Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

Here you can discuss just about whatever you want
Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2665
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Re: Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

Post #601 by Genexwrecker » Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:59 am

Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
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?
you do not have authorization to view others dms.
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 #602 by greg503 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:57 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote: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?
you do not have authorization to view others dms.

Of course
Buy Floowandereeze

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

Post #603 by Sound4 » Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:52 pm

Christen57 wrote:
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:
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.



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 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.



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.



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?



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.

How is me not not saying "I am done thinking" lead to the conclusion I am thinking for ten minutes? You are still missing that I didn't get where Maniez was getting this thinking for ten minutes from. So I could not answer anything else you are saying (even though maniez did not ask them himself.

I am saying that us waiting for a judge was pointless. Us waiting for a judge was entirely his fault him not being clear from the start us what lead to us waiting for ten minutes.

I have done pointing in many other duels and judges never had a problem with it so I don't see how it should here after all all it was obvious I was reading that card. I was still confused what the judge call was made for making an assumption without much proof. I still needed some kind of confirmation and the guy was refusing. How was I refusing to play yet this guy was refusing to say anything?

Plus I was reading other cards in GY as shown in the logs me viewing the GY. The disconnecting just proves further that Ino longer thinking.

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

Post #604 by Christen57 » Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:50 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
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: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.

How is me not not saying "I am done thinking" lead to the conclusion I am thinking for ten minutes? You are still missing that I didn't get where Maniez was getting this thinking for ten minutes from. So I could not answer anything else you are saying (even though maniez did not ask them himself.


Because once you say you're thinking, judges will continue to assume you're thinking until you communicate otherwise, so, in this case, the judge thought you were still thinking/reading after that 10 minutes because you didn't yet communicate that you were done.

I am saying that us waiting for a judge was pointless.


Then you shouldn't have agreed to wait.

Us waiting for a judge was entirely his fault him not being clear from the start us what lead to us waiting for ten minutes.


Is that's what you believed, you should've told the judge that when they were questioning you. Then they probably would've investigated further to see if your opponent really was the one at fault instead of you before deciding to freeze you.

I have done pointing in many other duels and judges never had a problem with it so I don't see how it should here after all all it was obvious I was reading that card.


The issue wasn't simply that you were reading/pointing. The issue is that you spent a total of at least 9 minutes just thinking about, reading, and pointing at the same few cards. That's too long to be reading and thinking about just 4 cards. First, at 17:11, you spent a minute and 16 seconds "thinking" about 4 cards, then, a little later on, after you said "let's wait for 40 minutes," you attempted to finish your thinking/reading that you started earlier at 17:11, as the logs show you pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale (at 24:04 and 28:53) to signal that you were still trying to finish reading that card that time. You first spent a minute and 16 seconds thinking, stopped thinking to argue with the opponent for a bit, then resumed your thinking/reading and continued thinking/reading for an additional 7 minutes and 54 seconds before the judge arrived, and those times add up to 9 minutes and 10 seconds.

I was still confused what the judge call was made for making an assumption without much proof. I still needed some kind of confirmation and the guy was refusing. How was I refusing to play yet this guy was refusing to say anything?


You just said that you already figured out that the call must've been for AFK since that's the option the opponent went with and I told you that that was enough "confirmation". Besides, when an AFK call specifically is made, the caller doesn't need to say anything until either the judge arrived or until the other player returns and agrees to continue, because, well, they're AFK. Anything the caller tries to chat would likely not be read by the "AFK" player in question as they're not near the computer to read anything chatted to begin with. That's what being AFK means — that you're Away From your Keyboard and thus won't be able to read anything the opponent chats, so he must've figured there was no need for him to say anything else at the moment if he truly believed you were AFK. What was needed was for you to try finishing up your thinking so they could cancel the call and continue, which you ultimately did try to do, but still took too long — 9 minutes and 10 seconds in total — as I've explained earlier.

Plus I was reading other cards in GY as shown in the logs me viewing the GY. The disconnecting just proves further that Ino longer thinking.


Again, even when we take those disconnects into account and subtract those disconnect times from the original 8 minutes and 33 seconds I mentioned earlier, and even if you were no longer thinking after returning from those disconnects, you were still taking far too long to finish reading the other cards in the graveyard(s). You delayed the game for at least 9 minutes in total to read the 14 cards that were in the opponent's graveyard, as well as the 4 cards that were in your graveyard, at the time. That was still, and is still, considered stalling. You probably should've read those cards as they were going into the graveyard(s) one by one, not wait for all 18 of them to end up in the graveyards then finally start reading them all at once. That just tells me that you've barely been paying any attention to your opponent's plays throughout the duel, and if that was the case, you still deserved that freeze in my opinion.

Remember this comment that you made earlier? https://forum.duelingbook.com/viewtopic.php?p=73535#p73535

Remember that comment, about how, excessive time, like no more than 3 minutes, shouldn't be spent doing something? Well, you spent at least 9 minutes in total thinking about and reading cards, so you took excessive time thinking and reading in total and got frozen for it.

Lastly, since Genexwrecker says I don't have authorization to view your appeal, you'll have to copy and paste, or screenshot and share, what's in the appeal itself to share it with me.
Last edited by Christen57 on Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post #605 by greg503 » Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:51 pm

Sound4 wrote:How is me not not saying "I am done thinking" lead to the conclusion I am thinking for ten minutes? You are still missing that I didn't get where Maniez was getting this thinking for ten minutes from.

I am saying that us waiting for a judge was pointless. Us waiting for a judge was entirely his fault him not being clear from the start us what lead to us waiting for ten minutes.

I have done pointing in many other duels and judges never had a problem with it so I don't see how it should here after all all it was obvious I was reading that card. I was still confused what the judge call was made for making an assumption without much proof. I still needed some kind of confirmation and the guy was refusing. How was I refusing to play yet this guy was refusing to say anything?

