Off Topic » Spam Paradise

I just had confirmation by a judge silence is consent in yugioh and this is not by any ordinary judge but thus is from a silver judge called Madrest.

Of course, once silence is broken communicating takes top priority.

Context?

Replay?

Silence is not consent. It can be pending the context tho. So yea u gonna need to give the full statements and situation

I'd rather hear what Madrest has to say on the issue.

I mean, some of you wait until the play is done to see where its going and then use silence as an excuse of "I was thinking", bro literally 15-20 sec passed and you didnt say anything when i asked for confirmation.

Edit: not saying its ur case, I just happen to see it sometimes and it pisses me off

[quote="Christen57":3m6srldf]Replay?[/quote:3m6srldf]
okay so i checked what madrest said
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=32070829

Not only did madrest not say the statement "silence is consent" but they ruled against you here. you activated your card and your opponent responded 9 seconds later where you didnt even resolve the chain yet or begin to. madrests statement here is "the time is irrelevant" this does not mean "silence is consent" It means the timeframe is irrelevant in that specific scenario as the gamestate has literally not advanced at all so there is no reason to not allow the response there. frankly madrest was very lenient with you in that duel as this is clear sharking. you didnt even begin to resolve the effect but basically demanded since they said nothing before activating their effect that they gave up their response by being silent for 9 seconds.

Stop spreading missinformation and trying to twist the words we say for one scenario to fit your agenda it is not going to be tolerated.

[quote="Latrow":2rmv728v]I mean, some of you wait until the play is done to see where its going and then use silence as an excuse of "I was thinking", bro literally 15-20 sec passed and you didnt say anything when i asked for confirmation.

Edit: not saying its ur case, I just happen to see it sometimes and it pisses me off[/quote:2rmv728v]

I have definitely come across this myself. A great way to combat this is type 'k?' in the chat. You're not being a jerk, you're opening the door for communication.

Sharks HATE good communicators.

Or here's a thought, don't make a play without the expressive permission to go ahead. If you have to wait 2 minutes, call a judge.

[quote="Genexwrecker":nts2okco]Silence is not consent. It can be pending the context tho. So yea u gonna need to give the full statements and situation[/quote:nts2okco]
Don't try to take back what you said in the "what does this mean" thread not only did you say silence is not consent but never said anything on the context. I know what you are trying to do.

[quote="Genexwrecker":37jze5sa][quote="Christen57":37jze5sa]Replay?[/quote:37jze5sa]
okay so i checked what madrest said
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=32070829

Not only did madrest not say the statement "silence is consent" but they ruled against you here. you activated your card and your opponent responded 9 seconds later where you didnt even resolve the chain yet or begin to. madrests statement here is "the time is irrelevant" this does not mean "silence is consent" It means the timeframe is irrelevant in that specific scenario as the gamestate has literally not advanced at all so there is no reason to not allow the response there. frankly madrest was very lenient with you in that duel as this is clear sharking. you didnt even begin to resolve the effect but basically demanded since they said nothing before activating their effect that they gave up their response by being silent for 9 seconds.

Stop spreading missinformation and trying to twist the words we say for one scenario to fit your agenda is not going to be tolerated.[/quote:37jze5sa]
18:11] "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
This is the confirmation I was talking not only did you purposely try to to ignore this but you also claimed stuff with no proof. "time is irrelevant" was not the quote I was talking about.
My opponent should have not been allowed to respond here. When I activated rebirth to the point were my opponent said "bahamut eff" it was 9 seconds you say that nothing has began to resolve however you missed how if I started earlier then it would have been less time and the judge may have said I didn't wait enough time. I was about to begin to resolve but my opponent all of sudden said "bahamut eff" at that time I thought that the response time was over and I was allowed to resolve. Plus Madrest would have literally claimed if I was sharking which he didn't. No sharking occurred here. I never spreaded misinformation either.

[quote="Renji Asuka":2o2dxtkx]Or here's a thought, don't make a play without the expressive permission to go ahead. If you have to wait 2 minutes, call a judge.[/quote:2o2dxtkx]
Most players want to play at a fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.

[quote="Sound4":2bg18oqc][quote="Renji Asuka":2bg18oqc]Or here's a thought, don't make a play without the expressive permission to go ahead. If you have to wait 2 minutes, call a judge.[/quote:2bg18oqc]
Most players want to play at a fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.[/quote:2bg18oqc]
So stop being lazy and use the chat.

Also, it's ironic that you claim this, yet you literally stalled a game for 90 minutes or so because you were losing.

Its a case by case basis by itself silence is never consent. In most cases if a player doesnt speak up yea we will likely rule against them. You should still ask to resolve effects.

[quote="Sound4":zsde2o30][quote="Genexwrecker":zsde2o30]Silence is not consent. It can be pending the context tho. So yea u gonna need to give the full statements and situation[/quote:zsde2o30]
Don't try to take back what you said in the "what does this mean" thread not only did you say silence is not consent but never said anything on the context. I know what you are trying to do.[/quote:zsde2o30]
They aren't taking anything back, they do not represent the judge who you thought told you "silence is consent," they wanted to know what really happened, which we found out, and you were told that YOU'RE misrepresenting . Personally, I play at a slow pace (a few seconds between actions, and wait for my opponent to break the silence if they have a response). Of course, this leads to giving them extra knowledge if they take a bit longer to respond to a previous action, but I'm fine with that for the sake of a smoother game.

[quote="Renji Asuka":yooghint][quote="Sound4":yooghint][quote="Renji Asuka":yooghint]Or here's a thought, don't make a play without the expressive permission to go ahead. If you have to wait 2 minutes, call a judge.[/quote:yooghint]
Most players want to play at a fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.[/quote:yooghint]
So stop being lazy and use the chat.

Also, it's ironic that you claim this, yet you literally stalled a game for 90 minutes or so because you were losing.[/quote:yooghint]
No one is being lazy it is not your responsibility to ask for consent you wait. If you your opponent isn't saying anything then that is the consen. Plus I never stalled I saw flaws in what N3sh was saying and I was questioning them.

[quote="Genexwrecker":bw2qhise]Its a case by case basis by itself silence is never consent. In most cases if a player doesnt speak up yea we will likely rule against them. You should still ask to resolve effects.[/quote:bw2qhise]
Silence is obviously consent it makes sense. It is not your responsibility to ask to resolve you wait and if they are silent then that is consent.

[quote="greg503":7hbutjt7][quote="Sound4":7hbutjt7][quote="Genexwrecker":7hbutjt7]Silence is not consent. It can be pending the context tho. So yea u gonna need to give the full statements and situation[/quote:7hbutjt7]
Don't try to take back what you said in the "what does this mean" thread not only did you say silence is not consent but never said anything on the context. I know what you are trying to do.[/quote:7hbutjt7]
They aren't taking anything back, they do not represent the judge who you thought told you "silence is consent," they wanted to know what really happened, which we found out, and you were told that YOU'RE misrepresenting . Personally, I play at a slow pace (a few seconds between actions, and wait for my opponent to break the silence if they have a response). Of course, this leads to giving them extra knowledge if they take a bit longer to respond to a previous action, but I'm fine with that for the sake of a smoother game.[/quote:7hbutjt7]
Read my other post.

[quote="Sound4":1miv3kto][quote="greg503":1miv3kto][quote="Sound4":1miv3kto]
Don't try to take back what you said in the "what does this mean" thread not only did you say silence is not consent but never said anything on the context. I know what you are trying to do.[/quote:1miv3kto]
They aren't taking anything back, they do not represent the judge who you thought told you "silence is consent," they wanted to know what really happened, which we found out, and you were told that YOU'RE misrepresenting . Personally, I play at a slow pace (a few seconds between actions, and wait for my opponent to break the silence if they have a response). Of course, this leads to giving them extra knowledge if they take a bit longer to respond to a previous action, but I'm fine with that for the sake of a smoother game.[/quote:1miv3kto]
Read my other post.[/quote:1miv3kto]
Read MY post, I did not disagree that you can play after a few seconds if there is silence, but that you misrepresented what the judge said.

[quote="greg503":j15tpe3b][quote="Sound4":j15tpe3b][quote="greg503":j15tpe3b]
They aren't taking anything back, they do not represent the judge who you thought told you "silence is consent," they wanted to know what really happened, which we found out, and you were told that YOU'RE misrepresenting . Personally, I play at a slow pace (a few seconds between actions, and wait for my opponent to break the silence if they have a response). Of course, this leads to giving them extra knowledge if they take a bit longer to respond to a previous action, but I'm fine with that for the sake of a smoother game.[/quote:j15tpe3b]
Read my other post.[/quote:j15tpe3b]
Read MY post, I did not disagree that you can play after a few seconds if there is silence, but that you misrepresented what the judge said.[/quote:j15tpe3b]

inb4 he replies with "I DiD ReAd YoUr PoSt" and then proceed to not elaborate further OR blatantly misquote you.

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

That said, you were clearly sharking, and he is 100% correct about the ruling here.

[quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":1fhn8j4s]Well, reading that log, he does say:
[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

That said, you were clearly sharking, and he is 100% correct about the ruling here.[/quote:1fhn8j4s]
No sharking occurred here. Madrest would have literally said if I was sharking. The ruling was done correctly my opponent said bahamut eff 8 or 9 seconds after my effect I was about to resolve but my all of a sudden said bahamut eff. If I resolved a few more seconds before I know people would have said "you didn't wait long enough".

[quote="Sound4":1vpf997i][quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":1vpf997i]Well, reading that log, he does say:
[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

That said, you were clearly sharking, and he is 100% correct about the ruling here.[/quote:1vpf997i]
No sharking occurred here. Madrest would have literally said if I was sharking. The ruling was done correctly my opponent said bahamut eff 8 or 9 seconds after my effect I was about to resolve but my all of a sudden said bahamut eff. If I resolved a few more seconds before I know people would have said "you didn't wait long enough".[/quote:1vpf997i]
Do I really need to go through the replay and tear you another asshole?

[quote="Renji Asuka":26o7v2mh][quote="Sound4":26o7v2mh][quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":26o7v2mh]Well, reading that log, he does say:
[18:11] OP: "Because the other time with N3sh apparently silence is not consent in yugioh"
[18:21] MadRest: "It is in most cases."
[18:26] MadRest: "But I can't comment on the exact case."

That said, you were clearly sharking, and he is 100% correct about the ruling here.[/quote:26o7v2mh]
No sharking occurred here. Madrest would have literally said if I was sharking. The ruling was done correctly my opponent said bahamut eff 8 or 9 seconds after my effect I was about to resolve but my all of a sudden said bahamut eff. If I resolved a few more seconds before I know people would have said "you didn't wait long enough".[/quote:26o7v2mh]
Do I really need to go through the replay and tear you another asshole?[/quote:26o7v2mh]
You can if you want to. Plus stop using inappropriate language it was unnecessary.

silence is not generally consent. this is a game of communication and the game does not move forward without the consent of the other player. pending the situation it may be ruled that their silence is consent and in a lot of cases we will likely rule it as a late response. Madrests statement is just that pending the situation we may likely see the silence as consent but that doesnt mean that is how you should be approaching your games.

[quote="Genexwrecker":2msvcf97]silence is not generally consent. this is a game of communication and the game does not move forward without the consent of the other player. pending the situation it may be ruled that their silence is consent and in a lot of cases we will likely rule it as a late response. Madrests statement is just that pending the situation we may likely see the silence as consent but that doesnt mean that is how you should be approaching your games.[/quote:2msvcf97]
Most players want to play at fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.

[quote="Sound4":1sv1zhx8][quote="Genexwrecker":1sv1zhx8]silence is not generally consent. this is a game of communication and the game does not move forward without the consent of the other player. pending the situation it may be ruled that their silence is consent and in a lot of cases we will likely rule it as a late response. Madrests statement is just that pending the situation we may likely see the silence as consent but that doesnt mean that is how you should be approaching your games.[/quote:1sv1zhx8]
Most players want to play at fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.[/quote:1sv1zhx8]
Then dont play rated

[quote="Genexwrecker":3gb20g1u][quote="Christen57":3gb20g1u]Replay?[/quote:3gb20g1u]
okay so i checked what madrest said
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=32070829

Not only did madrest not say the statement "silence is consent" but they ruled against you here. you activated your card and your opponent responded 9 seconds later where you didnt even resolve the chain yet or begin to. madrests statement here is "the time is irrelevant" this does not mean "silence is consent" It means the timeframe is irrelevant in that specific scenario as the gamestate has literally not advanced at all so there is no reason to not allow the response there. frankly madrest was very lenient with you in that duel as this is clear sharking. you didnt even begin to resolve the effect but basically demanded since they said nothing before activating their effect that they gave up their response by being silent for 9 seconds.

Stop spreading missinformation and trying to twist the words we say for one scenario to fit your agenda it is not going to be tolerated.[/quote:3gb20g1u]

Yes, but at the same time, it depends on the Duel. I've heard 15 seconds is a good time to allow for responses, but even that, realistically, is a lot. People tend to be very quick with responses when they have something, reacting within five or so seconds.

[quote="Tommy Wiseau":3719j00g][quote="Genexwrecker":3719j00g][quote="Christen57":3719j00g]Replay?[/quote:3719j00g]
okay so i checked what madrest said
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=32070829

Not only did madrest not say the statement "silence is consent" but they ruled against you here. you activated your card and your opponent responded 9 seconds later where you didnt even resolve the chain yet or begin to. madrests statement here is "the time is irrelevant" this does not mean "silence is consent" It means the timeframe is irrelevant in that specific scenario as the gamestate has literally not advanced at all so there is no reason to not allow the response there. frankly madrest was very lenient with you in that duel as this is clear sharking. you didnt even begin to resolve the effect but basically demanded since they said nothing before activating their effect that they gave up their response by being silent for 9 seconds.

Stop spreading missinformation and trying to twist the words we say for one scenario to fit your agenda it is not going to be tolerated.[/quote:3719j00g]

Yes, but at the same time, it depends on the Duel. I've heard 15 seconds is a good time to allow for responses, but even that, realistically, is a lot. People tend to be very quick with responses when they have something, reacting within five or so seconds.[/quote:3719j00g]
The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.

[quote="Genexwrecker":2q4y2ikk][quote="Sound4":2q4y2ikk][quote="Genexwrecker":2q4y2ikk]silence is not generally consent. this is a game of communication and the game does not move forward without the consent of the other player. pending the situation it may be ruled that their silence is consent and in a lot of cases we will likely rule it as a late response. Madrests statement is just that pending the situation we may likely see the silence as consent but that doesnt mean that is how you should be approaching your games.[/quote:2q4y2ikk]
Most players want to play at fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.[/quote:2q4y2ikk]
Then dont play rated[/quote:2q4y2ikk]
Yugioh is a fast paced game and people have even said it has gotten a lot faster since 5 years ago.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."

[quote="Sound4":14y657sv][quote="Genexwrecker":14y657sv][quote="Sound4":14y657sv]
Most players want to play at fast pace. Nobody wants to waste time waiting for a response.[/quote:14y657sv]
Then dont play rated[/quote:14y657sv]
Yugioh is a fast paced game and people have even said it has gotten a lot faster since 5 years ago.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."[/quote:14y657sv]
Aka communication required no silence

[quote="Genexwrecker":2i7m1rxn][quote="Tommy Wiseau":2i7m1rxn][quote="Genexwrecker":2i7m1rxn]
okay so i checked what madrest said
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=32070829

Not only did madrest not say the statement "silence is consent" but they ruled against you here. you activated your card and your opponent responded 9 seconds later where you didnt even resolve the chain yet or begin to. madrests statement here is "the time is irrelevant" this does not mean "silence is consent" It means the timeframe is irrelevant in that specific scenario as the gamestate has literally not advanced at all so there is no reason to not allow the response there. frankly madrest was very lenient with you in that duel as this is clear sharking. you didnt even begin to resolve the effect but basically demanded since they said nothing before activating their effect that they gave up their response by being silent for 9 seconds.

Stop spreading missinformation and trying to twist the words we say for one scenario to fit your agenda it is not going to be tolerated.[/quote:2i7m1rxn]

Yes, but at the same time, it depends on the Duel. I've heard 15 seconds is a good time to allow for responses, but even that, realistically, is a lot. People tend to be very quick with responses when they have something, reacting within five or so seconds.[/quote:2i7m1rxn]
The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.[/quote:2i7m1rxn]

They really shouldn't. Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response. When someone has a response, he will ask you to wait, say he's thinking about a potential response, or allows for a response. Taking more than 15 seconds per play is unrealistic and excessive, and I consider it slow play, at least in the context of DB. I don't know how slow real-life games tend to be, but I doubt they are this slow. I've seen a few live games, and they weren't slow.

[quote="Tommy Wiseau":3mvldys4][quote="Genexwrecker":3mvldys4][quote="Tommy Wiseau":3mvldys4]

Yes, but at the same time, it depends on the Duel. I've heard 15 seconds is a good time to allow for responses, but even that, realistically, is a lot. People tend to be very quick with responses when they have something, reacting within five or so seconds.[/quote:3mvldys4]
The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.[/quote:3mvldys4]

They really shouldn't. Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response. When someone has a response, he will ask you to wait, say he's thinking about a potential response, or allows for a response. Taking more than 15 seconds per play is unrealistic and excessive, and I consider it slow play, at least in the context of DB. I don't know how slow real-life games tend to be, but I doubt they are this slow. I've seen a few live games, and they weren't slow.[/quote:3mvldys4]
So you're saying your opponent shouldn't wait for a response when activating anything? Man, that goes against the rulebook.

[quote="Tommy Wiseau":2kndkjfd][quote="Genexwrecker":2kndkjfd][quote="Tommy Wiseau":2kndkjfd]

Yes, but at the same time, it depends on the Duel. I've heard 15 seconds is a good time to allow for responses, but even that, realistically, is a lot. People tend to be very quick with responses when they have something, reacting within five or so seconds.[/quote:2kndkjfd]
The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.[/quote:2kndkjfd]

Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response.[/quote:2kndkjfd]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple

[quote="Genexwrecker":3kghqk4z][quote="Sound4":3kghqk4z][quote="Genexwrecker":3kghqk4z]
Then dont play rated[/quote:3kghqk4z]
Yugioh is a fast paced game and people have even said it has gotten a lot faster since 5 years ago.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."[/quote:3kghqk4z]
Aka communication required no silence[/quote:3kghqk4z]
Mine was already acknowledged by the silence.

[quote="Sound4":2fbkqvh3][quote="Genexwrecker":2fbkqvh3][quote="Sound4":2fbkqvh3]
Yugioh is a fast paced game and people have even said it has gotten a lot faster since 5 years ago.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."[/quote:2fbkqvh3]
Aka communication required no silence[/quote:2fbkqvh3]
Mine was already acknowledged by the silence.[/quote:2fbkqvh3]
Maybe, but you ARE responsible for showing extra information and backing up your gamestate when your opponent does anything

[quote="Sound4":1d3vxgv4][quote="Genexwrecker":1d3vxgv4][quote="Sound4":1d3vxgv4]
Yugioh is a fast paced game and people have even said it has gotten a lot faster since 5 years ago.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."[/quote:1d3vxgv4]
Aka communication required no silence[/quote:1d3vxgv4]
Mine was already acknowledged by the silence.[/quote:1d3vxgv4]

Anyone who has seen your replays knows that the opponents did not accept the gamestate. You just ASSUMED that they did because they didn't immediately say/do something.

"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."

I WILL beat you over the head with this quote that YOU provided.

[quote="troglyte":1bwoiczy][quote="Sound4":1bwoiczy][quote="Genexwrecker":1bwoiczy]
Aka communication required no silence[/quote:1bwoiczy]
Mine was already acknowledged by the silence.[/quote:1bwoiczy]

Anyone who has seen your replays knows that the opponents did not accept the gamestate. You just ASSUMED that they did because they didn't immediately say/do something.

"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."

I WILL beat you over the head with this quote that YOU provided.[/quote:1bwoiczy]

Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."
You missed the point and Ii have already shown this quote before. You give your opponent a few seconds if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may proceed as your opponent isn't saying anything. Communication is key In DB.

[quote="Sound4":32o9arod][quote="troglyte":32o9arod][quote="Sound4":32o9arod]
Mine was already acknowledged by the silence.[/quote:32o9arod]

Anyone who has seen your replays knows that the opponents did not accept the gamestate. You just ASSUMED that they did because they didn't immediately say/do something.

"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."

I WILL beat you over the head with this quote that YOU provided.[/quote:32o9arod]

Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."
You missed the point and Ii have already shown this quote before. You give your opponent a few seconds if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may proceed as your opponent isn't saying anything. Communication is key In DB.[/quote:32o9arod]

And by ignoring your opponent, you are actively refusing to communicate with them out of spite, which is just as bad, if not worse. You have completely failed to address the point I was trying to make. If your opponent is not responding, you don't continue, you CALL A JUDGE.

[quote="troglyte":24927sj8][quote="Sound4":24927sj8][quote="troglyte":24927sj8]

Anyone who has seen your replays knows that the opponents did not accept the gamestate. You just ASSUMED that they did because they didn't immediately say/do something.

"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."

I WILL beat you over the head with this quote that YOU provided.[/quote:24927sj8]

Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."
You missed the point and Ii have already shown this quote before. You give your opponent a few seconds if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may proceed as your opponent isn't saying anything. Communication is key In DB.[/quote:24927sj8]

And by ignoring your opponent, you are actively refusing to communicate with them out of spite, which is just as bad, if not worse. You have completely failed to address the point I was trying to make. If your opponent is not responding, you don't continue, you CALL A JUDGE.[/quote:24927sj8]
Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.

[quote="Sound4":2d2tc0u9][quote="troglyte":2d2tc0u9][quote="Sound4":2d2tc0u9]

Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
"During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides."
You missed the point and Ii have already shown this quote before. You give your opponent a few seconds if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may proceed as your opponent isn't saying anything. Communication is key In DB.[/quote:2d2tc0u9]

And by ignoring your opponent, you are actively refusing to communicate with them out of spite, which is just as bad, if not worse. You have completely failed to address the point I was trying to make. If your opponent is not responding, you don't continue, you CALL A JUDGE.[/quote:2d2tc0u9]
Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.[/quote:2d2tc0u9]

So you admit that you don't want to communicate with your opponent because you don't see it as an obligation. I'm glad we cleared that up. And it is your responsibility, because as we have seen in your replays, you have been repeatedly ruled against, and punished.

I expect no less from Ingeniero the Redditor.

