further that this guy did not know what he was talking and called a judge without even looking at the current situation.


If you could tell that the opponent was, for an invalid reason, calling a judge, you should've tried to get them to cancel it so a judge wouldn't end up coming in and possibly ruling against you like how this judge ruled against you.

It doesn't matter if you think it was the opponent's fault for forgetting to tell you why they were calling the judge, and it doesn't matter anymore if the opponent really had an issue with you pointing or if they just said you were pointing just to briefly describe what was going on and not because they specifically took issue with that. Any time a judge ends up getting involved in any of your duels for any reason, there's always a chance the situation will end in you being issued a game loss or freeze, even if neither a game loss nor a freeze is really appropriate, so you must do what you can to try to resolve any issue before a judge arrives, and in this case, that meant first asking your opponent to tell you why they were calling the judge so you could try resolving the issue before the judge arrived. If the opponent told you they called for a ruling question, you could then try to look up that ruling yourself so you could let them know so they could cancel the call and continue. If the opponent told you they called because of cheating because you, for example, made an illegal move or something earlier that turn, you could try rewinding the gamestate to before said illegal move and continuing from there. If the opponent told you they called because you were being too slow, you can tell them you'll move faster and do so.

Whatever the opponent tells you, you can then try to act accordingly, but you can only act accordingly if the opponent tells you, and if the opponent forgets to tell you, you need to be proactive and ask them to tell you, or else you risk having a judge come in and rule against you.

Even if you still think it's the opponent's responsibility to tell you why they make judge calls without waiting on you to ask, it's better to ask anyway if they forget, so from there you try to resolve the issue without the judge getting involved, than to not do anything and then end up with a penalty because you didn't ask. Normally, if a person calls a judge for no reason, they risk getting frozen themselves for wasting both the judge's time and yours, so you may feel like it shouldn't have been up to you to ask why they called the judge, but that risk goes both ways, meaning you can end up frozen instead if the judge determines that your opponent did in fact have a valid reason to make that call to begin with, so it would've been better to not attempt that risk at all and to instead just do the easy thing and ask.

In other words, it would've been better, in this case at least, for you to be proactive but able to walk away with no penalties than to be fixated on being right about everything but end up with a freeze, especially when you didn't turn out to be in the right about everything here.

itsmetristan wrote:Yes


Another question, itsmetristan, to hopefully clear this up with Sound4 once and for all: If you're in a rated duel with somebody, and they call a judge, and you have no idea why they would've done so, should you just be silent and wait for them to tell you why they called the judge, or should you be proactive and ask them why without waiting minutes for them to tell you why, and also maybe ask them to cancel it as well, if you see that they're forgetting to tell you why they called the judge?

Genexwrecker wrote:If I did not show the appeal there is obviously a reason i cannoy.


I mean, in most of my reports, the people answering them have always quoted what I originally stated in the report so I'm not sure why you couldn't have at least quoted Sound4's appeal when you were responding to it. Did Sound4 include, for example, any inappropriate links/images, or personal information (such as a credit card number), in the appeal? If so, then I could understand why you wouldn't want that getting revealed to the public, but if not, then, are you just not allowed to quote what people say in their reports/appeals unless you're either a head admin like Lantern or a senior judge like Sries Mslaiks? Otherwise, you may as well show him what he wrote since he wrote it to begin with.

No wonder people like to keep bringing up and publicizing their freezes/bans publicly on this forum instead of using the official appealing page for these issues, because when they post the issue publicly on the forum, they can always go back and see what they themselves originally wrote without having to worry about whether or not whoever responds will quote them and let them see later on what they originally wrote, but when they appeal using the official appealing page, they risk not being able to go back and see what they originally wrote unless whoever responds quotes it. I think if those who respond to appeals quote them more often when responding, you'll have less people feeling the need to take to the forums to unnecessarily publicize their freezes/bans and vent out their frustrations like this.

1) You still have not explained anything in me thinking for ten minutes and how all this goes to the conclusion of me thinking for ten minutes.


People concluded that you were thinking for over 10 minutes because over 10 minutes passed from when you first said "think" at [17:11], and by then, you still didn't tell anyone you were done thinking, nor did you tell the opponent they could continue. When the judge arrived and saw that you still haven't yet told the opponent you were done thinking, they concluded that it was because you were still thinking and not done thinking yet.

If this was the correct conclusion for that judge to reach, you got the appropriate penalty, but if this was the incorrect conclusion for that judge to reach, you should've explained to the judge what you were doing those 10 minutes.

