What does this mean?

[troglyte]

Why do you rarely never disclose information of a report? Makes no sense you shouldn't.

Can't you share the replay of this user you reported so we can see what happened?

https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-30668040 here

To answer your original question, no. The judges are not obligated to tell you the outcome of a report. It's not their job to make you feel special. Now it's time for the tangent.

I'm gonna be honest, Sound4, your behavior in this replay is absolutely deplorable. Not only do you have a suboptimal understanding of basic dueling etiquette, but you also feel the need to harass a judge and stall the duel after the judge in question gave you a very clear and concise decision.

From the unironic 'is too late' argument (5:33) to the bullshit 'silence is consent' argument (11:01), it's all there. On DB, you're expected to clearly communicate with your opponent. If a player is not being clear, you should make every effort to understand what your opponent is trying to communicate, something you were clearly not willing to do in favor of denying their opportunity to respond. It should also be pointed out that a good portion of this duel is you complaining that the judge won't respond to your vague, irrelevant question and stalling the duel because of it (32:44). Ingeniero (who, by the way, is TOTALLY not you, in ANY WAY shape or form) received a game loss for this exact same behavior.

https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=454834-29350296

If you feel that I am taking things out of context, you were kind enough to provide the replay. Feel free to respond, with citations, like I have. If you just wanted people's attention, congratulations. You now have MY attention.

[Renji Asuka]

Why do you rarely never disclose information of a report? Makes no sense you shouldn't.

Can't you share the replay of this user you reported so we can see what happened?

https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-30668040 here

1st, Silence IS NOT CONSENT. Technically YOU CAN'T CONTINUE A PLAY WITHOUT THE OPPONENT'S PERMISSION. Unless your opponent gives you a clear okay to continue, YOU DO NOT CONTINUE.

2nd, your opponent was clearly typing to you from 4:07 onwards. So the idea that "you didn't see" is bullshit. You and I both know this. Also "on effect" is usually a social queue in yugioh that your opponent has a response. You are clearly trying to ruleshark your opponent.

3rd, you then lie to the judge (man you have a habit of doing this), by telling him he didn't say anything at 4:07, when at 4:17 (10 seconds later) your opponent tells you that he has a response. Yet you clearly ignore that. (10 seconds window of waiting is actually respectable wait time.)

The judge then allows your opponent to clearly respond because they saw through your bullshit. You then try to argue with the judge. In fact, you are indeed wrong. You then claim that you looked at the logs, but you deliberately tried to mislead the judge from the start.

You then get told to repair the gamestate and you already had 30 seconds to do so. The judge was even kind enough to give you an extra 20 seconds. You then hold up the game for another 3 minutes. The judge should had granted a match loss, period.

The judge then calls you out because they clearly see you're not letting your opponent to respond, yet you claim otherwise with your "Silence is consent" when its not, and never has been. You already held up the game for 20 minutes on a judge call you wanted.

At already 50 minutes, the judge grants a warning for stalling. You then feign ignorance

When Sigma was summoned at the 60 minute mark or so, you stalled your opponent for 6 minutes.

Frankly, you should had gotten a game loss.

[PENMASTER]

cant see a . fucking exposed lolololololololololol

[Genexwrecker]

That judge was extremely lenient with you. I would not have given that many chances.

[Lil Oldman]

Why do you rarely never disclose information of a report? Makes no sense you shouldn't.

Can't you share the replay of this user you reported so we can see what happened?

https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-30668040 here

Didn't expect less from you.

[Sound4]

That judge was extremely lenient with you. I would not have given that many chances.

How? N3sh was intentionally ignoring what I was saying. N3sh was saying to proceed the duel when the I w was saying read multiple . N3sh also was also accepting "on eff" as a response when blue player could have simply said "resp" or "response."

[Sound4]

Can't you share the replay of this user you reported so we can see what happened?

https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-30668040 here

To answer your original question, no. The judges are not obligated to tell you the outcome of a report. It's not their job to make you feel special. Now it's time for the tangent.

I'm gonna be honest, Sound4, your behavior in this replay is absolutely deplorable. Not only do you have a suboptimal understanding of basic dueling etiquette, but you also feel the need to harass a judge and stall the duel after the judge in question gave you a very clear and concise decision.