[quote="Sound4":qzqdy9e5]Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.[/quote:qzqdy9e5]
The silence IS the proof of AFK, please stop making a fool of yourself.

[quote="Tommy Wiseau":dlxz68ll][quote="Genexwrecker":dlxz68ll][quote="Tommy Wiseau":dlxz68ll]

Yes, but at the same time, it depends on the Duel. I've heard 15 seconds is a good time to allow for responses, but even that, realistically, is a lot. People tend to be very quick with responses when they have something, reacting within five or so seconds.[/quote:dlxz68ll]
The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.[/quote:dlxz68ll]

They really shouldn't. Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response. When someone has a response, he will ask you to wait, say he's thinking about a potential response, or allows for a response. Taking more than 15 seconds per play is unrealistic and excessive, and I consider it slow play, at least in the context of DB. I don't know how slow real-life games tend to be, but I doubt they are this slow. I've seen a few live games, and they weren't slow.[/quote:dlxz68ll]

You do make a good point. If the opponent is not responding or taking too long with their replies, it can be considered slow play or otherwise rude given context. That being said, sitting in silence is NOT communicating anything, let alone consent.

I think in these kind of situations, it's best to give the benefit of the doubt. If they are slow playing or afk, you need to confirm it with additional indicators.

[quote="troglyte":2l6vbkih][quote="Sound4":2l6vbkih][quote="troglyte":2l6vbkih]

And by ignoring your opponent, you are actively refusing to communicate with them out of spite, which is just as bad, if not worse. You have completely failed to address the point I was trying to make. If your opponent is not responding, you don't continue, you CALL A JUDGE.[/quote:2l6vbkih]
Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.[/quote:2l6vbkih]

So you admit that you don't want to communicate with your opponent because you don't see it as an obligation. I'm glad we cleared that up. And it is your responsibility, because as we have seen in your replays, you have been repeatedly ruled against, and punished.

I expect no less from Ingeniero the Redditor.[/quote:2l6vbkih]
I don't think you really get the point here. You didn't read properly. When you activate an effect you wait for a response and if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may continue. You are not refusing and you are not ignoring. Your opponent hasn't said anything.

[quote="Sound4":2m870mro][quote="troglyte":2m870mro][quote="Sound4":2m870mro]
Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.[/quote:2m870mro]

So you admit that you don't want to communicate with your opponent because you don't see it as an obligation. I'm glad we cleared that up. And it is your responsibility, because as we have seen in your replays, you have been repeatedly ruled against, and punished.

I expect no less from Ingeniero the Redditor.[/quote:2m870mro]
I don't think you really get the point here. You didn't read properly. When you activate an effect you wait for a response and if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may continue. You are not refusing and you are not ignoring. Your opponent hasn't said anything.[/quote:2m870mro]
While I don't disagree with this method, you MUST abide by your opponent when they break the silence because YOU are "overplaying."

[quote="Sound4":qrt31ehl][quote="troglyte":qrt31ehl][quote="Sound4":qrt31ehl]
Your not refusing it is not your responsibility to. You have not made a single valid point. Also what would call a judge for? AFK? You have no proof.[/quote:qrt31ehl]

So you admit that you don't want to communicate with your opponent because you don't see it as an obligation. I'm glad we cleared that up. And it is your responsibility, because as we have seen in your replays, you have been repeatedly ruled against, and punished.

I expect no less from Ingeniero the Redditor.[/quote:qrt31ehl]
I don't think you really get the point here. You didn't read properly. When you activate an effect you wait for a response and if your opponent isn't saying anything then you may continue. You are not refusing and you are not ignoring. Your opponent hasn't said anything.[/quote:qrt31ehl]
No, YOU don't get the point. You don't want to communicate with your opponent and you want to continue to keep making plays ignoring your opponent.

[quote="troglyte":26bcsqqp][quote="Tommy Wiseau":26bcsqqp][quote="Genexwrecker":26bcsqqp]
The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.[/quote:26bcsqqp]

They really shouldn't. Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response. When someone has a response, he will ask you to wait, say he's thinking about a potential response, or allows for a response. Taking more than 15 seconds per play is unrealistic and excessive, and I consider it slow play, at least in the context of DB. I don't know how slow real-life games tend to be, but I doubt they are this slow. I've seen a few live games, and they weren't slow.[/quote:26bcsqqp]

You do make a good point. If the opponent is not responding or taking too long with their replies, it can be considered slow play or otherwise rude given context. That being said, sitting in silence is NOT communicating anything, let alone consent.

I think in these kind of situations, it's best to give the benefit of the doubt. If they are slow playing or afk, you need to confirm it with additional indicators.[/quote:26bcsqqp]

Taking too long, especially repeatedly throughout a match, is already considered slow play per the rules. Maybe give it the benefit of a doubt once, but after that, it shouldn't be tolerated.

[quote="Genexwrecker":1oq3733h][quote="Tommy Wiseau":1oq3733h][quote="Genexwrecker":1oq3733h]
The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.[/quote:1oq3733h]

Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response.[/quote:1oq3733h]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:1oq3733h]

That's only if it's fairly immediate. Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response. Almost no one is that brain dead that he can't say nothing for that long, and the very few people who are get reprimanded for slow play.

[quote="Tommy Wiseau":mo9ssvul][quote="Genexwrecker":mo9ssvul][quote="Tommy Wiseau":mo9ssvul]

Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response.[/quote:mo9ssvul]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:mo9ssvul]

That's only if it's fairly immediate. Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response. Almost no one is that brain dead that he can't say nothing for that long, and the very few people who are get reprimanded for slow play.[/quote:mo9ssvul]
everything with context. There are situations where i have allowed responses after 15 seconds there are situations where i have disallowed responses after 5 seconds.

Every single one of you needs to stop trying to get a standard set for this. The standard is as I explained. "DO NOT rely on a timeframe" you and your opponent should be "IMMEDIATELY" and "ALWAYS" instantly communicating with eachother and nothing else should be relied upon.

you acitvate an effect and ask k?
opp immeidately responds with k or think/wait/sec/ect.
before proceeding you also ask if ur okay to proceed.
opp immediately responds to you again with an appropriate answer.

There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.

things such as late reponses or playing to fast are exactly why we the judge team exist to resolve those disputes on a "case by case" basis. no one situation will be the same and you cannot apply what one judge ruled to the rest of your duels and try to shark off that.

This discussion is over.

[quote="Genexwrecker":2hawskv0]There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.[/quote:2hawskv0]
*on DB, because some high level tournament play seems rather quiet.

[quote="Genexwrecker":wqezf4vg][quote="Tommy Wiseau":wqezf4vg][quote="Genexwrecker":wqezf4vg]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:wqezf4vg]

That's only if it's fairly immediate. Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response. Almost no one is that brain dead that he can't say nothing for that long, and the very few people who are get reprimanded for slow play.[/quote:wqezf4vg]
everything with context. There are situations where i have allowed responses after 15 seconds there are situations where i have disallowed responses after 5 seconds.

Every single one of you needs to stop trying to get a standard set for this. The standard is as I explained. "DO NOT rely on a timeframe" you and your opponent should be "IMMEDIATELY" and "ALWAYS" instantly communicating with eachother and nothing else should be relied upon.

you acitvate an effect and ask k?
opp immeidately responds with k or think/wait/sec/ect.
before proceeding you also ask if ur okay to proceed.
opp immediately responds to you again with an appropriate answer.

There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.

things such as late reponses or playing to fast are exactly why we the judge team exist to resolve those disputes on a "case by case" basis. no one situation will be the same and you cannot apply what one judge ruled to the rest of your duels and try to shark off that.

This discussion is over.[/quote:wqezf4vg]
You obviously didn't get the point here. The time frame matters as that is your only proof that your opponent was taking to long. Your chances increase when you provide proof. Usually silence can mean your opponent was thinking yet don't say it. This can make the opponent confused as now they don't know what you are trying to do. It is not the responsibility of the player activating the response to ask for a response you already are when activating the response. You are literally taking back what you said earlier in the N3sh thread. I play silence as I know it is not my responsibility to ask for a response. Overall yugioh is a fast pace game.

[quote="greg503":1tv7e9sy][quote="Genexwrecker":1tv7e9sy]There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.[/quote:1tv7e9sy]
*on DB, because some high level tournament play seems rather quiet.[/quote:1tv7e9sy]
Another reason why I think a judge to be qualified should have dueling skills and see it from a players perspective as a judge will see it from a one sided view.

[quote="Sound4":2gr60ms3][quote="greg503":2gr60ms3][quote="Genexwrecker":2gr60ms3]There is 0 reason for there to ever be silence in any game of yugioh that is played if you are playing in silence you are playing incorrectly. This is not debatable.[/quote:2gr60ms3]
*on DB, because some high level tournament play seems rather quiet.[/quote:2gr60ms3]
Another reason why I think a judge to be qualified should have dueling skills and see it from a players perspective as a judge will see it from a one sided view.[/quote:2gr60ms3]
But they let their action be quick and speak for them, DB now has the declare and OK buttons to simulate that speed, but sometimes you do just have to talk, and refusing to do so is why judges get called. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with "but it's okay in this context," it matters.

[quote="greg503":1o3aqbcv][quote="Sound4":1o3aqbcv][quote="greg503":1o3aqbcv]
*on DB, because some high level tournament play seems rather quiet.[/quote:1o3aqbcv]
Another reason why I think a judge to be qualified should have dueling skills and see it from a players perspective as a judge will see it from a one sided view.[/quote:1o3aqbcv]
But they let their action be quick and speak for them, DB now has the declare and OK buttons to simulate that speed, but sometimes you do just have to talk, and refusing to do so is why judges get called. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with "but it's okay in this context," it matters.[/quote:1o3aqbcv]
Read my other post

[quote="Sound4":33um7ngy][quote="greg503":33um7ngy][quote="Sound4":33um7ngy]
Another reason why I think a judge to be qualified should have dueling skills and see it from a players perspective as a judge will see it from a one sided view.[/quote:33um7ngy]
But they let their action be quick and speak for them, DB now has the declare and OK buttons to simulate that speed, but sometimes you do just have to talk, and refusing to do so is why judges get called. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with "but it's okay in this context," it matters.[/quote:33um7ngy]
Read my other post[/quote:33um7ngy]
No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.

[quote="greg503":17n8f015][quote="Sound4":17n8f015][quote="greg503":17n8f015]
But they let their action be quick and speak for them, DB now has the declare and OK buttons to simulate that speed, but sometimes you do just have to talk, and refusing to do so is why judges get called. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with "but it's okay in this context," it matters.[/quote:17n8f015]
Read my other post[/quote:17n8f015]
No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.[/quote:17n8f015]

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"

[quote="troglyte":7l6llggv][quote="greg503":7l6llggv][quote="Sound4":7l6llggv]
Read my other post[/quote:7l6llggv]
No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.[/quote:7l6llggv]

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"[/quote:7l6llggv]

Maybe he meant all of the above.

[quote="troglyte":1lc9bo48][quote="greg503":1lc9bo48][quote="Sound4":1lc9bo48]
Read my other post[/quote:1lc9bo48]
No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.[/quote:1lc9bo48]

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"[/quote:1lc9bo48]
My reply to Genexwrecker.

[quote="Jedx_EX":o9yl285v][quote="troglyte":o9yl285v][quote="greg503":o9yl285v]
No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.[/quote:o9yl285v]

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"[/quote:o9yl285v]

Maybe he meant all of the above.[/quote:o9yl285v]
My reply to Genexwrecker. It is because he is saying which I have already answered.

[quote="greg503":2043sxb3][quote="Sound4":2043sxb3][quote="greg503":2043sxb3]
But they let their action be quick and speak for them, DB now has the declare and OK buttons to simulate that speed, but sometimes you do just have to talk, and refusing to do so is why judges get called. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with "but it's okay in this context," it matters.[/quote:2043sxb3]
Read my other post[/quote:2043sxb3]
No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.[/quote:2043sxb3]
How have I been proven disingenuous? I have provided links to support my claims unlike you people.

[quote="Sound4":3jxloanq][quote="greg503":3jxloanq][quote="Sound4":3jxloanq]
Read my other post[/quote:3jxloanq]
No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.[/quote:3jxloanq]
How have I been proven disingenuous? I have provided links to support my claims unlike you people.[/quote:3jxloanq]
You haven't provided anything except for how disingenuous you were. You were called out on your bullshit and everyone here told you why "Silence isn't consent".

[quote="Renji Asuka":3szaisd4][quote="Sound4":3szaisd4][quote="greg503":3szaisd4]
No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.[/quote:3szaisd4]
How have I been proven disingenuous? I have provided links to support my claims unlike you people.[/quote:3szaisd4]
You haven't provided anything except for how disingenuous you were. You were called out on your bullshit and everyone here told you why "Silence isn't consent".[/quote:3szaisd4]
I have literally provided links to support my claims on the other hand you renji Asuka have not provided anything.

[quote="Sound4":ym8cu9te][quote="troglyte":ym8cu9te][quote="greg503":ym8cu9te]
No, you've been proven disingenuous, stop continuing to make a fool of yourself and accept you were wrong.[/quote:ym8cu9te]

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"[/quote:ym8cu9te]
My reply to Genexwrecker.[/quote:ym8cu9te]
Then perhaps you could be less toxic and ACTUALLY repeat your points

[quote="Sound4":anaio4wx][quote="Renji Asuka":anaio4wx][quote="Sound4":anaio4wx]
How have I been proven disingenuous? I have provided links to support my claims unlike you people.[/quote:anaio4wx]
You haven't provided anything except for how disingenuous you were. You were called out on your bullshit and everyone here told you why "Silence isn't consent".[/quote:anaio4wx]
I have literally provided links to support my claims on the other hand you renji Asuka have not provided anything.[/quote:anaio4wx]
You been told that many times that SILENCE DOES NOT EQUAL CONSENT. Your own duel where you talked about "proof" WAS DISPROVEN. Silence =/= consent, end of story.

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

[quote="greg503":wa1lx0j6][quote="Sound4":wa1lx0j6][quote="troglyte":wa1lx0j6]

Are you referring to the post that said "read my post," "read my other post," or the one that said "read my previous post"[/quote:wa1lx0j6]
My reply to Genexwrecker.[/quote:wa1lx0j6]
Then perhaps you could be less toxic and ACTUALLY repeat your points[/quote:wa1lx0j6]
I am in no way being toxic.

[quote="Sound4":1ec3prdw][quote="greg503":1ec3prdw][quote="Sound4":1ec3prdw]
My reply to Genexwrecker.[/quote:1ec3prdw]
Then perhaps you could be less toxic and ACTUALLY repeat your points[/quote:1ec3prdw]
I am in no way being toxic.[/quote:1ec3prdw]
You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.

[quote="Renji Asuka":3hlcbrlp][quote="Sound4":3hlcbrlp][quote="greg503":3hlcbrlp]
Then perhaps you could be less toxic and ACTUALLY repeat your points[/quote:3hlcbrlp]
I am in no way being toxic.[/quote:3hlcbrlp]
You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.[/quote:3hlcbrlp]
I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?

[quote="Sound4":2ory3o63][quote="Renji Asuka":2ory3o63][quote="Sound4":2ory3o63]
I am in no way being toxic.[/quote:2ory3o63]
You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.[/quote:2ory3o63]
I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?[/quote:2ory3o63]
You are refusing to communicate by supporting that Silence is consent.

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

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

[quote="Sound4":171cska0][quote="Renji Asuka":171cska0][quote="Sound4":171cska0]
I am in no way being toxic.[/quote:171cska0]
You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.[/quote:171cska0]
I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?[/quote:171cska0]

Just take the L dude.
Smh...

[quote="Renji Asuka":emgt9ydo][quote="Sound4":emgt9ydo][quote="Renji Asuka":emgt9ydo]
You are tho. By refusing that you're in the wrong, you are being toxic.

By refusing to actually communicate, you are being toxic.[/quote:emgt9ydo]
I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?[/quote:emgt9ydo]
You are refusing to communicate by supporting that Silence is consent.

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

Also, there is no accusation being made towards you. Everything said about you, has either been proven through replays or even stated by you. You don't get to backtrack.[/quote:emgt9ydo]
If my opponent hasn't said anything then I continue. The fact that my opponent isn't saying is that I should continue tinue as there is no reason to wait 20 seconds for a response. I literally replied to everything as I see flaws you know this. I replied if you gus had anything to say about the replay.

[quote="Sound4":3cdmvqn1][quote="Renji Asuka":3cdmvqn1][quote="Sound4":3cdmvqn1]
I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?[/quote:3cdmvqn1]
You are refusing to communicate by supporting that Silence is consent.

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

Also, there is no accusation being made towards you. Everything said about you, has either been proven through replays or even stated by you. You don't get to backtrack.[/quote:3cdmvqn1]
If my opponent hasn't said anything then I continue. The fact that my opponent isn't saying is that I should continue tinue as there is no reason to wait 20 seconds for a response. I literally replied to everything as I see flaws you know this. I replied if you gus had anything to say about the replay.[/quote:3cdmvqn1]
Does not matter, don't make a play. If a player won't communicate, call a judge and let them deal with it.

[quote="Sound4":1j3m85hc][quote="Renji Asuka":1j3m85hc][quote="Sound4":1j3m85hc]
I am not refusing I am simply replying to your points as I see flaws. I could say you are being toxic by not reading properly replies and making accusations by not providing any sort of source. You could call this manipulation. Am I correct?[/quote:1j3m85hc]
You are refusing to communicate by supporting that Silence is consent.

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

Also, there is no accusation being made towards you. Everything said about you, has either been proven through replays or even stated by you. You don't get to backtrack.[/quote:1j3m85hc]
If my opponent hasn't said anything then I continue. The fact that my opponent isn't saying is that I should continue tinue as there is no reason to wait 20 seconds for a response. I literally replied to everything as I see flaws you know this. I replied if you gus had anything to say about the replay.[/quote:1j3m85hc]
Just because you CAN "advance the gamestate" when your opponent isn't saying anything doesn't mean that they have accepted the "advanced gamestate" so if they say otherwise then you have to be responsible for both repairing your gamestate by rewinding AND having shown your opponent extra information.

[quote="Genexwrecker":262o9p9h][quote="Tommy Wiseau":262o9p9h][quote="Genexwrecker":262o9p9h]
The player should immediately ask a response and the other player should immediately answer with think or k.[/quote:262o9p9h]

Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response.[/quote:262o9p9h]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:262o9p9h]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

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

[quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":3vbrhvbm][quote="Genexwrecker":3vbrhvbm][quote="Tommy Wiseau":3vbrhvbm]

Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response.[/quote:3vbrhvbm]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:3vbrhvbm]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.[/quote:3vbrhvbm]
The OP is also known for not listening to a judge after being told to play wasting 40+ minutes. All because they stopped playing the game cause they would lose.

[quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":1u7u3757][quote="Genexwrecker":1u7u3757][quote="Tommy Wiseau":1u7u3757]

Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response.[/quote:1u7u3757]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:1u7u3757]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.[/quote:1u7u3757]ur taking things too literal the statement means in most cases we will likely find the silence to be consent as the ruling for x situation. Silence is never consent and you should never play any game with that mentality. Just because we may rule it on most occasions does not mean that is how you should be playing

[quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":18buie2s][quote="Genexwrecker":18buie2s][quote="Tommy Wiseau":18buie2s]

Declaring automatically implies that you're asking for a response.[/quote:18buie2s]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:18buie2s]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.[/quote:18buie2s]
Judge would have literally said if I was sharking.

[quote="Renji Asuka":1awzk5dd][quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":1awzk5dd][quote="Genexwrecker":1awzk5dd]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:1awzk5dd]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.[/quote:1awzk5dd]
The OP is also known for not listening to a judge after being told to play wasting 40+ minutes. All because they stopped playing the game cause they would lose.[/quote:1awzk5dd]
I saw flaws in what the judge was saying which I was questioning. I literally had the advantage in the duel.

[quote="Genexwrecker":3a9zbsr0][quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":3a9zbsr0][quote="Genexwrecker":3a9zbsr0]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:3a9zbsr0]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.[/quote:3a9zbsr0]ur taking things too literal the statement means in most cases we will likely find the silence to be consent as the ruling for x situation. Silence is never consent and you should never play any game with that mentality. Just because we may rule it on most occasions does not mean that is how you should be playing[/quote:3a9zbsr0]
To not make the duel over an hour most players want to play at a fast pace. There is no reason why a player should be taking 20 seconds to respond.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru ... s/?lang=en
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."

[quote="Sound4":1n3fh0nf][quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":1n3fh0nf][quote="Genexwrecker":1n3fh0nf]
yea that would be how the game works. you declare ask for a response and opp says k or think fairly simple[/quote:1n3fh0nf]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.[/quote:1n3fh0nf]
Judge would have literally said if I was sharking.[/quote:1n3fh0nf]
The judge is saying ur sharking

[quote="Genexwrecker":155q2gne][quote="Sound4":155q2gne][quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":155q2gne]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.[/quote:155q2gne]
Judge would have literally said if I was sharking.[/quote:155q2gne]
The judge is saying ur sharking[/quote:155q2gne]
Who Madrest? N3sh? None of them ssid if I was sharking and most likely given the game loss.

[quote="greg503":q2zd4b0k][quote="Sound4":q2zd4b0k][quote="Renji Asuka":q2zd4b0k]
You are refusing to communicate by supporting that Silence is consent.

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

Also, there is no accusation being made towards you. Everything said about you, has either been proven through replays or even stated by you. You don't get to backtrack.[/quote:q2zd4b0k]
If my opponent hasn't said anything then I continue. The fact that my opponent isn't saying is that I should continue tinue as there is no reason to wait 20 seconds for a response. I literally replied to everything as I see flaws you know this. I replied if you gus had anything to say about the replay.[/quote:q2zd4b0k]
Just because you CAN "advance the gamestate" when your opponent isn't saying anything doesn't mean that they have accepted the "advanced gamestate" so if they say otherwise then you have to be responsible for both repairing your gamestate by rewinding AND having shown your opponent extra information.[/quote:q2zd4b0k]
If they haven't accepted the gamestate and not saying anything that is there fault.

