Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

[Sound4]

You should've asked them to be cooperative, asked them to say the issues on the judge call, and asked them to be more patient. That's what's mostly your fault — failing to be proactive and ask for these things. Multiple judges and myself have already told you this. If you had been proactive and asked for these, and the opponent still refused, you would've been much less at fault while they would've been much more at fault.



His fault for failing to be proactive and ask for those things I mentioned, right?

How is me basically saying there are no judges online and waiting for a judge not being proactive? Plus being proactive is a perspective and a bit one sided. You ignored all the questions I said in the post. Why should I ask the opponent to be cooperative?

Simply saying there are no judges online solves nothing, and being proactive is the opposite of just waiting around for a judge to come and solve your problem for you. Sure there are indeed situations where waiting for a judge is truly the only option, but this wasn't one of those situations. Being proactive includes adapting to other people's mistakes. Your opponent forgot to make it clear why they called a judge, which was a mistake on their part, so you should've adjusted to that mistake by asking them to clarify it to you once more. You didn't. Instead, you responded to that mistake with a mistake of your own (failing to remind them to remind you why they were calling the judge).

Both of you contributed to this problem. The judges decided you contributed more, which is why you got the freeze. Your opponent contributed by continuing to play when you didn't give the okay and by forgetting to make sure it was clear to you why the judge was being called, and you contributed by failing to remind them to tell you why they were calling the judge and by wrongfully agreeing to wait without first making sure it was being made more clear to you so you could try solving the problem on your own before they arrived.

Him not being cooperative was literally one if the main reasons why we had to wait for a judge. All of this could have been avoided.

You didn't yet know at the time that you would have to wait for a judge, so your "we had to wait for a judge" excuse doesn't work. You didn't "have" to wait for anything just yet. You had to make sure you knew what the issue was so only then you'd know if you'd "have to wait for a judge".

You didn't yet know if the judge call was for an issue related to the current gamestate, so you didn't yet know if you "had" to wait for anything. If you knew the call was related to the current gamestate, only then can you say you knew you had to wait for the judge, but you didn't know at the time since you never bothered to ask what the call was for until it was too late. Issues like ruling disputes, glitches, and cheating all relate to the current gamestate, so if the call was for one of those, and you knew this, you would indeed wait for a judge. Issues like AFK and slowplay on the other hand do not relate to the gamestate, so if the call was for one of those, and you knew this, you would know that you can't just agree to wait for a judge.

How is it my fault that my opponent doesn't want to be cooperative? I was literally saying they were no judges online so us waiting for a judge was pointless.

It's not that the opponent didn't want to be cooperative. It's that the opponent was forgetting to do so. Saying they didn't want to be cooperative means they remembered that they should've been cooperative instead of forgetting, but still intentionally refused to be cooperative. They did want to be cooperative. They were just forgetting to do so, so you should've reminded them to be cooperative so they'd remind you again why they were calling the judge.

I don't see how any of this is my fault when I showed no signs of stalling. How is 40 seconds of thinking stalling? I would have understood maybe 2 minutes but 40 seconds is absurd.

It wasn't just 40 seconds. It was at least 7 minutes in total — 40 seconds of thinking, plus an additional 7 minutes of you just waiting around when you shouldn't have been.

How does saying there are no judges online solves nothing? It sends a message to the opponent that us waiting for a judge is pointless and we might as well continue. So he just thinks calling a judge out of nowhere with no explanation is ok? It just shows him being inconsiderate. Like I said I was trying to talk to him teyrying to find out the issue yet was ignoring. I couldn't have continued without the information needed especially since after the judge came in there was more issues he had which he didn't say.

Since he was refusing to say anything on the judge call and his issue then yes we had to wait for a judge as now I can't really do much. You keep forgetting that I didn't know it was for Slowplay nor did I I think that 40 seconds of thinking would result in the opponents mind Slowplay. Especially since this guy was making a bunch of other comments on me as shown already.