From the unironic 'is too late' argument (5:33) to the bullshit 'silence is consent' argument (11:01), it's all there. On DB, you're expected to clearly communicate with your opponent. If a player is not being clear, you should make every effort to understand what your opponent is trying to communicate, something you were clearly not willing to do in favor of denying their opportunity to respond. It should also be pointed out that a good portion of this duel is you complaining that the judge won't respond to your vague, irrelevant question and stalling the duel because of it (32:44). Ingeniero (who, by the way, is TOTALLY not you, in ANY WAY shape or form) received a game loss for this exact same behavior.

https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=454834-29350296

If you feel that I am taking things out of context, you were kind enough to provide the replay. Feel free to respond, with citations, like I have. If you just wanted people's attention, congratulations. You now have MY attention.

I never once "harassed" the judge that false accusation that your provided no proof of. Your talking about my behaviour is "deplorable" yet talk nothing of N3sh. N3sh was intentionally ignoring what Iwas saying. N3sh was saying to proceed the duel when the I was saying read. N3sh also was also accepting "on eff" as a response when blue player could have simply said "resp" or "response." The response should have not been allowed. I wanted answers to make the situation clear. I clearly communicated well in this duel the judge never even said that. I verbally said nachster 2nd effect at 4:07 yet said "hold on" at 4:24. I am not doing this attention either.

[Sound4]

Can't you share the replay of this user you reported so we can see what happened?

https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-30668040 here

1st, Silence IS NOT CONSENT. Technically YOU CAN'T CONTINUE A PLAY WITHOUT THE OPPONENT'S PERMISSION. Unless your opponent gives you a clear okay to continue, YOU DO NOT CONTINUE.

2nd, your opponent was clearly typing to you from 4:07 onwards. So the idea that "you didn't see" is bullshit. You and I both know this. Also "on effect" is usually a social queue in yugioh that your opponent has a response. You are clearly trying to ruleshark your opponent.

3rd, you then lie to the judge (man you have a habit of doing this), by telling him he didn't say anything at 4:07, when at 4:17 (10 seconds later) your opponent tells you that he has a response. Yet you clearly ignore that. (10 seconds window of waiting is actually respectable wait time.)

The judge then allows your opponent to clearly respond because they saw through your bullshit. You then try to argue with the judge. In fact, you are indeed wrong. You then claim that you looked at the logs, but you deliberately tried to mislead the judge from the start.

You then get told to repair the gamestate and you already had 30 seconds to do so. The judge was even kind enough to give you an extra 20 seconds. You then hold up the game for another 3 minutes. The judge should had granted a match loss, period.

The judge then calls you out because they clearly see you're not letting your opponent to respond, yet you claim otherwise with your "Silence is consent" when its not, and never has been. You already held up the game for 20 minutes on a judge call you wanted.

At already 50 minutes, the judge grants a warning for stalling. You then feign ignorance

When Sigma was summoned at the 60 minute mark or so, you stalled your opponent for 6 minutes.

Frankly, you should had gotten a game loss.

What? If your opponent is not saying anything then that gives the permission to continue the play.

2) At 4:07 the opponent said that I can just declare effects. At 4:07 I verbally say my nachster eff to make it clear my 2nd effect. "on effect" at 4:07 I verbally said my nachster 2nd eff. At 4:14 I started viewing GY I gave him 7 extra seconds to respond yet didn't. "on effect" does not really mean much the main things you say when you have a response is " response" or shorter "resp". The judge never said anything about rule sharking so your clearly wrong on that.

3)When was I misleading the judge? I was making my point yet the judge ignored or didn't think much of it. N3sh literally wrote me off when I was asking questions to make situation clear.

4) I was confused what was happening as I was focused on the chat not on the duel so when the opponent was summoning I was confused what was going on. I asked what I need to do to make the game state legal. No game loss needed.

5) Me getting a warning for stalling when I literally said to N3sh that I was reading. I asked stalling for what. As I was confused when I was reading yet N3sh didn't care. I was never stalling I was literally reading the opponents cards yet N3sh was saying proceed.

No game loss needed.

[Lil Oldman]

That judge was extremely lenient with you. I would not have given that many chances.

How? N3sh was intentionally ignoring what I was saying. N3sh was saying to proceed the duel when the I w was saying read multiple . N3sh also was also accepting "on eff" as a response when blue player could have simply said "resp" or "response."

N3sh didn't ignore you, he told you like 3 times why he allowed that play.
N3sh at the time only said to proceed because, while you said reading, you were at the same time trying to get them to respond the same question for the 4th or 5th time.
What's the difference between saying "on eff" and "resp"? In the YGO context, these 2 are basically synonyms.

