Duelingbook Forum

troglyte wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

troglyte wrote:
Anyone who has seen your replays knows that the opponents did not accept the gamestate. You just ASSUMED that they did because they didn't immediately say/do something.

"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."

I WILL beat you over the head with this quote that YOU provided.

Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."
You missed the point and Ii have already shown this quote before. You give your opponent a few seconds if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may proceed as your opponent isn't saying anything. Communication is key In DB.

And by ignoring your opponent, you are actively refusing to communicate with them out of spite, which is just as bad, if not worse. You have completely failed to address the point I was trying to make. If your opponent is not responding, you don't continue, you CALL A JUDGE.

Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.

Sound4 wrote:

troglyte wrote:

Sound4 wrote:
Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."
You missed the point and Ii have already shown this quote before. You give your opponent a few seconds if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may proceed as your opponent isn't saying anything. Communication is key In DB.

And by ignoring your opponent, you are actively refusing to communicate with them out of spite, which is just as bad, if not worse. You have completely failed to address the point I was trying to make. If your opponent is not responding, you don't continue, you CALL A JUDGE.

Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.

So you admit that you don't want to communicate with your opponent because you don't see it as an obligation. I'm glad we cleared that up. And it is your responsibility, because as we have seen in your replays, you have been repeatedly ruled against, and punished.

I expect no less from Ingeniero the Redditor.

Sound4 wrote:Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.

The silence IS the proof of AFK, please stop making a fool of yourself.

Tommy Wiseau wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:

Tommy Wiseau wrote:
Yes, but at the same time, it depends on the Duel. I've heard 15 seconds is a good time to allow for responses, but even that, realistically, is a lot. People tend to be very quick with responses when they have something, reacting within five or so seconds.

The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.

They really shouldn't. Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response. When someone has a response, he will ask you to wait, say he's thinking about a potential response, or allows for a response. Taking more than 15 seconds per play is unrealistic and excessive, and I consider it slow play, at least in the context of DB. I don't know how slow real-life games tend to be, but I doubt they are this slow. I've seen a few live games, and they weren't slow.

You do make a good point. If the opponent is not responding or taking too long with their replies, it can be considered slow play or otherwise rude given context. That being said, sitting in silence is NOT communicating anything, let alone consent.

I think in these kind of situations, it's best to give the benefit of the doubt. If they are slow playing or afk, you need to confirm it with additional indicators.

troglyte wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

troglyte wrote:
And by ignoring your opponent, you are actively refusing to communicate with them out of spite, which is just as bad, if not worse. You have completely failed to address the point I was trying to make. If your opponent is not responding, you don't continue, you CALL A JUDGE.

Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.

So you admit that you don't want to communicate with your opponent because you don't see it as an obligation. I'm glad we cleared that up. And it is your responsibility, because as we have seen in your replays, you have been repeatedly ruled against, and punished.

I expect no less from Ingeniero the Redditor.

I don't think you really get the point here. You didn't read properly. When you activate an effect you wait for a response and if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may continue. You are not refusing and you are not ignoring. Your opponent hasn't said anything.

Sound4 wrote:

troglyte wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.

So you admit that you don't want to communicate with your opponent because you don't see it as an obligation. I'm glad we cleared that up. And it is your responsibility, because as we have seen in your replays, you have been repeatedly ruled against, and punished.

I expect no less from Ingeniero the Redditor.

I don't think you really get the point here. You didn't read properly. When you activate an effect you wait for a response and if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may continue. You are not refusing and you are not ignoring. Your opponent hasn't said anything.

While I don't disagree with this method, you MUST abide by your opponent when they break the silence because YOU are "overplaying."

Sound4 wrote:

troglyte wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.

So you admit that you don't want to communicate with your opponent because you don't see it as an obligation. I'm glad we cleared that up. And it is your responsibility, because as we have seen in your replays, you have been repeatedly ruled against, and punished.

I expect no less from Ingeniero the Redditor.

I don't think you really get the point here. You didn't read properly. When you activate an effect you wait for a response and if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may continue. You are not refusing and you are not ignoring. Your opponent hasn't said anything.

No, YOU don't get the point. You don't want to communicate with your opponent and you want to continue to keep making plays ignoring your opponent.

troglyte wrote:

Tommy Wiseau wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.

They really shouldn't. Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response. When someone has a response, he will ask you to wait, say he's thinking about a potential response, or allows for a response. Taking more than 15 seconds per play is unrealistic and excessive, and I consider it slow play, at least in the context of DB. I don't know how slow real-life games tend to be, but I doubt they are this slow. I've seen a few live games, and they weren't slow.

You do make a good point. If the opponent is not responding or taking too long with their replies, it can be considered slow play or otherwise rude given context. That being said, sitting in silence is NOT communicating anything, let alone consent.

I think in these kind of situations, it's best to give the benefit of the doubt. If they are slow playing or afk, you need to confirm it with additional indicators.

