Support » Suggestions

Edit: Please anyone who is joining us you can just jump to Post#21 as everything that I'm advocating for is mentioned from there.

Also if there is any post that should definitely be read in this topic, it is Post#33. Please make sure to give your first importance to Post #33. Anything before these posts was preliminary work for me to understand what exactly I believe should be done.

Thanks!

Hello All -

So many things I feel need to be made clear on this site and that are not… I’m specifically talking about online simulation here

a) how many seconds one should wait before they can start resolving a chain that they declared ( still not clear if its 11 seconds, 25 seconds - for instance I have been told 25 seconds is more than enough but even 11 seconds Is sometimes enough - it needs to be clear. for instance During book should officially say something like “if you don’t say anything for 10 seconds it is fair to assume that you have no response on this site”.

b) if you mis-click and “5 seconds” passed it is considered a misplay- no questions asked….

c) if there is lag and you have not written something like “lag wait for my response for each and every effect that you activate and if you feel like I’m taking too long please call for slow play- however, under no circumstance should you continue playing if you haven’t heard ok back from me” then no matter what it will be ruled as if lag does not exist

——I can probably make a a proper list , and I would be willing to actually help make one If I was a judge on this site right now…. but these things should me made clear and standard operating procedure for online simulation topics should be made -

----Also on a side note players should be strongly advised to visit the rules and penalties page of this site( (for instance the first thing in announcements) so they don’t get frozen etc. for something they did not mean maliciously - I don't believe that non regular players are that aware and should be given more of an opportunity to be more aware.

A - Technically speaking, you can't start resolving chains until your opponent gives you the okay. Now you CAN make the argument of slow play, but just make sure the chains can start resolving and it'd be fine.

B - If you leave a card you didn't intend to play for a long enough time, it isn't a misclick.

C - And this goes back to A.

@ Renji - in regards to your comment about sub topic A, that technicality actually does not apply to online simulation, at least that is how I have seen it ruled on this site. (for instance if 30 seconds have passed and your opponent has not said anything then it is ruled that your opponent does not have a response and you can resolve the current chain) I'm glad you posted your thoughts as it shows how important it actually is for a Standard operating procedure to be released in such matters as there is a lot of misinformation being spread around as well. IRL i do not disagree with you, but in online simulation there are many factors that need to be take into account, and i believe that is why it is being ruled differently then how it would be ruled irl and this is actual more beneficial, considering online simulation. However, I believe it just needs to be standardized and posted so that everyone can easily just refer to it for all such matters. This will also save a lot of time in the long run from Judge calls taking place .

[quote="Turbo":16ncjhep]@ Renji - in regards to your comment about sub topic A, that technicality actually does not apply to online simulation, at least that is how I have seen it ruled on this site. (for instance if 30 seconds have passed and your opponent has not said anything then it is ruled that your opponent does not have a response and you can resolve the current chain) I'm glad you posted your thoughts as it shows how important it actually is for a Standard operating procedure to be released in such matters as there is a lot of misinformation being spread around as well. IRL i do not disagree with you, but in online simulation there are many factors that need to be take into account, and i believe that is why it is being ruled differently then how it would be ruled irl and this is actual more beneficial, considering online simulation. However, I believe it just needs to be standardized and posted so that everyone can easily just refer to it for all such matters. This will also save a lot of time in the long run from Judge calls taking place .[/quote:16ncjhep]
Say you activated a card and you asked if your opponent has a response, they say nothing. Then what you do is, you wait til they answer. If you don't, you MAY get rule sharked. Alternatively, if you feel enough time has passed, call a judge if you think your opponent is slow playing. This site mimics real life play, so treat it as real life.

Renji, You have been completely misinformed. This is definitely not the case on this site based on how i have seen Judges rule as well as what the judges have said. I used to think that too once upon a time but this is just not how judges rule here.

Again, for instance, If 30 seconds have passed since you declared your chain links as turn player, and your opponent said nothing like thinking or wait, and say you start resolving your chain.... now your opponent is like no... "i have response i was just reading your card because its the first time i am seeing it and of course i ash blossom such a strong effect".... their excuse will be deemed invalid for the judges and they will be told something like "then you should have said thinking/reading wait" or something. Such cases is what i have personally witnessed repeatedly…. when a judge has been called on this site.

This misinformation that you have that "Then what you do is, you wait til they answer" is certainly not what the judges say. However, I feel that you truly believe this is the case like many other people on this site because they think that online simulation is going to be treated exactly like IRL.

This is definitely NOT the case here. Over here if you do not respond by saying thinking etc. and you haven't said something like "wait for my response for every effect that you activate at the beginning of the turn or something" etc. Then you will NOT be allowed to respond to the current chain and it will be assumed by the judge that you chose not to respond/said ok to chain. I hope the Judges/Moderators/Xteven/whoever can make a change sees this issue by reading our conversation here.

As…. what you have said is pretty much EXACTLY the reason why i am making the post. Since like you ….many many other people have this misinformation. Hence, A standardized operating procedure for online simulation is necessary in this case and again will also save a lot of time in the long run of the players as well as the judges (assuming of course DB doesn’t get shutdown like DN etc.) I would love to hear any counter points to my case here.

Please if anyone thinks otherwise, Please speak up and tell us your reason so that we can know what actually SHOULD be done in regards to this issue.

[quote="Turbo":2xm97t7h]Renji, You have been completely misinformed. This is definitely not the case on this site based on how i have seen Judges rule as well as what the judges have said. I used to think that too once upon a time but this is just not how judges rule here. Again, for instance, If 30 seconds have passed since you declared your chain links as turn player, and your opponent said nothing like thinking or wait, and say you start resolving your chain.... now your opponent is like no... "i have response i was just reading your card because its the first time i am seeing it and of course i ash blossom such a strong effect".... their excuse will be deemed invalid for the judges and they will be told something like "then you should have said thinking/reading wait" or something. Such cases is what i have personally witnessed repeatedly…. when a judge has been called on this site. This misinformation that you have that "Then what you do is, you wait til they answer" is certainly not what the judges say. However, I feel that you truly believe this is the case like many other people on this site because they think that online simulation is going to be treated exactly like irl. This is definitely NOT the case here. Over here if you do not respond by saying thinking etc. and you haven't said something like "wait for my response for every effect that you activate at the beginning of the turn or something" etc. Then you will NOT be allowed to respond to the current chain and it will be assumed by the judge that you chose not to respond/said ok to chain. I hope the Judges/Moderators/Xteven/whoever can make a change sees this issue by reading our conversation here. As…. what you have said is pretty much EXACTLY the reason why i am making the post. Since like you ….many many other people have this misinformation. Hence, A standardized operating procedure for online simulation is necessary in this case and again will also save a lot of time in the long run of the players as well as the judges (assuming of course DB doesn’t get shutdown like DN etc.) I would love to hear any counter points to my case here. Please if anyone thinks otherwise, Please speak up and tell us your reason so that we can know what actually SHOULD be done in regards to this issue.[/quote:2xm97t7h]
Learn to break up walls of text, seriously.