[Renji Asuka]

https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=815175-30668040 here

1st, Silence IS NOT CONSENT. Technically YOU CAN'T CONTINUE A PLAY WITHOUT THE OPPONENT'S PERMISSION. Unless your opponent gives you a clear okay to continue, YOU DO NOT CONTINUE.

2nd, your opponent was clearly typing to you from 4:07 onwards. So the idea that "you didn't see" is bullshit. You and I both know this. Also "on effect" is usually a social queue in yugioh that your opponent has a response. You are clearly trying to ruleshark your opponent.

3rd, you then lie to the judge (man you have a habit of doing this), by telling him he didn't say anything at 4:07, when at 4:17 (10 seconds later) your opponent tells you that he has a response. Yet you clearly ignore that. (10 seconds window of waiting is actually respectable wait time.)

The judge then allows your opponent to clearly respond because they saw through your bullshit. You then try to argue with the judge. In fact, you are indeed wrong. You then claim that you looked at the logs, but you deliberately tried to mislead the judge from the start.

You then get told to repair the gamestate and you already had 30 seconds to do so. The judge was even kind enough to give you an extra 20 seconds. You then hold up the game for another 3 minutes. The judge should had granted a match loss, period.

The judge then calls you out because they clearly see you're not letting your opponent to respond, yet you claim otherwise with your "Silence is consent" when its not, and never has been. You already held up the game for 20 minutes on a judge call you wanted.

At already 50 minutes, the judge grants a warning for stalling. You then feign ignorance

When Sigma was summoned at the 60 minute mark or so, you stalled your opponent for 6 minutes.

Frankly, you should had gotten a game loss.

What? If your opponent is not saying anything then that gives the permission to continue the play.

2) At 4:07 the opponent said that I can just declare effects. At 4:07 I verbally say my nachster eff to make it clear my 2nd effect. "on effect" at 4:07 I verbally said my nachster 2nd eff. At 4:14 I started viewing GY I gave him 7 extra seconds to respond yet didn't. "on effect" does not really mean much the main things you say when you have a response is " response" or shorter "resp". The judge never said anything about rule sharking so your clearly wrong on that.

3)When was I misleading the judge? I was making my point yet the judge ignored or didn't think much of it. N3sh literally wrote me off when I was asking questions to make situation clear.

4) I was confused what was happening as I was focused on the chat not on the duel so when the opponent was summoning I was confused what was going on. I asked what I need to do to make the game state legal. No game loss needed.

5) Me getting a warning for stalling when I literally said to N3sh that I was reading. I asked stalling for what. As I was confused when I was reading yet N3sh didn't care. I was never stalling I was literally reading the opponents cards yet N3sh was saying proceed.

No game loss needed.

1, Silence IS NOT CONSENT PERIOD. Your opponent has the right to respond PERIOD. If they don't give you a clear go ahead, YOU DON'T CONTINUE TO PLAY. This can get you into trouble with the judges and can cause a match loss. I seen it happen.

2, Wrong, "On effect" is typically stated when a person has a response. Not only have I used this phrase but many people do to. Just because you never seen it used, doesn't mean that gives you the right to ignore the opponent. Also, I never claimed the Judge said you were rule sharking. I said you were. Your tactics were the same tactics that rule sharks use when they're in a losing position. Again, the amount of time you give your opponent doesn't matter. YOU DO NOT CONTINUE A PLAY UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN THE CLEAR GO AHEAD.

3, I already explained it. The situation was clear, the opponent had the right to respond, the judge gave their ruling. You didn't accept it because it'd put you into a losing position.

4, No you weren't "confused" see above.

5, there was 0 reason for you to cause the match to be 60+ minutes long. So yes you were stalling. You're lucky you didn't get frozen. Frankly if you're going to double down on your behavior, if I was an admin, you'd get perma banned. Also the judge didn't give you a warning when you said you were "reading", nice try though.

[Sound4]

1st, Silence IS NOT CONSENT. Technically YOU CAN'T CONTINUE A PLAY WITHOUT THE OPPONENT'S PERMISSION. Unless your opponent gives you a clear okay to continue, YOU DO NOT CONTINUE.

2nd, your opponent was clearly typing to you from 4:07 onwards. So the idea that "you didn't see" is bullshit. You and I both know this. Also "on effect" is usually a social queue in yugioh that your opponent has a response. You are clearly trying to ruleshark your opponent.

3rd, you then lie to the judge (man you have a habit of doing this), by telling him he didn't say anything at 4:07, when at 4:17 (10 seconds later) your opponent tells you that he has a response. Yet you clearly ignore that. (10 seconds window of waiting is actually respectable wait time.)