Plus I was reading other cards in GY as shown in the logs me viewing the GY. The disconnecting just proves further that Ino longer thinking.

1. How do you think rollback netcode works? It assumes you're doing the same thing as last frame unless disputed by the next input. But that doesn't matter, what does matter is that you did not properly communicate.
2. Waiting for the judge has a point, it got your stalling ass rightfully frozen.
3. You did not properly communicate. If he was the one not properly communicating more in a losing situation, then the judge would have sided with you.
4. Disconnecting doesn't mean anything.
Buy Floowandereeze

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

Post #606 by Sound4 » Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:58 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

How is me not not saying "I am done thinking" lead to the conclusion I am thinking for ten minutes? You are still missing that I didn't get where Maniez was getting this thinking for ten minutes from. So I could not answer anything else you are saying (even though maniez did not ask them himself.


Because once you say you're thinking, judges will continue to assume you're thinking until you communicate otherwise, so, in this case, the judge thought you were still thinking/reading after that 10 minutes because you didn't yet communicate that you were done.

I am saying that us waiting for a judge was pointless.


Then you shouldn't have agreed to wait.

Us waiting for a judge was entirely his fault him not being clear from the start us what lead to us waiting for ten minutes.


Is that's what you believed, you should've told the judge that when they were questioning you. Then they probably would've investigated further to see if your opponent really was the one at fault instead of you before deciding to freeze you.

I have done pointing in many other duels and judges never had a problem with it so I don't see how it should here after all all it was obvious I was reading that card.


The issue wasn't simply that you were reading/pointing. The issue is that you spent a total of at least 9 minutes just thinking about, reading, and pointing at the same few cards. That's too long to be reading and thinking about just 4 cards. First, at 17:11, you spent a minute and 16 seconds "thinking" about 4 cards, then, a little later on, after you said "let's wait for 40 minutes," you attempted to finish your thinking/reading that you started earlier at 17:11, as the logs show you pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale (at 24:04 and 28:53) to signal that you were still trying to finish reading that card that time. You first spent a minute and 16 seconds thinking, stopped thinking to argue with the opponent for a bit, then resumed your thinking/reading and continued thinking/reading for an additional 7 minutes and 54 seconds before the judge arrived, and those times add up to 9 minutes and 10 seconds.

I was still confused what the judge call was made for making an assumption without much proof. I still needed some kind of confirmation and the guy was refusing. How was I refusing to play yet this guy was refusing to say anything?


You just said that you already figured out that the call must've been for AFK since that's the option the opponent went with and I told you that that was enough "confirmation". Besides, when an AFK call specifically is made, the caller doesn't need to say anything until either the judge arrived or until the other player returns and agrees to continue, because, well, they're AFK. Anything the caller tries to chat would likely not be read by the "AFK" player in question as they're not near the computer to read anything chatted to begin with. That's what being AFK means — that you're Away From your Keyboard and thus won't be able to read anything the opponent chats, so he must've figured there was no need for him to say anything else at the moment if he truly believed you were AFK. What was needed was for you to try finishing up your thinking so they could cancel the call and continue, which you ultimately did try to do, but still took too long — 9 minutes and 10 seconds in total — as I've explained earlier.

Plus I was reading other cards in GY as shown in the logs me viewing the GY. The disconnecting just proves further that Ino longer thinking.


Again, even when we take those disconnects into account and subtract those disconnect times from the original 8 minutes and 33 seconds I mentioned earlier, and even if you were no longer thinking after returning from those disconnects, you were still taking far too long to finish reading the other cards in the graveyard(s). You delayed the game for at least 9 minutes in total to read the 14 cards that were in the opponent's graveyard, as well as the 4 cards that were in your graveyard, at the time. That was still, and is still, considered stalling. You probably should've read those cards as they were going into the graveyard(s) one by one, not wait for all 18 of them to end up in the graveyards then finally start reading them all at once. That just tells me that you've barely been paying any attention to your opponent's plays throughout the duel, and if that was the case, you still deserved that freeze in my opinion.

Remember this comment that you made earlier? https://forum.duelingbook.com/viewtopic.php?p=73535#p73535

Remember that comment, about how, excessive time, like no more than 3 minutes, shouldn't be spent doing something? Well, you spent at least 9 minutes in total thinking about and reading cards, so you took excessive time thinking and reading in total and got frozen for it.

Lastly, since Genexwrecker says I don't have authorization to view your appeal, you'll have to copy and paste, or screenshot and share, what's in the appeal itself to share it with me.

If you apply to other situations then you will see it is a very flawed assumption. For example, I have ten minutes to knock it doesn't mean I am actually knocking for ten minutes.

It doesn't seem like you are reading my points or just missing important details. I didn't fully know what my opponent called the judge for. I needed more information whether to continue or wait for a judge. I was trying to reason to him but he was just ignoring.

You are not reading a thing I am saying. I said "Well he was consistently bothering me so I had to respond". I said "well" I wasn't even really sure what he meant by me thinking for ten minutes in the first place without knowing that there us no way I could have said anything else on him ignoring and other things.

There is still 0 proof that I was thinking that long once you apply to other situations you will see it is a very flawed assumption. Once the call was made I no longer was thinking just waiting for a judge. Saying me having ten minutes to think means I was thinking for ten minutes is simply a person lacking context there are several factors leading to us waiting for that long. You are not making any points and lying multiple times for no reason.

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

Post #607 by Sound4 » Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:02 pm

greg503 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:How is me not not saying "I am done thinking" lead to the conclusion I am thinking for ten minutes? You are still missing that I didn't get where Maniez was getting this thinking for ten minutes from.

