Re: Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:20 pm
#Exposed
The greatest dueling simulator on earth
https://forum.duelingbook.com/
Sound4 wrote:Christen57 wrote:Sound4 wrote:I literally said check the "what does this mean" thread as it was not long ago it was created so I twas a "scavenger hunt" I said exactly where to find it. I still have to find the 2 replays involving sahqovum. I can't show my PM I am pretty sure a judge can do it.Also in the N3sh thread I provided the link and quote. Pretty everyone knows it is from the official website so there is no point in providing the link.
I think I found it. https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/rules_guides/
However, don't assume next time that "everyone knows it is from the official website" because I didn't, because I read and go by duelingbook's rules, not some other random third-party website's rules.
Besides, that website you referred me to seems to apply only to tournaments, and what you were in wasn't a tournament, so I'm not sure if that could or would apply in your situation.
However, even if that did apply in your situation, again, what makes you so sure that the 10 seconds your opponent took specifically was "excessive," especially since that website says nothing about how taking 10 seconds or more is excessive, and also since you made another incorrect assumption?
The other incorrect assumption of course, now that I realized, was this:If am not mistaken he said wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect but at that point the effect was already fully resolved.
Except you are mistake here. Look at the log again and you'll see.
[3:27] "Nachster eff"
[3:32] "ok"
[3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon Core" from hand (1/3) to GY
[3:39] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon Nachster" from hand (2/2) to M-3 (DEF)
[4:07] "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy"
[4:07] "you know you can declare their effs with buttons right?"
[4:14] Viewed GY
[4:17] "on eff"
[4:19] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon" from GY to M-4 (ATK)
[4:19] "of summon"
[4:21] Stopped viewing GY
[4:24] "hold on"
[4:31] "send the cyber dragon back"
[4:31] Overlayed "Cyber Dragon" in M-4 onto "Galaxy Soldier" in M-2
[4:33] Pointed at "Cyber Dragon" in M-2
[4:34] Viewed Extra Deck
[4:57] "What is the mater? Do you have a response?"
[5:02] "i have a response"
[5:05] "send it back"
[5:08] Stopped viewing Extra Deck
[5:13] "so i can response to your natscher summon eff"
Your opponent was explicitly saying they wanted to respond to Nachster's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned: You can target 1 Machine monster with 2100 ATK or DEF in your GY; Special Summon it" effect, not wait until Nachster resolved that effect then respond, like you thought. Also, after looking at that log again, it's clear that your opponent wasn't taking 10 seconds just to respond. They were taking a total of 10 seconds to read what you commented then respond. Both you and the opponent commented at 4:07 at the same time, so if it would've normally taken, let's say, 4 seconds for them to just respond, they would now need an extra 4 seconds to read what you just commented, plus an extra 2 seconds to finally type "on eff" and hit Enter. 10 seconds could not have been excessive here because you typed something at the exact same time as them that they were reading.
You, however, incorrectly assumed that they were giving the okay on that effect when it was only the "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect they were okay with.
[6:49] "on eff of summon means i have a respond"
[7:03] "thats how it usually works. "
[7:08] "What do you mean you said "OK" on nachster eff"
[7:22] "that was the discard ss "
[7:26] "not the on summon eff"
[7:33] "they are both different"
[8:27] "Nachster eff" [3:32] "ok" [3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon"
[8:36] "that was the discard ss"
[8:44] ""You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand""
[8:54] "not the second eff"
[9:58] "Why did it take you almost 40 seconds to say response"
[10:48] "We're you reading my card? You could have read in chat"
[11:01] "Sileeis consent in yugioh"
[11:03] "why? because i was waiting for you to ss it first then give my respond to your on ss eff "
[11:13] "Silence"
[11:13] "they are both different effs"
[11:50] "Looking at logs"
[12:59] "nachster machine ss eff is different than its discarding special summon eff so you cant say i didnt give my response when i said on eff of summon which what i was referring to"
I get that you don't want people taking too long and that you want to ensure that games run smoothy, but at the same time, you can't make incorrect assumptions and then double down on them when you're shown to be incorrect about said assumptions. You assume that the opponent "was already aware of the 2nd eff as well," you assume the opponent "wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect," and you assume we know where all your links are and what websites you're referring to when you don't link to them.