The judge then allows your opponent to clearly respond because they saw through your bullshit. You then try to argue with the judge. In fact, you are indeed wrong. You then claim that you looked at the logs, but you deliberately tried to mislead the judge from the start.

You then get told to repair the gamestate and you already had 30 seconds to do so. The judge was even kind enough to give you an extra 20 seconds. You then hold up the game for another 3 minutes. The judge should had granted a match loss, period.

The judge then calls you out because they clearly see you're not letting your opponent to respond, yet you claim otherwise with your "Silence is consent" when its not, and never has been. You already held up the game for 20 minutes on a judge call you wanted.

At already 50 minutes, the judge grants a warning for stalling. You then feign ignorance

When Sigma was summoned at the 60 minute mark or so, you stalled your opponent for 6 minutes.

Frankly, you should had gotten a game loss.

What? If your opponent is not saying anything then that gives the permission to continue the play.

2) At 4:07 the opponent said that I can just declare effects. At 4:07 I verbally say my nachster eff to make it clear my 2nd effect. "on effect" at 4:07 I verbally said my nachster 2nd eff. At 4:14 I started viewing GY I gave him 7 extra seconds to respond yet didn't. "on effect" does not really mean much the main things you say when you have a response is " response" or shorter "resp". The judge never said anything about rule sharking so your clearly wrong on that.

3)When was I misleading the judge? I was making my point yet the judge ignored or didn't think much of it. N3sh literally wrote me off when I was asking questions to make situation clear.

4) I was confused what was happening as I was focused on the chat not on the duel so when the opponent was summoning I was confused what was going on. I asked what I need to do to make the game state legal. No game loss needed.

5) Me getting a warning for stalling when I literally said to N3sh that I was reading. I asked stalling for what. As I was confused when I was reading yet N3sh didn't care. I was never stalling I was literally reading the opponents cards yet N3sh was saying proceed.

No game loss needed.

1, Silence IS NOT CONSENT PERIOD. Your opponent has the right to respond PERIOD. If they don't give you a clear go ahead, YOU DON'T CONTINUE TO PLAY. This can get you into trouble with the judges and can cause a match loss. I seen it happen.

2, Wrong, "On effect" is typically stated when a person has a response. Not only have I used this phrase but many people do to. Just because you never seen it used, doesn't mean that gives you the right to ignore the opponent. Also, I never claimed the Judge said you were rule sharking. I said you were. Your tactics were the same tactics that rule sharks use when they're in a losing position. Again, the amount of time you give your opponent doesn't matter. YOU DO NOT CONTINUE A PLAY UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN THE CLEAR GO AHEAD.

3, I already explained it. The situation was clear, the opponent had the right to respond, the judge gave their ruling. You didn't accept it because it'd put you into a losing position.

4, No you weren't "confused" see above.

5, there was 0 reason for you to cause the match to be 60+ minutes long. So yes you were stalling. You're lucky you didn't get frozen. Frankly if you're going to double down on your behavior, if I was an admin, you'd get perma banned. Also the judge didn't give you a warning when you said you were "reading", nice try though.

1) Mostpro players go by this and even judges have supported this

2) Time actually matters when you have a response I communicated well yet the opponent did not. "on effecflt" you did not read what I said the opponent had plenty of time to response but to slow.

3) I actually had the advantage in the duel. The response should have not been allowed.

4) I was focused on the chat not the duel. As I was confused what was going on. You didn't read what I said.

5) I was never stalling. I was asking N3SH questions to make the situation clear so. I did not insult the judge nothing that would warrant a ban. Read the logs. N3sh gave me a warning even though I was reading his cards and I said this multiple times.

[Sound4]

That judge was extremely lenient with you. I would not have given that many chances.

How? N3sh was intentionally ignoring what I was saying. N3sh was saying to proceed the duel when the I w was saying read multiple . N3sh also was also accepting "on eff" as a response when blue player could have simply said "resp" or "response."

N3sh didn't ignore you, he told you like 3 times why he allowed that play.
N3sh at the time only said to proceed because, while you said reading, you were at the same time trying to get them to respond the same question for the 4th or 5th time.
What's the difference between saying "on eff" and "resp"? In the YGO context, these 2 are basically synonyms.

No he was ignoring what I said. He literally wrote me off and didn't want to read because he had "other calls". It is important the call idls done correctly so there is no mistakes.
I was asking the question because the forst and second time he did not answer properly. "resp" is more clear and I don't know what you are talking about YGO context. The opponent did communicate well yet N3sh did not acknowledge.