Taking too long, especially repeatedly throughout a match, is already considered slow play per the rules. Maybe give it the benefit of a doubt once, but after that, it shouldn't be tolerated.

Genexwrecker wrote:

Tommy Wiseau wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.

Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response.

yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple

That's only if it's fairly immediate. Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response. Almost no one is that brain dead that he can't say nothing for that long, and the very few people who are get reprimanded for slow play.

Tommy Wiseau wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:

Tommy Wiseau wrote:
Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response.

yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple

That's only if it's fairly immediate. Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response. Almost no one is that brain dead that he can't say nothing for that long, and the very few people who are get reprimanded for slow play.

everything with context. There are situations where i have allowed responses after 15 seconds there are situations where i have disallowed responses after 5 seconds.

Every single one of you needs to stop trying to get a standard set for this. The standard is as I explained. "DO NOT rely on a timeframe" you and your opponent should be "IMMEDIATELY" and "ALWAYS" instantly communicating with eachother and nothing else should be relied upon.

you acitvate an effect and ask k?
opp immeidately responds with k or think/wait/sec/ect.
before proceeding you also ask if ur okay to proceed.
opp immediately responds to you again with an appropriate answer.

There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.

things such as late reponses or playing to fast are exactly why we the judge team exist to resolve those disputes on a "case by case" basis. no one situation will be the same and you cannot apply what one judge ruled to the rest of your duels and try to shark off that.

This discussion is over.

Genexwrecker wrote:There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.

*on DB, because some high level tournament play seems rather quiet.

Genexwrecker wrote:

Tommy Wiseau wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple

That's only if it's fairly immediate. Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response. Almost no one is that brain dead that he can't say nothing for that long, and the very few people who are get reprimanded for slow play.

everything with context. There are situations where i have allowed responses after 15 seconds there are situations where i have disallowed responses after 5 seconds.

Every single one of you needs to stop trying to get a standard set for this. The standard is as I explained. "DO NOT rely on a timeframe" you and your opponent should be "IMMEDIATELY" and "ALWAYS" instantly communicating with eachother and nothing else should be relied upon.

you acitvate an effect and ask k?
opp immeidately responds with k or think/wait/sec/ect.
before proceeding you also ask if ur okay to proceed.
opp immediately responds to you again with an appropriate answer.

There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.

things such as late reponses or playing to fast are exactly why we the judge team exist to resolve those disputes on a "case by case" basis. no one situation will be the same and you cannot apply what one judge ruled to the rest of your duels and try to shark off that.

This discussion is over.

You obviously didn't get the point here. The time frame matters as that is your only proof that your opponent was taking to long. Your chances increase when you provide proof. Usually silence can mean your opponent was thinking yet don't say it. This can make the opponent confused as now they don't know what you are trying to do. It is not the responsibility of the player activating the response to ask for a response you already are when activating the response. You are literally taking back what you said earlier in the N3sh thread. I play silence as I know it is not my responsibility to ask for a response. Overall yugioh is a fast pace game.

greg503 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.

*on DB, because some high level tournament play seems rather quiet.

Another reason why I think a judge to be qualified should have dueling skills and see it from a players perspective as a judge will see it from a one sided view.

Sound4 wrote:

greg503 wrote:

Genexwrecker wrote:There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.

*on DB, because some high level tournament play seems rather quiet.

Another reason why I think a judge to be qualified should have dueling skills and see it from a players perspective as a judge will see it from a one sided view.

But they let their action be quick and speak for them, DB now has the declare and OK buttons to simulate that speed, but sometimes you do just have to talk, and refusing to do so is why judges get called. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with "but it's okay in this context," it matters.

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

greg503 wrote:*on DB, because some high level tournament play seems rather quiet.

Another reason why I think a judge to be qualified should have dueling skills and see it from a players perspective as a judge will see it from a one sided view.

But they let their action be quick and speak for them, DB now has the declare and OK buttons to simulate that speed, but sometimes you do just have to talk, and refusing to do so is why judges get called. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with "but it's okay in this context," it matters.

Read my other post

Sound4 wrote:

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Another reason why I think a judge to be qualified should have dueling skills and see it from a players perspective as a judge will see it from a one sided view.

But they let their action be quick and speak for them, DB now has the declare and OK buttons to simulate that speed, but sometimes you do just have to talk, and refusing to do so is why judges get called. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with "but it's okay in this context," it matters.

Read my other post

No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

greg503 wrote:But they let their action be quick and speak for them, DB now has the declare and OK buttons to simulate that speed, but sometimes you do just have to talk, and refusing to do so is why judges get called. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with "but it's okay in this context," it matters.

Read my other post

No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"

troglyte wrote:

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Read my other post

No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"

Maybe he meant all of the above.

troglyte wrote:

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:Read my other post

No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"

My reply to Genexwrecker.

Jedx_EX wrote:

troglyte wrote:

greg503 wrote:No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"

Maybe he meant all of the above.

My reply to Genexwrecker. It is because he is saying which I have already answered.