No wonder N3sh quickly sided with your opponent. You kept making incorrect assumptions about things that you shouldn't have been making assumptions about to begin with, and you were revealed to be incorrect about said assumptions.
Yes that is the tournament link I was talking about. DB tries to copy irl as much as possible so it is appropriate to use that link as a source to support my claims.
I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect. Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.
I don't like slow games especially when DB is already very slow as it is and it makes it even more difficult with stuff like late responses. I was being logical and seeing it realisticlly nothing more and nothing less.
I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect.
Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.
Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu
Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.
Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu
Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.
Renji Asuka wrote:Sound4 wrote:Renji Asuka wrote:That is it exactly. Anyways GenexWrecker covered it.
If it is "exactly" then explain your point on why.
I've already told you why. You choose not to accept any argument as you believe you are correct, when you are in fact wrong. End of story.
Christen57 wrote:Sound4 wrote:Christen57 wrote:
I think I found it. https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/rules_guides/
However, don't assume next time that "everyone knows it is from the official website" because I didn't, because I read and go by duelingbook's rules, not some other random third-party website's rules.
Besides, that website you referred me to seems to apply only to tournaments, and what you were in wasn't a tournament, so I'm not sure if that could or would apply in your situation.
However, even if that did apply in your situation, again, what makes you so sure that the 10 seconds your opponent took specifically was "excessive," especially since that website says nothing about how taking 10 seconds or more is excessive, and also since you made another incorrect assumption?
The other incorrect assumption of course, now that I realized, was this:
Except you are mistake here. Look at the log again and you'll see.
[3:27] "Nachster eff"
[3:32] "ok"
[3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon Core" from hand (1/3) to GY
[3:39] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon Nachster" from hand (2/2) to M-3 (DEF)
[4:07] "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy"
[4:07] "you know you can declare their effs with buttons right?"
[4:14] Viewed GY
[4:17] "on eff"
[4:19] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon" from GY to M-4 (ATK)
[4:19] "of summon"
[4:21] Stopped viewing GY
[4:24] "hold on"
[4:31] "send the cyber dragon back"
[4:31] Overlayed "Cyber Dragon" in M-4 onto "Galaxy Soldier" in M-2
[4:33] Pointed at "Cyber Dragon" in M-2
[4:34] Viewed Extra Deck
[4:57] "What is the mater? Do you have a response?"
[5:02] "i have a response"
[5:05] "send it back"
[5:08] Stopped viewing Extra Deck
[5:13] "so i can response to your natscher summon eff"
Your opponent was explicitly saying they wanted to respond to Nachster's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned: You can target 1 Machine monster with 2100 ATK or DEF in your GY; Special Summon it" effect, not wait until Nachster resolved that effect then respond, like you thought. Also, after looking at that log again, it's clear that your opponent wasn't taking 10 seconds just to respond. They were taking a total of 10 seconds to read what you commented then respond. Both you and the opponent commented at 4:07 at the same time, so if it would've normally taken, let's say, 4 seconds for them to just respond, they would now need an extra 4 seconds to read what you just commented, plus an extra 2 seconds to finally type "on eff" and hit Enter. 10 seconds could not have been excessive here because you typed something at the exact same time as them that they were reading.
You, however, incorrectly assumed that they were giving the okay on that effect when it was only the "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect they were okay with.