I am saying that us waiting for a judge was pointless. Us waiting for a judge was entirely his fault him not being clear from the start us what lead to us waiting for ten minutes.

I have done pointing in many other duels and judges never had a problem with it so I don't see how it should here after all all it was obvious I was reading that card. I was still confused what the judge call was made for making an assumption without much proof. I still needed some kind of confirmation and the guy was refusing. How was I refusing to play yet this guy was refusing to say anything?

Plus I was reading other cards in GY as shown in the logs me viewing the GY. The disconnecting just proves further that Ino longer thinking.

1. How do you think rollback netcode works? It assumes you're doing the same thing as last frame unless disputed by the next input. But that doesn't matter, what does matter is that you did not properly communicate.
2. Waiting for the judge has a point, it got your stalling ass rightfully frozen.
3. You did not properly communicate. If he was the one not properly communicating more in a losing situation, then the judge would have sided with you.
4. Disconnecting doesn't mean anything.

I was communicating saying that there were no judges online. I have done pouting many times judges never had a problem with it. I mean like he wasn't saying anything on the judge call so yes he was refusing to say nothing. Since that was the case us waiting for ten minutes was entirely his fault as he was never clear from the start.

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

Post #608 by greg503 » Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:32 pm

Sound4 wrote:
greg503 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:How is me not not saying "I am done thinking" lead to the conclusion I am thinking for ten minutes? You are still missing that I didn't get where Maniez was getting this thinking for ten minutes from.

I am saying that us waiting for a judge was pointless. Us waiting for a judge was entirely his fault him not being clear from the start us what lead to us waiting for ten minutes.

I have done pointing in many other duels and judges never had a problem with it so I don't see how it should here after all all it was obvious I was reading that card. I was still confused what the judge call was made for making an assumption without much proof. I still needed some kind of confirmation and the guy was refusing. How was I refusing to play yet this guy was refusing to say anything?

Plus I was reading other cards in GY as shown in the logs me viewing the GY. The disconnecting just proves further that Ino longer thinking.

1. How do you think rollback netcode works? It assumes you're doing the same thing as last frame unless disputed by the next input. But that doesn't matter, what does matter is that you did not properly communicate.
2. Waiting for the judge has a point, it got your stalling ass rightfully frozen.
3. You did not properly communicate. If he was the one not properly communicating more in a losing situation, then the judge would have sided with you.
4. Disconnecting doesn't mean anything.

I was communicating saying that there were no judges online. I have done pouting many times judges never had a problem with it. I mean like he wasn't saying anything on the judge call so yes he was refusing to say nothing. Since that was the case us waiting for ten minutes was entirely his fault as he was never clear from the start.

It doesn't matter that you communicate, it matters that you properly communicate. Just like simply replying doesn't give you an advantage in this argument. I don't know what you mean by "pouting," but if that replay shows that this type of sharking is habitual for you, then you REALLY needed the freeze to tell you that that is not acceptable behavior.
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 #609 by Christen57 » Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:26 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:How is me not not saying "I am done thinking" lead to the conclusion I am thinking for ten minutes? You are still missing that I didn't get where Maniez was getting this thinking for ten minutes from. So I could not answer anything else you are saying (even though maniez did not ask them himself.


Because once you say you're thinking, judges will continue to assume you're thinking until you communicate otherwise, so, in this case, the judge thought you were still thinking/reading after that 10 minutes because you didn't yet communicate that you were done.

I am saying that us waiting for a judge was pointless.


Then you shouldn't have agreed to wait.

Us waiting for a judge was entirely his fault him not being clear from the start us what lead to us waiting for ten minutes.


Is that's what you believed, you should've told the judge that when they were questioning you. Then they probably would've investigated further to see if your opponent really was the one at fault instead of you before deciding to freeze you.

I have done pointing in many other duels and judges never had a problem with it so I don't see how it should here after all all it was obvious I was reading that card.


The issue wasn't simply that you were reading/pointing. The issue is that you spent a total of at least 9 minutes just thinking about, reading, and pointing at the same few cards. That's too long to be reading and thinking about just 4 cards. First, at 17:11, you spent a minute and 16 seconds "thinking" about 4 cards, then, a little later on, after you said "let's wait for 40 minutes," you attempted to finish your thinking/reading that you started earlier at 17:11, as the logs show you pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale (at 24:04 and 28:53) to signal that you were still trying to finish reading that card that time. You first spent a minute and 16 seconds thinking, stopped thinking to argue with the opponent for a bit, then resumed your thinking/reading and continued thinking/reading for an additional 7 minutes and 54 seconds before the judge arrived, and those times add up to 9 minutes and 10 seconds.

I was still confused what the judge call was made for making an assumption without much proof. I still needed some kind of confirmation and the guy was refusing. How was I refusing to play yet this guy was refusing to say anything?


You just said that you already figured out that the call must've been for AFK since that's the option the opponent went with and I told you that that was enough "confirmation". Besides, when an AFK call specifically is made, the caller doesn't need to say anything until either the judge arrived or until the other player returns and agrees to continue, because, well, they're AFK. Anything the caller tries to chat would likely not be read by the "AFK" player in question as they're not near the computer to read anything chatted to begin with. That's what being AFK means — that you're Away From your Keyboard and thus won't be able to read anything the opponent chats, so he must've figured there was no need for him to say anything else at the moment if he truly believed you were AFK. What was needed was for you to try finishing up your thinking so they could cancel the call and continue, which you ultimately did try to do, but still took too long — 9 minutes and 10 seconds in total — as I've explained earlier.

Plus I was reading other cards in GY as shown in the logs me viewing the GY. The disconnecting just proves further that Ino longer thinking.