My point stands, its what I have been doing since DN and I have had 0 issues. People who seem to have a problem with it are people who don't want to be social.

Again, you are completely misinformed though as Online simulation is treated a bit differently then IRL.

Such as the examples I mentioned above " (for instance if you did not say anything relative prior and 30 seconds have passed, since you declared your chain, and your opponent has not said anything then it is ruled that your opponent does not have a response/said ok to your chain and you can resolve the current chain) "

Thanks for your advice though, I am relatively new to posting like this

Just edited the 2nd reply after your feedback. Thanks again

players should never EVER be resolving any chain whatsoever without the ok to proceed from the opponent and the opponent should never EVER be sitting there doing nothing for 30 seconds after an effect activation. communication is required or you simply should not be playing a 2 player game. do not be trying to use a timeframe as a response.

the other things you have asked about is simply not possible.

misclicks are all completely different situations and it is up to us what is a misclick and what is not you cant ask for a clearly outlined thing on something that is always up to our opinion and judgment on a situation. every issue with a misclick is diferent so you cant ask for a standard.

Lag is something we do not take into account.

I agree with you Genexwrecker but there's a lot of confusion on what is considered "ok" from the opponent as this is not IRL. I just think that we can all benefit if there is a consensus on what is considered as "ok" from the opponent, if they decide not to reply. Or maybe you can say they must reply ... but then we have to answer that if they don't reply who's fault is that? What im getting with what you said is, it is both players fault really because they did not communicate efficiently.

And yet the Judge must rule in only one persons favor, if this scenario does happen. This actually happens a lot in rated games, in which players say nothing to the chain and then when their opponent decides to resolve the chain after "A" amount of seconds they decide to chain their card.

We just need clear answers to who's side the judge is going to take if "X" scenario happens, since this matter is specifically related to online simulation only. IRL this problem does not exist as you verbally just ask "ok?" and then your opponent verbally replies ok or wait. I hope I'm making sense. If we have clear answers to these scenarios then there wouldn't be any dispute in the first place.

-----
Thanks for you answers on all the other topics too. I understand your responses. I would just recommend:

if something like this can also be mentioned (in the General Policies and/or Rules page) in regards to all matters related specifically to Lag: "Lag will not be taken into account- If you are lagging please do not play in rated duels until you have a good enough connection or you can play at your own risk" it would benefit the community as a whole and will save time by the reduction of judge calls as well.

Also

If something like this can be mentioned (in the General Policies and/or Rules page) in regards to mis-click- Under no circumstance will it be considered a mis-click if more than 5 seconds are passed- if you attempt to correct the mis-click in less than 5 seconds then it is up to the judge to decide. (The upper limit can easily be standardized here ) This will also save time in the long run as people will then not call judge after it has been 5 seconds that they "mis-clicked" . I understand all matters are different in regards to mis-clicks but such a consensus can easily be made about the upper limit - for instance if not 5 seconds, then you can make the upper limit 6 or 7 seconds or whatever you/community thinks is the maximum amount of time a mis-click can be corrected. I hope I'm making sense to you.

[quote="Turbo":1a7209kx]I agree with you Genexwrecker but there's a lot of confusion on what is considered "ok" from the opponent as this is not IRL. I just think that we can all benefit if there is a consensus on what is considered as "ok" from the opponent, if they decide not to reply. Or maybe you can say they must reply ... but then we have to answer that if they don't reply who's fault is that? What im getting with what you said is, it is both players fault really because they did not communicate efficiently.

And yet the Judge must rule in only one persons favor, if this scenario does happen. This actually happens a lot in rated games, in which players say nothing to the chain and then when their opponent decides to resolve the chain after "A" amount of seconds they decide to chain their card.

We just need clear answers to who's side the judge is going to take if "X" scenario happens, since this matter is specifically related to online simulation only. IRL this problem does not exist as you verbally just ask "ok?" and then your opponent verbally replies ok or wait. I hope I'm making sense. If we have clear answers to these scenarios then there wouldn't be any dispute in the first place.

-----
Thanks for you answers on all the other topics too. I understand your responses. I would just recommend:

if something like this can also be mentioned in regards to all matters related specifically to Lag: "Lag will not be taken into account- If you are lagging please do not play in rated duels until you have a good enough connection or you can play at your own risk" it would benefit the community as a whole and will save time by the reduction of judge calls as well.

Also

If something like this can be mentioned in regards to mis-click- Under no circumstance will it be considered a misclick if more than 5 seconds are passed- if you attempt to correct the mis-click in less than 5 seconds then it is up to the judge to decide. (The upper limit can easily be standardized here ) This will also save time in the long run as people will then not call judge after it has been 5 seconds that they "mis-clicked" . I understand all matters are different in regards to mis-clicks but such a consensus can easily be made about the upper limit - for instance if not 5 seconds, then you can make the upper limit 6 or 7 seconds or whatever you/community thinks is the maximum amount of time a mis-click can be corrected. I hope I'm making sense to you.[/quote:1a7209kx]
There is no "If they choose not to reply". If a player refuses to reply, they shouldn't be playing the game PERIOD. If 1 player REFUSES to reply, they are at fault not the person asking if the card is good to go to resolve.

So... this reply is intended to be Read by anyone who can possibly help make a change. I will try to be as clear as I can for the time being.

Renji, You say the person not replying is at fault but the person who is asking, what if he only waits 3 seconds? I’m pretty sure the judge will rule in the person who did not reply's favor as 3 seconds is too less of a time to respond on this site, —— now what if he only waits 5 seconds? Maybe that's too little as well — what if he waits 9 seconds? These are just examples that ACTUALLY happen on this site.

I’m mentioning these examples because you say that the person who doesn’t reply is at fault and yet when the judge comes the ruling is given in favor of sometimes the person who refused to reply and sometimes the person who asked/declared the chain or effect….

The fact of the matter here I believe is that there is really no need for a judge here (except perhaps in very rare cases- where other matters are also at play). …. This information just needs to be standardized and all scenarios just need to be explained ONCE. Since…. These scenarios will continue to happen and confusion will remain and there is no need for this confusion…

All that needs to bee done is a standard for these scenarios should be set and explained—- basically tell us how the judge is going to rule in “x second” scenario , how a judge is going to rule in “y second” scenario and then every judge should rule that way… (There is another factor here that I talk about in the next paragraph) They might already do this but there is no need for personal judgement here…. There should be a standard for each different case, especially considering this site does not take into account “Lag”… In an ideal world everybody would reply something on every effect that is activated on this site but that just does not happen ….

Another factor in this matter is that if a person who asks after 4 seconds or 5 seconds and then decides to resolve the chain without waiting for a reply— how many seconds does it take for the opponent to say “thinking” or “stop”.