[6:49] "on eff of summon means i have a respond"
[7:03] "thats how it usually works. "
[7:08] "What do you mean you said "OK" on nachster eff"
[7:22] "that was the discard ss "
[7:26] "not the on summon eff"
[7:33] "they are both different"
[8:27] "Nachster eff" [3:32] "ok" [3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon"
[8:36] "that was the discard ss"
[8:44] ""You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand""
[8:54] "not the second eff"
[9:58] "Why did it take you almost 40 seconds to say response"
[10:48] "We're you reading my card? You could have read in chat"
[11:01] "Sileeis consent in yugioh"
[11:03] "why? because i was waiting for you to ss it first then give my respond to your on ss eff "
[11:13] "Silence"
[11:13] "they are both different effs"
[11:50] "Looking at logs"
[12:59] "nachster machine ss eff is different than its discarding special summon eff so you cant say i didnt give my response when i said on eff of summon which what i was referring to"
I get that you don't want people taking too long and that you want to ensure that games run smoothy, but at the same time, you can't make incorrect assumptions and then double down on them when you're shown to be incorrect about said assumptions. You assume that the opponent "was already aware of the 2nd eff as well," you assume the opponent "wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect," and you assume we know where all your links are and what websites you're referring to when you don't link to them.
No wonder N3sh quickly sided with your opponent. You kept making incorrect assumptions about things that you shouldn't have been making assumptions about to begin with, and you were revealed to be incorrect about said assumptions.
Yes that is the tournament link I was talking about. DB tries to copy irl as much as possible so it is appropriate to use that link as a source to support my claims.
I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect. Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.
I don't like slow games especially when DB is already very slow as it is and it makes it even more difficult with stuff like late responses. I was being logical and seeing it realisticlly nothing more and nothing less.
Duelingbook doesn't try to copy real life as much as possible. Duelingbook tries to copy only what's necessary. Not everything in real life is necessary for duelingbook to copy. If duelingbook has it's own rules regarding slow play and stalling then we go by those, not what real life says. You main claim was that "silence is consent," but neither that real life tournament webpage nor duelingbook's rules say or support that.
None of your links support your "silence is consent" narrative like you claim. Just because a webpage, or duelingbook's rules, says you shouldn't slow play or take more than X minutes each turn does not mean it's saying that 10 seconds of silence is automatically consent.I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect.
And you were incorrect to assume "that he already knew the Nachster 2nd effect," but even if he did know, he still indicated he wanted to respond and you should have let him, not kept on playing and going in your xyz monster.Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.
Maybe it would be a lot of time if it was "just to respond" but, again, it wasn't "just to respond". It was to read what you chatted then respond, not to mention that your opponent simply could have been a slow typer and thus would take a few extra seconds to chat than most of us.Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu
Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.
What did he get frozen for now?
Sound4 wrote:Christen57 wrote:Sound4 wrote:Yes that is the tournament link I was talking about. DB tries to copy irl as much as possible so it is appropriate to use that link as a source to support my claims.
I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect. Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.
I don't like slow games especially when DB is already very slow as it is and it makes it even more difficult with stuff like late responses. I was being logical and seeing it realisticlly nothing more and nothing less.
Duelingbook doesn't try to copy real life as much as possible. Duelingbook tries to copy only what's necessary. Not everything in real life is necessary for duelingbook to copy. If duelingbook has it's own rules regarding slow play and stalling then we go by those, not what real life says. You main claim was that "silence is consent," but neither that real life tournament webpage nor duelingbook's rules say or support that.
None of your links support your "silence is consent" narrative like you claim. Just because a webpage, or duelingbook's rules, says you shouldn't slow play or take more than X minutes each turn does not mean it's saying that 10 seconds of silence is automatically consent.I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect.
And you were incorrect to assume "that he already knew the Nachster 2nd effect," but even if he did know, he still indicated he wanted to respond and you should have let him, not kept on playing and going in your xyz monster.Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.
Maybe it would be a lot of time if it was "just to respond" but, again, it wasn't "just to respond". It was to read what you chatted then respond, not to mention that your opponent simply could have been a slow typer and thus would take a few extra seconds to chat than most of us.Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu
Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.
What did he get frozen for now?
The purpose of DB is to try to simulate real life as much as possible. That is why there are no automated simulators. Simple as that. That is why I have used some tournament rules as DB most likely penalise the exact same way.
You have yet to explain you reasoning on how my opponent never claimed that he was reading or thinking so it is more likely he already knew the effect.
Sound4 wrote:Christen57 wrote:Sound4 wrote:Yes that is the tournament link I was talking about. DB tries to copy irl as much as possible so it is appropriate to use that link as a source to support my claims.