[greg503]

What? If your opponent is not saying anything then that gives the permission to continue the play.

2) At 4:07 the opponent said that I can just declare effects. At 4:07 I verbally say my nachster eff to make it clear my 2nd effect. "on effect" at 4:07 I verbally said my nachster 2nd eff. At 4:14 I started viewing GY I gave him 7 extra seconds to respond yet didn't. "on effect" does not really mean much the main things you say when you have a response is " response" or shorter "resp". The judge never said anything about rule sharking so your clearly wrong on that.

3)When was I misleading the judge? I was making my point yet the judge ignored or didn't think much of it. N3sh literally wrote me off when I was asking questions to make situation clear.

4) I was confused what was happening as I was focused on the chat not on the duel so when the opponent was summoning I was confused what was going on. I asked what I need to do to make the game state legal. No game loss needed.

5) Me getting a warning for stalling when I literally said to N3sh that I was reading. I asked stalling for what. As I was confused when I was reading yet N3sh didn't care. I was never stalling I was literally reading the opponents cards yet N3sh was saying proceed.

No game loss needed.

1, Silence IS NOT CONSENT PERIOD. Your opponent has the right to respond PERIOD. If they don't give you a clear go ahead, YOU DON'T CONTINUE TO PLAY. This can get you into trouble with the judges and can cause a match loss. I seen it happen.

2, Wrong, "On effect" is typically stated when a person has a response. Not only have I used this phrase but many people do to. Just because you never seen it used, doesn't mean that gives you the right to ignore the opponent. Also, I never claimed the Judge said you were rule sharking. I said you were. Your tactics were the same tactics that rule sharks use when they're in a losing position. Again, the amount of time you give your opponent doesn't matter. YOU DO NOT CONTINUE A PLAY UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN THE CLEAR GO AHEAD.

3, I already explained it. The situation was clear, the opponent had the right to respond, the judge gave their ruling. You didn't accept it because it'd put you into a losing position.

4, No you weren't "confused" see above.

5, there was 0 reason for you to cause the match to be 60+ minutes long. So yes you were stalling. You're lucky you didn't get frozen. Frankly if you're going to double down on your behavior, if I was an admin, you'd get perma banned. Also the judge didn't give you a warning when you said you were "reading", nice try though.

1) Mostpro players go by this and even judges have supported this

2) Time actually matters when you have a response I communicated well yet the opponent did not. "on effecflt" you did not read what I said the opponent had plenty of time to response but to slow.

3) I actually had the advantage in the duel. The response should have not been allowed.

4) I was focused on the chat not the duel. As I was confused what was going on. You didn't read what I said.

5) I was never stalling. I was asking N3SH questions to make the situation clear so. I did not insult the judge nothing that would warrant a ban. Read the logs. N3sh gave me a warning even though I was reading his cards and I said this multiple times.

1. That's because they already know the game enough to know what to respond to with what card and can quickly react. Silence may be consent, but the instant they break it you'd better drop everything and communicate.
2. Only judges get the final say as to whether something is too late, they said it wasn't, so your opinion doesn't matter.
3. YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO WINNING THAT GAME, LEAST OF ALL WHEN YOU SHARK.
4. Good, you deserved it for trying to shark.
5. How much time did it take again?

[Lil Oldman]

How? N3sh was intentionally ignoring what I was saying. N3sh was saying to proceed the duel when the I w was saying read multiple . N3sh also was also accepting "on eff" as a response when blue player could have simply said "resp" or "response."

N3sh didn't ignore you, he told you like 3 times why he allowed that play.
N3sh at the time only said to proceed because, while you said reading, you were at the same time trying to get them to respond the same question for the 4th or 5th time.
What's the difference between saying "on eff" and "resp"? In the YGO context, these 2 are basically synonyms.

No he was ignoring what I said. He literally wrote me off and didn't want to read because he had "other calls". It is important the call idls done correctly so there is no mistakes.
I was asking the question because the forst and second time he did not answer properly.
"resp" is more clear and I don't know what you are talking about YGO context. The opponent did communicate well yet N3sh did not acknowledge.

N3sh told you, and I quote: "cause he did it in a proper time and informed u, [4:17] "on eff", here meant ''on ef i have e resp''"
If that's not a proper answer then I don't know what it is then.
"resp" may (or may not) be more clear, but "on eff/summon" is also a valid answer, they mean exactly the same in the same context.