----------

I will explain in detail what I mean :

Again, There are 2 factors here
1) The time waited by Player A before an effect/chain resolution is attempted without hearing back from Player B
2) How long It takes Player B to say something after Player A decides to resolve the chain without hearing back from Player B


You can set a fixed acceptable amount of factor 2 (for instance a maximum of 2 seconds if the opponent has given from 0-10 seconds of time to respond) And you can say if the player who declares the chain gives more than 10 seconds , factor 2 is then eliminated and that ample time has been given for the person to respond and now it is too late to respond. (These are just example numbers and the real numbers the judge community has to determine)

There are no other factors here really— another possible factor that is ‘sometimes’ considered right now is how the game has been playing before the said “issue” occurs. This factor is pretty much completely eliminated when a standard explaining these scenarios is made.

There are only a limited amount of scenarios here. And Judges have to rule all these different scenarios based on what they “personally” think at the time. I don't even think its fair to put that pressure on a judge to decide here without a standard already set since again these issues are solely manual online simulation based- IRL such issues just do not occur.


Again, In regard to this matter alone, there are no other factors that I can think of, and if so a standard can and SHOULD be set here rather than a judge being called to personally decide. Then people can also just link the page in which this stuff is mentioned and move on without having to wait for a judge for such seemingly complicated matters which actually do not have to be complicated at all.

All of a sudden this seems a bit lengthy process here… but if the Dueling book judge community can all just once come to a consensus in this matter - of all these limited scenarios- it will not just benefit the Dueling book community but all similar communities that use manual online simulation, since a precedent will have been set - Furthermore once this standard explaining all the limited scenarios is determined, this will motivate everyone to have more of an “effective communication” with their opponent as well.

I understand this has perhaps not been attempted before (maybe because it seemed to hectic or just at the time it was believed that all cases are completely different and hence a judge needs to see each scenario). but it should be since again…there is NO NEED for a judge to “personally” decide here… In fact, leaving it for a judge to decide here WITHOUT a standard is actually counter productive compared to a standard being set, as one judge will rule in favor of the person who did not reply after “x seconds” and then replied after “y seconds”, of opponent trying to resolve the effect, and then for the same exact matter another judge will perhaps rule in the person who asked….

This confusion and this issue will just cease to exist if a standard is set… and a standard should bet set. ( again when I say standard here, it is involving all scenarios and both factors that I mentioned above- you’ll just have to explain these scenarios once…that is all)

Before who ever can decide in this matter and make a decision, I just want you to ask yourself, do we really need a judge to decide in these scenarios and risk different rulings for the same exact matter by another judge? Or do we just need to put in a little bit amount of time and effort to make one standardized document explaining all the “limited” different scenarios?

[quote="Turbo":32zeo2n5]So... this reply is intended to be Read by anyone who can possibly help make a change. I will try to be as clear as I can for the time being.

Renji, You say the person not replying is at fault but the person who is asking, what if he only waits 3 seconds? I’m pretty sure the judge will rule in the person who did not reply's favor as 3 seconds is too less of a time to respond on this site, —— now what if he only waits 5 seconds? Maybe that's too little as well — what if he waits 9 seconds? These are just examples that ACTUALLY happen on this site.

I’m mentioning these examples because you say that the person who doesn’t reply is at fault and yet when the judge comes the ruling is given in favor of sometimes the person who refused to reply and sometimes the person who asked/declared the chain or effect….

The fact of the matter here I believe is that there is really no need for a judge here (except perhaps in very rare cases- where other matters are also at play). …. This information just needs to be standardized and all scenarios just need to be explained ONCE. Since…. These scenarios will continue to happen and confusion will remain and there is no need for this confusion…

All that needs to bee done is a standard for these scenarios should be set and explained—- basically tell us how the judge is going to rule in “x second” scenario , how a judge is going to rule in “y second” scenario and then every judge should rule that way… (There is another factor here that I talk about in the next paragraph) They might already do this but there is no need for personal judgement here…. There should be a standard for each different case, especially considering this site does not take into account “Lag”… In an ideal world everybody would reply something on every effect that is activated on this site but that just does not happen ….

Another factor in this matter is that if a person who asks after 4 seconds or 5 seconds and then decides to resolve the chain without waiting for a reply— how many seconds does it take for the opponent to say “thinking” or “stop”.

----------

I will explain in detail what I mean :

Again, There are 2 factors here
1) How long it takes the opponent to say something after a chain is declared/effect is activated
2) How long It takes a person to say something after a player decides to resolve the chain after “x” amount of seconds


You can set a fixed acceptable amount of factor 2 (for instance a maximum of 2 seconds if the opponent has given from 0-10 seconds of time to respond) And you can say if the player who declares the chain gives more than 10 seconds , factor 2 is then eliminated and that ample time has been given for the person to respond and now it is too late to respond. (These are just example numbers and the real numbers the judge community has to determine)

There are no other factors here really— another possible factor that is ‘sometimes’ considered right now is how the game has been playing before the said “issue” occurs. This factor is pretty much completely eliminated when a standard explaining these scenarios is made.

There are only a limited amount of scenarios here. And Judges have to rule all these different scenarios based on what they “personally” think at the time. I don't even think its fair to put that pressure on a judge to decide here without a standard already set since again these issues are solely manual online simulation based- IRL such issues just do not occur.


Again, In regard to this matter alone, there are no other factors that I can think of, and if so a standard can and SHOULD be set here rather than a judge being called to personally decide. Then people can also just link the page in which this stuff is mentioned and move on without having to wait for a judge for such seemingly complicated matters which actually do not have to be complicated at all.

All of a sudden this seems a bit lengthy process here… but if the Dueling book judge community can all just once come to a consensus in this matter - of all these limited scenarios- it will not just benefit the Dueling book community but all similar communities that use manual online simulation, since a precedent will have been set - Furthermore once this standard explaining all the limited scenarios is determined, this will motivate everyone to have more of an “effective communication” with their opponent as well.

I understand this has perhaps not been attempted before (maybe because it seemed to hectic or just at the time it was believed that all cases are completely different and hence a judge needs to see each scenario). but it should be since again…there is NO NEED for a judge to “personally” decide here… In fact, leaving it for a judge to decide here WITHOUT a standard is actually counter productive compared to a standard being set, as one judge will rule in favor of the person who did not reply after “x seconds” and then replied after “y seconds”, of opponent trying to resolve the effect, and then for the same exact matter another judge will perhaps rule in the person who asked….

This confusion and this issue will just cease to exist if a standard is set… and a standard should bet set. ( again when I say standard here, it is involving all scenarios and both factors that I mentioned above- you’ll just have to explain these scenarios once…that is all)

Before who ever can decide in this matter and make a decision, I just want you to ask yourself, do we really need a judge to decide in these scenarios and risk different rulings for the same exact matter by another judge? Or do we just need to put in a little bit amount of time and effort to make one standardized document explaining all the “limited” different scenarios?[/quote:32zeo2n5]
You SHOULD NOT ask for a response then wait "3 seconds". You NEED to WAIT til you get a response, if no response is given in a decent amount of time, CALL A JUDGE.