I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect. Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.
I don't like slow games especially when DB is already very slow as it is and it makes it even more difficult with stuff like late responses. I was being logical and seeing it realisticlly nothing more and nothing less.
Duelingbook doesn't try to copy real life as much as possible. Duelingbook tries to copy only what's necessary. Not everything in real life is necessary for duelingbook to copy. If duelingbook has it's own rules regarding slow play and stalling then we go by those, not what real life says. You main claim was that "silence is consent," but neither that real life tournament webpage nor duelingbook's rules say or support that.
None of your links support your "silence is consent" narrative like you claim. Just because a webpage, or duelingbook's rules, says you shouldn't slow play or take more than X minutes each turn does not mean it's saying that 10 seconds of silence is automatically consent.I wasn't to sure about the what my opponent said that is why I said "if I am not mistaken" but my point still stands that my opponent never claimed he was thinking or reading and also a good chance that he already knew the nachster's 2nd effect.
And you were incorrect to assume "that he already knew the Nachster 2nd effect," but even if he did know, he still indicated he wanted to respond and you should have let him, not kept on playing and going in your xyz monster.Realisticlly, 10 seconds is a lot of time just to respond as the opponent alremoat likely Kew my nachster's 2nd effect.
Maybe it would be a lot of time if it was "just to respond" but, again, it wasn't "just to respond". It was to read what you chatted then respond, not to mention that your opponent simply could have been a slow typer and thus would take a few extra seconds to chat than most of us.Genexwrecker wrote:https://imgur.com/E5nBmPu
Your current status on duelingbook speaks volumes.
What did he get frozen for now?
The purpose of DB is to try to simulate real life as much as possible. That is why there are no automated simulators. Simple as that. That is why I have used some tournament rules as DB most likely penalise the exact same way.
You have yet to explain you reasoning on how my opponent never claimed that he was reading or thinking so it is more likely he already knew the effect.
Also I will provide context on some of the dms Genexwrecker has been replying a day later and there apparently a thousands of appeals.
Apparently for these.
https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-33324410
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=842197-32647397
Which I obviously appealed and Genexwrecker replied a day later.
Genexwrecker wrote:https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=842197-32647397
Sound4 wrote:Renji Asuka wrote:Sound4 wrote:If it is "exactly" then explain your point on why.
I've already told you why. You choose not to accept any argument as you believe you are correct, when you are in fact wrong. End of story.
You have not explained anything. I have replied to your posts and provided links to support my claims.
Christen57 wrote:Genexwrecker wrote:https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=842197-32647397
And Sound4 is saying you replied to his appeal regarding this? What did you tell him?
Genexwrecker wrote:Christen57 wrote:Genexwrecker wrote:https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=842197-32647397
And Sound4 is saying you replied to his appeal regarding this? What did you tell him?
I will post a screenshot if the message if sound4 agrees
Christen57 wrote:Genexwrecker wrote:Christen57 wrote:
And Sound4 is saying you replied to his appeal regarding this? What did you tell him?
I will post a screenshot if the message if sound4 agrees
He does. He himself said in this thread: "I will provide context on some of the dms Genexwrecker has been replying a day later and there apparently a thousands of appeals."
He wouldn't say that if he wasn't okay with those screenshots being shared.
Christen57 wrote:Genexwrecker wrote:Christen57 wrote:
And Sound4 is saying you replied to his appeal regarding this? What did you tell him?
I will post a screenshot if the message if sound4 agrees
He does. He himself said in this thread: "I will provide context on some of the dms Genexwrecker has been replying a day later and there apparently a thousands of appeals."
He wouldn't say that if he wasn't okay with those screenshots being shared.
greg503 wrote:Can't wait for this to be a 2 part objection.lol scene
Renji Asuka wrote:Sound4 wrote:Renji Asuka wrote:I've already told you why. You choose not to accept any argument as you believe you are correct, when you are in fact wrong. End of story.
You have not explained anything. I have replied to your posts and provided links to support my claims.
You were already told why. Again, you refuse to accept anything that is being told to you.