Silence is Consent in Yugioh Just had Confirmation

[Sound4]

Because by that logic, as soon as I play say Reinforcement of the Army, I go into my deck immediately ignoring the opponent's response window. That is what you're pushing for.

What? I never said that. This proves you have not read.

Yes that is what you're pushing for.

EVERYONE KEEPS TELLING YOU TO ASK IF THE OPPONENT IF ITS OKAY TO PROCEED.

YOU KEEP ARGUING AGAINST THAT SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE THAT IT'S SOLELY THE OPPONENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

You're wrong on the subject then, and you are now.

I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.

[Genexwrecker]

What? I never said that. This proves you have not read.

Yes that is what you're pushing for.

EVERYONE KEEPS TELLING YOU TO ASK IF THE OPPONENT IF ITS OKAY TO PROCEED.

YOU KEEP ARGUING AGAINST THAT SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE THAT IT'S SOLELY THE OPPONENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

You're wrong on the subject then, and you are now.

I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.

And me the db judge have debunked or explained every link and told why it does not work the way you say.

[Renji Asuka]

What? I never said that. This proves you have not read.

Yes that is what you're pushing for.

EVERYONE KEEPS TELLING YOU TO ASK IF THE OPPONENT IF ITS OKAY TO PROCEED.

YOU KEEP ARGUING AGAINST THAT SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE THAT IT'S SOLELY THE OPPONENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

You're wrong on the subject then, and you are now.

I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.

No, you provided irrelevant links.

Also none of your links even state that if the opponent doesn't respond you can continue play.

Stop your lying.

[Sound4]

Yes that is what you're pushing for.

EVERYONE KEEPS TELLING YOU TO ASK IF THE OPPONENT IF ITS OKAY TO PROCEED.

YOU KEEP ARGUING AGAINST THAT SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE THAT IT'S SOLELY THE OPPONENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

You're wrong on the subject then, and you are now.

I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.

And me the db judge have debunked or explained every link and told why it does not work the way you say.

You didn't debunk any of my links. I don't think you even replied to any of my posts where I provided a link.

[Sound4]

Yes that is what you're pushing for.

EVERYONE KEEPS TELLING YOU TO ASK IF THE OPPONENT IF ITS OKAY TO PROCEED.

YOU KEEP ARGUING AGAINST THAT SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE THAT IT'S SOLELY THE OPPONENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

You're wrong on the subject then, and you are now.

I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.

No, you provided irrelevant links.

Also none of your links even state that if the opponent doesn't respond you can continue play.

Stop your lying.

My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.

[greg503]

I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.

No, you provided irrelevant links.

Also none of your links even state that if the opponent doesn't respond you can continue play.

Stop your lying.

My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.

Relevant: yes, correct: not really. IRL duels aren't all about tournament rules anyway

[Renji Asuka]

I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.

No, you provided irrelevant links.

Also none of your links even state that if the opponent doesn't respond you can continue play.

Stop your lying.

My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.

No they were not relevant. And no, you're still wrong and will always be wrong on the matter.

[Sound4]

No, you provided irrelevant links.

Also none of your links even state that if the opponent doesn't respond you can continue play.

Stop your lying.

My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.

No they were not relevant. And no, you're still wrong and will always be wrong on the matter.

Prove it. I have provided link and you haven't.

[Christen57]

[7:39] Activated "Rebirth of Nephthys" from hand (1/4) to S-3
[7:48] "eff bahamunt"

You know your opponent could have been lagging or maybe they had to take time to read your ritual spell before deciding to respond, right?

Why is there a fight over this 9-second gap?

[18:11] "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"

What "other time with N3sh" are you referring to here? Is there another replay that ties into this that you haven't shared with us?

[greg503]

[7:39] Activated "Rebirth of Nephthys" from hand (1/4) to S-3
[7:48] "eff bahamunt"

You know your opponent could have been lagging or maybe they had to take time to read your ritual spell before deciding to respond, right?

Why is there a fight over this 9-second gap?

[18:11] "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"

What "other time with N3sh" are you referring to here? Is there another replay that ties into this that you haven't shared with us?

He HAS posted that replay before, I think it was the one where he sharks over resolving Trishula

[Renji Asuka]

My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.

No they were not relevant. And no, you're still wrong and will always be wrong on the matter.

Prove it. I have provided link and you haven't.

I already broke down the ruling's words for "tournament play" and even TOLD YOU that DB is not a tournament.

[Sound4]

[7:39] Activated "Rebirth of Nephthys" from hand (1/4) to S-3
[7:48] "eff bahamunt"

You know your opponent could have been lagging or maybe they had to take time to read your ritual spell before deciding to respond, right?

Why is there a fight over this 9-second gap?

[18:11] "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"

What "other time with N3sh" are you referring to here? Is there another replay that ties into this that you haven't shared with us?

This proves that when you ask for a replay you don't look at it but that is besides the point. They never said anything about connection so that already shutdowns that argument. They didn't say anything about reading either. Also about N3SH you were the one asking the replay for it. Look at the "what does this mean thread" it is is on the first page.