If you believed the game was "stopped" once the opponent called the judge, you should've told the judge that. If you believed there was no point in continuing because the opponent would've ignored you no matter what because that opponent said "get ignored," you should've told the judge that. If you believed the game "had" to be stopped anyway because of that "sharking" you brought up earlier, you should've told the judge that.

You should've explained at least some of these things to the judge so they wouldn't have remained under the impression you were holding up the game, none of which you explained.

2) You have also not explained anything on the reason on the judge call as for some reason the judge was accusing neof refusing to play which doesn't make any sense.


You were refusing to continue the game though. Either that or you were still just taking too long to continue it. By saying [21:26] "Well let's wait for 40 minutes", you indicated that you weren't interested in continuing the game. Instead, you were now interesting in just waiting for the judge — a judge whose call you didn't even yet know the reason for.

3) You have not answered anything on me pretty much telling they were no judges online yet I get frozen fir not communicating at all. Why woudI say this if I was refusing to play?


I fail to see how you commenting on whether or not there were any judges online at the time relates to whether or not you were refusing to play. Whether there were judges online at the time or not, you never communicated to the opponent that you were done thinking.

4) He had an issue with me pointing at whale there is no reason why he would bring up this if he didn't have an issue. I don't know why you are denying this.


You generally aren't supposed to point at things unless you're choosing/targeting them for an attack/effect. That's what pointing is for, not for simply reading. If you were simply reading, you just needed to hover your mouse over the card and that would be enough. Simply pointing at cards when you're just "reading" them only confuses people into thinking you're choosing/targeting those cards for an attack/effect. This goes for all your duels in general, not just this duel with that specific player. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

Simply clicking cards in an attempt to indicate that you're reading them was not, and is not, proper communication.

5) The guy never once informed me on what the judge call was called for. Since he wasn't saying anything I thought it is what he chose AFK. I don't see how I wasn't communicating at all yet this guy was literally ignoring me and was so set on getting a judge in. He could have simply told his issue straight to me. You don't just call a judge for AFK and think that means Slowplay.


Again, if the call is for either AFK or slowplay, you must attempt to continue the duel to the best of your ability while you wait for the judge, not just stop everything to wait. Stop focusing so much on if the call was specifically for slowplay or for AFK, because as long as you know, or are at least sure, that the call is for either of these, you must attempt to continue the duel. Stop worrying about not knowing which of these 2 things the call was specifically for, because you were able to tell that it was for one of them, and that's all you needed to know to attempt to continue the duel, not which of the 2 the call was specifically for.

Stop clinging to this excuse that you had to agree to wait for the judge simply because you didn't have enough information needed to try to continue the duel and because the opponent didn't tell you which of those 2 things (AFK or slowplay) the call was for. You had enough information. You knew the call was for either AFK or slowplay, and that was enough. You didn't need to know anything further, like which of those 2 specifically the call was for, because it doesn't matter which of those 2 the call was for, because it doesn't change the fact that whether the call was really for AFK or for slowplay, you must attempt to continue, and in this case, this meant finishing your thinking/reading, telling the opponent you were done thinking/reading, ending your turn so the opponent could take their turn to continue the duel, and so on, before the judge arrived, and you had at least 8 minutes to do all of this (which was plenty of time), as the logs show such:

[21:26] "Well let's wait for 40 minutes"
[22:30] Lost connection
[22:38] Rejoined duel
[22:38] Duelingbook: The game can resume
[22:45] Went offline
[22:47] Rejoined duel
[22:47] Duelingbook: The game can resume
[24:04] Pointed at "Frightfur Cruel Whale" in M-1
[25:26] Went offline
[25:55] Rejoined duel
[25:55] Duelingbook: The game can resume
[28:53] Pointed at "Frightfur Cruel Whale" in M-1
[29:03] Viewed Opponent's Graveyard
[29:13] Stopped viewing Opponent's Graveyard
[29:18] Viewed GY
[29:25] Stopped viewing GY
[29:59] Maniez entered the game

You said "Well let's wait for 40 minutes" at [21:26], then the judge arrived at [29:59]. That was an 8 minute and 33 second window of time. No way could you have still been reading and thinking about Edge Imp Chain, Live☆Twin Ki-sikil, Frightfur Cruel Whale, and Live☆Twin Home, all for that long.

I mean, just look at [24:04] when you were "pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale" and then look at [28:53] when you were still "pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale". If you're trying to tell me that you point at cards to signal that you're reading them, then, that was at least 4 minutes and 49 seconds of you reading just the Frightfur Cruel Whale, and then, from [28:53], after you pointed at the Frightfur Fruel Whale again, to [29:29] when the judge arrived, you were checking the graveyard, which, I assume was so you could go back to reading the Edge Imp Chain that was in there. [28:53] to [29:59] is a minute and 6 seconds.