[quote="Sound4":3peld7xy][quote="Genexwrecker":3peld7xy][quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":3peld7xy]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.[/quote:3peld7xy]ur taking things too literal the statement means in most cases we will likely find the silence to be consent as the ruling for x situation. Silence is never consent and you should never play any game with that mentality. Just because we may rule it on most occasions does not mean that is how you should be playing[/quote:3peld7xy]
To not make the duel over an hour most players want to play at a fast pace. There is no reason why a player should be taking 20 seconds to respond.
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."[/quote:3peld7xy]
DB Rated is not a tournament, it does not have a time limit for turns or matches, not maintaining proper gamestate by playing ahead of your opponent becomes sharking if you assume silence is consent, which you are in this example.

[quote="Sound4":1emn5kx5][quote="greg503":1emn5kx5][quote="Sound4":1emn5kx5]
If my opponent hasn't said anything then I continue. The fact that my opponent isn't saying is that I should continue tinue as there is no reason to wait 20 seconds for a response. I literally replied to everything as I see flaws you know this. I replied if you gus had anything to say about the replay.[/quote:1emn5kx5]
Just because you CAN "advance the gamestate" when your opponent isn't saying anything doesn't mean that they have accepted the "advanced gamestate" so if they say otherwise then you have to be responsible for both repairing your gamestate by rewinding AND having shown your opponent extra information.[/quote:1emn5kx5]
If they haven't accepted the gamestate and not saying anything that is there fault.[/quote:1emn5kx5]
That does not give you the right to continue the gamestate.

[quote="Sound4":48ps22gj][quote="Renji Asuka":48ps22gj][quote="ReturnOfTheHurp":48ps22gj]

The judge in this matter literally does say:

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

OP is a shark, but there are definitely 2 different responses coming from the mod team here.[/quote:48ps22gj]
The OP is also known for not listening to a judge after being told to play wasting 40+ minutes. All because they stopped playing the game cause they would lose.[/quote:48ps22gj]
I saw flaws in what the judge was saying which I was questioning. I literally had the advantage in the duel.[/quote:48ps22gj]
No you did not. You were given a ruling and you did NOT accept the ruling because you knew you would lose. After being told to play MULTIPLE TIMES and you REFUSED TO, only shows that is how you act in a losing situation in which, you do not have the right to be on DB.

Either play the game or stfu.

[quote="Renji Asuka":20yjtp0r][quote="Sound4":20yjtp0r][quote="Renji Asuka":20yjtp0r]
The OP is also known for not listening to a judge after being told to play wasting 40+ minutes. All because they stopped playing the game cause they would lose.[/quote:20yjtp0r]
I saw flaws in what the judge was saying which I was questioning. I literally had the advantage in the duel.[/quote:20yjtp0r]
No you did not. You were given a ruling and you did NOT accept the ruling because you knew you would lose. After being told to play MULTIPLE TIMES and you REFUSED TO, only shows that is how you act in a losing situation in which, you do not have the right to be on DB.

Either play the game or stfu.[/quote:20yjtp0r]
I don't know why you are writing in caps but that is besides the point. I literally saw flaws in what the judge I was saying especially when N3sh ignoring what I was saying multiple times. I didn't see any reason why the response would be allowed here. You have yet to prove how I was about to "lose".

[quote="Renji Asuka":gtnkwl22][quote="Sound4":gtnkwl22][quote="greg503":gtnkwl22]
Just because you CAN "advance the gamestate" when your opponent isn't saying anything doesn't mean that they have accepted the "advanced gamestate" so if they say otherwise then you have to be responsible for both repairing your gamestate by rewinding AND having shown your opponent extra information.[/quote:gtnkwl22]
If they haven't accepted the gamestate and not saying anything that is there fault.[/quote:gtnkwl22]
That does not give you the right to continue the gamestate.[/quote:gtnkwl22]
It does as my opponent didn't say anything I know that even if the opponent had not accepted the gamestate they never said anything so it is there fault and they will get the blame not me.

[quote="Sound4":38fulyvb][quote="Renji Asuka":38fulyvb][quote="Sound4":38fulyvb]
If they haven't accepted the gamestate and not saying anything that is there fault.[/quote:38fulyvb]
That does not give you the right to continue the gamestate.[/quote:38fulyvb]
It does as my opponent didn't say anything I know that even if the opponent had not accepted the gamestate they never said anything so it is there fault and they will get the blame not me.[/quote:38fulyvb]
Ur both to blame what do you not understand about this? Communication is required by both players.

[quote="Sound4":ejbqf1j7][quote="Renji Asuka":ejbqf1j7][quote="Sound4":ejbqf1j7]
I saw flaws in what the judge was saying which I was questioning. I literally had the advantage in the duel.[/quote:ejbqf1j7]
No you did not. You were given a ruling and you did NOT accept the ruling because you knew you would lose. After being told to play MULTIPLE TIMES and you REFUSED TO, only shows that is how you act in a losing situation in which, you do not have the right to be on DB.

Either play the game or stfu.[/quote:ejbqf1j7]
I don't know why you are writing in caps but that is besides the point. I literally saw flaws in what the judge I was saying especially when N3sh ignoring what I was saying multiple times. I didn't see any reason why the response would be allowed here. You have yet to prove how I was about to "lose".[/quote:ejbqf1j7]
Your own replay regarding N3sh is proof enough you pulled that shit when you started to be put into a losing position.

But get this through your own thick fucking skull.

DO NOT MAKE A FUCKING PLAY WITHOUT THE OPPONENT'S SAY SO. IF THEY WON'T COMMUNICATE CALL A FUCKING JUDGE. DO NOT RISK GETTING A GAME LOSS OR MATCH LOSS.

[quote="Renji Asuka":1xn3x7ze][quote="Sound4":1xn3x7ze][quote="Renji Asuka":1xn3x7ze]
No you did not. You were given a ruling and you did NOT accept the ruling because you knew you would lose. After being told to play MULTIPLE TIMES and you REFUSED TO, only shows that is how you act in a losing situation in which, you do not have the right to be on DB.

Either play the game or stfu.[/quote:1xn3x7ze]
I don't know why you are writing in caps but that is besides the point. I literally saw flaws in what the judge I was saying especially when N3sh ignoring what I was saying multiple times. I didn't see any reason why the response would be allowed here. You have yet to prove how I was about to "lose".[/quote:1xn3x7ze]
Your own replay regarding N3sh is proof enough you pulled that shit when you started to be put into a losing position.

But get this through your own thick fucking skull.

DO NOT MAKE A FUCKING PLAY WITHOUT THE OPPONENT'S SAY SO. IF THEY WON'T COMMUNICATE CALL A FUCKING JUDGE. DO NOT RISK GETTING A GAME LOSS OR MATCH LOSS.[/quote:1xn3x7ze]
I had the advantage in the duel look at the replay again and my hand I still had plenty of options. There is nothing to risk as my opponent never said anything that they had a response.

[quote="Genexwrecker":2689rcvz][quote="Sound4":2689rcvz][quote="Renji Asuka":2689rcvz]
That does not give you the right to continue the gamestate.[/quote:2689rcvz]
It does as my opponent didn't say anything I know that even if the opponent had not accepted the gamestate they never said anything so it is there fault and they will get the blame not me.[/quote:2689rcvz]
Ur both to blame what do you not understand about this? Communication is required by both players.[/quote:2689rcvz]
You do know that when you activated an effect you are basically asking for a response? That is why you wait for a response for some time it is not the players fault that the opponent did not say anything.

[quote="Sound4":193d8a04][quote="Genexwrecker":193d8a04][quote="Sound4":193d8a04]
It does as my opponent didn't say anything I know that even if the opponent had not accepted the gamestate they never said anything so it is there fault and they will get the blame not me.[/quote:193d8a04]
Ur both to blame what do you not understand about this? Communication is required by both players.[/quote:193d8a04]
You do know that when you activated an effect you are basically asking for a response? That is why you wait for a response for some time it is not the players fault that the opponent did not say anything.[/quote:193d8a04]
It is your fault if they dont respond then you make them respond and open up the communication

[quote="Sound4":xu0mooye][quote="Renji Asuka":xu0mooye][quote="Sound4":xu0mooye]
I don't know why you are writing in caps but that is besides the point. I literally saw flaws in what the judge I was saying especially when N3sh ignoring what I was saying multiple times. I didn't see any reason why the response would be allowed here. You have yet to prove how I was about to "lose".[/quote:xu0mooye]
Your own replay regarding N3sh is proof enough you pulled that shit when you started to be put into a losing position.

But get this through your own thick fucking skull.

DO NOT MAKE A FUCKING PLAY WITHOUT THE OPPONENT'S SAY SO. IF THEY WON'T COMMUNICATE CALL A FUCKING JUDGE. DO NOT RISK GETTING A GAME LOSS OR MATCH LOSS.[/quote:xu0mooye]
I had the advantage in the duel look at the replay again and my hand I still had plenty of options. There is nothing to risk as my opponent never said anything that they had a response.[/quote:xu0mooye]
No, you did not. I watched your replay that involved N3sh, you had 0 options and you refused to play after being told to.

(Here before this thread gets locked.)

[quote="Renji Asuka":kz24q9hj][quote="Sound4":kz24q9hj][quote="Renji Asuka":kz24q9hj]
Your own replay regarding N3sh is proof enough you pulled that shit when you started to be put into a losing position.

But get this through your own thick fucking skull.

DO NOT MAKE A FUCKING PLAY WITHOUT THE OPPONENT'S SAY SO. IF THEY WON'T COMMUNICATE CALL A FUCKING JUDGE. DO NOT RISK GETTING A GAME LOSS OR MATCH LOSS.[/quote:kz24q9hj]
I had the advantage in the duel look at the replay again and my hand I still had plenty of options. There is nothing to risk as my opponent never said anything that they had a response.[/quote:kz24q9hj]
No, you did not. I watched your replay that involved N3sh, you had 0 options and you refused to play after being told to.[/quote:kz24q9hj]
I had plenty of options when N3sh left you can see I was still able to make plays.

[quote="Genexwrecker":3uw9mx8u][quote="Sound4":3uw9mx8u][quote="Genexwrecker":3uw9mx8u]
Ur both to blame what do you not understand about this? Communication is required by both players.[/quote:3uw9mx8u]
You do know that when you activated an effect you are basically asking for a response? That is why you wait for a response for some time it is not the players fault that the opponent did not say anything.[/quote:3uw9mx8u]
It is your fault if they dont respond then you make them respond and open up the communication[/quote:3uw9mx8u]
That is not the opponents responsibility to "make them respond"

[quote="Sound4":1kzs7k2l][quote="Genexwrecker":1kzs7k2l][quote="Sound4":1kzs7k2l]
You do know that when you activated an effect you are basically asking for a response? That is why you wait for a response for some time it is not the players fault that the opponent did not say anything.[/quote:1kzs7k2l]
It is your fault if they dont respond then you make them respond and open up the communication[/quote:1kzs7k2l]
That is not the opponents responsibility to "make them respond"[/quote:1kzs7k2l]
Correct, it is YOUR responsibility to make the opponent maintain the gamestate AS WELL through communication.

[quote="Sound4":2iwh7qca][quote="Genexwrecker":2iwh7qca][quote="Sound4":2iwh7qca]
You do know that when you activated an effect you are basically asking for a response? That is why you wait for a response for some time it is not the players fault that the opponent did not say anything.[/quote:2iwh7qca]
It is your fault if they dont respond then you make them respond and open up the communication[/quote:2iwh7qca]
That is not the opponents responsibility to "make them respond"[/quote:2iwh7qca]
Uh yes it is.

[quote="greg503":2vc4lc9d][quote="Sound4":2vc4lc9d][quote="Genexwrecker":2vc4lc9d]
It is your fault if they dont respond then you make them respond and open up the communication[/quote:2vc4lc9d]
That is not the opponents responsibility to "make them respond"[/quote:2vc4lc9d]
Correct, it is YOUR responsibility to make the opponent maintain the gamestate AS WELL through communication.[/quote:2vc4lc9d]
Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response and you may continue.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru ... s/?lang=en
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
The gamestate is fine the fact that my opponent did not say anything is there fault not mine. It is not difficult to say something.

[quote="Sound4":2d2tnpbp][quote="greg503":2d2tnpbp][quote="Sound4":2d2tnpbp]
That is not the opponents responsibility to "make them respond"[/quote:2d2tnpbp]
Correct, it is YOUR responsibility to make the opponent maintain the gamestate AS WELL through communication.[/quote:2d2tnpbp]
Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response and you may continue.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru ... s/?lang=en
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
The gamestate is fine the fact that my opponent did not say anything is there fault not mine. It is not difficult to say something.[/quote:2d2tnpbp]
You know that link isn't applicable to DB right?

[quote="Sound4":2vxqhq0b][quote="greg503":2vxqhq0b][quote="Sound4":2vxqhq0b]
That is not the opponents responsibility to "make them respond"[/quote:2vxqhq0b]
Correct, it is YOUR responsibility to make the opponent maintain the gamestate AS WELL through communication.[/quote:2vxqhq0b]
Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response and you may continue.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru ... s/?lang=en
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
The gamestate is fine the fact that my opponent did not say anything is there fault not mine. It is not difficult to say something.[/quote:2vxqhq0b]
Let's break down the wording

"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn"

Here we see "may" which can be more or less than 3 minutes.

"excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. "

Should not =/= cannot

"Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."

MAY be penalized, NOT WILL BE PENALIZED.

"The gamestate is fine the fact that my opponent did not say anything is there fault not mine."

If you're not communicating IT IS YOUR FAULT. You say "it is not difficult to say something" yet you refuse to ask if the resolution or the summon of a monster is okay.

Sorry it works both ways not the 1 sided way you want it to work.

Also that link means nothing to DB.

[quote="Renji Asuka":3nwshqfk][quote="Sound4":3nwshqfk][quote="greg503":3nwshqfk]
Correct, it is YOUR responsibility to make the opponent maintain the gamestate AS WELL through communication.[/quote:3nwshqfk]
Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response and you may continue.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru ... s/?lang=en
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
The gamestate is fine the fact that my opponent did not say anything is there fault not mine. It is not difficult to say something.[/quote:3nwshqfk]
Let's break down the wording

"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn"

Here we see "may" which can be more or less than 3 minutes.

"excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. "

Should not =/= cannot

"Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."

MAY be penalized, NOT WILL BE PENALIZED.

"The gamestate is fine the fact that my opponent did not say anything is there fault not mine."

If you're not communicating IT IS YOUR FAULT. You say "it is not difficult to say something" yet you refuse to ask if the resolution or the summon of a monster is okay.

Sorry it works both ways not the 1 sided way you want it to work.

Also that link means nothing to DB.[/quote:3nwshqfk]
It says "may" it is implying that it should be less as it says an average.

It should not take excessive time to let the duel to proceed properly as it say "should not" as judges see no reason why it should a long time to let the duel proceed properly.

It says may be penalised as you may be doing it unintentionally so at most you will get a warning.

There is no reason my opponent should take thaylt long to respond. I am waiting for a response the opponent did not say anything.

DB tries to copy irl as much as possible so it is fine to use the link.

[quote="greg503":15r3nnzf][quote="Sound4":15r3nnzf][quote="greg503":15r3nnzf]
Correct, it is YOUR responsibility to make the opponent maintain the gamestate AS WELL through communication.[/quote:15r3nnzf]
Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response and you may continue.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru ... s/?lang=en
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
The gamestate is fine the fact that my opponent did not say anything is there fault not mine. It is not difficult to say something.[/quote:15r3nnzf]
You know that link isn't applicable to DB right?[/quote:15r3nnzf]
DB tries to copy irl as much as possible.

[quote="Sound4":303of6ld][quote="greg503":303of6ld][quote="Sound4":303of6ld]
Taking longer than 15 seconds means you have no response and you may continue.
https://www.yugioh-card.com/ph/event/ru ... s/?lang=en
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalized."
The gamestate is fine the fact that my opponent did not say anything is there fault not mine. It is not difficult to say something.[/quote:303of6ld]
You know that link isn't applicable to DB right?[/quote:303of6ld]
DB tries to copy irl as much as possible.[/quote:303of6ld]
While yes DB tries to simulate real play, the problem is unlike the REAL WORLD where YOU HAVE LIMITED TIME IN EVENTS. DB time is unlimited. Therefore, you don't have an argument.

[quote="Renji Asuka":u2reuvxf][quote="Sound4":u2reuvxf][quote="greg503":u2reuvxf]
You know that link isn't applicable to DB right?[/quote:u2reuvxf]
DB tries to copy irl as much as possible.[/quote:u2reuvxf]
While yes DB tries to simulate real play, the problem is unlike the REAL WORLD where YOU HAVE LIMITED TIME IN EVENTS. DB time is unlimited. Therefore, you don't have an argument.[/quote:u2reuvxf]
Yeah, Rated is NOT A TOURNAMENT

[quote="greg503":228xgn87][quote="Renji Asuka":228xgn87][quote="Sound4":228xgn87]
DB tries to copy irl as much as possible.[/quote:228xgn87]
While yes DB tries to simulate real play, the problem is unlike the REAL WORLD where YOU HAVE LIMITED TIME IN EVENTS. DB time is unlimited. Therefore, you don't have an argument.[/quote:228xgn87]
Yeah, Rated is NOT A TOURNAMENT[/quote:228xgn87]
Any behaviour during a duel that causes a delay will most likely be penalised like a tournament. Also the reason why judges take unreasonable behaviour serious is because other players don't want to lose rating that they quite a bit of time on.

[quote="Renji Asuka":4oruknzk][quote="Sound4":4oruknzk][quote="greg503":4oruknzk]
You know that link isn't applicable to DB right?[/quote:4oruknzk]
DB tries to copy irl as much as possible.[/quote:4oruknzk]
While yes DB tries to simulate real play, the problem is unlike the REAL WORLD where YOU HAVE LIMITED TIME IN EVENTS. DB time is unlimited. Therefore, you don't have an argument.[/quote:4oruknzk]
It still applies as the rules even say that the duel should still proceeding at a reasonable pace.

[quote="Sound4":ni4lk4ml][quote="greg503":ni4lk4ml][quote="Renji Asuka":ni4lk4ml]
While yes DB tries to simulate real play, the problem is unlike the REAL WORLD where YOU HAVE LIMITED TIME IN EVENTS. DB time is unlimited. Therefore, you don't have an argument.[/quote:ni4lk4ml]
Yeah, Rated is NOT A TOURNAMENT[/quote:ni4lk4ml]
Any behaviour during a duel that causes a delay will most likely be penalised like a tournament. Also the reason why judges take unreasonable behaviour serious is because other players don't want to lose rating that they quite a bit of time on.[/quote:ni4lk4ml]
Yes, which is why you should START THE CONVERSATION

[quote="greg503":2nkfine1][quote="Sound4":2nkfine1][quote="greg503":2nkfine1]
Yeah, Rated is NOT A TOURNAMENT[/quote:2nkfine1]
Any behaviour during a duel that causes a delay will most likely be penalised like a tournament. Also the reason why judges take unreasonable behaviour serious is because other players don't want to lose rating that they quite a bit of time on.[/quote:2nkfine1]
Yes, which is why you should START THE CONVERSATION[/quote:2nkfine1]
If the opponent is not saying anything that is the other players fault. There is no reason to start a conversation when the opponent has not said anything. You are already for a response when activating an effect. That is why you wait.

[quote="Sound4":cc9srir7][quote="greg503":cc9srir7][quote="Sound4":cc9srir7]
Any behaviour during a duel that causes a delay will most likely be penalised like a tournament. Also the reason why judges take unreasonable behaviour serious is because other players don't want to lose rating that they quite a bit of time on.[/quote:cc9srir7]
Yes, which is why you should START THE CONVERSATION[/quote:cc9srir7]
If the opponent is not saying anything that is the other players fault. There is no reason to start a conversation when the opponent has not said anything. You are already for a response when activating an effect. That is why you wait.[/quote:cc9srir7]
No, you're not already asking for a response when activating an effect. You HAVE to ask your opponent if it is okay to proceed. if they STILL WON'T COMMUNICATE call a judge and let them deal with it.

How hard is that for you to fucking understand? Or are you just stupid?

[quote="Renji Asuka":tpbblb8c][quote="Sound4":tpbblb8c][quote="greg503":tpbblb8c]
Yes, which is why you should START THE CONVERSATION[/quote:tpbblb8c]
If the opponent is not saying anything that is the other players fault. There is no reason to start a conversation when the opponent has not said anything. You are already for a response when activating an effect. That is why you wait.[/quote:tpbblb8c]
No, you're not already asking for a response when activating an effect. You HAVE to ask your opponent if it is okay to proceed. if they STILL WON'T COMMUNICATE call a judge and let them deal with it.

How hard is that for you to fucking understand? Or are you just stupid?[/quote:tpbblb8c]
If your opponent is not saying you come to the logical conclusion that your opponent has no response. If they had a response why did they not say anything? You ce to the logical conclusion your opponent has no response.

[quote="Sound4":11jslmg1][quote="Renji Asuka":11jslmg1][quote="Sound4":11jslmg1]
If the opponent is not saying anything that is the other players fault. There is no reason to start a conversation when the opponent has not said anything. You are already for a response when activating an effect. That is why you wait.[/quote:11jslmg1]
No, you're not already asking for a response when activating an effect. You HAVE to ask your opponent if it is okay to proceed. if they STILL WON'T COMMUNICATE call a judge and let them deal with it.

How hard is that for you to fucking understand? Or are you just stupid?[/quote:11jslmg1]
If your opponent is not saying you come to the logical conclusion that your opponent has no response. If they had a response why did they not say anything? You ce to the logical conclusion your opponent has no response.[/quote:11jslmg1]
That isn't how that works. First, you ask if they have a response, if they won't respond, call a judge let the judge handle it. Do not just continue as a judge can and probably will rule against you.

[quote="Renji Asuka":2c3rav21][quote="Sound4":2c3rav21][quote="Renji Asuka":2c3rav21]
No, you're not already asking for a response when activating an effect. You HAVE to ask your opponent if it is okay to proceed. if they STILL WON'T COMMUNICATE call a judge and let them deal with it.

How hard is that for you to fucking understand? Or are you just stupid?[/quote:2c3rav21]
If your opponent is not saying you come to the logical conclusion that your opponent has no response. If they had a response why did they not say anything? You ce to the logical conclusion your opponent has no response.[/quote:2c3rav21]
That isn't how that works. First, you ask if they have a response, if they won't respond, call a judge let the judge handle it. Do not just continue as a judge can and probably will rule against you.[/quote:2c3rav21]
You missed the point. I am saying that is your opponent isn't not saying that most players come to the logical conclusion they have no response. Think about it. If they a response why did not they say anything?