I honestly could not take your post seriously anymore after you said this "It's not that the opponent didn't want to be cooperative. It's that the opponent was forgetting to do so." I don't think I need to say anything on this reading already speaks for itself.

[Sound4]

The problem was about 95% sound4’s fault.

How is it my fault that my opponent doesn't want to be cooperative? I was literally saying they were no judges online so us waiting for a judge was pointless.
I don't see how any of this is my fault when I showed no signs of stalling. How is 40 seconds of thinking stalling? I would have understood maybe 2 minutes but 40 seconds is absurd.

You weren't being cooperative. Why didn't you allow your opponent to continue their play? Why did you choose to hold up the game for 0 reason? Why couldn't you ask questions to the opponent to ask what the judge call was for? Why did you just sit there for 10 minutes doing nothing over something that could be solved in under 30 seconds? Why do you think silence is consent when no where it's stated that it is? In fact the rules say the opposite. Why are you still committing to your bullshit?

I was still thinking/reading and I still wanted to ask him the question. I thought at the time the judge call was for AFK which is why I was trying to say things and reason with him but he was ignoring (proof that he was not at all being cooperative). Why do you not think silence is consent? If your opponent isn't saying anything then you can say that is consent. If they have a response why aren't they doing or saying anything?

[Sound4]

Read page one it will help greatly snd provide more context.

Sure.

This is the thread's page 1 TLDR;

1) You made your claim

2) Genexwrecker found the replay you're talking about as people asked for it

3) They say that you Sharked by not letting him respond in 9 seconds.

4) You refute by saying Genexwrecker is nitpicking and providing timestamps of your own, then HIDE behind the fact that Madrest didn't say you were sharking, therefore, you weren't sharking. A logical fallacy, an Appeal to Authority to support your arguments ignoring the fact that said authority can either be ignorant or simply wrong. Even cops make mistakes.

5) Genexwrecker replies saying it is a CASE BY CASE basis, and no two situations are the same.

6) You disregard his reply, repeating yourself and your silence is consent claim (another fallacy, Circular Arguments, restating your assumptions), and proceed to bring up a new situation with someone called N3sh in your reply to Renji (yet another logical fallacy, a Straw Man argument, which is to bring up a different yet similar situation, with DIFFERENT context)

That's just the first page of this thread. A total of THREE logical fallacies. Going further down the thread is just a repeat of its entirety.

There is no merit to your argument because there is none. It's circular, both your argument and this thread. I'll leave it at that.

Madrest is a silver judge. If I was sharking then why I frozen or given the game loss? N3sh was a previous thread you will find it in the "Ask me anything" section it is a lot shorter I think it is around 100 posts or so.

[Sound4]

Inactivity and thinking aren't the same. Plus in master duel you have an 8 minute timer it makes perfect sense why 30 seconds of inactivity would result in a game loss. If you are not reading or thinking then you should not take more than 5 seconds. This thread should have ended once I showed the proof. Read page one it will help greatly snd provide more context.

Inactivity and thinking might as well be the same. You can't tell that your opponent is thinking or simply AFK in Master Duel because of a lack of communication. If you don't talk to your opponent, in other words properly communicate, then your opponent can't tell either. The only way your method of dueling works is on Master Duel, where it's literally BUILT around no verbal communication. Dueling Book has a chat function that should be used regardless of your opinions.

Also, you shot yourself in the foot by saying "If you are not reading or thinking then you should not take more than 5 seconds." How on earth are you able to know if your opponent is thinking or not? Are you psychic? Are you placing your own beliefs on what a person should or should not do? That's arrogant behavior. Not everyone acts like how you would expect, sometimes outside of common sense. That's the real world for you.

And yes, I have read your "arguments" and "proof"

They're useless.

I literally spent the past few days, BEFORE posting in this thread, reading through this garbage of fallacious reasoning. Every single piece of `proof` that I've read you post has been debunked yet you nitpick at their answers and disregard them once they fail to reply. Each time it's brought up again you answer with "What? He didn't answer my question. I've provided proof." It's this blatant, consistent, disregard in effort and acknowledgment that people in this thread have completely solidified their stances.