Again, even when we take those disconnects into account and subtract those disconnect times from the original 8 minutes and 33 seconds I mentioned earlier, and even if you were no longer thinking after returning from those disconnects, you were still taking far too long to finish reading the other cards in the graveyard(s). You delayed the game for at least 9 minutes in total to read the 14 cards that were in the opponent's graveyard, as well as the 4 cards that were in your graveyard, at the time. That was still, and is still, considered stalling. You probably should've read those cards as they were going into the graveyard(s) one by one, not wait for all 18 of them to end up in the graveyards then finally start reading them all at once. That just tells me that you've barely been paying any attention to your opponent's plays throughout the duel, and if that was the case, you still deserved that freeze in my opinion.

Remember this comment that you made earlier? https://forum.duelingbook.com/viewtopic.php?p=73535#p73535

Remember that comment, about how, excessive time, like no more than 3 minutes, shouldn't be spent doing something? Well, you spent at least 9 minutes in total thinking about and reading cards, so you took excessive time thinking and reading in total and got frozen for it.

Lastly, since Genexwrecker says I don't have authorization to view your appeal, you'll have to copy and paste, or screenshot and share, what's in the appeal itself to share it with me.

If you apply to other situations then you will see it is a very flawed assumption. For example, I have ten minutes to knock it doesn't mean I am actually knocking for ten minutes.

It doesn't seem like you are reading my points or just missing important details. I didn't fully know what my opponent called the judge for. I needed more information whether to continue or wait for a judge. I was trying to reason to him but he was just ignoring.


Knocking is different because you can actually hear/witness someone knocking for 10 minutes if they do knock for that long, without them having to tell you afterwards that they finished knocking. When it comes to thinking on the other hand, nobody can tell when you start and stop thinking, other than based on what the logs show you saying and doing. When you say you start thinking at 17:11, nobody can tell when you truly stop thinking until you communicate that you're done, so since 10 minutes passed afterwards and you haven't yet communicated that you were done thinking, the judge thought you were still thinking for that long. When you're knocking on the other hand, nobody needs to wait for you to say when you're done knocking as they can just look to see when your hands are no longer physically banging on the door, or listen to see when they no longer hear any more knocking sounds, to figure out that you've finished knocking.

You are not reading a thing I am saying. I said "Well he was consistently bothering me so I had to respond". I said "well" I wasn't even really sure what he meant by me thinking for ten minutes in the first place without knowing that there us no way I could have said anything else on him ignoring and other things.

There is still 0 proof that I was thinking that long once you apply to other situations you will see it is a very flawed assumption. Once the call was made I no longer was thinking just waiting for a judge. Saying me having ten minutes to think means I was thinking for ten minutes is simply a person lacking context there are several factors leading to us waiting for that long. You are not making any points and lying multiple times for no reason.


Again, you should not have agreed to wait if you didn't yet know what the call was for. You should've asked. You do not agree to wait for judges when you don't yet know what the call is for, and if all you were doing once the call was made was simply "waiting" then you should've told the judge that when they asked you why you were holding up the game with no judge online. You should've said "I wasn't holding up the game I was waiting for the judge" or something specific. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

I also don't know why you haven't yet showed the appeal Genexwrecker sent you.

In fact, speaking of Genexwrecker...

Genexwrecker wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote: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?
you do not have authorization to view others dms.


Genexwrecker, maybe you can clear this up once and for all since itsmetristan isn't: 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 that opponent to tell you why they called the judge, or should you be proactive and ask them why without waiting to be told why, and also maybe ask for the call to be cancelled before the judge arrives, if you see that the opponent's forgetting to tell you why they called the judge?

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

Post #610 by Genexwrecker » Sat Jan 29, 2022 9:51 pm

You are expected to discuss issues with the opp and try to problem solve yourselves. Just hitting call judge and saying nothing is fairly malicious so is not asking what the problem is. Sound could have easily deduced that the call was for them not doing anything.
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 #611 by Sound4 » Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:14 pm

Sound4 wrote:
greg503 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:How is me not not saying "I am done thinking" lead to the conclusion I am thinking for ten minutes? You are still missing that I didn't get where Maniez was getting this thinking for ten minutes from.

I am saying that us waiting for a judge was pointless. Us waiting for a judge was entirely his fault him not being clear from the start us what lead to us waiting for ten minutes.

I have done pointing in many other duels and judges never had a problem with it so I don't see how it should here after all all it was obvious I was reading that card. I was still confused what the judge call was made for making an assumption without much proof. I still needed some kind of confirmation and the guy was refusing. How was I refusing to play yet this guy was refusing to say anything?

Plus I was reading other cards in GY as shown in the logs me viewing the GY. The disconnecting just proves further that Ino longer thinking.

1. How do you think rollback netcode works? It assumes you're doing the same thing as last frame unless disputed by the next input. But that doesn't matter, what does matter is that you did not properly communicate.
2. Waiting for the judge has a point, it got your stalling ass rightfully frozen.
3. You did not properly communicate. If he was the one not properly communicating more in a losing situation, then the judge would have sided with you.
4. Disconnecting doesn't mean anything.

I was communicating saying that there were no judges online. I have done pointing many times judges never had a problem with it. I mean like he wasn't saying anything on the judge call so yes he was refusing to say nothing. Since that was the case us waiting for ten minutes was entirely his fault as he was never clear from the start.

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

Post #612 by Sound4 » Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:17 pm

greg503 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
greg503 wrote:1. How do you think rollback netcode works? It assumes you're doing the same thing as last frame unless disputed by the next input. But that doesn't matter, what does matter is that you did not properly communicate.
2. Waiting for the judge has a point, it got your stalling ass rightfully frozen.
3. You did not properly communicate. If he was the one not properly communicating more in a losing situation, then the judge would have sided with you.
4. Disconnecting doesn't mean anything.