If I ask if a card's activation is good, and my opponent REFUSES to communicate, yes it is their fault.

Nothing needs to be changed. Treat the game as if you're playing in real life, which is what DB (and DN) was going for.

Renji, Please read my last post again... What you're saying has nothing to do with to do with what I'm saying.

The point is... The instances mentioned above DO happen anyway and a judgement then needs to be made when they do... This is regarding those judgments...

Your whole argument is literally based off of "What if this happens? Or what if this other thing happens?" Regarding the time frame how long should you wait before continuing the game. All that doesn't matter. You wait until you are told its good, and if it has been awhile where your opponent hasn't said anything, just...CALL...THE...JUDGE.

I'm not saying/advocating for how much you should wait before continuing... Ideally everyone would reply after every effect and ideally every person will wait for a response for every effect that they choose to declare.... but this just does not happen all the time...

I'm advocating for making a standard of what should happen when such scenarios do occur... rather than just the Judge rule what they think personally in those scenarios....which is what is happening right now..... I think you will also agree that a judge should NOT personally decide in these instances when there no need for personal judgement in these scenarios.

I'm saying these instance will happen in which a person waits for 3 seconds and does not get a reply or a person waits for 15 seconds and doesn't get a reply etc. then decides to resolve the chain....(These instances happen every day- believe it or not .... its not an ideal world... no one replies after every effect and then problems occur and the judge is then FORCED to make a decision.... There needs to be a standard set for all the different "limited" scenarios so that there is no different/personal judgement being passed depending on which judge comes to rule and so the Judgement is consistent and fair.

[quote="Turbo":nzgr3hkc]I'm not saying/advocating for how much you should wait before continuing... Ideally everyone would reply after every effect and ideally every person will wait for a response for every effect that they choose to declare.... but this just does not happen all the time...

I'm advocating for making a standard of what should happen when such scenarios do occur... rather than just the Judge rule what they think personally in those scenarios....which is what is happening right now..... I think you will also agree that a judge should NOT personally decide in these instances when there no need for personal judgement in these scenarios.

I'm saying these instance will happen in which a person waits for 3 seconds and does not get a reply or a person waits for 15 seconds and doesn't get a reply etc. then decides to resolve the chain....(These instances happen every day- believe it or not .... its not an ideal world... no one replies after every effect and then problems occur and the judge is then FORCED to make a decision.... There needs to be a standard set for all the different "limited" scenarios so that there is no different/personal judgement being passed depending on which judge comes to rule and so the Judgement is consistent and fair.[/quote:nzgr3hkc]
And it doesn't matter if it happens every day, people shouldn't be doing it period.

There is a consensus you are required to communicate to play rated. Any issues not communicating are up to our judgment.

Renji, I guess you mean there "shouldn't" be any miscommunication -

Also Genexwrecker please hear me out...

The point is...

Do you want these judgments that take place every day regarding miscommunication to be fair and consistent (especially when its easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document) or personal feeling based by whoever the judge is?

[quote="Turbo":3uy8ejv6] feeling based by whoever the judge is?[/quote:3uy8ejv6]
Literally what using our judgment means and is the point of having us here. We use logic and our personal judgement to asses every situation differently to find a way to rule it. You cannot demand that I state more than 5 seconds isn’t a misclick and will always be the case.

The things that are concrete are our rules and policies and those don’t cover everything or you would be reading 500 pages of stuff.

This is not about misc-clicks anymore if you read my #12 on this topic. Perhaps i was not clear enough (I have not talked about mis-clicks after #10 on this topic).

This is only concerning the miscommunication that takes place when people do not respond in time etc.

There are only a limited amount of scenarios that need to be taken into account as the upper limit can easily be determined -

For instance - "you will not be allowed to respond after 25 seconds of your opponent declaring the chain links if you did not say 'think' etc. " - so then as a Judge you would have to only take into account all the scenarios before the 25 seconds mark. This is actually not that hard to do and it can literately be achieved by around 25 rows and 4 columns on a Microsoft excel sheet. (just an example) I explain in detail in my #12 of this topic how this can be achieved since there are pretty much only 2 factors to consider.

" Again, There are 2 factors here
1) The time waited by Player A before an effect/chain resolution is attempted without hearing back from Player B
2) How long It takes Player B to say something after Player A decides to resolve the chain without hearing back from Player B "

Is there any other factor that 'really' needs to be taken into account? If not, it very easily possible to make this 'excel sheet'. I would make it myself if i had a judge volunteer to help me out right now. To create a rough draft of this, It would probably take me only the time it takes me to play a couple of matches on this site.

This document is perhaps mostly for judges to make sure their judgements are consistent and fair throughout the site.

XTEVEN please see this too!

Again, DO NOT RESOLVE CHAIN LINKS UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN THE OKAY.

How hard is that? If the opponent DOES NOT RESPOND in what you think is a reasonable time, CALL A JUDGE AND LET THEM DEAL WITH IT.

Renji, Please stop saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the other's points.

If you see my previous reply to you, I specifically asked

"Do you want these judgments that take place every day regarding miscommunication to be fair and consistent (especially when its easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document) or personal feeling based by whoever the judge is?"

How is what you're saying have anything to do with this point? Please address the others points if you want to reply to their post or nothing gets accomplished.

Also on a further note- Genexwrecker and XTEVEN - this document can be specifically for Judge use only. You can choose not to release it to the public as well if it helps. This document's primary purpose would be to make sure such miscommunication issues are judged in a fair and consistent manner throughout the site.

[quote="Turbo":li1hh4qk]Renji, Please stop saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the other's points.

If you see my previous reply to you, I specifically asked

"Do you want these judgments that take place every day regarding miscommunication to be fair and consistent (especially when its easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document) or personal feeling based by whoever the judge is?"

How is what you're saying have anything to do with this point? Please address the others points if you want to reply to their post or nothing gets accomplished.

Also on a further note- Genexwrecker and XTEVEN - this document can be specifically for Judge use only. You can choose not to release it to the public as well if it helps. This document's primary purpose would be to make sure such miscommunication issues are judged in a fair and consistent manner throughout the site.[/quote:li1hh4qk]
You NEED to start understanding this concept. There is no "standard" as it is always up to the judge, don't make a move til you have confirmation to resolve, if your opponent won't communicate, call a judge. The sooner you understand that,t he sooner we can move on.

Please... Again...address the point that i made. You are still not addressing the point that I made last to you!

I'll try to make more clear for you. Also, perhaps think of it in a judges perspective as well rather than just a player's perspective.

You acknowledged as well in a previous reply of yours that such miscommunication issues happen every day. [quote="Renji Asuka":26ndwmp7]And it doesn't matter if it happens every day, people shouldn't be doing it period.[/quote:26ndwmp7]

Now.... the question that presents itself is :

Do you want these judgments.... that take place every day .... regarding such miscommunication.... to be fair and consistent? 'Assuming' it's easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document? Or do you want them to be personal feeling based by whoever the judge is and RISK fairness and consistency?