Interesting take on the matter. I wasn't inactive though I was literally saying things in chat, pointing and clicking in gy from time to time etc.

If they did not say read or think then you can say that they are not reading or thinking. I have said this many times.

Have you read the replies of Renji Asuka? Some of if not the worst takes I have ever seen. He just doesn't read and insults in the process for no reason but that is besides the point. If you are answering the full reply then it makes your reply less valid as now your reply is missing a good chunk of the full reply which ls the persons full point. It is not a disregard of "acknowledgement" or "effort" it is simply a fact.

[Sound4]

(Here before this thread gets locked.)

I can't believe it's been 4 months...

It should have ended once I showed the proof.

[Christen57]

How is me basically saying there are no judges online and waiting for a judge not being proactive? Plus being proactive is a perspective and a bit one sided. You ignored all the questions I said in the post. Why should I ask the opponent to be cooperative?

Simply saying there are no judges online solves nothing, and being proactive is the opposite of just waiting around for a judge to come and solve your problem for you. Sure there are indeed situations where waiting for a judge is truly the only option, but this wasn't one of those situations. Being proactive includes adapting to other people's mistakes. Your opponent forgot to make it clear why they called a judge, which was a mistake on their part, so you should've adjusted to that mistake by asking them to clarify it to you once more. You didn't. Instead, you responded to that mistake with a mistake of your own (failing to remind them to remind you why they were calling the judge).

Both of you contributed to this problem. The judges decided you contributed more, which is why you got the freeze. Your opponent contributed by continuing to play when you didn't give the okay and by forgetting to make sure it was clear to you why the judge was being called, and you contributed by failing to remind them to tell you why they were calling the judge and by wrongfully agreeing to wait without first making sure it was being made more clear to you so you could try solving the problem on your own before they arrived.

Him not being cooperative was literally one if the main reasons why we had to wait for a judge. All of this could have been avoided.

You didn't yet know at the time that you would have to wait for a judge, so your "we had to wait for a judge" excuse doesn't work. You didn't "have" to wait for anything just yet. You had to make sure you knew what the issue was so only then you'd know if you'd "have to wait for a judge".

You didn't yet know if the judge call was for an issue related to the current gamestate, so you didn't yet know if you "had" to wait for anything. If you knew the call was related to the current gamestate, only then can you say you knew you had to wait for the judge, but you didn't know at the time since you never bothered to ask what the call was for until it was too late. Issues like ruling disputes, glitches, and cheating all relate to the current gamestate, so if the call was for one of those, and you knew this, you would indeed wait for a judge. Issues like AFK and slowplay on the other hand do not relate to the gamestate, so if the call was for one of those, and you knew this, you would know that you can't just agree to wait for a judge.

How is it my fault that my opponent doesn't want to be cooperative? I was literally saying they were no judges online so us waiting for a judge was pointless.

It's not that the opponent didn't want to be cooperative. It's that the opponent was forgetting to do so. Saying they didn't want to be cooperative means they remembered that they should've been cooperative instead of forgetting, but still intentionally refused to be cooperative. They did want to be cooperative. They were just forgetting to do so, so you should've reminded them to be cooperative so they'd remind you again why they were calling the judge.

I don't see how any of this is my fault when I showed no signs of stalling. How is 40 seconds of thinking stalling? I would have understood maybe 2 minutes but 40 seconds is absurd.

It wasn't just 40 seconds. It was at least 7 minutes in total — 40 seconds of thinking, plus an additional 7 minutes of you just waiting around when you shouldn't have been.

How does saying there are no judges online solves nothing? It sends a message to the opponent that us waiting for a judge is pointless and we might as well continue. So he just thinks calling a judge out of nowhere with no explanation is ok? It just shows him being inconsiderate. Like I said I was trying to talk to him teyrying to find out the issue yet was ignoring. I couldn't have continued without the information needed especially since after the judge came in there was more issues he had which he didn't say.