I was communicating saying that there were no judges online. I have done pouting many times judges never had a problem with it. I mean like he wasn't saying anything on the judge call so yes he was refusing to say nothing. Since that was the case us waiting for ten minutes was entirely his fault as he was never clear from the start.

It doesn't matter that you communicate, it matters that you properly communicate. Just like simply replying doesn't give you an advantage in this argument. I don't know what you mean by "pouting," but if that replay shows that this type of sharking is habitual for you, then you REALLY needed the freeze to tell you that that is not acceptable behavior.

I meant pointing. What sharking have I done? Not one judge has accused me of sharking. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.

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

Post #613 by Sound4 » Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:39 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Because once you say you're thinking, judges will continue to assume you're thinking until you communicate otherwise, so, in this case, the judge thought you were still thinking/reading after that 10 minutes because you didn't yet communicate that you were done.



Then you shouldn't have agreed to wait.



Is that's what you believed, you should've told the judge that when they were questioning you. Then they probably would've investigated further to see if your opponent really was the one at fault instead of you before deciding to freeze you.



The issue wasn't simply that you were reading/pointing. The issue is that you spent a total of at least 9 minutes just thinking about, reading, and pointing at the same few cards. That's too long to be reading and thinking about just 4 cards. First, at 17:11, you spent a minute and 16 seconds "thinking" about 4 cards, then, a little later on, after you said "let's wait for 40 minutes," you attempted to finish your thinking/reading that you started earlier at 17:11, as the logs show you pointing at Frightfur Cruel Whale (at 24:04 and 28:53) to signal that you were still trying to finish reading that card that time. You first spent a minute and 16 seconds thinking, stopped thinking to argue with the opponent for a bit, then resumed your thinking/reading and continued thinking/reading for an additional 7 minutes and 54 seconds before the judge arrived, and those times add up to 9 minutes and 10 seconds.



You just said that you already figured out that the call must've been for AFK since that's the option the opponent went with and I told you that that was enough "confirmation". Besides, when an AFK call specifically is made, the caller doesn't need to say anything until either the judge arrived or until the other player returns and agrees to continue, because, well, they're AFK. Anything the caller tries to chat would likely not be read by the "AFK" player in question as they're not near the computer to read anything chatted to begin with. That's what being AFK means — that you're Away From your Keyboard and thus won't be able to read anything the opponent chats, so he must've figured there was no need for him to say anything else at the moment if he truly believed you were AFK. What was needed was for you to try finishing up your thinking so they could cancel the call and continue, which you ultimately did try to do, but still took too long — 9 minutes and 10 seconds in total — as I've explained earlier.



Again, even when we take those disconnects into account and subtract those disconnect times from the original 8 minutes and 33 seconds I mentioned earlier, and even if you were no longer thinking after returning from those disconnects, you were still taking far too long to finish reading the other cards in the graveyard(s). You delayed the game for at least 9 minutes in total to read the 14 cards that were in the opponent's graveyard, as well as the 4 cards that were in your graveyard, at the time. That was still, and is still, considered stalling. You probably should've read those cards as they were going into the graveyard(s) one by one, not wait for all 18 of them to end up in the graveyards then finally start reading them all at once. That just tells me that you've barely been paying any attention to your opponent's plays throughout the duel, and if that was the case, you still deserved that freeze in my opinion.

Remember this comment that you made earlier? https://forum.duelingbook.com/viewtopic.php?p=73535#p73535

Remember that comment, about how, excessive time, like no more than 3 minutes, shouldn't be spent doing something? Well, you spent at least 9 minutes in total thinking about and reading cards, so you took excessive time thinking and reading in total and got frozen for it.

Lastly, since Genexwrecker says I don't have authorization to view your appeal, you'll have to copy and paste, or screenshot and share, what's in the appeal itself to share it with me.

If you apply to other situations then you will see it is a very flawed assumption. For example, I have ten minutes to knock it doesn't mean I am actually knocking for ten minutes.

It doesn't seem like you are reading my points or just missing important details. I didn't fully know what my opponent called the judge for. I needed more information whether to continue or wait for a judge. I was trying to reason to him but he was just ignoring.


Knocking is different because you can actually hear/witness someone knocking for 10 minutes if they do knock for that long, without them having to tell you afterwards that they finished knocking. When it comes to thinking on the other hand, nobody can tell when you start and stop thinking, other than based on what the logs show you saying and doing. When you say you start thinking at 17:11, nobody can tell when you truly stop thinking until you communicate that you're done, so since 10 minutes passed afterwards and you haven't yet communicated that you were done thinking, the judge thought you were still thinking for that long. When you're knocking on the other hand, nobody needs to wait for you to say when you're done knocking as they can just look to see when your hands are no longer physically banging on the door, or listen to see when they no longer hear any more knocking sounds, to figure out that you've finished knocking.

You are not reading a thing I am saying. I said "Well he was consistently bothering me so I had to respond". I said "well" I wasn't even really sure what he meant by me thinking for ten minutes in the first place without knowing that there us no way I could have said anything else on him ignoring and other things.

There is still 0 proof that I was thinking that long once you apply to other situations you will see it is a very flawed assumption. Once the call was made I no longer was thinking just waiting for a judge. Saying me having ten minutes to think means I was thinking for ten minutes is simply a person lacking context there are several factors leading to us waiting for that long. You are not making any points and lying multiple times for no reason.


Again, you should not have agreed to wait if you didn't yet know what the call was for. You should've asked. You do not agree to wait for judges when you don't yet know what the call is for, and if all you were doing once the call was made was simply "waiting" then you should've told the judge that when they asked you why you were holding up the game with no judge online. You should've said "I wasn't holding up the game I was waiting for the judge" or something specific. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

I also don't know why you haven't yet showed the appeal Genexwrecker sent you.

