Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

Here you can discuss just about whatever you want
Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Re: Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

Post #321 by Renji Asuka » Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:20 pm

#Exposed
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

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

Post #322 by Christen57 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:19 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:I literally said check the "what does this mean" thread as it was not long ago it was created so I twas a "scavenger hunt" I said exactly where to find it. I still have to find the 2 replays involving sahqovum. I can't show my PM I am pretty sure a judge can do it.Also in the N3sh thread I provided the link and quote. Pretty everyone knows it is from the official website so there is no point in providing the link.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Duelingbook doesn't try to copy real life as much as possible. Duelingbook tries to copy only what's necessary. Not everything in real life is necessary for duelingbook to copy. If duelingbook has it's own rules regarding slow play and stalling then we go by those, not what real life says. You main claim was that "silence is consent," but neither that real life tournament webpage nor duelingbook's rules say or support that.

None of your links support your "silence is consent" narrative like you claim. Just because a webpage, or duelingbook's rules, says you shouldn't slow play or take more than X minutes each turn does not mean it's saying that 10 seconds of silence is automatically consent.

I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect.


And you were incorrect to assume "that he already knew the Nachster 2nd effect," but even if he did know, he still indicated he wanted to respond and you should have let him, not kept on playing and going in your xyz monster.

Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.


Maybe it would be a lot of time if it was "just to respond" but, again, it wasn't "just to respond". It was to read what you chatted then respond, not to mention that your opponent simply could have been a slow typer and thus would take a few extra seconds to chat than most of us.

Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu

Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.


What did he get frozen for now?

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

Post #323 by Sound4 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:53 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu

Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.

What are you suggesting? You do know that you were the one who replied immediately a day after my appeals which I asked for a full explanation nd you refused to even explain especially that Maniez duel.

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

Post #324 by Sound4 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:54 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:That is it exactly. Anyways GenexWrecker covered it.

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

I've already told you why. You choose not to accept any argument as you believe you are correct, when you are in fact wrong. End of story.

You have not explained anything. I have replied to your posts and provided links to support my claims.

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

Post #325 by Sound4 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:04 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
I think I found it. https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/rules_guides/

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Duelingbook doesn't try to copy real life as much as possible. Duelingbook tries to copy only what's necessary. Not everything in real life is necessary for duelingbook to copy. If duelingbook has it's own rules regarding slow play and stalling then we go by those, not what real life says. You main claim was that "silence is consent," but neither that real life tournament webpage nor duelingbook's rules say or support that.

None of your links support your "silence is consent" narrative like you claim. Just because a webpage, or duelingbook's rules, says you shouldn't slow play or take more than X minutes each turn does not mean it's saying that 10 seconds of silence is automatically consent.

I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect.


And you were incorrect to assume "that he already knew the Nachster 2nd effect," but even if he did know, he still indicated he wanted to respond and you should have let him, not kept on playing and going in your xyz monster.

Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.


Maybe it would be a lot of time if it was "just to respond" but, again, it wasn't "just to respond". It was to read what you chatted then respond, not to mention that your opponent simply could have been a slow typer and thus would take a few extra seconds to chat than most of us.

Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu

Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.


What did he get frozen for now?

The purpose of DB is to try to simulate real life as much as possible. That is why there are no automated simulators. Simple as that. That is why I have used some tournament rules as DB most likely penalise the exact same way.

You have yet to explain you reasoning on how my opponent never claimed that he was reading or thinking so it is more likely he already knew the effect.

Also I will provide context on some of the dms Genexwrecker has been replying a day later and there apparently a thousands of appeals.

Apparently for these.
https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-33324410
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=842197-32647397
Which I obviously appealed and Genexwrecker replied a day later.

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

Post #326 by Christen57 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:19 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:Yes that is the tournament link I was talking about. DB tries to copy irl as much as possible so it is appropriate to use that link as a source to support my claims.