[quote="Sound4":1cpkzqpw][quote="Renji Asuka":1cpkzqpw][quote="Sound4":1cpkzqpw]
If your opponent is not saying you come to the logical conclusion that your opponent has no response. If they had a response why did they not say anything? You ce to the logical conclusion your opponent has no response.[/quote:1cpkzqpw]
That isn't how that works. First, you ask if they have a response, if they won't respond, call a judge let the judge handle it. Do not just continue as a judge can and probably will rule against you.[/quote:1cpkzqpw]
You missed the point. I am saying that is your opponent isn't not saying that most players come to the logical conclusion they have no response. Think about it. If they a response why did not they say anything?[/quote:1cpkzqpw]
Because you didn't ask? lmao

Either communicate or do not play rated silence is not acceptable end of story. Good day!

greg503 pretty much covered it.

[quote="greg503":3tow4cno][quote="Sound4":3tow4cno][quote="Renji Asuka":3tow4cno]
That isn't how that works. First, you ask if they have a response, if they won't respond, call a judge let the judge handle it. Do not just continue as a judge can and probably will rule against you.[/quote:3tow4cno]
You missed the point. I am saying that is your opponent isn't not saying that most players come to the logical conclusion they have no response. Think about it. If they a response why did not they say anything?[/quote:3tow4cno]
Because you didn't ask? lmao[/quote:3tow4cno]
What? If they had a response they would have clearly said something. Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

[quote="Sound4":3mms9ofr][quote="greg503":3mms9ofr][quote="Sound4":3mms9ofr]
You missed the point. I am saying that is your opponent isn't not saying that most players come to the logical conclusion they have no response. Think about it. If they a response why did not they say anything?[/quote:3mms9ofr]
Because you didn't ask? lmao[/quote:3mms9ofr]
What? If they had a response they would have clearly said something. Your comment makes absolutely no sense.[/quote:3mms9ofr]
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.

[quote="Renji Asuka":2d0vgbmt][quote="Sound4":2d0vgbmt][quote="greg503":2d0vgbmt]
Because you didn't ask? lmao[/quote:2d0vgbmt]
What? If they had a response they would have clearly said something. Your comment makes absolutely no sense.[/quote:2d0vgbmt]
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.[/quote:2d0vgbmt]
What? I never said that. This proves you have not read.

[quote="Sound4":3dozuxzp][quote="Renji Asuka":3dozuxzp][quote="Sound4":3dozuxzp]
What? If they had a response they would have clearly said something. Your comment makes absolutely no sense.[/quote:3dozuxzp]
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.[/quote:3dozuxzp]
What? I never said that. This proves you have not read.[/quote:3dozuxzp]
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.

[quote="Renji Asuka":3mbb82rw][quote="Sound4":3mbb82rw][quote="Renji Asuka":3mbb82rw]
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.[/quote:3mbb82rw]
What? I never said that. This proves you have not read.[/quote:3mbb82rw]
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.[/quote:3mbb82rw]
I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.

[quote="Sound4":20h6dc1w][quote="Renji Asuka":20h6dc1w][quote="Sound4":20h6dc1w]
What? I never said that. This proves you have not read.[/quote:20h6dc1w]
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.[/quote:20h6dc1w]
I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.[/quote:20h6dc1w]And me the db judge have debunked or explained every link and told why it does not work the way you say.

[quote="Sound4":19noktau][quote="Renji Asuka":19noktau][quote="Sound4":19noktau]
What? I never said that. This proves you have not read.[/quote:19noktau]
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.[/quote:19noktau]
I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.[/quote:19noktau]
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.

[quote="Genexwrecker":3a8ixr8s][quote="Sound4":3a8ixr8s][quote="Renji Asuka":3a8ixr8s]
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.[/quote:3a8ixr8s]
I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.[/quote:3a8ixr8s]And me the db judge have debunked or explained every link and told why it does not work the way you say.[/quote:3a8ixr8s]
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.

[quote="Renji Asuka":121c0d5x][quote="Sound4":121c0d5x][quote="Renji Asuka":121c0d5x]
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.[/quote:121c0d5x]
I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.[/quote:121c0d5x]
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.[/quote:121c0d5x]
My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.

[quote="Sound4":2ch6v7n3][quote="Renji Asuka":2ch6v7n3][quote="Sound4":2ch6v7n3]
I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.[/quote:2ch6v7n3]
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.[/quote:2ch6v7n3]
My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.[/quote:2ch6v7n3]
Relevant: yes, correct: not really. IRL duels aren't all about tournament rules anyway

[quote="Sound4":2jz45hrs][quote="Renji Asuka":2jz45hrs][quote="Sound4":2jz45hrs]
I have provided links to support my claims unlike you.[/quote:2jz45hrs]
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.[/quote:2jz45hrs]
My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.[/quote:2jz45hrs]
No they were not relevant. And no, you're still wrong and will always be wrong on the matter.

[quote="Renji Asuka":3o2op3at][quote="Sound4":3o2op3at][quote="Renji Asuka":3o2op3at]
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.[/quote:3o2op3at]
My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.[/quote:3o2op3at]
No they were not relevant. And no, you're still wrong and will always be wrong on the matter.[/quote:3o2op3at]
Prove it. I have provided link and you haven't.

[quote="Christen57":1jbmdjuj][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?[/quote:1jbmdjuj]
He HAS posted that replay before, I think it was the one where he sharks over resolving Trishula

[quote="Sound4":2q8d6ypw][quote="Renji Asuka":2q8d6ypw][quote="Sound4":2q8d6ypw]
My links were extremely relevant. My links supported about how you should not take a long time to respond and a few other things.[/quote:2q8d6ypw]
No they were not relevant. And no, you're still wrong and will always be wrong on the matter.[/quote:2q8d6ypw]
Prove it. I have provided link and you haven't.[/quote:2q8d6ypw]
I already broke down the ruling's words for "tournament play" and even TOLD YOU that DB is not a tournament.

[quote="Christen57":3msvl4o1][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?[/quote:3msvl4o1]
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.

[quote="Renji Asuka":1hmiwoyi][quote="Sound4":1hmiwoyi][quote="Renji Asuka":1hmiwoyi]
No they were not relevant. And no, you're still wrong and will always be wrong on the matter.[/quote:1hmiwoyi]
Prove it. I have provided link and you haven't.[/quote:1hmiwoyi]
I already broke down the ruling's words for "tournament play" and even TOLD YOU that DB is not a tournament.[/quote:1hmiwoyi]
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.

[quote="Sound4":2s8f7kpm][quote="Renji Asuka":2s8f7kpm][quote="Sound4":2s8f7kpm]
Prove it. I have provided link and you haven't.[/quote:2s8f7kpm]
I already broke down the ruling's words for "tournament play" and even TOLD YOU that DB is not a tournament.[/quote:2s8f7kpm]
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.[/quote:2s8f7kpm]
Yes, and the staff did not agree with you, get over it.

[quote="Sound4":10p6ut28][quote="Christen57":10p6ut28][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?[/quote:10p6ut28]
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.[/quote:10p6ut28]

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.

[quote="Christen57":1ju2e8bb][quote="Sound4":1ju2e8bb][quote="Christen57":1ju2e8bb][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?[/quote:1ju2e8bb]
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.[/quote:1ju2e8bb]

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.[/quote:1ju2e8bb]
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.

[quote="Sound4":9dm777dr][quote="Christen57":9dm777dr][quote="Sound4":9dm777dr]
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.[/quote:9dm777dr]

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.[/quote:9dm777dr]
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.[/quote:9dm777dr]

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.

[quote="Sound4":3paxf724][quote="Christen57":3paxf724][quote="Sound4":3paxf724]
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.[/quote:3paxf724]

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.[/quote:3paxf724]
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.[/quote:3paxf724]

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.

[quote="Christen57":2rit145k][quote="Sound4":2rit145k][quote="Christen57":2rit145k]

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.[/quote:2rit145k]
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.[/quote:2rit145k]

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.[/quote:2rit145k]
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.

[quote="Genexwrecker":6r95220z][quote="Sound4":6r95220z][quote="Christen57":6r95220z]

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.[/quote:6r95220z]
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.[/quote:6r95220z]

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.[/quote:6r95220z]
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.

[quote="Sound4":iivc6ron]The judge call could have been shorter if N3sh just answered my questions as I saw flaws.[/quote:iivc6ron]
No because you would just keep talking in circles as N3sh tries to explain how you're in the wrong, as this ENTIRE thread is.

[quote="greg503":3kfcz9pn][quote="Sound4":3kfcz9pn]The judge call could have been shorter if N3sh just answered my questions as I saw flaws.[/quote:3kfcz9pn]
No because you would just keep talking in circles as N3sh tries to explain how you're in the wrong, as this ENTIRE thread is.[/quote:3kfcz9pn]
Show the logs where he tried to "explain".

you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.

[quote="Sound4":rl986f54][quote="Christen57":rl986f54][quote="Sound4":rl986f54]
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.[/quote:rl986f54]

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.[/quote:rl986f54]
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.[/quote:rl986f54]

Your opponent was responding though. [4:17] "on eff" was the response.

I think the problem here is that you, at some point, thought Cyber Dragon Nachster's "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect, and it's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned: You can target 1 Machine monster with 2100 ATK or DEF in your GY; Special Summon it" effect, were all one single effect, as if you were resolving something like Conquistador of the Golden Land, and you thought that since your opponent was okay with Nachster's first effect, that means they would also be okay with it's second separate effect. Turns out they weren't in this case.

The reason I think you thought this, is because of what was said here:

[3:27] "Nachster eff"
[3:32] "ok"
[3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon Core" from hand (1/3) to GY
[3:39] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon Nachster" from hand (2/2) to M-3 (DEF)
[4:07] "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy"

You saying "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster" suggests to me that you thought those 2 effects of Cyber Dragon Nachster were all one single effect, since players don't normally say "I also get to do X thing" when activating 2 separate effects. Players usually say "I also get to do X thing" when performing multiple different actions to resolve 1 single effect, like with conquistador. In the case of conquistador, players would, for example, activate it, special summon it as a monster, then say "I also get to destroy X card since I control Eldlich the Golden Lord" to indicate that they were also choosing to apply the second portion of conquistador's effect to destroy a face-up card.

These things were also said:

[6:49] "on eff of summon means i have a respond"
[7:03] "thats how it usually works. "
[7:08] "What do you mean you said "OK" on nachster eff"
[7:22] "that was the discard ss "
[7:26] "not the on summon eff"
[7:33] "they are both different"
[8:27] "Nachster eff" [3:32] "ok" [3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon"

Which further suggests that you thought that the opponent being "ok" with the first Nachster effect meant that they were also "ok" with the second effect, and again, it turned out they weren't, and the fact that you proceeded to resolve the second effect of Nachster, without making sure the opponent was also "ok" with that as well, further shows that you must have thought those 2 effects of Nachster were all one single effect as if you were resolving a Conquistador of the Golden Land.

If he responded quicker I would have allowed the response.

The total time it took for the response was 10 seconds, from [4:07] where you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy" to [4:17] when the opponent said "on eff".

However, I think the real other problem here is that you thought that since the opponent didn't specifically chat the word "response," then they have no response and you can keep playing, even if they say other things that would indicate that they have a response, such as "on eff of summon," which they did say.

Look at what was said after you proceeded to resolve both effects of Nachster:

[5:42] "i said on eff of summon"
[5:46] "when you summoned it"
[5:52] "i even said hold on"
[6:36] "That does not mean anything if you have a response you say "response" I saw nothing in chat so I thought I was allowed to continue to play"

This tells me that you don't consider "on eff" or "hold on" to be an indicator that the opponent wishes to respond — only the specific word, "response". This is also wrong. "On eff" was a shorter way of saying "on effect" as in, in this case at least, "on the effect of Cyber Dragon Nachster". Then your opponent would play the card/effect they wished to respond with. Refusing to allow the opponent to respond, because they used "hold on" and "on eff" instead of the specific magic word or whatever, is rule sharking.

Taking all of this into consideration, I doubt you really would "have allowed the response" even if the opponent did respond "quicker".

Lastly, even if your opponent truly did have no quick effects, traps, hand traps, quick-play spells, or trigger effects they could've respond with at that time, guess what? They're still allowed to request that you slow down and "hold on" so they can at least go over the cards you played so far, the cards you're playing currently, and the combos you're doing, just to make sure you're doing them properly, and not (either intentionally or unintentionally) cheating, such as, for example, activating a hard once per turn effect more than once in a single turn (something I actually did catch players, and got caught by players, attempting to do in the past).

[quote="Genexwrecker":3ctjawj0]you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.[/quote:3ctjawj0]
Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.

Silence 100% isn't consent. Never has been and never will be.

[quote="Sound4":3e6bvloy][quote="Genexwrecker":3e6bvloy]you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.[/quote:3e6bvloy]
Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.[/quote:3e6bvloy]
Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.

[quote="Renji Asuka":ni57q03w][quote="Sound4":ni57q03w][quote="Genexwrecker":ni57q03w]you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.[/quote:ni57q03w]
Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.[/quote:ni57q03w]
Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.[/quote:ni57q03w]
that would 100% have been my ruling on that situation with all the context i have and all the "discussion" sound4 has offered on the matter.

[quote="Renji Asuka":d3a44zg6][quote="Sound4":d3a44zg6][quote="Genexwrecker":d3a44zg6]you were sharking him this isnt a debate on the matter.[/quote:d3a44zg6]
Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.[/quote:d3a44zg6]
Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.[/quote:d3a44zg6]
We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.

[quote="Sound4":15kg9969][quote="Renji Asuka":15kg9969][quote="Sound4":15kg9969]
Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.[/quote:15kg9969]
Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.[/quote:15kg9969]
We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.[/quote:15kg9969]
Because sometimes judges make mistakes... I kinda want this thread locked now that were reaching the point where everything that needed to be discussed has been.

[quote="Christen57":2lvr9868][quote="Sound4":2lvr9868][quote="Christen57":2lvr9868]

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.



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.[/quote:2lvr9868]
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.[/quote:2lvr9868]

Your opponent was responding though. [4:17] "on eff" was the response.

I think the problem here is that you, at some point, thought Cyber Dragon Nachster's "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect, and it's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned: You can target 1 Machine monster with 2100 ATK or DEF in your GY; Special Summon it" effect, were all one single effect, as if you were resolving something like Conquistador of the Golden Land, and you thought that since your opponent was okay with Nachster's first effect, that means they would also be okay with it's second separate effect. Turns out they weren't in this case.

The reason I think you thought this, is because of what was said here:

[3:27] "Nachster eff"
[3:32] "ok"
[3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon Core" from hand (1/3) to GY
[3:39] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon Nachster" from hand (2/2) to M-3 (DEF)
[4:07] "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy"

You saying "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster" suggests to me that you thought those 2 effects of Cyber Dragon Nachster were all one single effect, since players don't normally say "I also get to do X thing" when activating 2 separate effects. Players usually say "I also get to do X thing" when performing multiple different actions to resolve 1 single effect, like with conquistador. In the case of conquistador, players would, for example, activate it, special summon it as a monster, then say "I also get to destroy X card since I control Eldlich the Golden Lord" to indicate that they were also choosing to apply the second portion of conquistador's effect to destroy a face-up card.

These things were also said:

[6:49] "on eff of summon means i have a respond"
[7:03] "thats how it usually works. "
[7:08] "What do you mean you said "OK" on nachster eff"
[7:22] "that was the discard ss "
[7:26] "not the on summon eff"
[7:33] "they are both different"
[8:27] "Nachster eff" [3:32] "ok" [3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon"

Which further suggests that you thought that the opponent being "ok" with the first Nachster effect meant that they were also "ok" with the second effect, and again, it turned out they weren't, and the fact that you proceeded to resolve the second effect of Nachster, without making sure the opponent was also "ok" with that as well, further shows that you must have thought those 2 effects of Nachster were all one single effect as if you were resolving a Conquistador of the Golden Land.

If he responded quicker I would have allowed the response.

The total time it took for the response was 10 seconds, from [4:07] where you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy" to [4:17] when the opponent said "on eff".

However, I think the real other problem here is that you thought that since the opponent didn't specifically chat the word "response," then they have no response and you can keep playing, even if they say other things that would indicate that they have a response, such as "on eff of summon," which they did say.

Look at what was said after you proceeded to resolve both effects of Nachster:

[5:42] "i said on eff of summon"
[5:46] "when you summoned it"
[5:52] "i even said hold on"
[6:36] "That does not mean anything if you have a response you say "response" I saw nothing in chat so I thought I was allowed to continue to play"

This tells me that you don't consider "on eff" or "hold on" to be an indicator that the opponent wishes to respond — only the specific word, "response". This is also wrong. "On eff" was a shorter way of saying "on effect" as in, in this case at least, "on the effect of Cyber Dragon Nachster". Then your opponent would play the card/effect they wished to respond with. Refusing to allow the opponent to respond, because they used "hold on" and "on eff" instead of the specific magic word or whatever, is rule sharking.

Taking all of this into consideration, I doubt you really would "have allowed the response" even if the opponent did respond "quicker".

Lastly, even if your opponent truly did have no quick effects, traps, hand traps, quick-play spells, or trigger effects they could've respond with at that time, guess what? They're still allowed to request that you slow down and "hold on" so they can at least go over the cards you played so far, the cards you're playing currently, and the combos you're doing, just to make sure you're doing them properly, and not (either intentionally or unintentionally) cheating, such as, for example, activating a hard once per turn effect more than once in a single turn (something I actually did catch players, and got caught by players, attempting to do in the past).[/quote:2lvr9868]
If you read the "what does this mean" thread which I doubt you did but that idls besides the point. Ntakonta said something very similar about me sayimg "I can also summon a 2100 atk monster from GY" which it seems like I am acting like they are a single effect. I knew they were separate effects. I wanted to make it simple that if I have a 2100 machine monster in gy I can activate its trigger effect.

The reason why "on eff" is a terrible way of responding is because you are not clear. Furthermore, my opponent did not say anything on them having a response until after a while and didn't say anything on why he took so long. As I said in another post there is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect as he never said he was reading my card or nothing. If am not mistaken he said wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect but at that point the effect was already fully resolved.
For some more evidence to support my claims this is from an official tournament website.
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalised".

[quote="greg503":2treyrea][quote="Sound4":2treyrea][quote="Renji Asuka":2treyrea]
Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.[/quote:2treyrea]
We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.[/quote:2treyrea]
Because sometimes judges make mistakes... I kinda want this thread locked now that were reaching the point where everything that needed to be discussed has been.[/quote:2treyrea]
On another replay where people accused me of sharking Madrest also didn't say anything on me sharking either.

[quote="Genexwrecker":1mw8zmse][quote="Renji Asuka":1mw8zmse][quote="Sound4":1mw8zmse]
Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.[/quote:1mw8zmse]
Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.[/quote:1mw8zmse]
that would 100% have been my ruling on that situation with all the context i have and all the "discussion" sound4 has offered on the matter.[/quote:1mw8zmse]
Explain

Just because we didnt say you were sharking during the judge call doesnt mean you were not sharking.

[quote="Sound4":p1ctgckz][quote="Renji Asuka":p1ctgckz][quote="Sound4":p1ctgckz]
Then why did N3sh say anything that I was sharkin? Not one you people have said anything on this when I have said this many times.[/quote:p1ctgckz]
Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.[/quote:p1ctgckz]
We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.[/quote:p1ctgckz]
You were still sharking, even if N3sh didn't call you out on it. End of story.

[quote="Genexwrecker":a7ztqh08]Just because we didnt say you were sharking during the judge call doesnt mean you were not sharking.[/quote:a7ztqh08]
Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.

[quote="Renji Asuka":30ib29p9][quote="Sound4":30ib29p9][quote="Renji Asuka":30ib29p9]
Because they were very lenient with you. If Genexwrecker popped in instead, I am willing to bet, you'd had gotten a match loss and set to beginner.[/quote:30ib29p9]
We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.[/quote:30ib29p9]
You were still sharking, even if N3sh didn't call you out on it. End of story.[/quote:30ib29p9]
Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.

[quote="Sound4":19nkyjsg][quote="Renji Asuka":19nkyjsg][quote="Sound4":19nkyjsg]
We're not talking about Genexwrecker here. We are talking about if I was sharking then why didn't N3sh say anything. If I was sharking I would have been given a warning of some kind of sharking.[/quote:19nkyjsg]
You were still sharking, even if N3sh didn't call you out on it. End of story.[/quote:19nkyjsg]
Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.[/quote:19nkyjsg]
That doesn't reinforce any argument you have.

[quote="Renji Asuka":hqdfzi1c][quote="Sound4":hqdfzi1c][quote="Renji Asuka":hqdfzi1c]
You were still sharking, even if N3sh didn't call you out on it. End of story.[/quote:hqdfzi1c]
Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.[/quote:hqdfzi1c]
That doesn't reinforce any argument you have.[/quote:hqdfzi1c]
Explain

[quote="Sound4":3093vs9f][quote="Renji Asuka":3093vs9f][quote="Sound4":3093vs9f]
Then lets look at the replay with Madrest when people were accusing me of sharking. Yet Madrest said nothing on sharking and didn't say anything on it. Calling out late responses isn't sharking.[/quote:3093vs9f]
That doesn't reinforce any argument you have.[/quote:3093vs9f]
Explain[/quote:3093vs9f]
It's the same stupid argument you tried using with N3sh that gets the same rebuttal.

[quote="Renji Asuka":3bozptkg][quote="Sound4":3bozptkg][quote="Renji Asuka":3bozptkg]
That doesn't reinforce any argument you have.[/quote:3bozptkg]
Explain[/quote:3bozptkg]
It's the same stupid argument you tried using with N3sh that gets the same rebuttal.[/quote:3bozptkg]
Calling out late responses isn't sharking.

[quote="Sound4":3hj8ejht][quote="Renji Asuka":3hj8ejht][quote="Sound4":3hj8ejht]
Explain[/quote:3hj8ejht]
It's the same stupid argument you tried using with N3sh that gets the same rebuttal.[/quote:3hj8ejht]
Calling out late responses isn't sharking.[/quote:3hj8ejht]
It wasn't a "late response" as dictated by the judge.

[quote="Renji Asuka":m2ixmwqq][quote="Sound4":m2ixmwqq][quote="Renji Asuka":m2ixmwqq]
It's the same stupid argument you tried using with N3sh that gets the same rebuttal.[/quote:m2ixmwqq]
Calling out late responses isn't sharking.[/quote:m2ixmwqq]
It wasn't a "late response" as dictated by the judge.[/quote:m2ixmwqq]
Madrest said that I I didn't begin resolving but I ws about to and that was the reason I called a judge as my opponent didn't say anything.