In fact, speaking of Genexwrecker...

Genexwrecker wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
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?
you do not have authorization to view others dms.


Genexwrecker, maybe you can clear this up once and for all since itsmetristan isn't: 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 that opponent to tell you why they called the judge, or should you be proactive and ask them why without waiting to be told why, and also maybe ask for the call to be cancelled before the judge arrives, if you see that the opponent's forgetting to tell you why they called the judge?

Interesting take on the matter however you are still missing important details or outright ignoring thinking that will help your point.

That is actually false even though you can witness/hear someone knocking if someone says "knocking" then proceeds to not say that they stopped you can't just say he was knocking for ten minutes as you have 0 proof of that. It does not make any sense why Maniez should have came to a conclusion like that.

I was saying they were no judges online so him calling a judge was pointless he wasn't saying anything on my comment just ignoring. I didn't have the information I needed to continue. This is what you are not getting.

I literally said 33:59] "Well you have to consider that he consistently bothering me so I had to repond"

Plus thus isn't the first time that he calls a judge for the wrong thing.
9:44] Called a judge for Cheating
If you want to call a judge for being "Disrespectful" then you don't call a judge for cheating goid thing Maniez came 6 seconds later as we would have waited ten minutes plus just to wait for an issue which was resolved.

Don't worry I will show the appeal

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

Post #614 by Sound4 » Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:42 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:You are expected to discuss issues with the opp and try to problem solve yourselves. Just hitting call judge and saying nothing is fairly malicious so is not asking what the problem is. Sound could have easily deduced that the call was for them not doing anything.

That doesn't make any sense though it is not like I was thinking for like 5 minutes. He called a judge after 40 seconds of thinking with zero explanation.

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

Post #615 by Renji Asuka » Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:50 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:You are expected to discuss issues with the opp and try to problem solve yourselves. Just hitting call judge and saying nothing is fairly malicious so is not asking what the problem is. Sound could have easily deduced that the call was for them not doing anything.

That doesn't make any sense though it is not like I was thinking for like 5 minutes. He called a judge after 40 seconds of thinking with zero explanation.

Doesn't matter what he did. It's what YOU did.

You shouldn't had held up the game AT ALL. But you did because you were in a losing position and hoped your opponent would just quit. Just like what got you into trouble on Ingeneiro.
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 #616 by Christen57 » Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:14 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:If you apply to other situations then you will see it is a very flawed assumption. For example, I have ten minutes to knock it doesn't mean I am actually knocking for ten minutes.

It doesn't seem like you are reading my points or just missing important details. I didn't fully know what my opponent called the judge for. I needed more information whether to continue or wait for a judge. I was trying to reason to him but he was just ignoring.


Knocking is different because you can actually hear/witness someone knocking for 10 minutes if they do knock for that long, without them having to tell you afterwards that they finished knocking. When it comes to thinking on the other hand, nobody can tell when you start and stop thinking, other than based on what the logs show you saying and doing. When you say you start thinking at 17:11, nobody can tell when you truly stop thinking until you communicate that you're done, so since 10 minutes passed afterwards and you haven't yet communicated that you were done thinking, the judge thought you were still thinking for that long. When you're knocking on the other hand, nobody needs to wait for you to say when you're done knocking as they can just look to see when your hands are no longer physically banging on the door, or listen to see when they no longer hear any more knocking sounds, to figure out that you've finished knocking.

You are not reading a thing I am saying. I said "Well he was consistently bothering me so I had to respond". I said "well" I wasn't even really sure what he meant by me thinking for ten minutes in the first place without knowing that there us no way I could have said anything else on him ignoring and other things.

There is still 0 proof that I was thinking that long once you apply to other situations you will see it is a very flawed assumption. Once the call was made I no longer was thinking just waiting for a judge. Saying me having ten minutes to think means I was thinking for ten minutes is simply a person lacking context there are several factors leading to us waiting for that long. You are not making any points and lying multiple times for no reason.


Again, you should not have agreed to wait if you didn't yet know what the call was for. You should've asked. You do not agree to wait for judges when you don't yet know what the call is for, and if all you were doing once the call was made was simply "waiting" then you should've told the judge that when they asked you why you were holding up the game with no judge online. You should've said "I wasn't holding up the game I was waiting for the judge" or something specific. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

I also don't know why you haven't yet showed the appeal Genexwrecker sent you.

In fact, speaking of Genexwrecker...

Genexwrecker wrote:you do not have authorization to view others dms.


Genexwrecker, maybe you can clear this up once and for all since itsmetristan isn't: 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 that opponent to tell you why they called the judge, or should you be proactive and ask them why without waiting to be told why, and also maybe ask for the call to be cancelled before the judge arrives, if you see that the opponent's forgetting to tell you why they called the judge?

Interesting take on the matter however you are still missing important details or outright ignoring thinking that will help your point.

That is actually false even though you can witness/hear someone knocking if someone says "knocking" then proceeds to not say that they stopped you can't just say he was knocking for ten minutes as you have 0 proof of that. It does not make any sense why Maniez should have came to a conclusion like that.


Why would anyone say they're knocking to begin with? Who even does that? If you want to knock on a door, you just knock. You don't declare the knock. What you do declare, are things such as thinking, reading, giving the okay, and so on.

I was saying they were no judges online so him calling a judge was pointless he wasn't saying anything on my comment just ignoring. I didn't have the information I needed to continue. This is what you are not getting.


What I'm not getting is why you keep trying to put all the blame on the opponent for not immediately telling you what the call was for when not only should you have asked but also Genexwrecker confirmed that you should've asked. Both you and the opponent were at fault. The opponent was at fault for not initially telling you why they called the judge, but you are also at fault for not asking and instead letting them get away with not telling you anything by not asking yourself.