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

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


Duelingbook doesn't try to copy real life as much as possible. Duelingbook tries to copy only what's necessary. Not everything in real life is necessary for duelingbook to copy. If duelingbook has it's own rules regarding slow play and stalling then we go by those, not what real life says. You main claim was that "silence is consent," but neither that real life tournament webpage nor duelingbook's rules say or support that.

None of your links support your "silence is consent" narrative like you claim. Just because a webpage, or duelingbook's rules, says you shouldn't slow play or take more than X minutes each turn does not mean it's saying that 10 seconds of silence is automatically consent.

I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect.


And you were incorrect to assume "that he already knew the Nachster 2nd effect," but even if he did know, he still indicated he wanted to respond and you should have let him, not kept on playing and going in your xyz monster.

Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.


Maybe it would be a lot of time if it was "just to respond" but, again, it wasn't "just to respond". It was to read what you chatted then respond, not to mention that your opponent simply could have been a slow typer and thus would take a few extra seconds to chat than most of us.

Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu

Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.


What did he get frozen for now?

The purpose of DB is to try to simulate real life as much as possible. That is why there are no automated simulators. Simple as that. That is why I have used some tournament rules as DB most likely penalise the exact same way.

You have yet to explain you reasoning on how my opponent never claimed that he was reading or thinking so it is more likely he already knew the effect.


The opponent wanted to respond to Nachster's effect, regardless.

Also, Edopro is an automated simulator.

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

Post #327 by greg503 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:30 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:Yes that is the tournament link I was talking about. DB tries to copy irl as much as possible so it is appropriate to use that link as a source to support my claims.

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

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


Duelingbook doesn't try to copy real life as much as possible. Duelingbook tries to copy only what's necessary. Not everything in real life is necessary for duelingbook to copy. If duelingbook has it's own rules regarding slow play and stalling then we go by those, not what real life says. You main claim was that "silence is consent," but neither that real life tournament webpage nor duelingbook's rules say or support that.

None of your links support your "silence is consent" narrative like you claim. Just because a webpage, or duelingbook's rules, says you shouldn't slow play or take more than X minutes each turn does not mean it's saying that 10 seconds of silence is automatically consent.

I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect.


And you were incorrect to assume "that he already knew the Nachster 2nd effect," but even if he did know, he still indicated he wanted to respond and you should have let him, not kept on playing and going in your xyz monster.

Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.


Maybe it would be a lot of time if it was "just to respond" but, again, it wasn't "just to respond". It was to read what you chatted then respond, not to mention that your opponent simply could have been a slow typer and thus would take a few extra seconds to chat than most of us.

Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu

Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.


What did he get frozen for now?

The purpose of DB is to try to simulate real life as much as possible. That is why there are no automated simulators. Simple as that. That is why I have used some tournament rules as DB most likely penalise the exact same way.

You have yet to explain you reasoning on how my opponent never claimed that he was reading or thinking so it is more likely he already knew the effect.

Also I will provide context on some of the dms Genexwrecker has been replying a day later and there apparently a thousands of appeals.

Apparently for these.
https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-33324410
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=842197-32647397
Which I obviously appealed and Genexwrecker replied a day later.

Yep, that's definitely how you act on the forums, also your "quote" isn't a RULE but a SUGGESTION. Imagine going to a YCS with Endymion/Mythical Beasts and playing against someone who's never heard of them. Are you going to call a judge for slow play because your opponent has to read every lengthy card?
Buy Floowandereeze

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

Post #328 by Genexwrecker » Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:45 pm

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 #329 by Christen57 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:57 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=842197-32647397


And Sound4 is saying you replied to his appeal regarding this? What did you tell him?

troglyte
User avatar
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:23 pm
Reputation: 93
Mood:

Post #330 by troglyte » Sun Nov 28, 2021 4:31 pm

Sound4, you deserved to get frozen. All replays you have shared or talked about have further cemented this narrative. You're being intentionally antagonistic in duels, you have shown a blatant lack of understanding of basic mechanics, AND you have shown a clear reluctance in communicating with your opponent (both during your AND your opponent's turn). Not that any of this surprises me, as it's already been established that you have no real moral compass on any of these issues. You're just a liar, hypocrite, and troll, and I hope you stay frozen for a long time.
Crab Turtle respects your pronouns.
he/him
Sign the Crab Turtle petition here! http://chng.it/J4rvHFFfZG

Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Post #331 by Renji Asuka » Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:04 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:If it is "exactly" then explain your point on why.