[Sound4]

No they were not relevant. And no, you're still wrong and will always be wrong on the matter.

Prove it. I have provided link and you haven't.

I already broke down the ruling's words for "tournament play" and even TOLD YOU that DB is not a tournament.

I also replied and explained my reasoning on why it is appropriate to use tournament rules in DB as DB tries to copy irl as much as possible.

[greg503]

Prove it. I have provided link and you haven't.

I already broke down the ruling's words for "tournament play" and even TOLD YOU that DB is not a tournament.

I also replied and explained my reasoning on why it is appropriate to use tournament rules in DB as DB tries to copy irl as much as possible.

Yes, and the staff did not agree with you, get over it.

[Christen57]

[7:39] Activated "Rebirth of Nephthys" from hand (1/4) to S-3
[7:48] "eff bahamunt"

You know your opponent could have been lagging or maybe they had to take time to read your ritual spell before deciding to respond, right?

Why is there a fight over this 9-second gap?

[18:11] "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"

What "other time with N3sh" are you referring to here? Is there another replay that ties into this that you haven't shared with us?

This proves that when you ask for a replay you don't look at it but that is besides the point. They never said anything about connection so that already shutdowns that argument. They didn't say anything about reading either. Also about N3SH you were the one asking the replay for it. Look at the "what does this mean thread" it is is on the first page.

Would've been better you for to link me to it instead of sending me on a scavenger hunt for it but I think I found what you're referring to.

Anyways, maybe your opponent was lagging without realizing it. That can happen. Sometimes lag can be easy or hard to detect/notice. Either way, the first thing that happened after you activated your ritual spell from hand was the opponent declaring their response, so why didn't you just let your opponent respond there?

In the other replay, you tried to activate Nachster's effect to special summon Cyber Dragon from your grave but your opponent was saying "on eff" and "hold on" and instead of holding on you still kept going. You need to hold on when your opponent says to hold on.

[Sound4]

[7:39] Activated "Rebirth of Nephthys" from hand (1/4) to S-3
[7:48] "eff bahamunt"

You know your opponent could have been lagging or maybe they had to take time to read your ritual spell before deciding to respond, right?

Why is there a fight over this 9-second gap?

[18:11] "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"

What "other time with N3sh" are you referring to here? Is there another replay that ties into this that you haven't shared with us?

This proves that when you ask for a replay you don't look at it but that is besides the point. They never said anything about connection so that already shutdowns that argument. They didn't say anything about reading either. Also about N3SH you were the one asking the replay for it. Look at the "what does this mean thread" it is is on the first page.

Would've been better you for to link me to it instead of sending me on a scavenger hunt for it but I think I found what you're referring to.

Anyways, maybe your opponent was lagging without realizing it. That can happen. Sometimes lag can be easy or hard to detect/notice. Either way, the first thing that happened after you activated your ritual spell from hand was the opponent declaring their response, so why didn't you just let your opponent respond there?

In the other replay, you tried to activate Nachster's effect to special summon Cyber Dragon from your grave but your opponent was saying "on eff" and "hold on" and instead of holding on you still kept going. You need to hold on when your opponent says to hold on.

At 4:07 I explained and said my nachster 2nd eff and seeing on how he was fine with my nachster 1st eff there is a good chance he was already aware of the 2nd eff as well especially when he didn't say anything about not knowing ng its 2nd eff. I explained its 2nd eff and said "hold on" at 4:24. I was already beginning to resolve as well. "on eff" means nothing as well Furthermore, I had already begun resolving.

[Genexwrecker]

This proves that when you ask for a replay you don't look at it but that is besides the point. They never said anything about connection so that already shutdowns that argument. They didn't say anything about reading either. Also about N3SH you were the one asking the replay for it. Look at the "what does this mean thread" it is is on the first page.

Would've been better you for to link me to it instead of sending me on a scavenger hunt for it but I think I found what you're referring to.

Anyways, maybe your opponent was lagging without realizing it. That can happen. Sometimes lag can be easy or hard to detect/notice. Either way, the first thing that happened after you activated your ritual spell from hand was the opponent declaring their response, so why didn't you just let your opponent respond there?

In the other replay, you tried to activate Nachster's effect to special summon Cyber Dragon from your grave but your opponent was saying "on eff" and "hold on" and instead of holding on you still kept going. You need to hold on when your opponent says to hold on.

At 4:07 I explained and said my nachster 2nd eff and seeing on how he was fine with my nachster 1st eff there is a good chance he was already aware of the 2nd eff as well especially when he didn't say anything about not knowing ng its 2nd eff. I explained its 2nd eff and said "hold on" at 4:24. I was already beginning to resolve as well. "on eff" means nothing as well Furthermore, I had already begun resolving.

on eff literally means "on effect activation" aka they are responding to it. This is exactly why you shouldnt be in ranked you ignore your opponents and cause problems just to cause them and it is getting a bit old fast.