I literally said 33:59] "Well you have to consider that he consistently bothering me so I had to repond"


What did he say that "bothered" you? https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

Plus thus isn't the first time that he calls a judge for the wrong thing.
9:44] Called a judge for Cheating
If you want to call a judge for being "Disrespectful" then you don't call a judge for cheating goid thing Maniez came 6 seconds later as we would have waited ten minutes plus just to wait for an issue which was resolved.


Again, duelingbook has no option to select Disrespect as a reason for a judge call, so in that case, the opponent had to pick something else and just clarify to you that they were calling specifically because of this "disrespect".

That doesn't make any sense though it is not like I was thinking for like 5 minutes. He called a judge after 40 seconds of thinking with zero explanation.


He called a judge because of you thinking for 40 seconds, not him thinking for 40 seconds. Also, the logs show that you did try to finish your thinking/reading after he called the judge. During the time you were waiting for the judge, you were continuing to point at Frightfur Cruel Whale and check graveyards to finish reading cards:

[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

So if you weren't resuming your thinking/reading for over 5 more minutes, why did you continue with all this pointing and graveyard-checking?

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

Post #617 by Sound4 » Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:24 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Knocking is different because you can actually hear/witness someone knocking for 10 minutes if they do knock for that long, without them having to tell you afterwards that they finished knocking. When it comes to thinking on the other hand, nobody can tell when you start and stop thinking, other than based on what the logs show you saying and doing. When you say you start thinking at 17:11, nobody can tell when you truly stop thinking until you communicate that you're done, so since 10 minutes passed afterwards and you haven't yet communicated that you were done thinking, the judge thought you were still thinking for that long. When you're knocking on the other hand, nobody needs to wait for you to say when you're done knocking as they can just look to see when your hands are no longer physically banging on the door, or listen to see when they no longer hear any more knocking sounds, to figure out that you've finished knocking.



Again, you should not have agreed to wait if you didn't yet know what the call was for. You should've asked. You do not agree to wait for judges when you don't yet know what the call is for, and if all you were doing once the call was made was simply "waiting" then you should've told the judge that when they asked you why you were holding up the game with no judge online. You should've said "I wasn't holding up the game I was waiting for the judge" or something specific. https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

I also don't know why you haven't yet showed the appeal Genexwrecker sent you.

In fact, speaking of Genexwrecker...



Genexwrecker, maybe you can clear this up once and for all since itsmetristan isn't: 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 that opponent to tell you why they called the judge, or should you be proactive and ask them why without waiting to be told why, and also maybe ask for the call to be cancelled before the judge arrives, if you see that the opponent's forgetting to tell you why they called the judge?

Interesting take on the matter however you are still missing important details or outright ignoring thinking that will help your point.

That is actually false even though you can witness/hear someone knocking if someone says "knocking" then proceeds to not say that they stopped you can't just say he was knocking for ten minutes as you have 0 proof of that. It does not make any sense why Maniez should have came to a conclusion like that.


Why would anyone say they're knocking to begin with? Who even does that? If you want to knock on a door, you just knock. You don't declare the knock. What you do declare, are things such as thinking, reading, giving the okay, and so on.

I was saying they were no judges online so him calling a judge was pointless he wasn't saying anything on my comment just ignoring. I didn't have the information I needed to continue. This is what you are not getting.


What I'm not getting is why you keep trying to put all the blame on the opponent for not immediately telling you what the call was for when not only should you have asked but also Genexwrecker confirmed that you should've asked. Both you and the opponent were at fault. The opponent was at fault for not initially telling you why they called the judge, but you are also at fault for not asking and instead letting them get away with not telling you anything by not asking yourself.

I literally said 33:59] "Well you have to consider that he consistently bothering me so I had to repond"


What did he say that "bothered" you? https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

Plus thus isn't the first time that he calls a judge for the wrong thing.
9:44] Called a judge for Cheating
If you want to call a judge for being "Disrespectful" then you don't call a judge for cheating goid thing Maniez came 6 seconds later as we would have waited ten minutes plus just to wait for an issue which was resolved.


Again, duelingbook has no option to select Disrespect as a reason for a judge call, so in that case, the opponent had to pick something else and just clarify to you that they were calling specifically because of this "disrespect".

That doesn't make any sense though it is not like I was thinking for like 5 minutes. He called a judge after 40 seconds of thinking with zero explanation.


He called a judge because of you thinking for 40 seconds, not him thinking for 40 seconds. Also, the logs show that you did try to finish your thinking/reading after he called the judge. During the time you were waiting for the judge, you were continuing to point at Frightfur Cruel Whale and check graveyards to finish reading cards:

[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

So if you weren't resuming your thinking/reading for over 5 more minutes, why did you continue with all this pointing and graveyard-checking?

It is an example that you can not apply the same "logic" to nany other situations plus there are many other examples.

I was literally saying before that I thought it was for AFK (since he wasn't saying anything on why he called the judge) I could not have just continued without some information as one if I didn't know the issue exactly we could not have resolved it ourselves and two I could not have continued either. Us waiting for ten minutes is his fault however it was Maniez fault after he came in for not explaining.

You don't just call for cheating if you are calling for being "disrespectful" it just makes things more confusing as I thought at first he was calling a judge for me activating an illegal effect but that was already resolved.

I was pointing at whale to signal I am not AFK plus I still wanted to ask him the question but resolving the issue was top priority first especially at that time they were no judge online. When did ever say he was thinking? It does not seem like you read my replies properly.

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

Post #618 by Sound4 » Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:26 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:You are expected to discuss issues with the opp and try to problem solve yourselves. Just hitting call judge and saying nothing is fairly malicious so is not asking what the problem is. Sound could have easily deduced that the call was for them not doing anything.