All you said was that there were no judges online. You didn't suggest anything about the two of you continuing. You should've done that, actually. You should've said "There are no judges online so you might as well cancel the call and let me finish my thinking/reading so we can continue" instead of just "There are no judges online". The former would be more specific, while the latter wasn't specific enough. Instead of saying "Let's wait" you should've instead said "Let's continue".

Since he was refusing to say anything on the judge call and his issue then yes we had to wait for a judge as now I can't really do much. You keep forgetting that I didn't know it was for Slowplay nor did I I think that 40 seconds of thinking would result in the opponents mind Slowplay. Especially since this guy was making a bunch of other comments on me as shown already.

I didn't forget this. I'm saying you should've spoken up about this. If the opponent was accusing you of slowplaying because of that 40 seconds, you should've immediately disputed that by saying "No, I don't think 40 seconds is too much here. Please be patient and cancel the call." or something like that.

I honestly could not take your post seriously anymore after you said this "It's not that the opponent didn't want to be cooperative. It's that the opponent was forgetting to do so." I don't think I need to say anything on this reading already speaks for itself.

What do mean by "already speaks for itself"? Is it not true that your opponent simply forgot to make it extra clear to you why they were calling the judge? Do you still assume that your opponent was actively and maliciously refusing to tell you? Don't you think they could've just accidentally forgotten to?

I was still thinking/reading and I still wanted to ask him the question.

What question?

I thought at the time the judge call was for AFK which is why I was trying to say things and reason with him but he was ignoring (proof that he was not at all being cooperative).

You should've kept trying to get him to cooperate. You gave up on that too early. Itsmetristan told you this already.

Why do you not think silence is consent? If your opponent isn't saying anything then you can say that is consent.

Not in all cases will silence be consent. Some cases it would be, and some cases it wouldn't. You can't assume, just because silence was ruled to be consent in one case, that it should and will be automatically ruled the same way in another case.

If they have a response why aren't they doing or saying anything?

One possible explanation is that they could be lagging, which could be because their internet is slow or because duelingbook itself is being slow.

Interesting take on the matter. I wasn't inactive though I was literally saying things in chat, pointing and clicking in gy from time to time etc.

That wasn't enough, at least not in this case. You had to actually hurry up, finish your thinking, and let the opponent know about it so they could continue.

[Renji Asuka]

How is it my fault that my opponent doesn't want to be cooperative? I was literally saying they were no judges online so us waiting for a judge was pointless.
I don't see how any of this is my fault when I showed no signs of stalling. How is 40 seconds of thinking stalling? I would have understood maybe 2 minutes but 40 seconds is absurd.

You weren't being cooperative. Why didn't you allow your opponent to continue their play? Why did you choose to hold up the game for 0 reason? Why couldn't you ask questions to the opponent to ask what the judge call was for? Why did you just sit there for 10 minutes doing nothing over something that could be solved in under 30 seconds? Why do you think silence is consent when no where it's stated that it is? In fact the rules say the opposite. Why are you still committing to your bullshit?

I was still thinking/reading and I still wanted to ask him the question. I thought at the time the judge call was for AFK which is why I was trying to say things and reason with him but he was ignoring (proof that he was not at all being cooperative). Why do you not think silence is consent? If your opponent isn't saying anything then you can say that is consent. If they have a response why aren't they doing or saying anything?

You had 0 plays. There was ZERO reason for you to hold up the game. You maliciously stalled your opponent in hopes they'd leave.

[greg503]

(Here before this thread gets locked.)

I can't believe it's been 4 months...

It should have ended once I showed the proof.

So why don't you just let it end?

[Saraak]

Madrest is a silver judge. If I was sharking then why I frozen or given the game loss? N3sh was a previous thread you will find it in the "Ask me anything" section it is a lot shorter I think it is around 100 posts or so.

Once again, appealing to authority and bringing up a separate situation. Unbelievable. Even when spelled out to you, you actively chose to ignore it. Not only that, but you decide to stand your ground and tell me, who has pointed out all your logical fallacies, to go on a wild goose chase in another thread.