[Christen57]

This proves that when you ask for a replay you don't look at it but that is besides the point. They never said anything about connection so that already shutdowns that argument. They didn't say anything about reading either. Also about N3SH you were the one asking the replay for it. Look at the "what does this mean thread" it is is on the first page.

Would've been better you for to link me to it instead of sending me on a scavenger hunt for it but I think I found what you're referring to.

Anyways, maybe your opponent was lagging without realizing it. That can happen. Sometimes lag can be easy or hard to detect/notice. Either way, the first thing that happened after you activated your ritual spell from hand was the opponent declaring their response, so why didn't you just let your opponent respond there?

In the other replay, you tried to activate Nachster's effect to special summon Cyber Dragon from your grave but your opponent was saying "on eff" and "hold on" and instead of holding on you still kept going. You need to hold on when your opponent says to hold on.

At 4:07 I explained and said my nachster 2nd eff and seeing on how he was fine with my nachster 1st eff there is a good chance he was already aware of the 2nd eff as well especially when he didn't say anything about not knowing ng its 2nd eff.

What do you mean by "a good chance"? Unless your opponent explicitly says they having no hand traps or anything else they can or want to respond with, you can't assume they would know and be okay with Nachster's second effect. You made an incorrect assumption.

I explained its 2nd eff and said "hold on" at 4:24. I was already beginning to resolve as well. "on eff" means nothing as well Furthermore, I had already begun resolving.

Your opponent was the one saying "hold on," not you, and they said "on eff" and "on summon" after you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy," meaning they wanted to respond to Nachster's field effect which you should have let them do instead of wasting N3sh's time.

[Sound4]

Would've been better you for to link me to it instead of sending me on a scavenger hunt for it but I think I found what you're referring to.

Anyways, maybe your opponent was lagging without realizing it. That can happen. Sometimes lag can be easy or hard to detect/notice. Either way, the first thing that happened after you activated your ritual spell from hand was the opponent declaring their response, so why didn't you just let your opponent respond there?

In the other replay, you tried to activate Nachster's effect to special summon Cyber Dragon from your grave but your opponent was saying "on eff" and "hold on" and instead of holding on you still kept going. You need to hold on when your opponent says to hold on.

At 4:07 I explained and said my nachster 2nd eff and seeing on how he was fine with my nachster 1st eff there is a good chance he was already aware of the 2nd eff as well especially when he didn't say anything about not knowing ng its 2nd eff.

What do you mean by "a good chance"? Unless your opponent explicitly says they having no hand traps or anything else they can or want to respond with, you can't assume they would know and be okay with Nachster's second effect. You made an incorrect assumption.

I explained its 2nd eff and said "hold on" at 4:24. I was already beginning to resolve as well. "on eff" means nothing as well Furthermore, I had already begun resolving.

Your opponent was the one saying "hold on," not you, and they said "on eff" and "on summon" after you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy," meaning they wanted to respond to Nachster's field effect which you should have let them do instead of wasting N3sh's time.

What I mean by "good chance" is that there is a high percentage that my opponent already knew about te nachsters 2nd effect. This is supported even further as he didn't say anything not knowing my card or was reading but for some reason which he didn't provide didn't respond. You did not get the main reason from my post.

I meant he said "hold on" which at was 4:24 when I had already activated my nachster 2nd eff explaining it to him which you didn't say anything on. I was clear as possible on my communication. I can not be held responsible for other people not responding. Furthermore, he still didn't even activate anything even after he did his "response" with the terrible of saying response with "on eff" plus you completely ignored the time frame as well. The judge call could have been shorter if N3sh just answered my questions as I saw flaws.

[Sound4]

Would've been better you for to link me to it instead of sending me on a scavenger hunt for it but I think I found what you're referring to.

Anyways, maybe your opponent was lagging without realizing it. That can happen. Sometimes lag can be easy or hard to detect/notice. Either way, the first thing that happened after you activated your ritual spell from hand was the opponent declaring their response, so why didn't you just let your opponent respond there?

In the other replay, you tried to activate Nachster's effect to special summon Cyber Dragon from your grave but your opponent was saying "on eff" and "hold on" and instead of holding on you still kept going. You need to hold on when your opponent says to hold on.

At 4:07 I explained and said my nachster 2nd eff and seeing on how he was fine with my nachster 1st eff there is a good chance he was already aware of the 2nd eff as well especially when he didn't say anything about not knowing ng its 2nd eff. I explained its 2nd eff and said "hold on" at 4:24. I was already beginning to resolve as well. "on eff" means nothing as well Furthermore, I had already begun resolving.

on eff literally means "on effect activation" aka they are responding to it. This is exactly why you shouldnt be in ranked you ignore your opponents and cause problems just to cause them and it is getting a bit old fast.

Actually my opponent was the one causing the problem by not saying anything or responding. Explaining my nachsters 2nd eff. If he responded quicker I would have allowed the response.