To be fair, you did disconnect a few times, but it wasn't for long, so you got right back into the duel afterwards. Your first disconnect was from [22:30] to [22:38], which was 8 seconds. Your second disconnect was from [22:45] to [22:47], which was 2 seconds. Your third disconnect was from [25:26] to [25:55], which was 29 seconds. If we subtract all of these disconnect times from the 8 minutes and 33 seconds, 8 minutes and 33 seconds minus the 29 seconds, minus the additional 2 seconds, minus the additional 8 seconds, is 7 minutes and 54 seconds.
8:33 - 29 = 8:04
8:04 - 2 = 8:02
8:02 - 8 = 7:54


This means that, for at least 7 and a half minutes (no longer including the times you were disconnected since I subtracted those from the original 8 minutes and 33 seconds), you were reading and thinking about just 4 cards in total, one of which was, of course, the Frightfur Cruel Whale you kept saying you were pointing to, and one of the others being, of course, the Edge Imp Chain that you were checking in the graveyard. The remaining 2, of course, were your "options" which were simply those dead Live☆Twin cards.

So maybe, after the judge was called at [18:40], you did make some attempt to continue the duel after all, but even so, you still took way too long to finish up the reading/thinking you were doing. Spending 7 and a half minutes reading just 4 cards (something that absolutely should not have taken you more than 40-50 seconds or so) was still too long. You were still being too slow there, and by being so slow, especially when you were in a losing position, you were maliciously stalling, which contributed, if not outright led, to your freeze.

So, as far as the whole "thinking for 10 minutes" thing is concerned, the most logical and most likely conclusion I can draw is this:

  • You began thinking/reading, at 17:11 when you said "think" there.
  • You stopped thinking/reading, at 18:27 when you said "You actually don't continue when I say think".
  • From 17:11 to 18:27 is a minute and 16 seconds, meaning you were thinking/reading for that long during this time.
  • 18:27 is when you put your thinking/reading on hold and began arguing with the opponent, and this argument went on until 21:26.
  • You resumed your thinking/reading, at 21:26, and attempted to finish up your thinking/reading, until 29:59, which is when the judge arrived.
  • From 21:26 to 29:59 is normally 8 minutes and 33 seconds, but, when taking the disconnects into account and subtracting your disconnect times from that 8 minutes and 33 seconds, we're left with 7 minutes and 54 seconds.
  • If we take the amount of time you were thinking/reading from 17:11 to 18:27 (which was a minute and 16 seconds), and add that time to the amount of time you were thinking/reading from 21:26 to 29:59 (which was 7 minutes and 54 seconds), we get 9 minutes and 10 seconds.

So my ultimate conclusion, is that the total amount of time you were thinking/reading here didn't equal or exceed 10 minutes like that judge claimed, but rather was 9 minutes and 10 seconds.

However, even that was still far too long, especially when it was only 4 cards in total you were thinking/reading about, so, your freeze was still warranted in this case due to how long the game was being held up by all this thinking and reading of yours. It was wrong for your opponent to continue playing at 17:56 when you didn't yet give them the okay, that I'll admit, and that did slow things down a bit, but you delayed things even longer than your opponent ever did in that game, due to you taking at least 9 minutes in total thinking and reading.

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

Post #599 by Christen57 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:28 am

Genexwrecker wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I can easily quite in a private message what they wrote in their appeal for them if that is what they want. I'm not publicly posting it. they can do that themselves if they so choose.


Well he's asking for you to show him what he wrote in his appeal so if you have to show him privately so he can then share it with us, that'll work.

I re sent the reply with the quote so they have it. While I did handle their report I dont think they understand that reports are reviewed by upper judges before we finalize it.


Genexwrecker, Sound4 shared this link https://forum.duelingbook.com/ucp.php?i=pm&mode=view&f=0&p=9926 which he says is the appeal, but it looks like I'm being prevented from actually viewing at as I just get a message saying it can't be found even though it's there. Can you tell me how I can view it, or copy and paste the contents of it here, or does Sound4 have to share it's contents?

Lil Oldman
User avatar
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:23 pm
Reputation: 178
Location: Toontown
Mood:

Post #600 by Lil Oldman » Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:39 am

Woo! 600 posts
"Complacency? How rude. I live the stifling life of a high school student in our problematic modern society."
Help I cannot remove this music from my head
https://youtu.be/ZuXI7qcNsHQ
Will try reviewing custom cards if they look interesting.


Return to “Spam Paradise”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 294 guests