Unbelievable. This is the last post I'll make here because you're a lost cause.

[Renji Asuka]

How is it my fault that my opponent doesn't want to be cooperative? I was literally saying they were no judges online so us waiting for a judge was pointless.
I don't see how any of this is my fault when I showed no signs of stalling. How is 40 seconds of thinking stalling? I would have understood maybe 2 minutes but 40 seconds is absurd.

You weren't being cooperative. Why didn't you allow your opponent to continue their play? Why did you choose to hold up the game for 0 reason? Why couldn't you ask questions to the opponent to ask what the judge call was for? Why did you just sit there for 10 minutes doing nothing over something that could be solved in under 30 seconds? Why do you think silence is consent when no where it's stated that it is? In fact the rules say the opposite. Why are you still committing to your bullshit?

I was still thinking/reading and I still wanted to ask him the question. I thought at the time the judge call was for AFK which is why I was trying to say things and reason with him but he was ignoring (proof that he was not at all being cooperative). Why do you not think silence is consent? If your opponent isn't saying anything then you can say that is consent. If they have a response why aren't they doing or saying anything?

Again, you had 0 REASON to hold up the game as you had 0 PLAYS. There was 0 reason to make your opponent even wait. You had no response.

[Debt]

what's the quick run down on this shitshow?

[Christen57]

what's the quick run down on this shitshow?

Saraak gave a pretty good rundown here: https://forum.duelingbook.com/viewtopic.php?p=77801#p77801

[Sound4]

You weren't being cooperative. Why didn't you allow your opponent to continue their play? Why did you choose to hold up the game for 0 reason? Why couldn't you ask questions to the opponent to ask what the judge call was for? Why did you just sit there for 10 minutes doing nothing over something that could be solved in under 30 seconds? Why do you think silence is consent when no where it's stated that it is? In fact the rules say the opposite. Why are you still committing to your bullshit?

I was still thinking/reading and I still wanted to ask him the question. I thought at the time the judge call was for AFK which is why I was trying to say things and reason with him but he was ignoring (proof that he was not at all being cooperative). Why do you not think silence is consent? If your opponent isn't saying anything then you can say that is consent. If they have a response why aren't they doing or saying anything?

Again, you had 0 REASON to hold up the game as you had 0 PLAYS. There was 0 reason to make your opponent even wait. You had no response.

I wanted ask him a question about a ruling on a card. I told you this arounfd 7 or 8 times. I don't know why you are writing in caps it doesn't make your point more valid.

[Sound4]

Madrest is a silver judge. If I was sharking then why I frozen or given the game loss? N3sh was a previous thread you will find it in the "Ask me anything" section it is a lot shorter I think it is around 100 posts or so.

Once again, appealing to authority and bringing up a separate situation. Unbelievable. Even when spelled out to you, you actively chose to ignore it. Not only that, but you decide to stand your ground and tell me, who has pointed out all your logical fallacies, to go on a wild goose chase in another thread.

Unbelievable. This is the last post I'll make here because you're a lost cause.

What did I ignore? I answered everything you said.

[Sound4]

Simply saying there are no judges online solves nothing, and being proactive is the opposite of just waiting around for a judge to come and solve your problem for you. Sure there are indeed situations where waiting for a judge is truly the only option, but this wasn't one of those situations. Being proactive includes adapting to other people's mistakes. Your opponent forgot to make it clear why they called a judge, which was a mistake on their part, so you should've adjusted to that mistake by asking them to clarify it to you once more. You didn't. Instead, you responded to that mistake with a mistake of your own (failing to remind them to remind you why they were calling the judge).

Both of you contributed to this problem. The judges decided you contributed more, which is why you got the freeze. Your opponent contributed by continuing to play when you didn't give the okay and by forgetting to make sure it was clear to you why the judge was being called, and you contributed by failing to remind them to tell you why they were calling the judge and by wrongfully agreeing to wait without first making sure it was being made more clear to you so you could try solving the problem on your own before they arrived.