[Renji Asuka]

What? If your opponent is not saying anything then that gives the permission to continue the play.

2) At 4:07 the opponent said that I can just declare effects. At 4:07 I verbally say my nachster eff to make it clear my 2nd effect. "on effect" at 4:07 I verbally said my nachster 2nd eff. At 4:14 I started viewing GY I gave him 7 extra seconds to respond yet didn't. "on effect" does not really mean much the main things you say when you have a response is " response" or shorter "resp". The judge never said anything about rule sharking so your clearly wrong on that.

3)When was I misleading the judge? I was making my point yet the judge ignored or didn't think much of it. N3sh literally wrote me off when I was asking questions to make situation clear.

4) I was confused what was happening as I was focused on the chat not on the duel so when the opponent was summoning I was confused what was going on. I asked what I need to do to make the game state legal. No game loss needed.

5) Me getting a warning for stalling when I literally said to N3sh that I was reading. I asked stalling for what. As I was confused when I was reading yet N3sh didn't care. I was never stalling I was literally reading the opponents cards yet N3sh was saying proceed.

No game loss needed.

1, Silence IS NOT CONSENT PERIOD. Your opponent has the right to respond PERIOD. If they don't give you a clear go ahead, YOU DON'T CONTINUE TO PLAY. This can get you into trouble with the judges and can cause a match loss. I seen it happen.

2, Wrong, "On effect" is typically stated when a person has a response. Not only have I used this phrase but many people do to. Just because you never seen it used, doesn't mean that gives you the right to ignore the opponent. Also, I never claimed the Judge said you were rule sharking. I said you were. Your tactics were the same tactics that rule sharks use when they're in a losing position. Again, the amount of time you give your opponent doesn't matter. YOU DO NOT CONTINUE A PLAY UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN THE CLEAR GO AHEAD.

3, I already explained it. The situation was clear, the opponent had the right to respond, the judge gave their ruling. You didn't accept it because it'd put you into a losing position.

4, No you weren't "confused" see above.

5, there was 0 reason for you to cause the match to be 60+ minutes long. So yes you were stalling. You're lucky you didn't get frozen. Frankly if you're going to double down on your behavior, if I was an admin, you'd get perma banned. Also the judge didn't give you a warning when you said you were "reading", nice try though.

1) Mostpro players go by this and even judges have supported this

2) Time actually matters when you have a response I communicated well yet the opponent did not. "on effecflt" you did not read what I said the opponent had plenty of time to response but to slow.

3) I actually had the advantage in the duel. The response should have not been allowed.

4) I was focused on the chat not the duel. As I was confused what was going on. You didn't read what I said.

5) I was never stalling. I was asking N3SH questions to make the situation clear so. I did not insult the judge nothing that would warrant a ban. Read the logs. N3sh gave me a warning even though I was reading his cards and I said this multiple times.

1, you're lying. Judges would grant punishment to other players for not allowing their opponent to respond. Stop justifying your shitty behavior.

2, Doesn't matter, you don't make a move without the opponent giving you the go ahead. However, there is a thing called slow play, however the opponent wasn't slow playing. So you're in the wrong.

3, Doesn't matter that you had the advantage, you lied to the judge saying they didn't say anything, when they clearly did. Then you claim you didn't see it. You tried to come up with every excuse not to allow that play when it was legal for your opponent regardless of how you feel. Stop being a shitty person.

4, If you were focused on the chat, you would had clearly seen your opponent type "on effect", but you didn't. All you did was stall a game for over an hour because you were mad you were going to lose.

5, Yes you were. There was 0 reason for that judge call to last as long as it did. But you kept going on and on about irrelevant crap after the Judge gave you their decision on the matter. Accept it and move on.

[Sound4]

1, Silence IS NOT CONSENT PERIOD. Your opponent has the right to respond PERIOD. If they don't give you a clear go ahead, YOU DON'T CONTINUE TO PLAY. This can get you into trouble with the judges and can cause a match loss. I seen it happen.

2, Wrong, "On effect" is typically stated when a person has a response. Not only have I used this phrase but many people do to. Just because you never seen it used, doesn't mean that gives you the right to ignore the opponent. Also, I never claimed the Judge said you were rule sharking. I said you were. Your tactics were the same tactics that rule sharks use when they're in a losing position. Again, the amount of time you give your opponent doesn't matter. YOU DO NOT CONTINUE A PLAY UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN THE CLEAR GO AHEAD.