I've already told you why. You choose not to accept any argument as you believe you are correct, when you are in fact wrong. End of story.

You have not explained anything. I have replied to your posts and provided links to support my claims.

You were already told why. Again, you refuse to accept anything that is being told to you.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

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

Post #332 by Genexwrecker » Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:28 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=842197-32647397


And Sound4 is saying you replied to his appeal regarding this? What did you tell him?

I will post a screenshot if the message if sound4 agrees
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 #333 by Christen57 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:34 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=842197-32647397


And Sound4 is saying you replied to his appeal regarding this? What did you tell him?

I will post a screenshot if the message if sound4 agrees


He does. He himself said in this thread: "I will provide context on some of the dms Genexwrecker has been replying a day later and there apparently a thousands of appeals."

He wouldn't say that if he wasn't okay with those screenshots being shared.

Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Post #334 by Renji Asuka » Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:51 pm

Regarding https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-33324410

Sound4 activated Solemn Strike when the opponent was given the Okay for Polymerization wanting to use Solemn Strike on Whale.

Yeah...you couldn't do that as the Opponent hasn't declared their chains. The activation timing was wrong. Especially considering if I saw my opponent activate Solemn Strike I can make Solemn Strike hit a different card than my Whale when setting up the chains. Doing Whale CL1, Penguin CL 2, Chain CL3.

Next at 6:30 Sound4 SHOWS they don't know how continuous spells work. As they claimed Toy Vendor was set, implying it can't be activated. Then makes the opponent wait about 2 minutes before allowing it as they had to look to see if it was legal. This is showing me that Sound4 deserved beginner status (implying this is ranked).

At 8:57 Sound4 plays Live Twin Lil-La then tries to get its effect off. The opponent tells him to read his card 4 seconds later as it cannot be activated. Either Sound4 is trying to cheat here, or really doesn't belong in ranked.

Sound4 at 9:32 says "Be quiet, you're annoying me." But...why would you say that when your opponent needs to communicate? What you're doing here is trying to shutdown that line of communication. My guess is "Silence is consent", so you want to deny your opponent to respond.

At 9:44 the opponent calls a judge and we see Maniez pop in asking for the issue. At 9:59 Sound4 says "hi, while the opponent at 10:01 goes to say "My opponent is being disrespectful after trying to make an irregular play". While Sound4 says "Judge can you verify to see if the plays were legal? And to check logs" This is telling me again Sound4 doesn't know how yugioh works and needs permabeginner or is wanting to cheat because he was in a losing position. Also saying "And to check logs" would only HURT whatever claim Sound4 would make.

Unfortunately, I get why Maniez gave Redoer a warning, but to not issue a warning to Sound4 regarding rudeness despite him initiating it first feels like a slap to the face. I would had gave them both warnings, but that's just me.

At 15:32 Sound4 thinks that the Fusion Summon of the 3rd Whale was illegal, meanwhile Sound4 is showing he didn't read Scythe.

At 17:11 Sound4, despite having no legal play tells the opponent he is thinking in response to Chain's response effect. While at almost a minute later the opponent goes ahead and resolves. And we typically see this behavior because of a past replay of Ingeneiro of stalling because he was in a losing position.

At 18:27 Sound4 said You actually don't continue when I say think" and 10 seconds later "Keep that in mind". So which is it sound4? You agree the opponent has a right to respond? Or is silent consent? But while what he says is technically correct. Sound4 is maliciously stalling as he has 0 legal plays. He should had said "yeah good to go" instead of waiting about 2 minutes or however long this malicious stall will be.