[quote="Sound4":16he7961][quote="Renji Asuka":16he7961][quote="Sound4":16he7961]
Calling out late responses isn't sharking.[/quote:16he7961]
It wasn't a "late response" as dictated by the judge.[/quote:16he7961]
Madrest said that I I didn't begin resolving but I ws about to and that was the reason I called a judge as my opponent didn't say anything.[/quote:16he7961]
Doesn't matter, your opponent has the right to respond.

[quote="Renji Asuka":3mxe4g4i][quote="Sound4":3mxe4g4i][quote="Renji Asuka":3mxe4g4i]
It wasn't a "late response" as dictated by the judge.[/quote:3mxe4g4i]
Madrest said that I I didn't begin resolving but I ws about to and that was the reason I called a judge as my opponent didn't say anything.[/quote:3mxe4g4i]
Doesn't matter, your opponent has the right to respond.[/quote:3mxe4g4i]
There are times you need to take responsibility that you didn't respond in time and that is tour fault.

[quote="Sound4":212a8o8u][quote="Renji Asuka":212a8o8u][quote="Sound4":212a8o8u]
Madrest said that I I didn't begin resolving but I ws about to and that was the reason I called a judge as my opponent didn't say anything.[/quote:212a8o8u]
Doesn't matter, your opponent has the right to respond.[/quote:212a8o8u]
There are times you need to take responsibility that you didn't respond in time and that is tour fault.[/quote:212a8o8u]
Have you considered being more generous, or do you think you know the EXACT reason that it took X seconds for them to type something?

Seeing as it's VERY relevant to this conversation, I find it necessary to re-post this from the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17571&start=100

[quote="troglyte":zdbgmdif][quote="troglyte":zdbgmdif][quote="Sound4":zdbgmdif]
What do you mean I admitted to? It is a logical conclusion. For example, if the climate gets drier then the logical conclusion is that even more drought will occur. This is what I am talking about logical conclusions.[/quote:zdbgmdif]

If you read my posts, you would have noticed that I used the exact. SAME. LOGIC. that you're using. I waited an entire day for your reply, so it's a logical conclusion that you have no argument in response, so if you say anything now, the only logical conclusion is that you're lying, there's no other possible explanation. This is the exact same reasoning you're using to justify you're argument, and you said it was illogical. You're a hypocrite, you're not willing to apply your own "logic" against yourself because it doesn't benefit you. Read your own posts, Ingeniero, you played yourself.
[quote="troglyte":zdbgmdif]Well, if silence really is consent, then the fact that Boomer hasn't responded to my explanation for why assumptions are bad must mean he agrees with me, therefore, he's NOT on your side of this argument. He has 'acknowledged it through his silence.'

Furthermore, your silence on my explanation for why your link isn't relevant must mean that you agree with me.

They're logical assumptions, after all. That's how silence is consent works, Ingeniero.[/quote:zdbgmdif]

[quote="troglyte":zdbgmdif]I've waited an entire day for your reply. The fact that you haven't replied yet must mean that you don't have an argument. Therefore, you agree with me. And if you try to rebuff it now, you're just lying. (yes, this is incredibly stupid and illogical, that is the point)

So tell me, Ingeniero, how does it feel to have your own "logic" used against you? Oh, don't bother, I already got your telepathic message. The silence was deafening.[/quote:zdbgmdif]
[quote="Sound4":zdbgmdif]These aren't logical it is most likely that Boomer duels has already made his point since his last post. None of this is logical.[/quote:zdbgmdif][/quote:zdbgmdif]

[quote="Sound4":zdbgmdif][quote="troglyte":zdbgmdif]

Playing dumb isn't a valid argument either, Ingeniero. I know you've read my posts, something you've taken great pride in until recently.[/quote:zdbgmdif]
So you refuse to show the posts where I admitted to? You come off as you are lying.
Have a nice day[/quote:zdbgmdif]

This is what Ingeniero does. He ignores posts that he can't argue against. And this is the same person who wants us to "read his posts."

To everyone reading this thread, Sound4 is a liar, hypocrite, rule-shark, and troll. Please do not take anything this troll says seriously.[/quote:zdbgmdif]

[quote="Sound4":359rvo3m][quote="Renji Asuka":359rvo3m][quote="Sound4":359rvo3m]
Madrest said that I I didn't begin resolving but I ws about to and that was the reason I called a judge as my opponent didn't say anything.[/quote:359rvo3m]
Doesn't matter, your opponent has the right to respond.[/quote:359rvo3m]
There are times you need to take responsibility that you didn't respond in time and that is tour fault.[/quote:359rvo3m]
Again, the opponent has a right to respond. End of story.

[quote="troglyte":25wryye5]Seeing as it's VERY relevant to this conversation, I find it necessary to re-post this from the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17571&start=100

[quote="troglyte":25wryye5][quote="troglyte":25wryye5]

If you read my posts, you would have noticed that I used the exact. SAME. LOGIC. that you're using. I waited an entire day for your reply, so it's a logical conclusion that you have no argument in response, so if you say anything now, the only logical conclusion is that you're lying, there's no other possible explanation. This is the exact same reasoning you're using to justify you're argument, and you said it was illogical. You're a hypocrite, you're not willing to apply your own "logic" against yourself because it doesn't benefit you. Read your own posts, Ingeniero, you played yourself.



[/quote:25wryye5]

[quote="Sound4":25wryye5]
So you refuse to show the posts where I admitted to? You come off as you are lying.
Have a nice day[/quote:25wryye5]

This is what Ingeniero does. He ignores posts that he can't argue against. And this is the same person who wants us to "read his posts."

To everyone reading this thread, Sound4 is a liar, hypocrite, rule-shark, and troll. Please do not take anything this troll says seriously.[/quote:25wryye5][/quote:25wryye5]
I said that it is a logical conclusion. Fore example, if the climate gets drier then the logical conclusion is that even more drought will occur.

[quote="Renji Asuka":pz71aars][quote="Sound4":pz71aars][quote="Renji Asuka":pz71aars]
Doesn't matter, your opponent has the right to respond.[/quote:pz71aars]
There are times you need to take responsibility that you didn't respond in time and that is tour fault.[/quote:pz71aars]
Again, the opponent has a right to respond. End of story.[/quote:pz71aars]
That is not the full story.

[quote="Sound4":2ghotux3][quote="Renji Asuka":2ghotux3][quote="Sound4":2ghotux3]
There are times you need to take responsibility that you didn't respond in time and that is tour fault.[/quote:2ghotux3]
Again, the opponent has a right to respond. End of story.[/quote:2ghotux3]
That is not the full story.[/quote:2ghotux3]
Again, the opponent has a right to respond. End of story.

[quote="Sound4":zr9diu8z][quote="troglyte":zr9diu8z]Seeing as it's VERY relevant to this conversation, I find it necessary to re-post this from the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17571&start=100

[quote="troglyte":zr9diu8z]



This is what Ingeniero does. He ignores posts that he can't argue against. And this is the same person who wants us to "read his posts."

To everyone reading this thread, Sound4 is a liar, hypocrite, rule-shark, and troll. Please do not take anything this troll says seriously.[/quote:zr9diu8z][/quote:zr9diu8z]
I said that it is a logical conclusion. Fore example, if the climate gets drier then the logical conclusion is that even more drought will occur.[/quote:zr9diu8z]
Yet similar "logic" brought up in the thread you disputed, Strike 2

[quote="Sound4":1fmtlo86]
I said that it is a logical conclusion. Fore example, if the climate gets drier then the logical conclusion is that even more drought will occur.[/quote:1fmtlo86]

“These aren't logical it is most likely that Boomer duels has already made his point since his last post. None of this is logical.” - Sound4

It’s your word against yours. You've already admitted this type of reasoning isn't logical.

[quote="troglyte":3rq7yftg][quote="Sound4":3rq7yftg]
I said that it is a logical conclusion. Fore example, if the climate gets drier then the logical conclusion is that even more drought will occur.[/quote:3rq7yftg]

“These aren't logical it is most likely that Boomer duels has already made his point since his last post. None of this is logical.” - Sound4

It’s your word against yours. You've already admitted this type of reasoning isn't logical.[/quote:3rq7yftg]
Nice out of context quote I was saying what you were saying was logical about Boomer duels.

[quote="greg503":naeiim7m][quote="Sound4":naeiim7m][quote="troglyte":naeiim7m]Seeing as it's VERY relevant to this conversation, I find it necessary to re-post this from the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17571&start=100

[/quote:naeiim7m]
I said that it is a logical conclusion. Fore example, if the climate gets drier then the logical conclusion is that even more drought will occur.[/quote:naeiim7m]
Yet similar "logic" brought up in the thread you disputed, Strike 2[/quote:naeiim7m]
Similar logic wasn't brought up by you people.

[quote="Renji Asuka":1ecdbtpy][quote="Sound4":1ecdbtpy][quote="Renji Asuka":1ecdbtpy]
Again, the opponent has a right to respond. End of story.[/quote:1ecdbtpy]
That is not the full story.[/quote:1ecdbtpy]
Again, the opponent has a right to respond. End of story.[/quote:1ecdbtpy]
That is not the full story.

[quote="Sound4":1wfo28fj][quote="Renji Asuka":1wfo28fj][quote="Sound4":1wfo28fj]
That is not the full story.[/quote:1wfo28fj]
Again, the opponent has a right to respond. End of story.[/quote:1wfo28fj]
That is not the full story.[/quote:1wfo28fj]
Again, the opponent has a right to respond. End of story.

[quote="Sound4":1dozhahk][quote="troglyte":1dozhahk][quote="Sound4":1dozhahk]
I said that it is a logical conclusion. Fore example, if the climate gets drier then the logical conclusion is that even more drought will occur.[/quote:1dozhahk]

“These aren't logical it is most likely that Boomer duels has already made his point since his last post. None of this is logical.” - Sound4

It’s your word against yours. You've already admitted this type of reasoning isn't logical.[/quote:1dozhahk]
Nice out of context quote I was saying what you were saying was logical about Boomer duels.[/quote:1dozhahk]

The context is there, I even provided links and direct quotes.

The irony is rich, considering this thread's main argument is you taking a judge completely out of context. You couldn't even be bothered to add the context yourself, GENEX HAD TO ADD THE CONTEXT FOR YOU.

So you know the gamestate had not advanced but you refused to let them respond to make a point. I apologize for my earlier declaration of how i would have ruled that call. I would have frozen you for stalling instead. You caused a problem where none existed just to try and act superior to your opponent.

[quote="Genexwrecker":3u30w02x]So you know the gamestate had not advanced but you refused to let them respond to make a point. I apologize for my earlier declaration of how i would have ruled that call. I would have frozen you for stalling instead. You caused a problem where none existed just to try and act superior to your opponent.[/quote:3u30w02x]
Interesting but completely false let me explain. If you are talking about the N3sh replay then this makes it simple. Whay do you mean I refused to let them respond to make a point? If you read my reply to Christen57 then you would have saw that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I saw flaws in what N3sh was saying and I was questioning them. My opponent caused the problem as he didn't respond quicker also please show the show where I acted "Superior". There is nothing in this duel that would have warranted what you are saying.

[quote="Sound4":26jo3hv4][quote="Genexwrecker":26jo3hv4]So you know the gamestate had not advanced but you refused to let them respond to make a point. I apologize for my earlier declaration of how i would have ruled that call. I would have frozen you for stalling instead. You caused a problem where none existed just to try and act superior to your opponent.[/quote:26jo3hv4]
Interesting but completely false let me explain. If you are talking about the N3sh replay then this makes it simple. Whay do you mean I refused to let them respond to make a point? If you read my reply to Christen57 then you would have saw that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I saw flaws in what N3sh was saying and I was questioning them. My opponent caused the problem as he didn't respond quicker also please show the show where I acted "Superior". There is nothing in this duel that would have warranted what you are saying.[/quote:26jo3hv4]
Sorry, your opponent has the right to respond. End of story. Any explanation by you is irrelevant. You have no point, you haven't had a point, you just keep going on and on. Take the fucking L.

[quote="Sound4":32pdc61e][quote="Genexwrecker":32pdc61e]So you know the gamestate had not advanced but you refused to let them respond to make a point. I apologize for my earlier declaration of how i would have ruled that call. I would have frozen you for stalling instead. You caused a problem where none existed just to try and act superior to your opponent.[/quote:32pdc61e]
Interesting but completely false let me explain. If you are talking about the N3sh replay then this makes it simple. Whay do you mean I refused to let them respond to make a point? If you read my reply to Christen57 then you would have saw that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I saw flaws in what N3sh was saying and I was questioning them. My opponent caused the problem as he didn't respond quicker also please show the show where I acted "Superior". There is nothing in this duel that would have warranted what you are saying.[/quote:32pdc61e]
No I think they were referring to the madrest replay. Which, as we know, was about someone trying to respond after a mere 9 seconds. Strike 3, stop trying to ignore context and build favorable interpretations.

[quote="Renji Asuka":2jlzx703][quote="Sound4":2jlzx703][quote="Genexwrecker":2jlzx703]So you know the gamestate had not advanced but you refused to let them respond to make a point. I apologize for my earlier declaration of how i would have ruled that call. I would have frozen you for stalling instead. You caused a problem where none existed just to try and act superior to your opponent.[/quote:2jlzx703]
Interesting but completely false let me explain. If you are talking about the N3sh replay then this makes it simple. Whay do you mean I refused to let them respond to make a point? If you read my reply to Christen57 then you would have saw that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I saw flaws in what N3sh was saying and I was questioning them. My opponent caused the problem as he didn't respond quicker also please show the show where I acted "Superior". There is nothing in this duel that would have warranted what you are saying.[/quote:2jlzx703]
Sorry, your opponent has the right to respond. End of story. Any explanation by you is irrelevant. You have no point, you haven't had a point, you just keep going on and on. Take the fucking L.[/quote:2jlzx703]
I have provided links to support my claims you have not and couldn't. Can you explain why you have not shown any replays or links to support your claims?

[quote="greg503":mw9l656z][quote="Sound4":mw9l656z][quote="Genexwrecker":mw9l656z]So you know the gamestate had not advanced but you refused to let them respond to make a point. I apologize for my earlier declaration of how i would have ruled that call. I would have frozen you for stalling instead. You caused a problem where none existed just to try and act superior to your opponent.[/quote:mw9l656z]
Interesting but completely false let me explain. If you are talking about the N3sh replay then this makes it simple. Whay do you mean I refused to let them respond to make a point? If you read my reply to Christen57 then you would have saw that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I saw flaws in what N3sh was saying and I was questioning them. My opponent caused the problem as he didn't respond quicker also please show the show where I acted "Superior". There is nothing in this duel that would have warranted what you are saying.[/quote:mw9l656z]
No I think they were referring to the madrest replay. Which, as we know, was about someone trying to respond after a mere 9 seconds. Strike 3, stop trying to ignore context and build favorable interpretations.[/quote:mw9l656z]
We don't know that for sure yet.

[quote="troglyte":3rec8yyw][quote="Sound4":3rec8yyw][quote="troglyte":3rec8yyw]

“These aren't logical it is most likely that Boomer duels has already made his point since his last post. None of this is logical.” - Sound4

It’s your word against yours. You've already admitted this type of reasoning isn't logical.[/quote:3rec8yyw]
Nice out of context quote I was saying what you were saying was logical about Boomer duels.[/quote:3rec8yyw]

The context is there, I even provided links and direct quotes.

The irony is rich, considering this thread's main argument is you taking a judge completely out of context. You couldn't even be bothered to add the context yourself, GENEX HAD TO ADD THE CONTEXT FOR YOU.[/quote:3rec8yyw]
You literally used an out of context quote to attempt to make me look bad. Simple as that. You have already embarrassed in that N3sh thread but now this is even worse.

[quote="Sound4":705dg1zl][quote="Renji Asuka":705dg1zl][quote="Sound4":705dg1zl]
Interesting but completely false let me explain. If you are talking about the N3sh replay then this makes it simple. Whay do you mean I refused to let them respond to make a point? If you read my reply to Christen57 then you would have saw that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I saw flaws in what N3sh was saying and I was questioning them. My opponent caused the problem as he didn't respond quicker also please show the show where I acted "Superior". There is nothing in this duel that would have warranted what you are saying.[/quote:705dg1zl]
Sorry, your opponent has the right to respond. End of story. Any explanation by you is irrelevant. You have no point, you haven't had a point, you just keep going on and on. Take the fucking L.[/quote:705dg1zl]
I have provided links to support my claims you have not and couldn't. Can you explain why you have not shown any replays or links to support your claims?[/quote:705dg1zl]
Your links do not support your claims. End of story. Everything was already debunked on Day 1. Take the L.

[quote="Sound4":2lvwq9c0][quote="troglyte":2lvwq9c0][quote="Sound4":2lvwq9c0]
Nice out of context quote I was saying what you were saying was logical about Boomer duels.[/quote:2lvwq9c0]

The context is there, I even provided links and direct quotes.

The irony is rich, considering this thread's main argument is you taking a judge completely out of context. You couldn't even be bothered to add the context yourself, GENEX HAD TO ADD THE CONTEXT FOR YOU.[/quote:2lvwq9c0]
You literally used an out of context quote to attempt to make me look bad. Simple as that. You have already embarrassed in that N3sh thread but now this is even worse.[/quote:2lvwq9c0]

I provided context. You didn't. Simple as that.

You've admitted that your own reasoning isn't logical.

[quote="Sound4":26mwseqb][quote="greg503":26mwseqb][quote="Sound4":26mwseqb]
Interesting but completely false let me explain. If you are talking about the N3sh replay then this makes it simple. Whay do you mean I refused to let them respond to make a point? If you read my reply to Christen57 then you would have saw that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I saw flaws in what N3sh was saying and I was questioning them. My opponent caused the problem as he didn't respond quicker also please show the show where I acted "Superior". There is nothing in this duel that would have warranted what you are saying.[/quote:26mwseqb]
No I think they were referring to the madrest replay. Which, as we know, was about someone trying to respond after a mere 9 seconds. Strike 3, stop trying to ignore context and build favorable interpretations.[/quote:26mwseqb]
We don't know that for sure yet.[/quote:26mwseqb]
Then you don't understand context and inferences. I think you need to brush up on formal arguments 101 before coming back

[quote="greg503":ye3sgcv4][quote="Sound4":ye3sgcv4][quote="greg503":ye3sgcv4]
No I think they were referring to the madrest replay. Which, as we know, was about someone trying to respond after a mere 9 seconds. Strike 3, stop trying to ignore context and build favorable interpretations.[/quote:ye3sgcv4]
We don't know that for sure yet.[/quote:ye3sgcv4]
Then you don't understand context and inferences. I think you need to brush up on formal arguments 101 before coming back[/quote:ye3sgcv4]
Genexwrecker's posts was highly suggesting the N3sh duel. As with the madrest duel no one accused me of stalling but Genexwrecker mentinioned in the post. So it was most likely the N3sh duel.

[quote="Renji Asuka":2v95sv14][quote="Sound4":2v95sv14][quote="Renji Asuka":2v95sv14]
Sorry, your opponent has the right to respond. End of story. Any explanation by you is irrelevant. You have no point, you haven't had a point, you just keep going on and on. Take the fucking L.[/quote:2v95sv14]
I have provided links to support my claims you have not and couldn't. Can you explain why you have not shown any replays or links to support your claims?[/quote:2v95sv14]
Your links do not support your claims. End of story. Everything was already debunked on Day 1. Take the L.[/quote:2v95sv14]
Explain

[quote="Sound4":2fzlvv3d][quote="Renji Asuka":2fzlvv3d][quote="Sound4":2fzlvv3d]
I have provided links to support my claims you have not and couldn't. Can you explain why you have not shown any replays or links to support your claims?[/quote:2fzlvv3d]
Your links do not support your claims. End of story. Everything was already debunked on Day 1. Take the L.[/quote:2fzlvv3d]
Explain[/quote:2fzlvv3d]
Read my post.

[quote="Sound4":180n4kvw][quote="greg503":180n4kvw][quote="Sound4":180n4kvw]
We don't know that for sure yet.[/quote:180n4kvw]
Then you don't understand context and inferences. I think you need to brush up on formal arguments 101 before coming back[/quote:180n4kvw]
Genexwrecker's posts was highly suggesting the N3sh duel. As with the madrest duel no one accused me of stalling but Genexwrecker mentinioned in the post. So it was most likely the N3sh duel.[/quote:180n4kvw]
OK, I flubbed, however that situation was about a time period of what, 9 seconds? AND the gamestate hadn't even been advanced? Come off it

[quote="Sound4":1u0y894h][quote="Christen57":1u0y894h][quote="Sound4":1u0y894h]
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.[/quote:1u0y894h]

Your opponent was responding though. [4:17] "on eff" was the response.

I think the problem here is that you, at some point, thought Cyber Dragon Nachster's "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect, and it's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned: You can target 1 Machine monster with 2100 ATK or DEF in your GY; Special Summon it" effect, were all one single effect, as if you were resolving something like Conquistador of the Golden Land, and you thought that since your opponent was okay with Nachster's first effect, that means they would also be okay with it's second separate effect. Turns out they weren't in this case.

The reason I think you thought this, is because of what was said here:

[3:27] "Nachster eff"
[3:32] "ok"
[3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon Core" from hand (1/3) to GY
[3:39] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon Nachster" from hand (2/2) to M-3 (DEF)
[4:07] "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy"

You saying "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster" suggests to me that you thought those 2 effects of Cyber Dragon Nachster were all one single effect, since players don't normally say "I also get to do X thing" when activating 2 separate effects. Players usually say "I also get to do X thing" when performing multiple different actions to resolve 1 single effect, like with conquistador. In the case of conquistador, players would, for example, activate it, special summon it as a monster, then say "I also get to destroy X card since I control Eldlich the Golden Lord" to indicate that they were also choosing to apply the second portion of conquistador's effect to destroy a face-up card.

