Judges need to rethink their approach.

[CardGirlChick]

I can explain how each "name" i called him, was justified, fair-game, and not harassment, if you really need me to go into such detail.

And again, he was not offended/harassed by anything i said. Someone else reported the "duel" to a judge, not the "alleged victim". For all you know, we were roleplaying as gordon ramsay and crazed religion person.

[LegendofBen]

I concur with her 100%, the same guy after he pulled that stunt, created accounts posing as me and her spamming the public chat.

Two judges intervened that deleted all those posts; they will testify to that. Dogma is far more guilty than anything CGC did.

[CardGirlChick]

I concur with her 100%, the same guy after he pulled that stunt, created accounts posing as me and her spamming the public chat.

Two judges intervened that deleted all those posts; they will testify to that. Dogma is far more guilty than anything CGC did.

Exactly, good to see at least one person understands what im talking about.

[CardGirlChick]

There is no point in any kind of discussion here. You are just displaying you never believe yourself to be in the wrong ever despite a replay of you in this exact thread calling your opponent a "retard" among a slew of other things. you are free to believe what you want but I am informing you that your behavior violates the rules and furthur consistant infractions will result in removal from your ability to use the site.

I'm not saying that at all, im saying i refuse to be frozen when the other guy was given a warning and nothing else, when his actions are far worse.

[CardGirlChick]

I fully expect by tomorrow morning, a judge will have properly reviewed this entire situation and unfrozen me.

Logic > some idiot troll who spams "Repent"

[Renji Asuka]

So you're saying the rules don't apply, and yet you apply rules to me. Hypocritical. You're proving all my points for me, thank you.

Incorrect, they said GAMEPLAY RULES are not enforced in unranked. Other rules are still applied.

Reading comprehension must be hard.

Gameplay is an arbitary distinction that has zero logic in being handled as such, so obviously im going to assume the supposed judges are rationally enforcing rules as any logical sane person would.

It isn't arbitrary, it's an actual distinction. There is a difference between gameplay related rules and behavior related rules.

[CardGirlChick]

An artificial, arbitrary, pointless distinction that serves no merit to the game.

[Renji Asuka]

An artificial, arbitrary, pointless distinction that serves no merit to the game.

It isn't arbitrary, no matter how much you say it is.

There is rules for gameplay and there is rules for the site itself.

You broke the latter.

[CardGirlChick]

In the context we're are discussing, i didn't break any rules. flat out. He wasn't harassed, simple as that. You simply assume he was.

[CardGirlChick]

And it 100% is arbitrary, there is no rational, logical, or sensible reason to separate those 2 categories. And if you're gonna cling to nonsensical decisions, dont blame others for not blindly deferring to rulings derived from then.

[ominous]

And if you people would actually watch the replay, you see he did 3-4 rule violations before i did anything "wrong", and even then I'd happily disprove any allegations against me. The judge who responded "upgraded" my penalty after i defended my actions respectfully, which is a clear violation of "power".

Watch the duel, im the victim. end of story. The judges refuse to refuse the freeze because they are too stubborn to acknowledge im right.

i did watch the replay, and as the judge said in the replay, game violations arent punished in unrated duels, but harassment is, you want explain how using an alt to leave comments on their profile, harrassing them in the public chat, dming them directly, as well as in game, insulting them isnt harrassment?

[ominous]

completely false, the person i "harassed" made alt accounts posing as me. I told the judges, and they did nothing to properly address this troller's actions

really... is that why Legendofben and your account were frozen at the same time...?

[Repent, SInner.]

maybe you should just repent?

[Renji Asuka]

In the context we're are discussing, i didn't break any rules. flat out. He wasn't harassed, simple as that. You simply assume he was.

You did break the rules, specifically for Harassment.

[Renji Asuka]

And it 100% is arbitrary, there is no rational, logical, or sensible reason to separate those 2 categories. And if you're gonna cling to nonsensical decisions, dont blame others for not blindly deferring to rulings derived from then.

Yes there is a reason to keep them separate cause harassing =/= gameplay.

[greg503]

I can explain how each "name" i called him, was justified, fair-game, and not harassment, if you really need me to go into such detail.

And again, he was not offended/harassed by anything i said. Someone else reported the "duel" to a judge, not the "alleged victim". For all you know, we were roleplaying as gordon ramsay and crazed religion person.

Oh, your opponent was certainly RPing, their deck and name support this, as Dogmatika is clearly religion themed. You however, were in the middle of creating a history of harassment, probably of a similar level, on top of getting too tilted to just leave. Maybe your opponent has also been doing bad things, but that does not excuse YOU, as we have seen with Sound4

[Christen57]

The original post i made in this thread, was regarding a judge that wrongfully froze me, that i successfully appealed. So you can see im in the right on all fronts.

No you were in the right for 1 judge call. your harassment in the other game is what got you frozen. and they cant possibly incurr gameplay penalties in unranked as gameplay rules dont exist in unranked they should not have even gotten a warning for spam minor.

I thought spam anywhere outside of spam paradise was prohibited, but in this case, does this mean you'll reverse the spam warning that that player got?

If he's not guilty because of some loophole in your faulty rules, you cant blame for providing negative reinforcement for his nonsensical behavior. I considered his constant messaging of "Repent" as harassment, Repent has religious conotations, and atheist me consideres those words offensive.

I don't think "negative reinforcement" is the correct term here. Negative reinforcement is taking away something someone dislikes, to reinforce good behavior, for example, ceasing a child's spanking since they started showing more good behavior.

Atheist or not, I'm not sure how it's "offensive" when someone suggests you atone for any wrongdoings you've done in the past. We're all sinners after all, whether or not we believe in god. Being atheist means only that you're not convinced that god exists. It has nothing to do with whether or you want to acknowledge that you're imperfect like the rest of us.