Please address this point first if you want something to be accomplished with what you're saying as you still have not addressed it.

Also please note: I say 'Assuming" above but in my Post #12 and Post # 21 on this topic I actually show how the existence of this document is easily possible.

[quote="Turbo":2m7qwl62]Please... Again...address the point that i made. You are still not addressing the point that I made last to you!

I'll try to make more clear for you. Also, perhaps think of it in a judges perspective as well rather than just a player's perspective.

You acknowledged as well in a previous reply of yours that such miscommunication issues happen every day. [quote="Renji Asuka":2m7qwl62]And it doesn't matter if it happens every day, people shouldn't be doing it period.[/quote:2m7qwl62]

Now.... the question that presents itself is :

Do you want these judgments.... that take place every day .... regarding such miscommunication.... to be fair and consistent? 'Assuming' it's easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document? Or do you want them to be personal feeling based by whoever the judge is and RISK fairness and consistency?

Please address this point first if you want something to be accomplished with what you're saying as you still have not addressed it.

Also please note: I say 'Assuming" above but in my Post #12 and Post # 21 on this topic I actually show how the existence of this document is easily possible.[/quote:2m7qwl62]
Just...let...the...judge...take...care...of...it...It isn't that fucking hard m8. If you don't like the result from the judge, ask for an appeal.

Appealing is a general method that allows Rulings to be more consistent and fair. It is NOT a solution to this specific issue of miscommunication.

Also I feel, you are still trying to avoid the point that I made….

Perhaps think as if you have come to judge a miscommunication issue in-game and now HAVE to rule in only one person’s favor.

Now….

Do you want your judgment of this particular miscommunication issue- an issue that takes place every day multiple times ... to be fair and consistent as the other judges on this site? Yes or no?

'Assuming' again that it's easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document

And please if you’re going to reply to me, address this point that I just mentioned or we won't get anywhere until you address this point.

Again, anyone who is reading this please note: I say 'Assuming" above but in my Post #12 and Post # 21 on this topic I actually show how the existence of this document is easily possible.

And I will ask you to stop repeating yourself as well. I have already stated there is a standard to communicate and follow the rules when you don’t is why judges are here. We exist for the reason of people failing to communicate properly. Those communication cases are always up to our judgement because somebody didn’t want to follow the rules.

Genexwrecker, Perhaps I’m still not clear enough. Also, please actually try to respond to the points that I make rather than making general statements about why judges exist etc. I feel like I'm being pretty much completely ignored by both of you.

I was repeating to Renji because he too also completely ignored the points that I made and started making general statements.

In post #27 of this topic I gave an example and said

“

Perhaps think as if you have come to judge a miscommunication issue in-game and now HAVE to rule in only one person’s favor.

Now….

Do you want your judgment of this particular miscommunication issue- an issue that takes place every day multiple times ... to be fair and consistent as the other judges on this site? Yes or no?

'Assuming' again that it's easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document

Again, anyone who is reading this please note: I say 'Assuming" above but in my Post #12 and Post # 21 on this topic I actually show how the existence of this document is easily possible.

“

Please answer this point.

Also, I understand there is a standard to communicate.
And that is why in Post #23 of this topic, I specifically mention that this document can be for you judges 'only' to make sure all judgements passed by a judge regarding such miscommunication issues is fair and consistent as all the other judges on this site.

Genexwrecker please address the point in Post#27 (The point I have quoted for you in this post as well) rather than making another general statement or…. we just do not get anywhere.

[quote="Genexwrecker":wkap2p7p]And I will ask you to stop repeating yourself as well. I have already stated there is a standard to communicate and follow the rules when you don’t is why judges are here. We exist for the reason of people failing to communicate properly. Those communication cases are always up to our judgement because somebody didn’t want to follow the rules.[/quote:wkap2p7p]

Genexwrecker, Perhaps I’m still not clear enough. Also, please actually try to respond to the points that I make rather than making general statements about why judges exist etc. I feel like I'm being pretty much completely ignored by both of you.

I was repeating myself to Renji because he too also completely ignored the points that I made and started making general statements.

In post #27 of this topic I gave an example and said

“

Perhaps think as if you have come to judge a miscommunication issue in-game and now HAVE to rule in only one person’s favor.

Now….

Do you want your judgment of this particular miscommunication issue- an issue that takes place every day multiple times ... to be fair and consistent as the other judges on this site? Yes or no?

'Assuming' again that it's easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document

Again, anyone who is reading this please note: I say 'Assuming" above but in my Post #12 and Post # 21 on this topic I actually show how the existence of this document is easily possible.

“

Please answer this point.

Also, I understand there is a standard to communicate.
And that is why in Post #23 of this topic, I specifically mention that this document can be for you judges 'only'. This will protect the standard to communicate as well as make sure all judgements passed by a judge regarding such miscommunication issues is fair and consistent as all the other judges on this site.

Genexwrecker please address the point in Post#27 (The point I have quoted for you in this post as well) rather than making another general statement or…. we just do not get anywhere.

[quote="Turbo":99m4az2q]Appealing is a general method that allows Rulings to be more consistent and fair. It is NOT a solution to this specific issue of miscommunication.

Also I feel, you are still trying to avoid the point that I made….

Perhaps think as if you have come to judge a miscommunication issue in-game and now HAVE to rule in only one person’s favor.

Now….

Do you want your judgment of this particular miscommunication issue- an issue that takes place every day multiple times ... to be fair and consistent as the other judges on this site? Yes or no?

'Assuming' again that it's easily possible to do so by the existence of 1 document

And please if you’re going to reply to me, address this point that I just mentioned or we won't get anywhere until you address this point.

Again, anyone who is reading this please note: I say 'Assuming" above but in my Post #12 and Post # 21 on this topic I actually show how the existence of this document is easily possible.[/quote:99m4az2q]
You haven't been making any points since your argument is "What if this happens or this happens? It must be standardized!" in which case, the situations can be vastly different and the judges must use their best judgement on the situation and make the call. The opponent has the right to respond after EVERY card is played. Just like I have the right to respond after EVERY card is played. So just PLAY BY THE RULES AND CALL JUDGES WHEN THE NEED ARISES. If you DON'T like the outcome in that ruling, appeal to another judge (which might I add, can be denied).

There would also be situations where I might rule it differently than other judges on the same problem. And that is perfectly fine. You don’t need a document for every what if scenario. If you don’t want the possibility of being ruled against then communicate.

In addition what you are asking is nothing but trouble it is xtremely dangerous to say X is long enough to wait for a response as a standard as not only will that lead to rule sharking but encourage no communication. I’ve been doing these judgement calls on duelingbook for over 2 years over 10,000 of them users take anything they can try to construe as law and use it to stall waste a judges time or rule shark.