These things were also said:

[6:49] "on eff of summon means i have a respond"
[7:03] "thats how it usually works. "
[7:08] "What do you mean you said "OK" on nachster eff"
[7:22] "that was the discard ss "
[7:26] "not the on summon eff"
[7:33] "they are both different"
[8:27] "Nachster eff" [3:32] "ok" [3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon"

Which further suggests that you thought that the opponent being "ok" with the first Nachster effect meant that they were also "ok" with the second effect, and again, it turned out they weren't, and the fact that you proceeded to resolve the second effect of Nachster, without making sure the opponent was also "ok" with that as well, further shows that you must have thought those 2 effects of Nachster were all one single effect as if you were resolving a Conquistador of the Golden Land.

If he responded quicker I would have allowed the response.

The total time it took for the response was 10 seconds, from [4:07] where you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy" to [4:17] when the opponent said "on eff".

However, I think the real other problem here is that you thought that since the opponent didn't specifically chat the word "response," then they have no response and you can keep playing, even if they say other things that would indicate that they have a response, such as "on eff of summon," which they did say.

Look at what was said after you proceeded to resolve both effects of Nachster:

[5:42] "i said on eff of summon"
[5:46] "when you summoned it"
[5:52] "i even said hold on"
[6:36] "That does not mean anything if you have a response you say "response" I saw nothing in chat so I thought I was allowed to continue to play"

This tells me that you don't consider "on eff" or "hold on" to be an indicator that the opponent wishes to respond — only the specific word, "response". This is also wrong. "On eff" was a shorter way of saying "on effect" as in, in this case at least, "on the effect of Cyber Dragon Nachster". Then your opponent would play the card/effect they wished to respond with. Refusing to allow the opponent to respond, because they used "hold on" and "on eff" instead of the specific magic word or whatever, is rule sharking.

Taking all of this into consideration, I doubt you really would "have allowed the response" even if the opponent did respond "quicker".

Lastly, even if your opponent truly did have no quick effects, traps, hand traps, quick-play spells, or trigger effects they could've respond with at that time, guess what? They're still allowed to request that you slow down and "hold on" so they can at least go over the cards you played so far, the cards you're playing currently, and the combos you're doing, just to make sure you're doing them properly, and not (either intentionally or unintentionally) cheating, such as, for example, activating a hard once per turn effect more than once in a single turn (something I actually did catch players, and got caught by players, attempting to do in the past).[/quote:1u0y894h]
The reason why "on eff" is a terrible way of responding is because you are not clear. Furthermore, my opponent did not say anything on them having a response until after a while and didn't say anything on why he took so long. As I said in another post there is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect as he never said he was reading my card or nothing. If am not mistaken he said wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect but at that point the effect was already fully resolved.
For some more evidence to support my claims this is from an official tournament website.
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalised".[/quote:1u0y894h]

If "on eff" wasn't clear enough for you then you could have stopped and ask them to clarify what they meant — "What do you mean by 'on eff'? Are you saying you wish to respond?" You didn't have to ignore them and keep on playing.

I also don't think 10 seconds in this situation was "excessive time" or the opponent "taking too long" and the judges didn't think so either.

[quote="troglyte":1r6zgndo]Seeing as it's VERY relevant to this conversation, I find it necessary to re-post this from the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17571&start=100

[quote="troglyte":1r6zgndo][quote="troglyte":1r6zgndo]

If you read my posts, you would have noticed that I used the exact. SAME. LOGIC. that you're using. I waited an entire day for your reply, so it's a logical conclusion that you have no argument in response, so if you say anything now, the only logical conclusion is that you're lying, there's no other possible explanation. This is the exact same reasoning you're using to justify you're argument, and you said it was illogical. You're a hypocrite, you're not willing to apply your own "logic" against yourself because it doesn't benefit you. Read your own posts, Ingeniero, you played yourself.



[/quote:1r6zgndo]

[quote="Sound4":1r6zgndo]
So you refuse to show the posts where I admitted to? You come off as you are lying.
Have a nice day[/quote:1r6zgndo]

This is what Ingeniero does. He ignores posts that he can't argue against. And this is the same person who wants us to "read his posts."

To everyone reading this thread, Sound4 is a liar, hypocrite, rule-shark, and troll. Please do not take anything this troll says seriously.[/quote:1r6zgndo][/quote:1r6zgndo]

I tried applying "by your logic" a long while ago before, and you took it the wrong way.
Now you know how I feel.

Also, I still wonder what it takes for a thread to be locked.

[quote="Jedx_EX":2r6z3apd]Also, I still wonder what it takes for a thread to be locked.[/quote:2r6z3apd]
One of the admin coming on the forum for a bit...

[quote="Jedx_EX":3v8oo3r9][quote="troglyte":3v8oo3r9]Seeing as it's VERY relevant to this conversation, I find it necessary to re-post this from the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17571&start=100

[quote="troglyte":3v8oo3r9]



This is what Ingeniero does. He ignores posts that he can't argue against. And this is the same person who wants us to "read his posts."

To everyone reading this thread, Sound4 is a liar, hypocrite, rule-shark, and troll. Please do not take anything this troll says seriously.[/quote:3v8oo3r9][/quote:3v8oo3r9]

I tried applying "by your logic" a long while ago before, and you took it the wrong way.
Now you know how I feel.[/quote:3v8oo3r9]
Explain

[quote="Christen57":29b3o7yq][quote="Sound4":29b3o7yq][quote="Christen57":29b3o7yq]

Your opponent was responding though. [4:17] "on eff" was the response.

I think the problem here is that you, at some point, thought Cyber Dragon Nachster's "You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect, and it's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned: You can target 1 Machine monster with 2100 ATK or DEF in your GY; Special Summon it" effect, were all one single effect, as if you were resolving something like Conquistador of the Golden Land, and you thought that since your opponent was okay with Nachster's first effect, that means they would also be okay with it's second separate effect. Turns out they weren't in this case.

The reason I think you thought this, is because of what was said here:

[3:27] "Nachster eff"
[3:32] "ok"
[3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon Core" from hand (1/3) to GY
[3:39] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon Nachster" from hand (2/2) to M-3 (DEF)
[4:07] "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy"

You saying "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster" suggests to me that you thought those 2 effects of Cyber Dragon Nachster were all one single effect, since players don't normally say "I also get to do X thing" when activating 2 separate effects. Players usually say "I also get to do X thing" when performing multiple different actions to resolve 1 single effect, like with conquistador. In the case of conquistador, players would, for example, activate it, special summon it as a monster, then say "I also get to destroy X card since I control Eldlich the Golden Lord" to indicate that they were also choosing to apply the second portion of conquistador's effect to destroy a face-up card.

These things were also said:

[6:49] "on eff of summon means i have a respond"
[7:03] "thats how it usually works. "
[7:08] "What do you mean you said "OK" on nachster eff"
[7:22] "that was the discard ss "
[7:26] "not the on summon eff"
[7:33] "they are both different"
[8:27] "Nachster eff" [3:32] "ok" [3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon"

Which further suggests that you thought that the opponent being "ok" with the first Nachster effect meant that they were also "ok" with the second effect, and again, it turned out they weren't, and the fact that you proceeded to resolve the second effect of Nachster, without making sure the opponent was also "ok" with that as well, further shows that you must have thought those 2 effects of Nachster were all one single effect as if you were resolving a Conquistador of the Golden Land.



The total time it took for the response was 10 seconds, from [4:07] where you said "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy" to [4:17] when the opponent said "on eff".

However, I think the real other problem here is that you thought that since the opponent didn't specifically chat the word "response," then they have no response and you can keep playing, even if they say other things that would indicate that they have a response, such as "on eff of summon," which they did say.

Look at what was said after you proceeded to resolve both effects of Nachster:

[5:42] "i said on eff of summon"
[5:46] "when you summoned it"
[5:52] "i even said hold on"
[6:36] "That does not mean anything if you have a response you say "response" I saw nothing in chat so I thought I was allowed to continue to play"

This tells me that you don't consider "on eff" or "hold on" to be an indicator that the opponent wishes to respond — only the specific word, "response". This is also wrong. "On eff" was a shorter way of saying "on effect" as in, in this case at least, "on the effect of Cyber Dragon Nachster". Then your opponent would play the card/effect they wished to respond with. Refusing to allow the opponent to respond, because they used "hold on" and "on eff" instead of the specific magic word or whatever, is rule sharking.

Taking all of this into consideration, I doubt you really would "have allowed the response" even if the opponent did respond "quicker".

Lastly, even if your opponent truly did have no quick effects, traps, hand traps, quick-play spells, or trigger effects they could've respond with at that time, guess what? They're still allowed to request that you slow down and "hold on" so they can at least go over the cards you played so far, the cards you're playing currently, and the combos you're doing, just to make sure you're doing them properly, and not (either intentionally or unintentionally) cheating, such as, for example, activating a hard once per turn effect more than once in a single turn (something I actually did catch players, and got caught by players, attempting to do in the past).[/quote:29b3o7yq]
The reason why "on eff" is a terrible way of responding is because you are not clear. Furthermore, my opponent did not say anything on them having a response until after a while and didn't say anything on why he took so long. As I said in another post there is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect as he never said he was reading my card or nothing. If am not mistaken he said wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect but at that point the effect was already fully resolved.
For some more evidence to support my claims this is from an official tournament website.
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalised".[/quote:29b3o7yq]

If "on eff" wasn't clear enough for you then you could have stopped and ask them to clarify what they meant — "What do you mean by 'on eff'? Are you saying you wish to respond?" You didn't have to ignore them and keep on playing.

I also don't think 10 seconds in this situation was "excessive time" or the opponent "taking too long" and the judges didn't think so either.[/quote:29b3o7yq]
Communicating clearly in DB is key as if you are not it causes issues like this. 10seconds after an effect is a lot if you think about it. There is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect. What reason would he have to take so long? Which the judge or tge player could not answer.

[quote="Sound4":v0s0d3y8][quote="Christen57":v0s0d3y8][quote="Sound4":v0s0d3y8]
The reason why "on eff" is a terrible way of responding is because you are not clear. Furthermore, my opponent did not say anything on them having a response until after a while and didn't say anything on why he took so long. As I said in another post there is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect as he never said he was reading my card or nothing. If am not mistaken he said wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect but at that point the effect was already fully resolved.
For some more evidence to support my claims this is from an official tournament website.
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalised".[/quote:v0s0d3y8]

If "on eff" wasn't clear enough for you then you could have stopped and ask them to clarify what they meant — "What do you mean by 'on eff'? Are you saying you wish to respond?" You didn't have to ignore them and keep on playing.

I also don't think 10 seconds in this situation was "excessive time" or the opponent "taking too long" and the judges didn't think so either.[/quote:v0s0d3y8]
Communicating clearly in DB is key as if you are not it causes issues like this. 10seconds after an effect is a lot if you think about it. There is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect. What reason would he have to take so long? Which the judge or tge player could not answer.[/quote:v0s0d3y8]
Imagine assuming your opponent knows what your cards do better than you do

[quote="Sound4":qa67ef5r][quote="Christen57":qa67ef5r][quote="Sound4":qa67ef5r]
The reason why "on eff" is a terrible way of responding is because you are not clear. Furthermore, my opponent did not say anything on them having a response until after a while and didn't say anything on why he took so long. As I said in another post there is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect as he never said he was reading my card or nothing. If am not mistaken he said wanted to way until the cyber dragon was summoned then activate his effect but at that point the effect was already fully resolved.
For some more evidence to support my claims this is from an official tournament website.
"Though an average of 3 minutes may be spent on each turn, excessive time should not be spent to allow the tournament to proceed properly. Any duelists caught taking too long (or intentionally stalling for time) may be penalised".[/quote:qa67ef5r]

If "on eff" wasn't clear enough for you then you could have stopped and ask them to clarify what they meant — "What do you mean by 'on eff'? Are you saying you wish to respond?" You didn't have to ignore them and keep on playing.

I also don't think 10 seconds in this situation was "excessive time" or the opponent "taking too long" and the judges didn't think so either.[/quote:qa67ef5r]
Communicating clearly in DB is key as if you are not it causes issues like this. 10seconds after an effect is a lot if you think about it. There is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect. What reason would he have to take so long? Which the judge or tge player could not answer.[/quote:qa67ef5r]
Doesn't matter, you tried to get a free win and you tried to deny him a response in the N3sh duel.

Considering that is relevant, the only reason you're arguing that "Silence is consent" is literally YOU wanting to deny the window for your opponent to respond so you can play freely.

Man, to think you wouldn't get shittier.

[quote="Renji Asuka":3uavbtpn][quote="Sound4":3uavbtpn][quote="Christen57":3uavbtpn]

If "on eff" wasn't clear enough for you then you could have stopped and ask them to clarify what they meant — "What do you mean by 'on eff'? Are you saying you wish to respond?" You didn't have to ignore them and keep on playing.

I also don't think 10 seconds in this situation was "excessive time" or the opponent "taking too long" and the judges didn't think so either.[/quote:3uavbtpn]
Communicating clearly in DB is key as if you are not it causes issues like this. 10seconds after an effect is a lot if you think about it. There is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect. What reason would he have to take so long? Which the judge or tge player could not answer.[/quote:3uavbtpn]
Doesn't matter, you tried to get a free win and you tried to deny him a response in the N3sh duel.

Considering that is relevant, the only reason you're arguing that "Silence is consent" is literally YOU wanting to deny the window for your opponent to respond so you can play freely.

Man, to think you wouldn't get shittier.[/quote:3uavbtpn]
I already said that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I literally had advantage in the duel. Explain how I was at a "disadvantage" which I doubt you can. It is me being realistic there is no reason to take 10 seconds to respond especially when my opponent most likely already knew nachster 2nd effect as he didn't sat anything on him reading or not knowing the effect.

[quote="greg503":1ifu94jh][quote="Sound4":1ifu94jh][quote="Christen57":1ifu94jh]

If "on eff" wasn't clear enough for you then you could have stopped and ask them to clarify what they meant — "What do you mean by 'on eff'? Are you saying you wish to respond?" You didn't have to ignore them and keep on playing.

I also don't think 10 seconds in this situation was "excessive time" or the opponent "taking too long" and the judges didn't think so either.[/quote:1ifu94jh]
Communicating clearly in DB is key as if you are not it causes issues like this. 10seconds after an effect is a lot if you think about it. There is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect. What reason would he have to take so long? Which the judge or tge player could not answer.[/quote:1ifu94jh]
Imagine assuming your opponent knows what your cards do better than you do [/quote:1ifu94jh]
What other reason would they be? He didn't say anything he was reading or not not knowing the effect.

[quote="Sound4":tep2px04][quote="Renji Asuka":tep2px04][quote="Sound4":tep2px04]
Communicating clearly in DB is key as if you are not it causes issues like this. 10seconds after an effect is a lot if you think about it. There is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect. What reason would he have to take so long? Which the judge or tge player could not answer.[/quote:tep2px04]
Doesn't matter, you tried to get a free win and you tried to deny him a response in the N3sh duel.

Considering that is relevant, the only reason you're arguing that "Silence is consent" is literally YOU wanting to deny the window for your opponent to respond so you can play freely.

Man, to think you wouldn't get shittier.[/quote:tep2px04]
I already said that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I literally had advantage in the duel. Explain how I was at a "disadvantage" which I doubt you can. It is me being realistic there is no reason to take 10 seconds to respond especially when my opponent most likely already knew nachster 2nd effect as he didn't sat anything on him reading or not knowing the effect.[/quote:tep2px04]
Doesn't matter, you still tried to deny his right to respond. End of story.

[quote="Sound4":789k2gz0][quote="greg503":789k2gz0][quote="Sound4":789k2gz0]
Communicating clearly in DB is key as if you are not it causes issues like this. 10seconds after an effect is a lot if you think about it. There is a good chance he already knew the nachster 2nd effect. What reason would he have to take so long? Which the judge or tge player could not answer.[/quote:789k2gz0]
Imagine assuming your opponent knows what your cards do better than you do [/quote:789k2gz0]
What other reason would they be? He didn't say anything he was reading or not not knowing the effect.[/quote:789k2gz0]
See, they were ASSUMING that you were waiting their response and needed time to think, which they assumed had been conveyed, and you assumed that they were totally cool with your effect. This is why silence is not consent, and never will be, ambiguity.

[quote="Renji Asuka":12mr09uy][quote="Sound4":12mr09uy][quote="Renji Asuka":12mr09uy]
Doesn't matter, you tried to get a free win and you tried to deny him a response in the N3sh duel.

Considering that is relevant, the only reason you're arguing that "Silence is consent" is literally YOU wanting to deny the window for your opponent to respond so you can play freely.

Man, to think you wouldn't get shittier.[/quote:12mr09uy]
I already said that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I literally had advantage in the duel. Explain how I was at a "disadvantage" which I doubt you can. It is me being realistic there is no reason to take 10 seconds to respond especially when my opponent most likely already knew nachster 2nd effect as he didn't sat anything on him reading or not knowing the effect.[/quote:12mr09uy]
Doesn't matter, you still tried to deny his right to respond. End of story.[/quote:12mr09uy]
I also explained my reasoning.

[quote="greg503":2d4ohtv1][quote="Sound4":2d4ohtv1][quote="greg503":2d4ohtv1]
Imagine assuming your opponent knows what your cards do better than you do [/quote:2d4ohtv1]
What other reason would they be? He didn't say anything he was reading or not not knowing the effect.[/quote:2d4ohtv1]
See, they were ASSUMING that you were waiting their response and needed time to think, which they assumed had been conveyed, and you assumed that they were totally cool with your effect. This is why silence is not consent, and never will be, ambiguity.[/quote:2d4ohtv1]
This doesn't really answer the question. You have no evidence they were thinking. They didn't claim they wee thinking even after N3sh came.

[quote="Sound4":86mnx8q9][quote="greg503":86mnx8q9][quote="Sound4":86mnx8q9]
What other reason would they be? He didn't say anything he was reading or not not knowing the effect.[/quote:86mnx8q9]
See, they were ASSUMING that you were waiting their response and needed time to think, which they assumed had been conveyed, and you assumed that they were totally cool with your effect. This is why silence is not consent, and never will be, ambiguity.[/quote:86mnx8q9]
This doesn't really answer the question. You have no evidence they were thinking. They didn't claim they wee thinking even after N3sh came.[/quote:86mnx8q9]
YOU have no evidence that they WEREN'T thinking. Also, if this is the replay I'm thinking about, they would care more about you getting your cards WRONG (Nachster).

[quote="Sound4":19bpiu9n][quote="Renji Asuka":19bpiu9n][quote="Sound4":19bpiu9n]
I already said that I would have allowed the response if he responded quicker. I literally had advantage in the duel. Explain how I was at a "disadvantage" which I doubt you can. It is me being realistic there is no reason to take 10 seconds to respond especially when my opponent most likely already knew nachster 2nd effect as he didn't sat anything on him reading or not knowing the effect.[/quote:19bpiu9n]
Doesn't matter, you still tried to deny his right to respond. End of story.[/quote:19bpiu9n]
I also explained my reasoning.[/quote:19bpiu9n]
And you're still wrong on the matter.

love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful

Got to love how a new registered "user" only gives 1% of the story.

Since Slow Play never results in a freeze usually.

However because of this little screenshot we can say you were win trading. But that's only based off your win/loss ratio.

More than likely you were arguing with an admin, which then resulted in your freeze.

[quote="REDxLEGIT":6p1gmiao]love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful[/quote:6p1gmiao]

Accusation require receipts.

How long does it take for judges to look at appeals?

[quote="REDxLEGIT":s8c1x28r]love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful[/quote:s8c1x28r]

This is the same judge that froze me for "slow playing"
These corrupt judges need to be stamped out.

[quote="REDxLEGIT":1mmsk9fr]love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful[/quote:1mmsk9fr]
that is not what happened. you afkd in the game then magically left the moment the judge arrived. that being said you have submitted your appeal I advise you wait for it to be handled before complaining furthur.

[quote="SHIFTY786":3s1myi8m][quote="REDxLEGIT":3s1myi8m]love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful[/quote:3s1myi8m]

This is the same judge that froze me for "slow playing"
These corrupt judges need to be stamped out.[/quote:3s1myi8m]

Looking at your replay history, it's more likely that your freeze was due to you maliciously stalling and keeping your opponent waiting for no reason, forcing them to quit. [url:3s1myi8m]https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=22420855[/url:3s1myi8m]

[quote="SHIFTY786":1ry7cfmx][quote="REDxLEGIT":1ry7cfmx]love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful[/quote:1ry7cfmx]

This is the same judge that froze me for "slow playing"
These corrupt judges need to be stamped out.[/quote:1ry7cfmx]
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=33961977

you literally held up the game over last turn because you were going to lose. you were frozen for deliberate stalling which makes sense.

Now this is yet another, "let's try and convince the forums that the judges aren't doing the right thing" thread

I called a judge for a ruling question how is that stalling?
Also I should have won because I had sangan which means I search for a monster and conduct the special battle phase.

[quote="Genexwrecker":1pfu2n0x][quote="SHIFTY786":1pfu2n0x][quote="REDxLEGIT":1pfu2n0x]love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful[/quote:1pfu2n0x]

This is the same judge that froze me for "slow playing"
These corrupt judges need to be stamped out.[/quote:1pfu2n0x]
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=33961977

you literally held up the game over last turn because you were going to lose. you were frozen for deliberate stalling which makes sense.[/quote:1pfu2n0x]


Because waiting for a judge on a ruling question is stalling.
Lol the level of ignorance is unheard of.
Also why would I stall a game when theres a judge online literally makes 0 sense

Silence is golden

[quote="SHIFTY786":2ns6tzxy][quote="Genexwrecker":2ns6tzxy][quote="SHIFTY786":2ns6tzxy]

This is the same judge that froze me for "slow playing"
These corrupt judges need to be stamped out.[/quote:2ns6tzxy]
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=33961977

you literally held up the game over last turn because you were going to lose. you were frozen for deliberate stalling which makes sense.[/quote:2ns6tzxy]


Because waiting for a judge on a ruling question is stalling.
Lol the level of ignorance is unheard of.
Also why would I stall a game when theres a judge online literally makes 0 sense[/quote:2ns6tzxy]

You are a highly ranked goat format player and claim to have an established tournament resumé. If that's the true (which I personally have to call into question) then there is ZERO excuse for you to not know how MST works. This is disgusting behavior for a "seasoned veteran" and you should be ashamed.