You didn't yet know at the time that you would have to wait for a judge, so your "we had to wait for a judge" excuse doesn't work. You didn't "have" to wait for anything just yet. You had to make sure you knew what the issue was so only then you'd know if you'd "have to wait for a judge".

You didn't yet know if the judge call was for an issue related to the current gamestate, so you didn't yet know if you "had" to wait for anything. If you knew the call was related to the current gamestate, only then can you say you knew you had to wait for the judge, but you didn't know at the time since you never bothered to ask what the call was for until it was too late. Issues like ruling disputes, glitches, and cheating all relate to the current gamestate, so if the call was for one of those, and you knew this, you would indeed wait for a judge. Issues like AFK and slowplay on the other hand do not relate to the gamestate, so if the call was for one of those, and you knew this, you would know that you can't just agree to wait for a judge.



It's not that the opponent didn't want to be cooperative. It's that the opponent was forgetting to do so. Saying they didn't want to be cooperative means they remembered that they should've been cooperative instead of forgetting, but still intentionally refused to be cooperative. They did want to be cooperative. They were just forgetting to do so, so you should've reminded them to be cooperative so they'd remind you again why they were calling the judge.



It wasn't just 40 seconds. It was at least 7 minutes in total — 40 seconds of thinking, plus an additional 7 minutes of you just waiting around when you shouldn't have been.

How does saying there are no judges online solves nothing? It sends a message to the opponent that us waiting for a judge is pointless and we might as well continue. So he just thinks calling a judge out of nowhere with no explanation is ok? It just shows him being inconsiderate. Like I said I was trying to talk to him teyrying to find out the issue yet was ignoring. I couldn't have continued without the information needed especially since after the judge came in there was more issues he had which he didn't say.

All you said was that there were no judges online. You didn't suggest anything about the two of you continuing. You should've done that, actually. You should've said "There are no judges online so you might as well cancel the call and let me finish my thinking/reading so we can continue" instead of just "There are no judges online". The former would be more specific, while the latter wasn't specific enough. Instead of saying "Let's wait" you should've instead said "Let's continue".

Since he was refusing to say anything on the judge call and his issue then yes we had to wait for a judge as now I can't really do much. You keep forgetting that I didn't know it was for Slowplay nor did I I think that 40 seconds of thinking would result in the opponents mind Slowplay. Especially since this guy was making a bunch of other comments on me as shown already.

I didn't forget this. I'm saying you should've spoken up about this. If the opponent was accusing you of slowplaying because of that 40 seconds, you should've immediately disputed that by saying "No, I don't think 40 seconds is too much here. Please be patient and cancel the call." or something like that.

I honestly could not take your post seriously anymore after you said this "It's not that the opponent didn't want to be cooperative. It's that the opponent was forgetting to do so." I don't think I need to say anything on this reading already speaks for itself.

What do mean by "already speaks for itself"? Is it not true that your opponent simply forgot to make it extra clear to you why they were calling the judge? Do you still assume that your opponent was actively and maliciously refusing to tell you? Don't you think they could've just accidentally forgotten to?

I was still thinking/reading and I still wanted to ask him the question.

What question?

I thought at the time the judge call was for AFK which is why I was trying to say things and reason with him but he was ignoring (proof that he was not at all being cooperative).

You should've kept trying to get him to cooperate. You gave up on that too early. Itsmetristan told you this already.

Why do you not think silence is consent? If your opponent isn't saying anything then you can say that is consent.

Not in all cases will silence be consent. Some cases it would be, and some cases it wouldn't. You can't assume, just because silence was ruled to be consent in one case, that it should and will be automatically ruled the same way in another case.

If they have a response why aren't they doing or saying anything?

One possible explanation is that they could be lagging, which could be because their internet is slow or because duelingbook itself is being slow.

Interesting take on the matter. I wasn't inactive though I was literally saying things in chat, pointing and clicking in gy from time to time etc.

