Duelingbook Forum

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.

How have I been proven disingenuous? I have provided links to support my claims unlike you people.

Sound4 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.

How have I been proven disingenuous? I have provided links to support my claims unlike you people.

You haven't provided anything except for how disingenuous you were. You were called out on your bullshit and everyone here told you why "Silence isn't consent".

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

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

How have I been proven disingenuous? I have provided links to support my claims unlike you people.

You haven't provided anything except for how disingenuous you were. You were called out on your bullshit and everyone here told you why "Silence isn't consent".

I have literally provided links to support my claims on the other hand you renji Asuka have not provided anything.

Sound4 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"

My reply to Genexwrecker.

Then perhaps you could be less toxic and ACTUALLY repeat your points

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:How have I been proven disingenuous? I have provided links to support my claims unlike you people.

You haven't provided anything except for how disingenuous you were. You were called out on your bullshit and everyone here told you why "Silence isn't consent".

I have literally provided links to support my claims on the other hand you renji Asuka have not provided anything.

You been told that many times that SILENCE DOES NOT EQUAL CONSENT. Your own duel where you talked about "proof" WAS DISPROVEN. Silence =/= consent, end of story.

If you refuse to communicate with your opponent, don't bother playing the game.

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

troglyte wrote:
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.

Then perhaps you could be less toxic and ACTUALLY repeat your points

I am in no way being toxic.

Sound4 wrote:

greg503 wrote:

Sound4 wrote:My reply to Genexwrecker.

Then perhaps you could be less toxic and ACTUALLY repeat your points

I am in no way being toxic.

You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

greg503 wrote:Then perhaps you could be less toxic and ACTUALLY repeat your points

I am in no way being toxic.

You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.

I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:I am in no way being toxic.

You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.

I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?

You are refusing to communicate by supporting that Silence is consent.

You have not provided any points to my "flaws" when there is none. At most you state "read my replies" which says literally nothing. Repeating your flawed view doesn't make for an argument.

Also, there is no accusation being made towards you. Everything said about you, has either been proven through replays or even stated by you. You don't get to backtrack.

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:I am in no way being toxic.

You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.

I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?

Just take the L dude.
Smh...

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.

I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?

You are refusing to communicate by supporting that Silence is consent.

You have not provided any points to my "flaws" when there is none. At most you state "read my replies" which says literally nothing. Repeating your flawed view doesn't make for an argument.

Also, there is no accusation being made towards you. Everything said about you, has either been proven through replays or even stated by you. You don't get to backtrack.

If my opponent hasn't said anything then I continue. The fact that my opponent isn't saying is that I should continue tinue as there is no reason to wait 20 seconds for a response. I literally replied to everything as I see flaws you know this. I replied if you gus had anything to say about the replay.

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?

You are refusing to communicate by supporting that Silence is consent.

You have not provided any points to my "flaws" when there is none. At most you state "read my replies" which says literally nothing. Repeating your flawed view doesn't make for an argument.

Also, there is no accusation being made towards you. Everything said about you, has either been proven through replays or even stated by you. You don't get to backtrack.

If my opponent hasn't said anything then I continue. The fact that my opponent isn't saying is that I should continue tinue as there is no reason to wait 20 seconds for a response. I literally replied to everything as I see flaws you know this. I replied if you gus had anything to say about the replay.

Does not matter, don't make a play. If a player won't communicate, call a judge and let them deal with it.

Sound4 wrote:

Renji Asuka wrote:

Sound4 wrote:I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?

You are refusing to communicate by supporting that Silence is consent.

You have not provided any points to my "flaws" when there is none. At most you state "read my replies" which says literally nothing. Repeating your flawed view doesn't make for an argument.

Also, there is no accusation being made towards you. Everything said about you, has either been proven through replays or even stated by you. You don't get to backtrack.

If my opponent hasn't said anything then I continue. The fact that my opponent isn't saying is that I should continue tinue as there is no reason to wait 20 seconds for a response. I literally replied to everything as I see flaws you know this. I replied if you gus had anything to say about the replay.

Just because you CAN "advance the gamestate" when your opponent isn't saying anything doesn't mean that they have accepted the "advanced gamestate" so if they say otherwise then you have to be responsible for both repairing your gamestate by rewinding AND having shown your opponent extra information.

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

The judge in this matter literally does say:

[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.

ReturnOfTheHurp 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

The judge in this matter literally does say:

[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.

The OP is also known for not listening to a judge after being told to play wasting 40+ minutes. All because they stopped playing the game cause they would lose.

ReturnOfTheHurp 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

The judge in this matter literally does say:

[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.

ur taking things too literal the statement means in most cases we will likely find the silence to be consent as the ruling for x situation. Silence is never consent and you should never play any game with that mentality. Just because we may rule it on most occasions does not mean that is how you should be playing

ReturnOfTheHurp 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

The judge in this matter literally does say:

[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.

Judge would have literally said if I was sharking.

Renji Asuka wrote:

ReturnOfTheHurp 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

The judge in this matter literally does say:

[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.

The OP is also known for not listening to a judge after being told to play wasting 40+ minutes. All because they stopped playing the game cause they would lose.

I saw flaws in what the judge was saying which I was questioning. I literally had the advantage in the duel.

Genexwrecker wrote:

ReturnOfTheHurp 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

The judge in this matter literally does say:

[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.

ur taking things too literal the statement means in most cases we will likely find the silence to be consent as the ruling for x situation. Silence is never consent and you should never play any game with that mentality. Just because we may rule it on most occasions does not mean that is how you should be playing

To not make the duel over an hour most players want to play at a fast pace. There is no reason why a player should be taking 20 seconds to respond.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru ... s/?lang=en
"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."

Sound4 wrote:

ReturnOfTheHurp 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

The judge in this matter literally does say:

[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.

Judge would have literally said if I was sharking.

The judge is saying ur sharking