Renji brother, You refuse to answer my question. Again, please answer my question first as Genexwrecker just did.

Genexwreker Thank you so much for answering my point.

Ok, how about lets just think from a judges perspective only.
Correct me if I’m wrong, I think every judge on this site would agree that rulings need to be as consistent and fair as possible. This is all I want as well.

When you say [quote="Genexwrecker":2alb5r1h]There would also be situations where I might rule it differently than other judges on the same problem. And that is perfectly fine.[/quote:2alb5r1h] I just do not think this has to be the case, in regards to miscommunication issues that specifically result from:

Player B not responding to a declared effect or chain by Player A by saying “think” / “ok” / chain their own effect when the should

(i.e. Both players at fault for miscommunication but Player B mostly at fault - unless Factor 2{How long it took Player B to stop Player A} is taken into account- The maximum accepted amount of Factor 2 should perhaps depend on Factor 1 {the time waited} and should perhaps decrease as Factor 1 increases- again Player A should keep waiting or should call for slow play- this is what we would tell the players)

or

from Player A resolving the effect too quickly without waiting for response from Player B.

(i.e. Player A at fault for miscommunication for not waiting for the response of Player B - unless Factor 2 {How long it took Player B to stop Player A} is taken into account - in which Player B lets Player A resolve the effect and a certain time has passed since Player A started resolving the effect- In this case Both players are actually at fault for miscommunication but Player B mostly at fault, since Player B decided to not stop the opponent well after Player A decided to resolve the chain —
Again the maximum acceptable amount for Factor 2 will perhaps depend on Factor 1 and should perhaps decrease as Factor 1 {the time waited} increases).
Also again, Player A should keep waiting or should call for slow play- this is what we would tell the players.

If you see in post #21, I wasn’t as clear as I should have been before and I apologize for that (I have edited post#21 along with post#12 regarding the same quote too). I ask in this post


“ There are 2 factors here
1) The time waited by Player A before an effect/chain resolution is attempted without hearing back from Player B
2) How long It takes Player B to say something after Player A decides to resolve the chain without hearing back from Player B

Is there any other factor that 'really' needs to be taken into account? “


Lets stop here first, as my entire argument right now pretty much depends on your answer of whether there are more than 2 factors that Judges ‘really’ need to take into account here. I do not believe that there are any other factors currently being taken into account and perhaps there is also no need to.

Also in regards to your concern of [quote="Genexwrecker":2alb5r1h]it is xtremely dangerous to say X is long enough to wait for a response as a standard"[/quote:2alb5r1h] I understand your point. We would just never set any maximum time to respond. This maximum “X” that we would set can just be considered for slow playing — ‘For instance’ if a player does not say “think” “ok”, “activate an effect themselves” for 25 seconds after a chain is declared - then they are slow playing and we will tell the players to then call for slow play if a person decides to do that. — If the person responds with “think” as they should- this maximum “X” for slow play does not apply here as it only applies to when players refuse to communicate with each other. (The possible fact that no judge would allow an opponennt to respond after a player does not say think for 25seconds (the example number that we just considered as slow play if reached) is completely besides the point here.

The standard would still be Player A should not resolve the effect until they hear back from Player B. And Player B should say ‘think’ in time if they want to think/activate their own eff, or say ok to their effs in time so that the game can proceed.

Furthermore this does not mean that a person has 25 seconds to say ‘think’ every time and it wouldn't be considered slow play - They can still be slow playing if they take less than that amount- for instance if they take 24 seconds to say “think” for each effect that their opponent activates. If they do this for no particular reason then they too would be slow playing. All players would still be advised to call for slow play if they think their opponent is slow playing just as they are advised right now. This judgment will then be up to the Judge to decide if slow play actually took place- perhaps depending on the game state and players hand etc.

All of this should actually promote more effective communication.

Also Please bare with me. I want you think as if we are just brainstorming here together to see if their is a better method than the one being used right now, regarding miscommunication such as the ones described - in order to promote more fair and consistent rulings regarding ‘miscommunication’ issues

Of course, only if you/the judge community/Xteven thinks that there is better method than the one being used right now, only then should the method be implemented.

I hope I am making sense.

You don’t take judge calls more have you taken thousands of misclick calls there are far more than 2 factors considered in every scenario and every misclick is different no 2 are the same. As I said before the standard is to communicate failure to do so is specifically why the judges exist.

[quote="Turbo":3j2x78la]----Also on a side note players should be strongly advised to visit the rules and penalties page of this site( (for instance the first thing in announcements) so they don’t get frozen etc. for something they did not mean maliciously - I don't believe that non regular players are that aware and should be given more of an opportunity to be more aware.[/quote:3j2x78la]

The rule page literally says "The information contained here is subject to change without prior notice. It's your responsibility to stay up to date."

That literally means it's your responsibility to stay up to date.

[quote="Christen57":teem1n92][quote="Turbo":teem1n92]----Also on a side note players should be strongly advised to visit the rules and penalties page of this site( (for instance the first thing in announcements) so they don’t get frozen etc. for something they did not mean maliciously - I don't believe that non regular players are that aware and should be given more of an opportunity to be more aware.[/quote:teem1n92]

The rule page literally says "The information contained here is subject to change without prior notice. It's your responsibility to stay up to date."

That literally means it's your responsibility to stay up to date.[/quote:teem1n92]
I understand Christen, I was just saying we could give the other players more of an opportunity to know these rules. I was not thinking about myself here really , I was thinking about all players in this community and the players that would join us in the future.

Also please do read post#33 as what i am advocating for right now is mentioned in it. The earlier posts in the topic was pretty much preliminary work just to understand what should happen. Thanks

[quote="Turbo":3fry0eco][quote="Christen57":3fry0eco][quote="Turbo":3fry0eco]----Also on a side note players should be strongly advised to visit the rules and penalties page of this site( (for instance the first thing in announcements) so they don’t get frozen etc. for something they did not mean maliciously - I don't believe that non regular players are that aware and should be given more of an opportunity to be more aware.[/quote:3fry0eco]

The rule page literally says "The information contained here is subject to change without prior notice. It's your responsibility to stay up to date."

That literally means it's your responsibility to stay up to date.[/quote:3fry0eco]
I understand Christen, I was just saying we could give the other players more of an opportunity to know these rules. I was not thinking about myself here really , I was thinking about all players in this community and the players that would join us in the future.

Also please do read post#33 as what i am advocating for right now is mentioned in it. The earlier posts in the topic was pretty much preliminary work just to understand what should happen. Thanks[/quote:3fry0eco]
Players already know the rules, for some reason, you think the rules are some magical beast that can't be accessed or understood.