That wasn't enough, at least not in this case. You had to actually hurry up, finish your thinking, and let the opponent know about it so they could continue.

I thought it was obvious that we should continue but he did not answer what I was saying and still so set on getting a judge. I don't see what you expect me to do here saying "you need o be more specific" does not really say anything unless the comment was vague. Plus I added a few things like "When Maniez goes offline no other judges come on".

I can't force the opponent to say something you saw the logs he was intentionally refusing which caused issues. I was literally trying to reason with him and say stuff in chat so e can can cancel the call. I was communicating everytime he said something in chat I answered. I was communicating as shown.
Plus this confirms you do not read any if my posts at all at least not properly. I have saifld the question at least twice by now I am not reapeating it. Look back through the thread it should be between page 15-20. I can't believe you are still asking "what question?".

I am saying that rereading what you said you will realise what you said foes make any sense so I didn't think I needed to say anything. No I don't think he forgot to he literally said along the lines of "until another judges comes in until then get ignored" literally refusing to talk. This isn't debatable.

I can't force a person to be cooperative it is whether you are or you are not snd what I have shown he didn't "forget" to he refused to (intentionally).

You can always say lag in the chat and I was hurrying up I usually prefer to play at a fast speed so the duel doesn't take long.

[Sound4]

I can't believe it's been 4 months...

It should have ended once I showed the proof.

So why don't you just let it end?

I have said this many times. I see flaws in what you and other people are saying which I am questioning.

[Christen57]

How does saying there are no judges online solves nothing? It sends a message to the opponent that us waiting for a judge is pointless and we might as well continue. So he just thinks calling a judge out of nowhere with no explanation is ok? It just shows him being inconsiderate. Like I said I was trying to talk to him teyrying to find out the issue yet was ignoring. I couldn't have continued without the information needed especially since after the judge came in there was more issues he had which he didn't say.

All you said was that there were no judges online. You didn't suggest anything about the two of you continuing. You should've done that, actually. You should've said "There are no judges online so you might as well cancel the call and let me finish my thinking/reading so we can continue" instead of just "There are no judges online". The former would be more specific, while the latter wasn't specific enough. Instead of saying "Let's wait" you should've instead said "Let's continue".

Since he was refusing to say anything on the judge call and his issue then yes we had to wait for a judge as now I can't really do much. You keep forgetting that I didn't know it was for Slowplay nor did I I think that 40 seconds of thinking would result in the opponents mind Slowplay. Especially since this guy was making a bunch of other comments on me as shown already.

I didn't forget this. I'm saying you should've spoken up about this. If the opponent was accusing you of slowplaying because of that 40 seconds, you should've immediately disputed that by saying "No, I don't think 40 seconds is too much here. Please be patient and cancel the call." or something like that.

I honestly could not take your post seriously anymore after you said this "It's not that the opponent didn't want to be cooperative. It's that the opponent was forgetting to do so." I don't think I need to say anything on this reading already speaks for itself.

What do mean by "already speaks for itself"? Is it not true that your opponent simply forgot to make it extra clear to you why they were calling the judge? Do you still assume that your opponent was actively and maliciously refusing to tell you? Don't you think they could've just accidentally forgotten to?

I was still thinking/reading and I still wanted to ask him the question.

What question?

I thought at the time the judge call was for AFK which is why I was trying to say things and reason with him but he was ignoring (proof that he was not at all being cooperative).

You should've kept trying to get him to cooperate. You gave up on that too early. Itsmetristan told you this already.

Why do you not think silence is consent? If your opponent isn't saying anything then you can say that is consent.

Not in all cases will silence be consent. Some cases it would be, and some cases it wouldn't. You can't assume, just because silence was ruled to be consent in one case, that it should and will be automatically ruled the same way in another case.

If they have a response why aren't they doing or saying anything?

One possible explanation is that they could be lagging, which could be because their internet is slow or because duelingbook itself is being slow.

Interesting take on the matter. I wasn't inactive though I was literally saying things in chat, pointing and clicking in gy from time to time etc.