That doesn't make any sense though it is not like I was thinking for like 5 minutes. He called a judge after 40 seconds of thinking with zero explanation.

Doesn't matter what he did. It's what YOU did.

You shouldn't had held up the game AT ALL. But you did because you were in a losing position and hoped your opponent would just quit. Just like what got you into trouble on Ingeneiro.

I still wanted some information which helps massively in a duel. The duel wasn't over yet so why would I stall?

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

Post #619 by Christen57 » Wed Feb 02, 2022 5:23 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Sound4 wrote:Interesting take on the matter however you are still missing important details or outright ignoring thinking that will help your point.

That is actually false even though you can witness/hear someone knocking if someone says "knocking" then proceeds to not say that they stopped you can't just say he was knocking for ten minutes as you have 0 proof of that. It does not make any sense why Maniez should have came to a conclusion like that.


Why would anyone say they're knocking to begin with? Who even does that? If you want to knock on a door, you just knock. You don't declare the knock. What you do declare, are things such as thinking, reading, giving the okay, and so on.

I was saying they were no judges online so him calling a judge was pointless he wasn't saying anything on my comment just ignoring. I didn't have the information I needed to continue. This is what you are not getting.


What I'm not getting is why you keep trying to put all the blame on the opponent for not immediately telling you what the call was for when not only should you have asked but also Genexwrecker confirmed that you should've asked. Both you and the opponent were at fault. The opponent was at fault for not initially telling you why they called the judge, but you are also at fault for not asking and instead letting them get away with not telling you anything by not asking yourself.

I literally said 33:59] "Well you have to consider that he consistently bothering me so I had to repond"


What did he say that "bothered" you? https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=815175-33324410

Plus thus isn't the first time that he calls a judge for the wrong thing.
9:44] Called a judge for Cheating
If you want to call a judge for being "Disrespectful" then you don't call a judge for cheating goid thing Maniez came 6 seconds later as we would have waited ten minutes plus just to wait for an issue which was resolved.


Again, duelingbook has no option to select Disrespect as a reason for a judge call, so in that case, the opponent had to pick something else and just clarify to you that they were calling specifically because of this "disrespect".

That doesn't make any sense though it is not like I was thinking for like 5 minutes. He called a judge after 40 seconds of thinking with zero explanation.


He called a judge because of you thinking for 40 seconds, not him thinking for 40 seconds. Also, the logs show that you did try to finish your thinking/reading after he called the judge. During the time you were waiting for the judge, you were continuing to point at Frightfur Cruel Whale and check graveyards to finish reading cards:

[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

So if you weren't resuming your thinking/reading for over 5 more minutes, why did you continue with all this pointing and graveyard-checking?

It is an example that you can not apply the same "logic" to nany other situations plus there are many other examples.


Then forget about this whole "knocking" analogy and stop trying to bring that up. We're not talking about that. We're not talking about "nany other situations". We're talking about this situation in your duel with this specific player. I'm not interested in comparing thinking to knocking anymore as that is off topic.

I was literally saying before that I thought it was for AFK (since he wasn't saying anything on why he called the judge) I could not have just continued without some information as one if I didn't know the issue exactly we could not have resolved it ourselves and two I could not have continued either. Us waiting for ten minutes is his fault however it was Maniez fault after he came in for not explaining.


Multiple judges have determined now that you were mostly at fault for the two of you waiting for ten minutes because you didn't ask why the opponent called the judge when you should've. I won't continue arguing with you about this. If you want to keep thinking it's always the opponents at fault for not telling you these important things when you refuse to even ask, keep thinking that. You'll just keep receiving more freezes until the admins decide they've had enough and finally remove you from rated outright.

I was pointing at whale to signal I am not AFK plus I still wanted to ask him the question but resolving the issue was top priority first especially at that time they were no judge online.


Again, this makes no sense. First you say you didn't know the call was for AFK to begin with, which means you had no reason to continue pointing at the Frightfur Cruel Whale, and now you say you were pointing at that card specifically so you could signal that you weren't AFK, which means you did assume that the call was for AFK. Why would you need to signal that you weren't AFK if you had no idea at the time, as well as no reason to believe, that the call was even for AFK to begin with? What if the call was actually for something else unrelated to AFK? You wouldn't still be trying to "signal that you weren't AFK" if that were the case, right?

In fact, that was the case. The call wasn't really for AFK. It was for slowplay, so what you really had to do was signal that you weren't slowplaying, not that you weren't AFK. Stop relying so much on which option opponents click on when calling for judges, and start relying more on actually communicating with them what the issues are. You shouldn't have been trying to signal that you weren't AFK since that wasn't the issue — the slowplaying was.

When did ever say he was thinking? It does not seem like you read my replies properly.


You said, and I quote: "He called a judge after 40 seconds of thinking with zero explanation."

The way you worded this made me think you were accusing him of being the one thinking for 40 seconds instead of you.

I still wanted some information which helps massively in a duel. The duel wasn't over yet so why would I stall?


Our best guess as to why you stalled is simply because you were in a losing position.

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

Post #620 by Renji Asuka » Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:08 pm

Sound4 wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Sound4 wrote:That doesn't make any sense though it is not like I was thinking for like 5 minutes. He called a judge after 40 seconds of thinking with zero explanation.

Doesn't matter what he did. It's what YOU did.

You shouldn't had held up the game AT ALL. But you did because you were in a losing position and hoped your opponent would just quit. Just like what got you into trouble on Ingeneiro.

I still wanted some information which helps massively in a duel. The duel wasn't over yet so why would I stall?

You're right, the duel wasn't over, but you had no plays so you chose to stall your opponent.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.


Return to “Spam Paradise”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 202 guests