3, I already explained it. The situation was clear, the opponent had the right to respond, the judge gave their ruling. You didn't accept it because it'd put you into a losing position.

4, No you weren't "confused" see above.

5, there was 0 reason for you to cause the match to be 60+ minutes long. So yes you were stalling. You're lucky you didn't get frozen. Frankly if you're going to double down on your behavior, if I was an admin, you'd get perma banned. Also the judge didn't give you a warning when you said you were "reading", nice try though.

1) Mostpro players go by this and even judges have supported this

2) Time actually matters when you have a response I communicated well yet the opponent did not. "on effecflt" you did not read what I said the opponent had plenty of time to response but to slow.

3) I actually had the advantage in the duel. The response should have not been allowed.

4) I was focused on the chat not the duel. As I was confused what was going on. You didn't read what I said.

5) I was never stalling. I was asking N3SH questions to make the situation clear so. I did not insult the judge nothing that would warrant a ban. Read the logs. N3sh gave me a warning even though I was reading his cards and I said this multiple times.

1, you're lying. Judges would grant punishment to other players for not allowing their opponent to respond. Stop justifying your shitty behavior.

2, Doesn't matter, you don't make a move without the opponent giving you the go ahead. However, there is a thing called slow play, however the opponent wasn't slow playing. So you're in the wrong.

3, Doesn't matter that you had the advantage, you lied to the judge saying they didn't say anything, when they clearly did. Then you claim you didn't see it. You tried to come up with every excuse not to allow that play when it was legal for your opponent regardless of how you feel. Stop being a shitty person.

4, If you were focused on the chat, you would had clearly seen your opponent type "on effect", but you didn't. All you did was stall a game for over an hour because you were mad you were going to lose.

5, Yes you were. There was 0 reason for that judge call to last as long as it did. But you kept going on and on about irrelevant crap after the Judge gave you their decision on the matter. Accept it and move on.

1) I am not lying you have time to respond and if you do you type in chat yet if you are to late. Most pro players will not allow. You are talking about my behaviour but not talking about N3sh behaviour.

2) Like I said earlier if your opponent is not saying anything that signals they have no response. I literally waited for a response yet the opponent wasn't saying anything. My opponent was not slow playing I never said that I said that my opponent was slow on the response.

3) They didn't say anything I communicated well yet N3sh didn't care. At 4:07 when he said I can simply declare eff I thought he had no response. More proof how the opponent clearly communicated poorly. If your opponent is not saying anything and taking a while to respond then responses are not allowed. This is how most pro players go by.

4) Did you even read what I said? I was focused on the duel before the judge came not on the chat. When N3sh came I was focused on the chat not on the duel. I had advantage in the duel actually.
5) The reason why the judge call lasted for quite a while is because N3sh was ignoring what I said and wrote me off because he had "other calls". I wanted to make the situation clear I didn't like how N3sh was saying in that call as I thought it was extremely rude.

[Genexwrecker]

This is not the place to continue this your report was handled case closed.

[Sound4]

1, Silence IS NOT CONSENT PERIOD. Your opponent has the right to respond PERIOD. If they don't give you a clear go ahead, YOU DON'T CONTINUE TO PLAY. This can get you into trouble with the judges and can cause a match loss. I seen it happen.

2, Wrong, "On effect" is typically stated when a person has a response. Not only have I used this phrase but many people do to. Just because you never seen it used, doesn't mean that gives you the right to ignore the opponent. Also, I never claimed the Judge said you were rule sharking. I said you were. Your tactics were the same tactics that rule sharks use when they're in a losing position. Again, the amount of time you give your opponent doesn't matter. YOU DO NOT CONTINUE A PLAY UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN THE CLEAR GO AHEAD.

3, I already explained it. The situation was clear, the opponent had the right to respond, the judge gave their ruling. You didn't accept it because it'd put you into a losing position.

4, No you weren't "confused" see above.

5, there was 0 reason for you to cause the match to be 60+ minutes long. So yes you were stalling. You're lucky you didn't get frozen. Frankly if you're going to double down on your behavior, if I was an admin, you'd get perma banned. Also the judge didn't give you a warning when you said you were "reading", nice try though.

1) Mostpro players go by this and even judges have supported this

2) Time actually matters when you have a response I communicated well yet the opponent did not. "on effecflt" you did not read what I said the opponent had plenty of time to response but to slow.

3) I actually had the advantage in the duel. The response should have not been allowed.

4) I was focused on the chat not the duel. As I was confused what was going on. You didn't read what I said.