[quote="Turbo":252jy9sb][quote="Christen57":252jy9sb][quote="Turbo":252jy9sb]----Also on a side note players should be strongly advised to visit the rules and penalties page of this site( (for instance the first thing in announcements) so they don’t get frozen etc. for something they did not mean maliciously - I don't believe that non regular players are that aware and should be given more of an opportunity to be more aware.[/quote:252jy9sb]

The rule page literally says "The information contained here is subject to change without prior notice. It's your responsibility to stay up to date."

That literally means it's your responsibility to stay up to date.[/quote:252jy9sb][/quote:252jy9sb]we have an opportunity for them we put the rules in a big bold link on the front page that is impossible to miss. Logging into a site without reading the rules Or of terms of service in front of you is lunacy. We have even made efforts to have a pop up window asking if you have read the rules/policy changes before you play rated and 99% of players clicked yes to reading the rules without doing so.

[quote="Genexwrecker":3ftadu7p]You don’t take judge calls more have you taken thousands of misclick calls there are far more than 2 factors considered in every scenario and every misclick is different no 2 are the same. As I said before the standard is to communicate failure to do so is specifically why the judges exist.[/quote:3ftadu7p]

Genexwrecker, I don’t understand why you are not responding to my post #33 specifically.

I don’t even think you read my post #33 properly. If you did you would see that I specifically mention when these ruling would be applied. [quote="Turbo":3ftadu7p]in regards to miscommunication issues that specifically result from:[/quote:3ftadu7p]

I do not mention mis-clicks in post#33 at all!

Also in Post#21 I start off by saying that this matter that I am discussing is no longer about mis-clicks- you might have missed that as well. [quote="Turbo":3ftadu7p]This is not about misc-clicks anymore if you read my #12 on this topic. Perhaps i was not clear enough (I have not talked about mis-clicks after #10 on this topic). [/quote:3ftadu7p]

Please re-read post#33 and ask me anything you do not understand. I am more than willing to explain further in detail about anything that I have said.

Also I asked a question about a factor other than the 2 factors I mention regarding these “specific” miscommunication issues , please do answer my question that I ask in post #33.

Then please address Post#33 directly with whatever you have to say, rather than giving into the urge of pretty much ignoring what I’m saying and making another general statement about why Judges exist etc.

And finally please do not mind but if this is too much work for you, I completely understand. I thank you for responding earlier, although I would just request you to then please refrain from replying and let someone else look into this matter. Otherwise, we just do not get anywhere.

Thanks

I did respond to 33 you seem to misunderstand something. Misclick sand communication issues are the same. More so misclick are a part of bad communication and improper play. Misclick are not accidents and never occur due to such they are intentionally caused by players who refuse to play properly. Everything I said for misclick applies to everything else you have stated

[quote="Genexwrecker":30hd340f]I did respond to 33 you seem to misunderstand something.[/quote:30hd340f]

Let me get this straight… You’re saying you did in fact read all of my post # 33 and understood it as well? Ok… I won’t argue with you on that

However, you have again tried to generalize everything that I’m saying. Please, I can only request, do not do that.

Please address Post# 33 specifically.

If you do not agree with any point I mentioned in post # 33, Please use quotations and say something like
I do not agree with specifically this point “etc. etc.” because 'This, This reason'. I know this is time consuming but please bare with me so that I can perhaps see exactly where my model is lacking.

Please refrain from just generalizing the entire post. Again, I thank you for your previous responses but if you do not want to proceed this way or by another effective communication method that actually addresses the model itself and/or the specific points I make, perhaps it will be best that you let someone else look into the topic.

Thanks

If you dont want generalized responses then dont post a generalized topic. Your suggestions are all for things on the site that are down to a judges judgment and We judges are free to rule things differently and that is perfectly fine the only thing that should always be consistant is actual game mechanics we rule which is something we dont make up ourselves. You want opinionated judge calls to have 1 answer or range and that simply will not happen or be considered for the many reasons i have stated.

[quote="Genexwrecker":3cv05u0u]If you don't want generalized responses then don't post a generalized topic. Your suggestions are all for things on the site that are down to a judges judgment and We judges are free to rule things differently and that is perfectly fine the only thing that should always be consistent is actual game mechanics we rule which is something we don't make up ourselves. You want opinionated judge calls to have 1 answer or range and that simply will not happen or be considered for the many reasons i have stated.[/quote:3cv05u0u]

With the model I descried in post # 33, I’m trying to make the judge calls regarding miscommunication issues mentioned in post#33 to be without just personal opinion and consistent with all judges- only if it is determined to be the better way to do things.

I tried to specifically describe the scenarios in which this model will be useful but perhaps I should have been more clear. In any case the way I see it is: if there is a better way than the one being used right now regarding the specific miscommunication scenarios that I mentioned in Post# 33, then we should implement it.

I am in the process of restructuring the model that I made in post#33 to simplify it even further and to make it clear how and why I believe it is a better method than the one being used right now.

Please give me some time on this.


***Also in the mean time could you please approve the suggestion I made earlier about Lag? -- of mentioning in the policies/rules page something like:

“Lag will not be taken into account at all by judges on this site - Please make sure you have a good connection before you join the rated pool and/or tournament or play at you own risk”.

Literarily almost every player ends up finding out the fact that lag by it-self is not something judges take into account when the judge actually comes to give a ruling in-game. This should definitely be mentioned in the Rules and/or policies page.

Thank you

[quote="Turbo":1oo7cnxm][quote="Genexwrecker":1oo7cnxm]If you don't want generalized responses then don't post a generalized topic. Your suggestions are all for things on the site that are down to a judges judgment and We judges are free to rule things differently and that is perfectly fine the only thing that should always be consistent is actual game mechanics we rule which is something we don't make up ourselves. You want opinionated judge calls to have 1 answer or range and that simply will not happen or be considered for the many reasons i have stated.[/quote:1oo7cnxm]

With the model I descried in post # 33, I’m trying to make the judge calls regarding miscommunication issues mentioned in post#33 to be without just personal opinion and consistent with all judges- only if it is determined to be the better way to do things.

I tried to specifically describe the scenarios in which this model will be useful but perhaps I should have been more clear. In any case the way I see it is: if there is a better way than the one being used right now regarding the specific miscommunication scenarios that I mentioned in Post# 33, then we should implement it.

I am in the process of restructuring the model that I made in post#33 to simplify it even further and to make it clear how and why I believe it is a better method than the one being used right now.

Please give me some time on this.


***Also in the mean time could you please approve the suggestion I made earlier about Lag? -- of mentioning in the policies/rules page something like:

“Lag will not be taken into account at all by judges on this site - Please make sure you have a good connection before you join the rated pool and/or tournament or play at you own risk”.

Literarily almost every player ends up finding out the fact that lag by it-self is not something judges take into account when the judge actually comes to give a ruling in-game. This should definitely be mentioned in the Rules and/or policies page.

Thank you[/quote:1oo7cnxm]
You've been told it isn't going to happen many times, just stop.