That wasn't enough, at least not in this case. You had to actually hurry up, finish your thinking, and let the opponent know about it so they could continue.

I thought it was obvious that we should continue but he did not answer what I was saying and still so set on getting a judge. I don't see what you expect me to do here saying "you need o be more specific" does not really say anything unless the comment was vague. Plus I added a few things like "When Maniez goes offline no other judges come on".

I can't force the opponent to say something you saw the logs he was intentionally refusing which caused issues. I was literally trying to reason with him and say stuff in chat so e can can cancel the call. I was communicating everytime he said something in chat I answered. I was communicating as shown.
Plus this confirms you do not read any if my posts at all at least not properly. I have saifld the question at least twice by now I am not reapeating it. Look back through the thread it should be between page 15-20. I can't believe you are still asking "what question?".

I found the question in question. https://forum.duelingbook.com/viewtopic.php?p=74513#p74513
You wanted to ask how Frightfur Cruel Whale was destroying your card, though I'm still not sure why this required any "question" to begin with or why you couldn't ask it during the 40 seconds of thinking or 7+ minutes of waiting. Weren't you reading that card during that 40 seconds and 7+ minutes anyways? You should've known by then it has just 1 simple destruction effect.

I am saying that rereading what you said you will realise what you said foes make any sense so I didn't think I needed to say anything. No I don't think he forgot to he literally said along the lines of "until another judges comes in until then get ignored" literally refusing to talk. This isn't debatable.

I can't force a person to be cooperative it is whether you are or you are not snd what I have shown he didn't "forget" to he refused to (intentionally).

He said:

[20:10] "now,just get ignored"

[20:14] "until another judge come in the room"

[20:20] "to do something about your slowplaying"

He told you what the call was for. He didn't just say "get ignored". He said "get ignored until another judge comes in the room to do something about your slowplaying". He let you know exactly what his reason was for calling the judge — to do something about your slowplaying. If you missed this crucial detail continuing to claim that you couldn't fathom what he could've been calling the judge for, after you were provided with this crucial piece of information, that's your fault. You should've paid more attention to what was going on and to what was being said in that chat and put two and two together. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

The opponent was being clear enough (at least in my opinion) as to why they were calling the judge, as Genexwrecker pointed out. Your excuse, that he wasn't telling you anything about what the judge was being called for, isn't going to work anymore.

You can always say lag in the chat and I was hurrying up I usually prefer to play at a fast speed so the duel doesn't take long.

You were hurrying up... for at least 7 minutes. That was too long for you to be "hurrying up".

[greg503]

It should have ended once I showed the proof.

So why don't you just let it end?

I have said this many times. I see flaws in what you and other people are saying which I am questioning.

And yet you don't see your own flaws in this argument, which is why we will never let you have the last word

[Renji Asuka]

I was still thinking/reading and I still wanted to ask him the question. I thought at the time the judge call was for AFK which is why I was trying to say things and reason with him but he was ignoring (proof that he was not at all being cooperative). Why do you not think silence is consent? If your opponent isn't saying anything then you can say that is consent. If they have a response why aren't they doing or saying anything?

Again, you had 0 REASON to hold up the game as you had 0 PLAYS. There was 0 reason to make your opponent even wait. You had no response.

I wanted ask him a question about a ruling on a card. I told you this arounfd 7 or 8 times. I don't know why you are writing in caps it doesn't make your point more valid.

If that was the case, why didn't you just ask? Oh wait, you didn't. You held up the game while you had 0 FUCKING PLAYS.

[Sound4]

Again, you had 0 REASON to hold up the game as you had 0 PLAYS. There was 0 reason to make your opponent even wait. You had no response.

I wanted ask him a question about a ruling on a card. I told you this arounfd 7 or 8 times. I don't know why you are writing in caps it doesn't make your point more valid.

If that was the case, why didn't you just ask? Oh wait, you didn't. You held up the game while you had 0 FUCKING PLAYS.

Finding what his issue was top priority first I mentioned this before.