Duelingbook Forum

I just had confirmation by a judge silence is consent in yugioh and this is not by any ordinary judge but thus is from a silver judge called Madrest.

Of course, once silence is broken communicating takes top priority.

Context?

Replay?

Silence is not consent. It can be pending the context tho. So yea u gonna need to give the full statements and situation

I'd rather hear what Madrest has to say on the issue.

I mean, some of you wait until the play is done to see where its going and then use silence as an excuse of "I was thinking", bro literally 15-20 sec passed and you didnt say anything when i asked for confirmation.

Edit: not saying its ur case, I just happen to see it sometimes and it pisses me off

Christen57 wrote:Replay?

okay so i checked what madrest said
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=32070829

Not only did madrest not say the statement "silence is consent" but they ruled against you here. you activated your card and your opponent responded 9 seconds later where you didnt even resolve the chain yet or begin to. madrests statement here is "the time is irrelevant" this does not mean "silence is consent" It means the timeframe is irrelevant in that specific scenario as the gamestate has literally not advanced at all so there is no reason to not allow the response there. frankly madrest was very lenient with you in that duel as this is clear sharking. you didnt even begin to resolve the effect but basically demanded since they said nothing before activating their effect that they gave up their response by being silent for 9 seconds.

Stop spreading missinformation and trying to twist the words we say for one scenario to fit your agenda it is not going to be tolerated.

Latrow wrote:I mean, some of you wait until the play is done to see where its going and then use silence as an excuse of "I was thinking", bro literally 15-20 sec passed and you didnt say anything when i asked for confirmation.

Edit: not saying its ur case, I just happen to see it sometimes and it pisses me off

I have definitely come across this myself. A great way to combat this is type 'k?' in the chat. You're not being a jerk, you're opening the door for communication.

Sharks HATE good communicators.

Or here's a thought, don't make a play without the expressive permission to go ahead. If you have to wait 2 minutes, call a judge.

Genexwrecker wrote:Silence is not consent. It can be pending the context tho. So yea u gonna need to give the full statements and situation

Don't try to take back what you said in the "what does this mean" thread not only did you say silence is not consent but never said anything on the context. I know what you are trying to do.

Genexwrecker wrote:

Christen57 wrote:Replay?

okay so i checked what madrest said
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=32070829

Not only did madrest not say the statement "silence is consent" but they ruled against you here. you activated your card and your opponent responded 9 seconds later where you didnt even resolve the chain yet or begin to. madrests statement here is "the time is irrelevant" this does not mean "silence is consent" It means the timeframe is irrelevant in that specific scenario as the gamestate has literally not advanced at all so there is no reason to not allow the response there. frankly madrest was very lenient with you in that duel as this is clear sharking. you didnt even begin to resolve the effect but basically demanded since they said nothing before activating their effect that they gave up their response by being silent for 9 seconds.

Stop spreading missinformation and trying to twist the words we say for one scenario to fit your agenda is not going to be tolerated.

18:11] "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
This is the confirmation I was talking not only did you purposely try to to ignore this but you also claimed stuff with no proof. "time is irrelevant" was not the quote I was talking about.
My opponent should have not been allowed to respond here. When I activated rebirth to the point were my opponent said "bahamut eff" it was 9 seconds you say that nothing has began to resolve however you missed how if I started earlier then it would have been less time and the judge may have said I didn't wait enough time. I was about to begin to resolve but my opponent all of sudden said "bahamut eff" at that time I thought that the response time was over and I was allowed to resolve. Plus Madrest would have literally claimed if I was sharking which he didn't. No sharking occurred here. I never spreaded misinformation either.

Renji Asuka wrote:Or here's a thought, don't make a play without the expressive permission to go ahead. If you have to wait 2 minutes, call a judge.

Most players want to play at a fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:Or here's a thought, don't make a play without the expressive permission to go ahead. If you have to wait 2 minutes, call a judge.

Most players want to play at a fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.

So stop being lazy and use the chat.

Also, it's ironic that you claim this, yet you literally stalled a game for 90 minutes or so because you were losing.

Its a case by case basis by itself silence is never consent. In most cases if a player doesnt speak up yea we will likely rule against them. You should still ask to resolve effects.

Sound4 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:Silence is not consent. It can be pending the context tho. So yea u gonna need to give the full statements and situation

Don't try to take back what you said in the "what does this mean" thread not only did you say silence is not consent but never said anything on the context. I know what you are trying to do.

They aren't taking anything back, they do not represent the judge who you thought told you "silence is consent," they wanted to know what really happened, which we found out, and you were told that YOU'RE misrepresenting . Personally, I play at a slow pace (a few seconds between actions, and wait for my opponent to break the silence if they have a response). Of course, this leads to giving them extra knowledge if they take a bit longer to respond to a previous action, but I'm fine with that for the sake of a smoother game.

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:Or here's a thought, don't make a play without the expressive permission to go ahead. If you have to wait 2 minutes, call a judge.

Most players want to play at a fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.

So stop being lazy and use the chat.

Also, it's ironic that you claim this, yet you literally stalled a game for 90 minutes or so because you were losing.

No one is being lazy it is not your responsibility to ask for consent you wait. If you your opponent isn't saying anything then that is the consen. Plus I never stalled I saw flaws in what N3sh was saying and I was questioning them.

Genexwrecker wrote:Its a case by case basis by itself silence is never consent. In most cases if a player doesnt speak up yea we will likely rule against them. You should still ask to resolve effects.

Silence is obviously consent it makes sense. It is not your responsibility to ask to resolve you wait and if they are silent then that is consent.

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:Silence is not consent. It can be pending the context tho. So yea u gonna need to give the full statements and situation

Don't try to take back what you said in the "what does this mean" thread not only did you say silence is not consent but never said anything on the context. I know what you are trying to do.

They aren't taking anything back, they do not represent the judge who you thought told you "silence is consent," they wanted to know what really happened, which we found out, and you were told that YOU'RE misrepresenting . Personally, I play at a slow pace (a few seconds between actions, and wait for my opponent to break the silence if they have a response). Of course, this leads to giving them extra knowledge if they take a bit longer to respond to a previous action, but I'm fine with that for the sake of a smoother game.

Read my other post.

Sound4 wrote:

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Don't try to take back what you said in the "what does this mean" thread not only did you say silence is not consent but never said anything on the context. I know what you are trying to do.

They aren't taking anything back, they do not represent the judge who you thought told you "silence is consent," they wanted to know what really happened, which we found out, and you were told that YOU'RE misrepresenting . Personally, I play at a slow pace (a few seconds between actions, and wait for my opponent to break the silence if they have a response). Of course, this leads to giving them extra knowledge if they take a bit longer to respond to a previous action, but I'm fine with that for the sake of a smoother game.

Read my other post.

Read MY post, I did not disagree that you can play after a few seconds if there is silence, but that you misrepresented what the judge said.