Imagine wanting my judgement on a situation to be something that's not my judgement. Idk I feel like you have been told why your idea won't work. As stated many times situations are different and our Judgement on the matter decides the way we rule such as communicating with the players to find out the intent etc. Also missclicks can be mistakes/accidents saw genex say otherwise I disagree on that. The model you are proposing won't be useful. Lag can sometimes be taken into account in some scenarios as there is a way we can check but mostly it's not. Those type of calls will never be consistent nor does it need to be, if users have an issue with it they can appeal no change is needed just properly communicate.

There's no reason to engage with the OP. He's decided that he's right from the get go. From the start he's dismissed the crux of Genex and Renji's thesis as misinformed because it doesn't align with his. Then has the gall to use a logical fallacy (loaded question) in a bid to force the two to say he's right. If he won't argue in good faith then why continue?

[quote="Runzy":39g4equf]Imagine wanting my judgement on a situation to be something that's not my judgement.[/quote:39g4equf]

I see what you mean but in response I would just say it would still be your judgement, in a way perhaps. For instance, the predetermined values of Factor 2 (the maximum accepted time for How long it takes Player B to stop Player A from resolving their effect, that Player A did not wait enough time for Player B to respond to) , will be pre-determined by Judges like yourself and you would have a say in the ‘pre-determination’ of these values. (Perhaps because there is no need to have them NOT pre-determined)

Anyways, I see the rest of your point too, I will see if I can still somehow work around what you’re saying and then propose a different type of solution, as I still think that there is room for improvement.

Also in regards to [quote="Runzy":39g4equf]Lag can sometimes be taken into account in some scenarios as there is a way we can check but mostly it's not.[/quote:39g4equf]
I did not know this was the case as I was not told that officially like you are telling me right now and furthermore in post#9, I was specifically told by Genexwrecker [quote="Genexwrecker":39g4equf] Lag is something we do not take into account.[/quote:39g4equf]
If what your’e saying is true Runzy, than please disregard my suggestion regarding Lag.

Thanks

[quote="Turbo":31aj3yg0][quote="Runzy":31aj3yg0]Imagine wanting my judgement on a situation to be something that's not my judgement.[/quote:31aj3yg0]

I see what you mean but in response I would just say it would still be your judgement, in a way perhaps. For instance, the predetermined values of Factor 2 (the maximum accepted time for How long it takes Player B to stop Player A from resolving their effect, that Player A did not wait enough time for Player B to respond to) , will be pre-determined by Judges like yourself and you would have a say in the ‘pre-determination’ of these values. (Perhaps because there is no need to have them NOT pre-determined)

Anyways, I see the rest of your point too, I will see if I can still somehow work around what you’re saying and then propose a different type of solution, as I still think that there is room for improvement.

Also in regards to [quote="Runzy":31aj3yg0]Lag can sometimes be taken into account in some scenarios as there is a way we can check but mostly it's not.[/quote:31aj3yg0]
I did not know this was the case as I was not told that officially like you are telling me right now and furthermore in post#9, I was specifically told by Genexwrecker [quote="Genexwrecker":31aj3yg0] Lag is something we do not take into account.[/quote:31aj3yg0]
If what your’e saying is true Runzy, than please disregard my suggestion regarding Lag.

Thanks[/quote:31aj3yg0]
Those 2 quotes are a prime example of why your suggestion cannot be implemented.

[quote="Turbo":pnnvcdm2][quote="Runzy":pnnvcdm2]Imagine wanting my judgement on a situation to be something that's not my judgement.[/quote:pnnvcdm2]

I see what you mean but in response I would just say it would still be your judgement, in a way perhaps. For instance, the predetermined values of Factor 2 (the maximum accepted time for How long it takes Player B to stop Player A from resolving their effect, that Player A did not wait enough time for Player B to respond to) , will be pre-determined by Judges like yourself and you would have a say in the ‘pre-determination’ of these values. (Perhaps because there is no need to have them NOT pre-determined)

Anyways, I see the rest of your point too, I will see if I can still somehow work around what you’re saying and then propose a different type of solution, as I still think that there is room for improvement.

Also in regards to [quote="Runzy":pnnvcdm2]Lag can sometimes be taken into account in some scenarios as there is a way we can check but mostly it's not.[/quote:pnnvcdm2]
I did not know this was the case as I was not told that officially like you are telling me right now and furthermore in post#9, I was specifically told by Genexwrecker [quote="Genexwrecker":pnnvcdm2] Lag is something we do not take into account.[/quote:pnnvcdm2]
If what your’e saying is true Runzy, than please disregard my suggestion regarding Lag.

Thanks[/quote:pnnvcdm2]

It's not my Judgement if its someone else telling me to rule a situation how I wouldn't lol. You don't need a "workaround" as I don't think any change is needed. There have been a few times lag have been taken into account (when we can actually prove it) otherwise it's mostly not. My opinions will stay the same as I like how its currently handled. People don't think the same and forcing them to is weird.

[quote="Turbo":wkht4kud][quote="Christen57":wkht4kud][quote="Turbo":wkht4kud]----Also on a side note players should be strongly advised to visit the rules and penalties page of this site( (for instance the first thing in announcements) so they don’t get frozen etc. for something they did not mean maliciously - I don't believe that non regular players are that aware and should be given more of an opportunity to be more aware.[/quote:wkht4kud]

The rule page literally says "The information contained here is subject to change without prior notice. It's your responsibility to stay up to date."

That literally means it's your responsibility to stay up to date.[/quote:wkht4kud]
I understand Christen, I was just saying we could give the other players more of an opportunity to know these rules. I was not thinking about myself here really , I was thinking about all players in this community and the players that would join us in the future.

Also please do read post#33 as what i am advocating for right now is mentioned in it. The earlier posts in the topic was pretty much preliminary work just to understand what should happen. Thanks[/quote:wkht4kud]

I still don't get it. What exactly is your issue?

If your opponent is playing and you have no response, just say "no hand traps" or something like that so they can play and keep the game running fast and smooth.

If your opponent is playing and you have a response, say "wait" and decide if you want to response or not, or if you want to give them the "ok".

If your opponent is playing and you have a response, but can only respond at a certain time, and can still allow your opponent to keep playing for a while before you can respond, let your opponent know to start asking you if it's okay for them to continue after they reach that point. For example, if you have Nibiru in hand and no other response, tell your opponent to keep playing but let you know once they've normal/special summoned 5 or more monsters and then start asking if you have a response.

If you're playing and you think your opponent may have a response but they're lagging, this means that what happens on their screen will take some time to appear on your screen, so playing a little slowly allows them and their screen to "catch up" to what is going on in real time.

If you're lagging too much, it might just be better to leave the game and spare both you and your opponent the trouble of trying to figure out what to do about your slowness and lag.

If you're playing and you think your opponent may have a response, just ask if it's "ok?" If they don't response, decide if you should call a judge or just keep playing. If you choose to keep playing and they come back and said they wanted to respond, rewind the game state to try and fix the issue. If for whatever reason that doesn't work, call a judge and resolve things from there.