[quote="SHIFTY786":ew8x1cfp][quote="Genexwrecker":ew8x1cfp][quote="SHIFTY786":ew8x1cfp]

This is the same judge that froze me for "slow playing"
These corrupt judges need to be stamped out.[/quote:ew8x1cfp]
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=33961977

you literally held up the game over last turn because you were going to lose. you were frozen for deliberate stalling which makes sense.[/quote:ew8x1cfp]


Because waiting for a judge on a ruling question is stalling.
Lol the level of ignorance is unheard of.
Also why would I stall a game when theres a judge online literally makes 0 sense[/quote:ew8x1cfp]
I dont buy that you dont know how targeting works. that is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game which is required to know for normal play. you have also established that ur a very seasoned player. there is no way you did not know how mst worked there.

[quote="greg503":t5ptt096][quote="Sound4":t5ptt096][quote="greg503":t5ptt096]
See, they were ASSUMING that you were waiting their response and needed time to think, which they assumed had been conveyed, and you assumed that they were totally cool with your effect. This is why silence is not consent, and never will be, ambiguity.[/quote:t5ptt096]
This doesn't really answer the question. You have no evidence they were thinking. They didn't claim they wee thinking even after N3sh came.[/quote:t5ptt096]
YOU have no evidence that they WEREN'T thinking. Also, if this is the replay I'm thinking about, they would care more about you getting your cards WRONG (Nachster).[/quote:t5ptt096]
I just said that even after N3sh came in he didn't claim he was thinking. Even after I was questioning on him on some stuff he didn't claim he was thinking.

[quote="REDxLEGIT":z9wu60vq]love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful[/quote:z9wu60vq]
I am nit to sure about the 1st part but the 2nd part sahqovum is true I made an abuse report arounfd a month and a half ago on how he handles judge calls and still have not received a response. I would recommend not playing when sahqovum is online. Plus on the abuse report I provided 2 replays and explain each one.

[quote="Sound4":369d92g6][quote="REDxLEGIT":369d92g6]love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful[/quote:369d92g6]
I am nit to sure about the 1st part but the 2nd part sahqovum is true I made an abuse report arounfd a month and a half ago on how he handles judge calls and still have not received a response. I would recommend not playing when sahqovum is online. Plus on the abuse report I provided 2 replays and explain each one.[/quote:369d92g6]

Don't go around trying to convince people that "X judge is bad" when you have 0 evidence supporting this, and every argument you've presented has been shut down.

[quote="itsmetristan":1va5zayt][quote="Sound4":1va5zayt][quote="REDxLEGIT":1va5zayt]love how a judge gives a person a 3 day freeze for a slow play minor offense the judge Sahqovum is unfair rude and disrespectful[/quote:1va5zayt]
I am nit to sure about the 1st part but the 2nd part sahqovum is true I made an abuse report arounfd a month and a half ago on how he handles judge calls and still have not received a response. I would recommend not playing when sahqovum is online. Plus on the abuse report I provided 2 replays and explain each one.[/quote:1va5zayt]

Don't go around trying to convince people that "X judge is bad" when you have 0 evidence supporting this, and every argument you've presented has been shut down.[/quote:1va5zayt]
I literally made an abuse report appeal on sahqovum providing two replays and didn't receive a response. I would like to see your responses on my claims as I have provided links to support my claims.

[quote="Genexwrecker":1sjkrwz7][quote="SHIFTY786":1sjkrwz7][quote="Genexwrecker":1sjkrwz7]
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=33961977

you literally held up the game over last turn because you were going to lose. you were frozen for deliberate stalling which makes sense.[/quote:1sjkrwz7]


Because waiting for a judge on a ruling question is stalling.
Lol the level of ignorance is unheard of.
Also why would I stall a game when theres a judge online literally makes 0 sense[/quote:1sjkrwz7]
I dont buy that you dont know how targeting works. that is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game which is required to know for normal play. you have also established that ur a very seasoned player. there is no way you did not know how mst worked there.[/quote:1sjkrwz7]
I'm going to be honest, this ruling is very questionable at best it probably should have been an official warning. I don't see how he was stalling here as had the advantage for most of the duel. A freeze is way to far and made no sense he had the advantage most of the duel. Why would he stall when he had the advantage most of the duel?

[quote="troglyte":tdag9fvq][quote="SHIFTY786":tdag9fvq][quote="Genexwrecker":tdag9fvq]
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=33961977

you literally held up the game over last turn because you were going to lose. you were frozen for deliberate stalling which makes sense.[/quote:tdag9fvq]


Because waiting for a judge on a ruling question is stalling.
Lol the level of ignorance is unheard of.
Also why would I stall a game when theres a judge online literally makes 0 sense[/quote:tdag9fvq]

You are a highly ranked goat format player and claim to have an established tournament resumé. If that's the true (which I personally have to call into question) then there is ZERO excuse for you to not know how MST works. This is disgusting behavior for a "seasoned veteran" and you should be ashamed.[/quote:tdag9fvq]
I don't see how this is a good enough reason for a freeze. He had the advantage most of the duel.

[quote="Sound4":125925j3][quote="Genexwrecker":125925j3][quote="SHIFTY786":125925j3]


Because waiting for a judge on a ruling question is stalling.
Lol the level of ignorance is unheard of.
Also why would I stall a game when theres a judge online literally makes 0 sense[/quote:125925j3]
I dont buy that you dont know how targeting works. that is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game which is required to know for normal play. you have also established that ur a very seasoned player. there is no way you did not know how mst worked there.[/quote:125925j3]
I'm going to be honest, this ruling is very questionable at best it probably should have been an official warning. I don't see how he was stalling here as had the advantage for most of the duel. A freeze is way to far and made no sense he had the advantage most of the duel. Why would he stall when he had the advantage most of the duel?[/quote:125925j3]do you know what last turn does?

[quote="Sound4":h5tzze5f][quote="itsmetristan":h5tzze5f][quote="Sound4":h5tzze5f]
I am nit to sure about the 1st part but the 2nd part sahqovum is true I made an abuse report arounfd a month and a half ago on how he handles judge calls and still have not received a response. I would recommend not playing when sahqovum is online. Plus on the abuse report I provided 2 replays and explain each one.[/quote:h5tzze5f]

Don't go around trying to convince people that "X judge is bad" when you have 0 evidence supporting this, and every argument you've presented has been shut down.[/quote:h5tzze5f]
I literally made an abuse report appeal on sahqovum providing two replays and didn't receive a response. I would like to see your responses on my claims as I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:h5tzze5f]

Neither of those replays actually prove your point. In one of them, you were told you had 30 seconds to do an action. You did not do said action in 30 seconds, so you were given a loss for non-compliance. In the second, I don't exactly know what happened there. You just... Admitted defeat and left the duel? I have 0 clue how that's supposed to be relevant here.

[quote="itsmetristan":2bwux9ke][quote="Sound4":2bwux9ke][quote="itsmetristan":2bwux9ke]

Don't go around trying to convince people that "X judge is bad" when you have 0 evidence supporting this, and every argument you've presented has been shut down.[/quote:2bwux9ke]
I literally made an abuse report appeal on sahqovum providing two replays and didn't receive a response. I would like to see your responses on my claims as I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:2bwux9ke]

Neither of those replays actually prove your point. In one of them, you were told you had 30 seconds to do an action. You did not do said action in 30 seconds, so you were given a loss for non-compliance. In the second, I don't exactly know what happened there. You just... Admitted defeat and left the duel? I have 0 clue how that's supposed to be relevant here.[/quote:2bwux9ke]
So you did look at the abuse report kind of but didn't respond? I am not to sure about the 2nd reply but the 1st one made 0 sense I wanted an answer on what sahqovum was say as sahqovum was not explaining it just doing what N3sh was doing but doing it more ignoring. Also I find it odd you didn't reply to the report this could also mean you just looked it up now.

[quote="Sound4":32xfuvgd][quote="itsmetristan":32xfuvgd][quote="Sound4":32xfuvgd]
I literally made an abuse report appeal on sahqovum providing two replays and didn't receive a response. I would like to see your responses on my claims as I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:32xfuvgd]

Neither of those replays actually prove your point. In one of them, you were told you had 30 seconds to do an action. You did not do said action in 30 seconds, so you were given a loss for non-compliance. In the second, I don't exactly know what happened there. You just... Admitted defeat and left the duel? I have 0 clue how that's supposed to be relevant here.[/quote:32xfuvgd]
So you did look at the abuse report kind of but didn't respond? I am not to sure about the 2nd reply but the 1st one made 0 sense I wanted an answer on what sahqovum was say as sahqovum was not explaining it just doing what N3sh was doing but doing it more ignoring. Also I find it odd you didn't reply to the report this could also mean you just looked it up now.[/quote:32xfuvgd]

The report was already closed a while ago. Did you simply forget that you received a DM about this?

[quote="itsmetristan":396b72au][quote="Sound4":396b72au][quote="itsmetristan":396b72au]

Neither of those replays actually prove your point. In one of them, you were told you had 30 seconds to do an action. You did not do said action in 30 seconds, so you were given a loss for non-compliance. In the second, I don't exactly know what happened there. You just... Admitted defeat and left the duel? I have 0 clue how that's supposed to be relevant here.[/quote:396b72au]
So you did look at the abuse report kind of but didn't respond? I am not to sure about the 2nd reply but the 1st one made 0 sense I wanted an answer on what sahqovum was say as sahqovum was not explaining it just doing what N3sh was doing but doing it more ignoring. Also I find it odd you didn't reply to the report this could also mean you just looked it up now.[/quote:396b72au]

The report was already closed a while ago. Did you simply forget that you received a DM about this?[/quote:396b72au]
I received nothing on the report. So you are basically saying is that if you people don't think there was nothing wrong in a duel you simply ignore it and don't even bother to respond? It seems like this is what you are saying.

[quote="Genexwrecker":1rpt2i4g][quote="Sound4":1rpt2i4g][quote="Genexwrecker":1rpt2i4g]
I dont buy that you dont know how targeting works. that is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game which is required to know for normal play. you have also established that ur a very seasoned player. there is no way you did not know how mst worked there.[/quote:1rpt2i4g]
I'm going to be honest, this ruling is very questionable at best it probably should have been an official warning. I don't see how he was stalling here as had the advantage for most of the duel. A freeze is way to far and made no sense he had the advantage most of the duel. Why would he stall when he had the advantage most of the duel?[/quote:1rpt2i4g]do you know what last turn does?[/quote:1rpt2i4g]
What are you suggesting?

[quote="Sound4":ufokktq8][quote="itsmetristan":ufokktq8][quote="Sound4":ufokktq8]
I literally made an abuse report appeal on sahqovum providing two replays and didn't receive a response. I would like to see your responses on my claims as I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:ufokktq8]

Neither of those replays actually prove your point. In one of them, you were told you had 30 seconds to do an action. You did not do said action in 30 seconds, so you were given a loss for non-compliance. In the second, I don't exactly know what happened there. You just... Admitted defeat and left the duel? I have 0 clue how that's supposed to be relevant here.[/quote:ufokktq8]
So you did look at the abuse report kind of but didn't respond? I am not to sure about the 2nd reply but the 1st one made 0 sense I wanted an answer on what sahqovum was say as sahqovum was not explaining it just doing what N3sh was doing but doing it more ignoring. Also I find it odd you didn't reply to the report this could also mean you just looked it up now.[/quote:ufokktq8]

You were very clearly told you had 30 seconds to do an action. There is no reason for you to not understand this. If you have questions after you can DM them or ask them after doing said action. If you're still confused after, file a report. There isn't an excuse to not complying with what the judge is telling you to do.

[quote="Sound4":158uecph][quote="itsmetristan":158uecph][quote="Sound4":158uecph]
So you did look at the abuse report kind of but didn't respond? I am not to sure about the 2nd reply but the 1st one made 0 sense I wanted an answer on what sahqovum was say as sahqovum was not explaining it just doing what N3sh was doing but doing it more ignoring. Also I find it odd you didn't reply to the report this could also mean you just looked it up now.[/quote:158uecph]

The report was already closed a while ago. Did you simply forget that you received a DM about this?[/quote:158uecph]
I received nothing on the report. So you are basically saying is that if you people don't think there was nothing wrong in a duel you simply ignore it and don't even bother to respond? It seems like this is what you are saying.[/quote:158uecph]

It was closed, and the PM was (probably) sent. If you forgot about it, that's not our problem.

[quote="Sound4":2m4ol2hz][quote="Genexwrecker":2m4ol2hz][quote="Sound4":2m4ol2hz]
I'm going to be honest, this ruling is very questionable at best it probably should have been an official warning. I don't see how he was stalling here as had the advantage for most of the duel. A freeze is way to far and made no sense he had the advantage most of the duel. Why would he stall when he had the advantage most of the duel?[/quote:2m4ol2hz]do you know what last turn does?[/quote:2m4ol2hz]
What are you suggesting?[/quote:2m4ol2hz]

Last Turn is quite literally going to win them the game. All they have to do is summon Jowgen and the opponent can no longer summon anything, therefore Last Turn will cause the opponent to instantly lose.

[quote="Sound4":1rivzf36][quote="itsmetristan":1rivzf36][quote="Sound4":1rivzf36]
So you did look at the abuse report kind of but didn't respond? I am not to sure about the 2nd reply but the 1st one made 0 sense I wanted an answer on what sahqovum was say as sahqovum was not explaining it just doing what N3sh was doing but doing it more ignoring. Also I find it odd you didn't reply to the report this could also mean you just looked it up now.[/quote:1rivzf36]

The report was already closed a while ago. Did you simply forget that you received a DM about this?[/quote:1rivzf36]
I received nothing on the report. So you are basically saying is that if you people don't think there was nothing wrong in a duel you simply ignore it and don't even bother to respond? It seems like this is what you are saying.[/quote:1rivzf36]
every single report that is closed gets a message sent to the user. so you are just flat out lying at this point and are only here to cause trouble.

and yes if we dont think something needs to be done for a duel or if we think nothing wrong was done we are not going to penalize it. Using our best judgment is part of being a judge.

[quote="itsmetristan":cv0gpi7w][quote="Sound4":cv0gpi7w][quote="itsmetristan":cv0gpi7w]

The report was already closed a while ago. Did you simply forget that you received a DM about this?[/quote:cv0gpi7w]
I received nothing on the report. So you are basically saying is that if you people don't think there was nothing wrong in a duel you simply ignore it and don't even bother to respond? It seems like this is what you are saying.[/quote:cv0gpi7w]

It was closed, and the PM was (probably) sent. If you forgot about it, that's not our problem.[/quote:cv0gpi7w]
So you are not even sure if it was sent? I can tell you this much I received nothing on the matter. Also I would like to know who would send me the PM?

[quote="Genexwrecker":3vlaci9p][quote="Sound4":3vlaci9p][quote="itsmetristan":3vlaci9p]

The report was already closed a while ago. Did you simply forget that you received a DM about this?[/quote:3vlaci9p]
I received nothing on the report. So you are basically saying is that if you people don't think there was nothing wrong in a duel you simply ignore it and don't even bother to respond? It seems like this is what you are saying.[/quote:3vlaci9p]
every single report that is closed gets a message sent to the user. so you are just flat out lying at this point and are only here to cause trouble.

and yes if we dont think something needs to be done for a duel or if we think nothing wrong was done we are not going to penalize it. Using our best judgment is part of being a judge.[/quote:3vlaci9p]
I can assure you this I received nothing regarding my report. I would also like to know who send me the report?
Also I was talking about responding to a report not penalizing

[quote="Sound4":3aeo0q6m][quote="itsmetristan":3aeo0q6m][quote="Sound4":3aeo0q6m]
I received nothing on the report. So you are basically saying is that if you people don't think there was nothing wrong in a duel you simply ignore it and don't even bother to respond? It seems like this is what you are saying.[/quote:3aeo0q6m]

It was closed, and the PM was (probably) sent. If you forgot about it, that's not our problem.[/quote:3aeo0q6m]
So you are not even sure if it was sent? I can tell you this much I received nothing on the matter. Also I would like to know who would send me the PM?[/quote:3aeo0q6m]

There is an incredibly tiny chance that the judge who looked at the report forgot/didn't do it, and I can't say for 100% certainty because I'm not that judge, but that chance is very small. It's much, MUCH more likely that you're lying or you forgot

[quote="Sound4":39ix3ly4][quote="itsmetristan":39ix3ly4][quote="Sound4":39ix3ly4]
I am nit to sure about the 1st part but the 2nd part sahqovum is true I made an abuse report arounfd a month and a half ago on how he handles judge calls and still have not received a response. I would recommend not playing when sahqovum is online. Plus on the abuse report I provided 2 replays and explain each one.[/quote:39ix3ly4]

Don't go around trying to convince people that "X judge is bad" when you have 0 evidence supporting this, and every argument you've presented has been shut down.[/quote:39ix3ly4]
I literally made an abuse report appeal on sahqovum providing two replays and didn't receive a response. I would like to see your responses on my claims as I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:39ix3ly4]

Mind showing us these "two replays" you speak of?

[quote="itsmetristan":2u2tkagt][quote="Sound4":2u2tkagt][quote="itsmetristan":2u2tkagt]

It was closed, and the PM was (probably) sent. If you forgot about it, that's not our problem.[/quote:2u2tkagt]
So you are not even sure if it was sent? I can tell you this much I received nothing on the matter. Also I would like to know who would send me the PM?[/quote:2u2tkagt]

There is an incredibly tiny chance that the judge who looked at the report forgot/didn't do it, and I can't say for 100% certainty because I'm not that judge, but that chance is very small. It's much, MUCH more likely that you're lying or you forgot[/quote:2u2tkagt]
I'm not lying no reason to. I didn't forget either as I mentioned it not long ago in this thread. Also you avoided some stuff like you said the saw the abuse report that there is a good chance that you simply just checked it now since I mentioned it.

[quote="Christen57":27gilr8i][quote="Sound4":27gilr8i][quote="itsmetristan":27gilr8i]

Don't go around trying to convince people that "X judge is bad" when you have 0 evidence supporting this, and every argument you've presented has been shut down.[/quote:27gilr8i]
I literally made an abuse report appeal on sahqovum providing two replays and didn't receive a response. I would like to see your responses on my claims as I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:27gilr8i]

Mind showing us these "two replays" you speak of?[/quote:27gilr8i]
Like I said to itsmetristan I will have to look back to find it.

[quote="Sound4":16thr589][quote="itsmetristan":16thr589][quote="Sound4":16thr589]
So you are not even sure if it was sent? I can tell you this much I received nothing on the matter. Also I would like to know who would send me the PM?[/quote:16thr589]

There is an incredibly tiny chance that the judge who looked at the report forgot/didn't do it, and I can't say for 100% certainty because I'm not that judge, but that chance is very small. It's much, MUCH more likely that you're lying or you forgot[/quote:16thr589]
I'm not lying no reason to. I didn't forget either as I mentioned it not long ago in this thread. Also you avoided some stuff like you said the saw the abuse report that there is a good chance that you simply just checked it now since I mentioned it.[/quote:16thr589]

Yes of course I checked the report to see just what you were talking about, and what you submitted doesn't help your case. I don't get why you think me viewing the report is such a big deal.

[quote="itsmetristan":3mtoehp1][quote="Sound4":3mtoehp1][quote="itsmetristan":3mtoehp1]

There is an incredibly tiny chance that the judge who looked at the report forgot/didn't do it, and I can't say for 100% certainty because I'm not that judge, but that chance is very small. It's much, MUCH more likely that you're lying or you forgot[/quote:3mtoehp1]
I'm not lying no reason to. I didn't forget either as I mentioned it not long ago in this thread. Also you avoided some stuff like you said the saw the abuse report that there is a good chance that you simply just checked it now since I mentioned it.[/quote:3mtoehp1]

Yes of course I checked the report to see just what you were talking about, and what you submitted doesn't help your case. I don't get why you think me viewing the report is such a big deal.[/quote:3mtoehp1]
So you can still see "closed" reports . Also you still ignored the first part of my post. I will have to look back on the 2nd replay.

[quote="Sound4":embokzew][quote="itsmetristan":embokzew][quote="Sound4":embokzew]
I'm not lying no reason to. I didn't forget either as I mentioned it not long ago in this thread. Also you avoided some stuff like you said the saw the abuse report that there is a good chance that you simply just checked it now since I mentioned it.[/quote:embokzew]

Yes of course I checked the report to see just what you were talking about, and what you submitted doesn't help your case. I don't get why you think me viewing the report is such a big deal.[/quote:embokzew]
So you can still see "closed" reports . Also you still ignored the first part of my post. I will have to look back on the 2nd replay.[/quote:embokzew]

What else exactly did he ignore?

[quote="Sound4":85oilck5][quote="itsmetristan":85oilck5][quote="Sound4":85oilck5]
I'm not lying no reason to. I didn't forget either as I mentioned it not long ago in this thread. Also you avoided some stuff like you said the saw the abuse report that there is a good chance that you simply just checked it now since I mentioned it.[/quote:85oilck5]

Yes of course I checked the report to see just what you were talking about, and what you submitted doesn't help your case. I don't get why you think me viewing the report is such a big deal.[/quote:85oilck5]
So you can still see "closed" reports . Also you still ignored the first part of my post. I will have to look back on the 2nd replay.[/quote:85oilck5]

I ignored what exactly?

[quote="itsmetristan":3ruzdnyo][quote="Sound4":3ruzdnyo][quote="itsmetristan":3ruzdnyo]

It was closed, and the PM was (probably) sent. If you forgot about it, that's not our problem.[/quote:3ruzdnyo]
So you are not even sure if it was sent? I can tell you this much I received nothing on the matter. Also I would like to know who would send me the PM?[/quote:3ruzdnyo]

There is an incredibly tiny chance that the judge who looked at the report forgot/didn't do it, and I can't say for 100% certainty because I'm not that judge, but that chance is very small. It's much, MUCH more likely that you're lying or you forgot[/quote:3ruzdnyo]

At this point, I think this guy is just grasping for whatever ammunition is left that he can use against you and the rest of the judges, so is it possible for you, being a moderator/judge, to look through his message history to make sure this "PM" he's talking about was sent, or ask whichever judge was supposed to send him said PM to confirm that this PM was indeed sent, so that this claim of his that he received no such PM can be put to rest?