And he (DOGMA) took 0 offense to anything i said, as shown by how he didnt react to it, didnt do anything besides continue to pause/spam. If he takes issue with what i said, then its not harassment.
If i yell at a deaf person, thus meaning they dont hear me, and they arent offended by whatever im saying; you cant accuse me of harassment.

Was your opponent deaf though? Was your opponent unable to see the insults you were spewing at him?

You're not being accused of harassment based on whether or not your opponent was offended. You're being accused of harassment based on what you said, and what you said was a bunch of personal insults. That's all that matters, not how your opponent "felt" or "reacted" in response to that.

EXACTLY my point, by the same train of thought you cannot assume that because i said something to Dogma, that he found anything i said offensive.

You insulted the player over and over. It doesn't matter whether or not they openly said they were being offended. You shouldn't have been saying those things.

So you're saying the rules don't apply, and yet you apply rules to me. Hypocritical. You're proving all my points for me, thank you.

Genexwrecker said that gameplay related rules don't apply in unranked while harassment rules still apply in ranked. Your opponent didn't violate any harassment rules. You did.

Gameplay is an arbitary distinction that has zero logic in being handled as such, so obviously im going to assume the supposed judges are rationally enforcing rules as any logical sane person would.

Gameplay rules has to do with things directly related to the game state such as cheating, illegally activating/resolving a card/effect, a ruling dispute that needs to be resolved for the duel to progress, rule sharking, and so on. Harassment rules has to do with things such as personal insults (like what you spewed at your opponent), threats, encouraging self harm, bickering, and so on. This is no "arbitrary" distinction. It's clearly spelled out in the rules.

-I've explained how what i said wasn't harassment

What you said was harassment.

-I've demonstrated how the judge's logic to freeze me was faulty

It wasn't faulty. You broke the rules and got rightfully punished for it.

-Provided plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by Dogmakardinal

What that player did was annoying, sure, but as Genexwrecker pointed out for us, spam rules don't apply in unranked so that no longer counts.

I can explain how each "name" i called him, was justified, fair-game, and not harassment, if you really need me to go into such detail.

You're not to call anyone such names. I does not matter whether you think they deserved it or if you found it to be "fair game". Severe harassment is never fair game.

And again, he was not offended/harassed by anything i said. Someone else reported the "duel" to a judge, not the "alleged victim". For all you know, we were roleplaying as gordon ramsay and crazed religion person.

Just because he didn't say he was offended by what you said doesn't mean there was no harassment. If someone calls me a bunch of names like what you did, sure I wouldn't let myself get easily offended by that, but they still violated duelingbook's harassment policy regardless, so they'd still get punished accordingly. Offense is not required for something to be harassment.

Roleplaying is fine, even in ranked. I do it myself sometimes because it's fun. You just need to leave the personal insults and harassment and whatnot out of it.

I concur with her 100%, the same guy after he pulled that stunt, created accounts posing as me and her spamming the public chat.

Two judges intervened that deleted all those posts; they will testify to that. Dogma is far more guilty than anything CGC did.

Which judges?

I concur with her 100%, the same guy after he pulled that stunt, created accounts posing as me and her spamming the public chat.

Two judges intervened that deleted all those posts; they will testify to that. Dogma is far more guilty than anything CGC did.

Exactly, good to see at least one person understands what im talking about.

At least one person, huh? More like at least one alt. I don't know. Both accounts were created on the same day and that account's very first post is on this thread agreeing with you? Genexwrecker will need to investigate this.

There is no point in any kind of discussion here. You are just displaying you never believe yourself to be in the wrong ever despite a replay of you in this exact thread calling your opponent a "retard" among a slew of other things. you are free to believe what you want but I am informing you that your behavior violates the rules and furthur consistant infractions will result in removal from your ability to use the site.

I'm not saying that at all, im saying i refuse to be frozen when the other guy was given a warning and nothing else, when his actions are far worse.

Your actions were worse, not his. Definition of repent is simply to "feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin." https://www.google.com/search?q=repent+meaning

There's nothing rule breaking about suggesting that somebody atone for their wrongdoings. The idea that repent is a religious thing specifically, is an unofficial rule you made up. You're offended over being told to atone for your wrongdoings. Repenting isn't a religious thing, let alone offensive. It's basic human decency. We all make mistakes. It makes sense for us to atone for them whenever we can. Being religious or a believer in god isn't, and never was, a requirement to doing that.

[CardGirlChick]

This guy continues to spam the message to me on my forum account btw.

https://imgur.com/a/gvuiiSi

This is like when police harass a criminal on parole, in court it serves to de-legitimize the initial charges against the accused.

[Christen57]

This guy continues to spam the message to me on my forum account btw.

https://imgur.com/a/gvuiiSi

This is like when police harass a criminal on parole, in court it serves to de-legitimize the initial charges against the accused.

Pretty sure you can block them. That's the difference between this and your criminal analogy. The criminal can't simply "block" the harassing officer but you can block this user.

[CardGirlChick]

This guy continues to spam the message to me on my forum account btw.

https://imgur.com/a/gvuiiSi

This is like when police harass a criminal on parole, in court it serves to de-legitimize the initial charges against the accused.

Pretty sure you can block them. That's the difference between this and your criminal analogy. The criminal can't simply "block" the harassing officer but you can block this user.

After i reported them, I did. But i ALSO BLOCKED the guy i was accused of harassing, while my duel was going on. I self-policed my own situation, i dont need judges with silly rules and even worse rulings to butt in to a situation i was complete control over.

The only concern a judge should have had was of any further interaction between me and Dogma, and i took care of that. Common sense.