At 20:48 Sound4 says "I'm not allowed to think?" You had 0 plays bro, ABSOLUTELY 0. There was no "think" in that situation. Don't get me wrong, saying "thinking' even if you had 0 plays is useful to make the opponent think you have a hand trap, but making them wait this long is a bit ridiculous. So I know you weren't trying to bluff the opponent.

The judge comes in at 30:04 almost 10 minutes later since the call. Maniez I personally don't think he realized what kind of player Sound4 was since he has a history of this. While he is correct telling the opponent they had the right to respond, the opponent brings up a good point. IF Sound4 just gave the go ahead instead of wasting nearly 12 minutes the duel could had been over by now.

The opponent is really fed up with the situation, and he should really just let the judge do his job instead of making it harder on the judge. This goes for about 6 minutes.

At 36:45 the judge flat out asks Sound4 if he has a response, while Sound4 was avoiding the question. For almost a minute. If I was a judge and saw anyone do that, they'd be given a match loss at the very least.

Sound4 was asked a minute later responding with "Nice copy and paste I never wanted to respond" this alone shows malicious stalling and I would had froze them on the spot.

Sound4 tries to appeal but can't appeal a senior judge. Maniez was done dealing with Sound4's crap so he was frozen.

As for the opponent wanting to report the judge over what happened despite ruling in his favor in the end, is a little petty, but I get why.

Again Sound4, there was 0 reason for you to hold up the match for 10 minutes. When all you had to do was let your opponent play. You didn't because you were salty that you were losing against Fluffals.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

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

Post #335 by greg503 » Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:52 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
And Sound4 is saying you replied to his appeal regarding this? What did you tell him?

I will post a screenshot if the message if sound4 agrees


He does. He himself said in this thread: "I will provide context on some of the dms Genexwrecker has been replying a day later and there apparently a thousands of appeals."

He wouldn't say that if he wasn't okay with those screenshots being shared.

Well, people can change their minds. Not that we can't already guess what it looks like.
Buy Floowandereeze

Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Post #336 by Renji Asuka » Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:14 pm

As for https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=842197-32647397

For the first 10 minutes of the replay, the majority of the time Sound4 is rushing his opponent.

When it finally gets to the 2nd turn at 10:33 Sound4 activates Infinite Impermanence. Targeting Appollousa. His opponent responds with Orcust Crescendo. Sound4 thinks when the target is declared the opponent can't respond. This 100% shows that Sound4 is either cheating OR doesn't belong in ranked. His opponent calls a judge and pauses the duel.

10:27 Sound4 says "Silence is consent in yugioh". Mind you there was a 7 second time difference regarding Imperm's activation and Crescendo's activation.

The 2 start arguing where Sound4 says "You have no proof" in regards to his opponent saying "I was not silent". Meanwhile Sound4 will probably tell the judge "Look at logs!" again.

No judge came around and needless to say the 2 were just arguing and Sound4 was in the wrong the entire time.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

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

Post #337 by Genexwrecker » Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:02 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
And Sound4 is saying you replied to his appeal regarding this? What did you tell him?

I will post a screenshot if the message if sound4 agrees


He does. He himself said in this thread: "I will provide context on some of the dms Genexwrecker has been replying a day later and there apparently a thousands of appeals."

He wouldn't say that if he wasn't okay with those screenshots being shared.

I need a direct statement saying i can share the dm.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

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

Post #338 by itsmetristan » Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:35 pm

greg503 wrote:Can't wait for this to be a 2 part objection.lol scene

Looking forward to it.
Image

RC-2
PC-1

Senior Admin

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

Post #339 by Lil Oldman » Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:53 am

Honestly, a good way to deal with the drama.
"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.

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

Post #340 by Sound4 » Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:28 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:I've already told you why. You choose not to accept any argument as you believe you are correct, when you are in fact wrong. End of story.

You have not explained anything. I have replied to your posts and provided links to support my claims.

You were already told why. Again, you refuse to accept anything that is being told to you.

Which I replied to and provided links to support my claims.


Return to “Spam Paradise”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 228 guests