5) I was never stalling. I was asking N3SH questions to make the situation clear so. I did not insult the judge nothing that would warrant a ban. Read the logs. N3sh gave me a warning even though I was reading his cards and I said this multiple times.

1. That's because they already know the game enough to know what to respond to with what card and can quickly react. Silence may be consent, but the instant they break it you'd better drop everything and communicate.
2. Only judges get the final say as to whether something is too late, they said it wasn't, so your opinion doesn't matter.
3. YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO WINNING THAT GAME, LEAST OF ALL WHEN YOU SHARK.
4. Good, you deserved it for trying to shark.
5. How much time did it take again?

DB as a whole is slow so most pro players going quickly rarely communicate.
https://youtu.be/mfQVsh3Ygtg link on how DB Is slow and even pro players struggle to play on DB because how slow it is.
2) The judges "final say" can be wrong which is why I reported on the poor decision and the behaviour he displayed.
3) The judge would of literally gave me the game loss if I was sharking. There was nothing that would of warrant a game loss.
4) No sharking occurred the judge would of called me out on it.
5)The judge call took that long as N3sh was not answering properly or simply gnoring. HMy first 2 point on the response being late yet N3sh and ignored them and didn't care.

[Sound4]

This is not the place to continue this your report was handled case closed.

I know it was handled. Yet you were making false claims and other people which I had to reply.

[Renji Asuka]

1) Mostpro players go by this and even judges have supported this

2) Time actually matters when you have a response I communicated well yet the opponent did not. "on effecflt" you did not read what I said the opponent had plenty of time to response but to slow.

3) I actually had the advantage in the duel. The response should have not been allowed.

4) I was focused on the chat not the duel. As I was confused what was going on. You didn't read what I said.

5) I was never stalling. I was asking N3SH questions to make the situation clear so. I did not insult the judge nothing that would warrant a ban. Read the logs. N3sh gave me a warning even though I was reading his cards and I said this multiple times.

1, you're lying. Judges would grant punishment to other players for not allowing their opponent to respond. Stop justifying your shitty behavior.

2, Doesn't matter, you don't make a move without the opponent giving you the go ahead. However, there is a thing called slow play, however the opponent wasn't slow playing. So you're in the wrong.

3, Doesn't matter that you had the advantage, you lied to the judge saying they didn't say anything, when they clearly did. Then you claim you didn't see it. You tried to come up with every excuse not to allow that play when it was legal for your opponent regardless of how you feel. Stop being a shitty person.

4, If you were focused on the chat, you would had clearly seen your opponent type "on effect", but you didn't. All you did was stall a game for over an hour because you were mad you were going to lose.

5, Yes you were. There was 0 reason for that judge call to last as long as it did. But you kept going on and on about irrelevant crap after the Judge gave you their decision on the matter. Accept it and move on.

1) I am not lying you have time to respond and if you do you type in chat yet if you are to late. Most pro players will not allow. You are talking about my behaviour but not talking about N3sh behaviour.

2) Like I said earlier if your opponent is not saying anything that signals they have no response. I literally waited for a response yet the opponent wasn't saying anything. My opponent was not slow playing I never said that I said that my opponent was slow on the response.

3) They didn't say anything I communicated well yet N3sh didn't care. At 4:07 when he said I can simply declare eff I thought he had no response. More proof how the opponent clearly communicated poorly. If your opponent is not saying anything and taking a while to respond then responses are not allowed. This is how most pro players go by.

4) Did you even read what I said? I was focused on the duel before the judge came not on the chat. When N3sh came I was focused on the chat not on the duel. I had advantage in the duel actually.
5) The reason why the judge call lasted for quite a while is because N3sh was ignoring what I said and wrote me off because he had "other calls". I wanted to make the situation clear I didn't like how N3sh was saying in that call as I thought it was extremely rude.

1, You are lying, the only time a judge would side with a person claiming their opponent was "too late" is IF they were slow playing.

2, They DID say something YOU ACTIVELY CHOSE TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU WOULD LOSE THE DUEL SO YOU CHOSE TO RULESHARK.

3, And here is you lying again, THEY DID SAY SOMETHING YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE IT.

4, Didn't matter if you had the advantage, YOU WOULD NOT LET YOUR OPPONENT PLAY AND TRIED TO RULE SHARK THEM.

5, No the reason why it lasted that long IS BECAUSE YOU CHOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THE RULING SO YOU STALLED FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE.

At least have the decency to tell the truth before your next response.