[quote="Christen57":2iqczai3][quote="itsmetristan":2iqczai3][quote="Sound4":2iqczai3]
So you are not even sure if it was sent? I can tell you this much I received nothing on the matter. Also I would like to know who would send me the PM?[/quote:2iqczai3]

There is an incredibly tiny chance that the judge who looked at the report forgot/didn't do it, and I can't say for 100% certainty because I'm not that judge, but that chance is very small. It's much, MUCH more likely that you're lying or you forgot[/quote:2iqczai3]

At this point, I think this guy is just grasping for whatever ammunition is left that he can use against you and the rest of the judges, so is it possible for you, being a moderator/judge, to look through his message history to make sure this "PM" he's talking about was sent, or ask whichever judge was supposed to send him said PM to confirm that this PM was indeed sent, so that this claim of his that he received no such PM can be put to rest?[/quote:2iqczai3]

Frankly, whether the PM was sent or not doesn't even matter. Regardless of how that went down, it doesn't change how invalid all of their other arguments are.

[quote="itsmetristan":xinvuvtd][quote="Christen57":xinvuvtd][quote="itsmetristan":xinvuvtd]

There is an incredibly tiny chance that the judge who looked at the report forgot/didn't do it, and I can't say for 100% certainty because I'm not that judge, but that chance is very small. It's much, MUCH more likely that you're lying or you forgot[/quote:xinvuvtd]

At this point, I think this guy is just grasping for whatever ammunition is left that he can use against you and the rest of the judges, so is it possible for you, being a moderator/judge, to look through his message history to make sure this "PM" he's talking about was sent, or ask whichever judge was supposed to send him said PM to confirm that this PM was indeed sent, so that this claim of his that he received no such PM can be put to rest?[/quote:xinvuvtd]

Frankly, whether the PM was sent or not doesn't even matter. Regardless of how that went down, it doesn't change how invalid all of their other arguments are.[/quote:xinvuvtd]
Then reply to my posts regarding judges which I have provided links to support my claims.

[quote="itsmetristan":2ef3ouoj][quote="Sound4":2ef3ouoj][quote="itsmetristan":2ef3ouoj]

Yes of course I checked the report to see just what you were talking about, and what you submitted doesn't help your case. I don't get why you think me viewing the report is such a big deal.[/quote:2ef3ouoj]
So you can still see "closed" reports . Also you still ignored the first part of my post. I will have to look back on the 2nd replay.[/quote:2ef3ouoj]

I ignored what exactly?[/quote:2ef3ouoj]
"I'm not lying no reason to. I didn't forget either as I mentioned it not long ago in this thread.".

[quote="Sound4":plkngsx9][quote="itsmetristan":plkngsx9][quote="Christen57":plkngsx9]

At this point, I think this guy is just grasping for whatever ammunition is left that he can use against you and the rest of the judges, so is it possible for you, being a moderator/judge, to look through his message history to make sure this "PM" he's talking about was sent, or ask whichever judge was supposed to send him said PM to confirm that this PM was indeed sent, so that this claim of his that he received no such PM can be put to rest?[/quote:plkngsx9]

Frankly, whether the PM was sent or not doesn't even matter. Regardless of how that went down, it doesn't change how invalid all of their other arguments are.[/quote:plkngsx9]
Then reply to my posts regarding judges which I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:plkngsx9]

Which posts? I didn't read the entirety of this thread because it's so long. What other situations are you talking about?

[quote="itsmetristan":5sg584ft][quote="Sound4":5sg584ft][quote="itsmetristan":5sg584ft]

Frankly, whether the PM was sent or not doesn't even matter. Regardless of how that went down, it doesn't change how invalid all of their other arguments are.[/quote:5sg584ft]
Then reply to my posts regarding judges which I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:5sg584ft]

Which posts? I didn't read the entirety of this thread because it's so long. What other situations are you talking about?[/quote:5sg584ft]
The "what does this mean" thread on the ask me anything section

[quote="Christen57":4i07m97n][quote="itsmetristan":4i07m97n][quote="Sound4":4i07m97n]
So you are not even sure if it was sent? I can tell you this much I received nothing on the matter. Also I would like to know who would send me the PM?[/quote:4i07m97n]

There is an incredibly tiny chance that the judge who looked at the report forgot/didn't do it, and I can't say for 100% certainty because I'm not that judge, but that chance is very small. It's much, MUCH more likely that you're lying or you forgot[/quote:4i07m97n]

At this point, I think this guy is just grasping for whatever ammunition is left that he can use against you and the rest of the judges, so is it possible for you, being a moderator/judge, to look through his message history to make sure this "PM" he's talking about was sent, or ask whichever judge was supposed to send him said PM to confirm that this PM was indeed sent, so that this claim of his that he received no such PM can be put to rest?[/quote:4i07m97n]
"I'm not lying no reason to. I didn't forget either as I mentioned it not long ago in this thread."

[quote="itsmetristan":3f72kg6c][quote="Sound4":3f72kg6c][quote="itsmetristan":3f72kg6c]

Frankly, whether the PM was sent or not doesn't even matter. Regardless of how that went down, it doesn't change how invalid all of their other arguments are.[/quote:3f72kg6c]
Then reply to my posts regarding judges which I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:3f72kg6c]

Which posts? I didn't read the entirety of this thread because it's so long. What other situations are you talking about?[/quote:3f72kg6c]
This is what he does, he only argues in circles despite having everything addressed.

[quote="Sound4":fq6jrl8c]:?: [quote="itsmetristan":fq6jrl8c][quote="Sound4":fq6jrl8c]
Then reply to my posts regarding judges which I have provided links to support my claims.[/quote:fq6jrl8c]

Which posts? I didn't read the entirety of this thread because it's so long. What other situations are you talking about?[/quote:fq6jrl8c]
The "what does this mean" thread on the ask me anything section[/quote:fq6jrl8c]

After a quick view, the issue there seems to have been that you weren't told what action was taken. That's the point of the answer being vague like that. You were informed that your report was viewed and handled appropriately. You aren't allowed to know any more than that.

[quote="Genexwrecker":2qq9vwb2][quote="SHIFTY786":2qq9vwb2][quote="Genexwrecker":2qq9vwb2]
https://www.duelingbook.com/log?id=33961977

you literally held up the game over last turn because you were going to lose. you were frozen for deliberate stalling which makes sense.[/quote:2qq9vwb2]


Because waiting for a judge on a ruling question is stalling.
Lol the level of ignorance is unheard of.
Also why would I stall a game when theres a judge online literally makes 0 sense[/quote:2qq9vwb2]
I dont buy that you dont know how targeting works. that is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game which is required to know for normal play. you have also established that ur a very seasoned player. there is no way you did not know how mst worked there.[/quote:2qq9vwb2]

I never claimed I never knew about targeting. I was misinformed regarding negation. I was told that negation must be done before targeting. This is not enough for a ban. Also judges cant patronise players or assume the player knows everything.

Most judges are great and very helpful and are doing it in their spare time or working free of charge, I appreciate that. I disagree with assuming a players knowledge and judging their intent when logically it makes no sense. The problem is with certain judges who think then can ban players for lack of knowledge.

[quote="SHIFTY786":1nonc38b][quote="Genexwrecker":1nonc38b][quote="SHIFTY786":1nonc38b]


Because waiting for a judge on a ruling question is stalling.
Lol the level of ignorance is unheard of.
Also why would I stall a game when theres a judge online literally makes 0 sense[/quote:1nonc38b]
I dont buy that you dont know how targeting works. that is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game which is required to know for normal play. you have also established that ur a very seasoned player. there is no way you did not know how mst worked there.[/quote:1nonc38b]

I never claimed I never knew about targeting. I was misinformed regarding negation. I was told that negation must be done before targeting. This is not enough for a ban. Also judges cant patronise players or assume the player knows everything.

Most judges are great and very helpful and are doing it in their spare time or working free of charge, I appreciate that. I disagree with assuming a players knowledge and judging their intent when logically it makes no sense. The problem is with certain judges who think then can ban players for lack of knowledge.[/quote:1nonc38b]
You were not banned for the lack of knowledge you were banned because all the info together shows stalling and not being uninformed.

Why would I stall when I won the match lol.
Why would I stall when I beat kids like that for breakfast.
Why would i stall when a judge is present.
Why would i stall when i won the match.
Why would i stall when I've had 1000's of games and never stalled in my life.

Serious you need to stop, you are embarassing yourself for the sake of defending your friend.
Judges should have a good sense of being fair and unbiased. Clearly this is not the case here .

[quote="SHIFTY786":1vyg0dq4]Why would I stall when I won the match lol.
Why would I stall when I beat kids like that for breakfast.
Why would i stall when a judge is present.
Why would i stall when i won the match.
Why would i stall when I've had 1000's of games and never stalled in my life.

Serious you need to stop, you are embarassing yourself for the sake of defending your friend.
Judges should have a good sense of being fair and unbiased. Clearly this is not the case here .[/quote:1vyg0dq4]

We all know what Last Turn does. You were going to lose game 3 regardless of what the judge did.

No I had sangan which would search me a monster then I would run over his monster lol.

[quote="SHIFTY786":10x0cbl3]No I had sangan which would search me a monster then I would run over his monster lol.[/quote:10x0cbl3]

Ah, I see. That detail was probably missed then. I didn't notice it either. Did you submit a report already?

[quote="SHIFTY786":jhkr9za2][quote="Genexwrecker":jhkr9za2][quote="SHIFTY786":jhkr9za2]


Because waiting for a judge on a ruling question is stalling.
Lol the level of ignorance is unheard of.
Also why would I stall a game when theres a judge online literally makes 0 sense[/quote:jhkr9za2]
I dont buy that you dont know how targeting works. that is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game which is required to know for normal play. you have also established that ur a very seasoned player. there is no way you did not know how mst worked there.[/quote:jhkr9za2]

I never claimed I never knew about targeting.[/quote:jhkr9za2]

You may not have "claimed" you never knew about targeting, but you did show it.

[16:34] Activated "Mystical Space Typhoon" from hand (5/6) to S-3
[16:35] Activated Set "Wall of Revealing Light" in S-4
[16:40] Set "Wall of Revealing Light" in S-4
[16:45] "are you in M1 or SP"
[16:50] "sp"
[16:54] "okay sure "
[16:56] "target"
[17:09] Viewed Opponent's Graveyard
[17:11] Stopped viewing Opponent's Graveyard
[17:14] Signaled OK
[17:20] Viewed Opponent's Graveyard
[17:21] Stopped viewing Opponent's Graveyard
[17:27] "whats your target?"
[17:50] "not showing on my end"
[17:58] "hello?"
[18:17] Pointed at Set "Last Turn" in S-3
[18:40] "are you trying to get me to commit to Last Turn in SP so you can summon your returned to hand serpent and attack over jowgen for game?"
[18:50] "yes"
[18:52] Viewed GY
[18:54] "yeah"
[18:54] Stopped viewing GY
[18:57] "not my first time"
[19:04] "i got this"
[19:07] Activated Set "Magic Jammer" in S-5
[19:09] Sent "Heavy Storm" from hand (3/3) to GY
[19:10] Sent "Magic Jammer" from S-5 to GY
[19:11] Sent "Mystical Space Typhoon" from S-3 to GY
[19:35] "anything else in SP?"
[19:36] "you cant jammer"
[19:43] "yes i can"
[19:53] "as you asked for target"
[20:05] "excuse me LOL"
[20:09] "i can jammer"
[20:12] "yeah"
[20:15] Called a judge for Ruling
[20:21] "unreal dude"
[20:23] "needs to be done on activation"

Here, it's clear that you thought that Mystical Space Typhoon activates, then the opponent gets the chance to respond, and if they don't/can't respond, you then designate your target with said Mystical Space Typhoon. This is incorrect. The proper order is that you activate Mystical Space Typhoon, designate your target with said Mystical Space Typhoon, and then, after both players understand what the target is, that is when your opponent gets the chance to respond if they have an appropriate response.

However, if, for example, you were resolving the effect of Destiny HERO - Destroyer Phoenix Enforcer to destroy 2 cards, then in that case, you wouldn't need to tell your opponent what you're choosing to destroy before they got the chance to respond, since Destroyer Phoenix Enforcer's effects don't target, but since you were activate something that did target (Mystical Space Typhoon), your opponent must know what you're targeting before they decided if/how they wish to respond.

I was misinformed regarding negation. I was told that negation must be done before targeting.

You relied on your... mommy, to give you a ruling on how Mystical Space Typhoon works? A woman who has no understanding of how the game and problem-solving card text works or plays the game competitively herself? You relied on her, over a qualified judge who took the actual judge exam and proved to be worthy of judging and giving rulings, for a ruling issue? Why??

[23:16] "i can negate even if you target my card with your MST"
[23:18] "i used mst"
[23:27] "no u cant"
[23:32] "sure i can"
[23:38] "find a ruling that says i cant"
[23:46] "i think you dont want me to becasue that means you lose"
[23:53] "after ive selected a target your negation window is missed"
[23:55] "since you are losing you make up things to win "
[23:59] "wrong"
[24:01] "i asked my mommy"
[24:02] "and your not 13"
[24:05] "sje confirmed"
[24:07] "stop it"
[24:13] "we'll wait for a judge"
[24:18] "k"

This is not enough for a ban.

What was enough though was the fact that that judge determined that you stalled since you were in a losing position, and that all the opponent had to do was play Last Turn, in combination with their Jowgen, to win, as the other judge in this thread explained.

Also judges cant patronise players or assume the player knows everything.

They do assume that you know at least some things though, like how Mystical Space Typhoon's targeting works, especially since you stated on your profile that you placed well in multiple previous yugioh locals and regionals, which would indicate that you're already experience with the game and basic rulings. [url:jhkr9za2]https://imgur.com/cD1YzxW[/url:jhkr9za2]

No I had sangan which would search me a monster then I would over his monster lol.

At first I actually thought this would've work, but after looking at Last Turn's ruling page, I'm afraid it wouldn't have. It specifically says, and I quote:

"Last Turn" is not a card that Special Summons a monster when it resolves. Therefore you can activate "Last Turn" even while "Jowgen the Spiritualist" is face-up on the field. If the player activating "Last Turn" controls "Jowgen the Spiritualist" and selects it as the monster to keep, the opponent cannot Special Summon for "Last Turn", and there will be no special Battle Phase. However the victory check is still applied in the End Phase.
The special Battle Phase for "Last Turn" happens right after the monster is Special Summoned. It is in addition to the normal Battle Phase and does not disrupt the normal order of the turn. For example, if "Last Turn" is activated during the Draw Phase, resolves the effect, Special Summon, initiate the special Battle Phase, then continue with the Draw Phase. The turn player can have a normal Battle Phase later in the turn.
The special Battle Phase is treated like a standard Battle Phase in every other way, with a Start Step, Battle Step, Damage Step, and End Step. Only the selected monster and the Special Summoned monster can battle.

Look at that last part there. "Only the selected monster and the Special Summoned monster can battle".
This means that you wouldn't be able to search a monster with Sangan's graveyard effect, normal summon that searched monster, then use that normal summoned monster to "over his monster". This means that if you don't special summon any monster with Last Turn's effect, you don't "over" anything, meaning Jowgen remains on the field during the end phase, meaning you would certainly lose.

The judge determined that since this would've clearly happened, and that since you were delaying the inevitable, you were maliciously stalling. Judges can determine that you're maliciously stalling when it's clear you're going to lose and you delay it for no good reason.

[quote="itsmetristan":jhkr9za2][quote="SHIFTY786":jhkr9za2]No I had sangan which would search me a monster then I would run over his monster lol.[/quote:jhkr9za2]

Ah, I see. That detail was probably missed then. I didn't notice it either. Did you submit a report already?[/quote:jhkr9za2]

No, itsmetristan. He would not have been able to search a monster with Sangan's effect, normal summon it, and use any normal summoned monster to beat over the Jowgen. The ruling page I linked explicitly stated that only the monster selected by Last Turn's effect and the monster special summoned by Last Turn's effect (if any is special summoned) can battle.

there will be no special Battle Phase. However the victory check is still applied in the End Phase

[quote="Christen57":24di4l9r][quote="SHIFTY786":24di4l9r][quote="Genexwrecker":24di4l9r]
I dont buy that you dont know how targeting works. that is one of the most fundamental aspects of the game which is required to know for normal play. you have also established that ur a very seasoned player. there is no way you did not know how mst worked there.[/quote:24di4l9r]

I never claimed I never knew about targeting.[/quote:24di4l9r]

You may not have "claimed" you never knew about targeting, but you did show it.

[16:34] Activated "Mystical Space Typhoon" from hand (5/6) to S-3
[16:35] Activated Set "Wall of Revealing Light" in S-4
[16:40] Set "Wall of Revealing Light" in S-4
[16:45] "are you in M1 or SP"
[16:50] "sp"
[16:54] "okay sure "
[16:56] "target"
[17:09] Viewed Opponent's Graveyard
[17:11] Stopped viewing Opponent's Graveyard
[17:14] Signaled OK
[17:20] Viewed Opponent's Graveyard
[17:21] Stopped viewing Opponent's Graveyard
[17:27] "whats your target?"
[17:50] "not showing on my end"
[17:58] "hello?"
[18:17] Pointed at Set "Last Turn" in S-3
[18:40] "are you trying to get me to commit to Last Turn in SP so you can summon your returned to hand serpent and attack over jowgen for game?"
[18:50] "yes"
[18:52] Viewed GY
[18:54] "yeah"
[18:54] Stopped viewing GY
[18:57] "not my first time"
[19:04] "i got this"
[19:07] Activated Set "Magic Jammer" in S-5
[19:09] Sent "Heavy Storm" from hand (3/3) to GY
[19:10] Sent "Magic Jammer" from S-5 to GY
[19:11] Sent "Mystical Space Typhoon" from S-3 to GY
[19:35] "anything else in SP?"
[19:36] "you cant jammer"
[19:43] "yes i can"
[19:53] "as you asked for target"
[20:05] "excuse me LOL"
[20:09] "i can jammer"
[20:12] "yeah"
[20:15] Called a judge for Ruling
[20:21] "unreal dude"
[20:23] "needs to be done on activation"

Here, it's clear that you thought that Mystical Space Typhoon activates, then the opponent gets the chance to respond, and if they don't/can't respond, you then designate your target with said Mystical Space Typhoon. This is incorrect. The proper order is that you activate Mystical Space Typhoon, designate your target with said Mystical Space Typhoon, and then, after both players understand what the target is, that is when your opponent gets the chance to respond if they have an appropriate response.

However, if, for example, you were resolving the effect of Destiny HERO - Destroyer Phoenix Enforcer to destroy 2 cards, then in that case, you wouldn't need to tell your opponent what you're choosing to destroy before they got the chance to respond, since Destroyer Phoenix Enforcer's effects don't target, but since you were activate something that did target (Mystical Space Typhoon), your opponent must know what you're targeting before they decided if/how they wish to respond.

I was misinformed regarding negation. I was told that negation must be done before targeting.

You relied on your... mommy, to give you a ruling on how Mystical Space Typhoon works? A woman who has no understanding of how the game and problem-solving card text works or plays the game competitively herself? You relied on her, over a qualified judge who took the actual judge exam and proved to be worthy of judging and giving rulings, for a ruling issue? Why??

[23:16] "i can negate even if you target my card with your MST"
[23:18] "i used mst"
[23:27] "no u cant"
[23:32] "sure i can"
[23:38] "find a ruling that says i cant"
[23:46] "i think you dont want me to becasue that means you lose"
[23:53] "after ive selected a target your negation window is missed"
[23:55] "since you are losing you make up things to win "
[23:59] "wrong"
[24:01] "i asked my mommy"
[24:02] "and your not 13"
[24:05] "sje confirmed"
[24:07] "stop it"
[24:13] "we'll wait for a judge"
[24:18] "k"

This is not enough for a ban.

What was enough though was the fact that that judge determined that you stalled since you were in a losing position, and that all the opponent had to do was play Last Turn, in combination with their Jowgen, to win, as the other judge in this thread explained.

Also judges cant patronise players or assume the player knows everything.

They do assume that you know at least some things though, like how Mystical Space Typhoon's targeting works, especially since you stated on your profile that you placed well in multiple previous yugioh locals and regionals, which would indicate that you're already experience with the game and basic rulings. [url:24di4l9r]https://imgur.com/cD1YzxW[/url:24di4l9r]

No I had sangan which would search me a monster then I would over his monster lol.

At first I actually thought this would've work, but after looking at Last Turn's ruling page, I'm afraid it wouldn't have. It specifically says, and I quote:

"Last Turn" is not a card that Special Summons a monster when it resolves. Therefore you can activate "Last Turn" even while "Jowgen the Spiritualist" is face-up on the field. If the player activating "Last Turn" controls "Jowgen the Spiritualist" and selects it as the monster to keep, the opponent cannot Special Summon for "Last Turn", and there will be no special Battle Phase. However the victory check is still applied in the End Phase.
The special Battle Phase for "Last Turn" happens right after the monster is Special Summoned. It is in addition to the normal Battle Phase and does not disrupt the normal order of the turn. For example, if "Last Turn" is activated during the Draw Phase, resolves the effect, Special Summon, initiate the special Battle Phase, then continue with the Draw Phase. The turn player can have a normal Battle Phase later in the turn.
The special Battle Phase is treated like a standard Battle Phase in every other way, with a Start Step, Battle Step, Damage Step, and End Step. Only the selected monster and the Special Summoned monster can battle.

Look at that last part there. "Only the selected monster and the Special Summoned monster can battle".
This means that you wouldn't be able to search a monster with Sangan's graveyard effect, normal summon that searched monster, then use that normal summoned monster to "over his monster". This means that if you don't special summon any monster with Last Turn's effect, you don't "over" anything, meaning Jowgen remains on the field during the end phase, meaning you would certainly lose.

The judge determined that since this would've clearly happened, and that since you were delaying the inevitable, you were maliciously stalling. Judges can determine that you're maliciously stalling when it's clear you're going to lose and you delay it for no good reason.

[quote="itsmetristan":24di4l9r][quote="SHIFTY786":24di4l9r]No I had sangan which would search me a monster then I would run over his monster lol.[/quote:24di4l9r]

Ah, I see. That detail was probably missed then. I didn't notice it either. Did you submit a report already?[/quote:24di4l9r]

No, itsmetristan. He would not have been able to search a monster with Sangan's effect, normal summon it, and use any normal summoned monster to beat over the Jowgen. The ruling page I linked explicitly stated that only the monster selected by Last Turn's effect and the monster special summoned by Last Turn's effect (if any is special summoned) can battle.[/quote:24di4l9r]

Yes he can do that. That rule regarding last turn only applies to the additional, "special" battle phase last turn creates. You can still have your normal battle phase and attack over Jowgen then with the monster added with Sangan. Also, this special battle phase doesn't occur when Jowgen is applying.