Ruling Exam With Reward

[SumaiL]

First of all thank you for interacting on my post. Criticism is always welcome.

Oh, that reminds me, I should type my criticisms of the questions Greg posted here.

For the Stardust question I noted before the targets should still be declared just to be thorough, though I would hope readers can tell with context what the targets are supposed to be.

For the Mermail question's first option I would say "Red can activate either Black Horn of Heaven or Bottomless Trap Hole in response to the summon of Mermail Abysstrite but cannot activate both on the same chain." It is my understanding option 1 is trying to say you can legally activate both of the cards in question, just not in response to the same action on the same chain. It is not trying to say you can activate only 1 of the 2 in response to the summon, (as in one of them can legally be activated in response to the summon, but the other one cannot, without necessarily specifying which is which). I'm relying on the "if he uses either one" as my evidence that's your intent at least, and hoping by either you meant either could be used rather than either being whichever one was legal in the first place. It's readable as is (though you forgot a t to the "no" to make it a "not"), but I like this phrasing to better say what you're going for. That said, the overlap options 1 and 4 have here is a bit odd to me.

Yea this is pretty much the point im trying to convey. The question itself can be read about 3 different ways none of which will lead you to selecting sumails correct answer(s). There is only 1 summon response window and this question horribly implies there are multiple in an unreasonable manner. Incorrect terminology and mixing english terms and card grammar inconsistently leads to this. I havent looked at the other questions yet but im bound to find more word combinations that make questions impossible to read.

I respect your opinion Genex, however, I do not agree with everything you said, it is not so simple to say that it is "horribly badly done this question", I doubt that you have found a test of this level, as well produced and detailed as mine, this was the closest that anyone has ever done, from a "Judge Exam", since 2012. The others I see out there are ridiculous. I deserve a bit of credit for doing and thinking of it all myself, I didn't have a team of people behind it.
When you are going to make questions for a type of test like these yugioh, you should take several points into consideration. First, you must mislead the inattentive reader, this is classic. Second is the most important point, which is concentration and textual interpretation, knowing what the scenario is asking for. Third: The wrong alternatives should not always be well formulated, or it will be very easy to deduce what is right from what is wrong, and several others. Really the grammar was not 100% well done, but it was not bad either, a job like this for one person alone, is extremely complex and takes time, but as I said above, I am satisfied with myself, I really liked the result and I intend to do more soon.

[greg503]

Oh, that reminds me, I should type my criticisms of the questions Greg posted here.

For the Stardust question I noted before the targets should still be declared just to be thorough, though I would hope readers can tell with context what the targets are supposed to be.

For the Mermail question's first option I would say "Red can activate either Black Horn of Heaven or Bottomless Trap Hole in response to the summon of Mermail Abysstrite but cannot activate both on the same chain." It is my understanding option 1 is trying to say you can legally activate both of the cards in question, just not in response to the same action on the same chain. It is not trying to say you can activate only 1 of the 2 in response to the summon, (as in one of them can legally be activated in response to the summon, but the other one cannot, without necessarily specifying which is which). I'm relying on the "if he uses either one" as my evidence that's your intent at least, and hoping by either you meant either could be used rather than either being whichever one was legal in the first place. It's readable as is (though you forgot a t to the "no" to make it a "not"), but I like this phrasing to better say what you're going for. That said, the overlap options 1 and 4 have here is a bit odd to me.

Yea this is pretty much the point im trying to convey. The question itself can be read about 3 different ways none of which will lead you to selecting sumails correct answer(s). There is only 1 summon response window and this question horribly implies there are multiple in an unreasonable manner. Incorrect terminology and mixing english terms and card grammar inconsistently leads to this. I havent looked at the other questions yet but im bound to find more word combinations that make questions impossible to read.

I respect your opinion Genex, however, I do not agree with everything you said, it is not so simple to say that it is "horribly badly done this question", I doubt that you have found a test of this level, as well produced and detailed as mine, this was the closest that anyone has ever done, from a "Judge Exam", since 2012. The others I see out there are ridiculous. I deserve a bit of credit for doing and thinking of it all myself, I didn't have a team of people behind it.
When you are going to make questions for a type of test like these yugioh, you should take several points into consideration. First, you must mislead the inattentive reader, this is classic. Second is the most important point, which is concentration and textual interpretation, knowing what the scenario is asking for. Third: The wrong alternatives should not always be well formulated, or it will be very easy to deduce what is right from what is wrong, and several others. Really the grammar was not 100% well done, but it was not bad either, a job like this for one person alone, is extremely complex and takes time, but as I said above, I am satisfied with myself, I really liked the result and I intend to do more soon.

Explain to me why I should respect this test that asks me to question whether something is a typo, or intentionally worded poorly. Are you implying that we should deduce your mindset to know exactly what you're asking with each scenario? Isn't the point of a Judge/Rulings test to demonstrate knowledge of the games mechanics, not textual analysis?

[Genexwrecker]

Oh, that reminds me, I should type my criticisms of the questions Greg posted here.

For the Stardust question I noted before the targets should still be declared just to be thorough, though I would hope readers can tell with context what the targets are supposed to be.

For the Mermail question's first option I would say "Red can activate either Black Horn of Heaven or Bottomless Trap Hole in response to the summon of Mermail Abysstrite but cannot activate both on the same chain." It is my understanding option 1 is trying to say you can legally activate both of the cards in question, just not in response to the same action on the same chain. It is not trying to say you can activate only 1 of the 2 in response to the summon, (as in one of them can legally be activated in response to the summon, but the other one cannot, without necessarily specifying which is which). I'm relying on the "if he uses either one" as my evidence that's your intent at least, and hoping by either you meant either could be used rather than either being whichever one was legal in the first place. It's readable as is (though you forgot a t to the "no" to make it a "not"), but I like this phrasing to better say what you're going for. That said, the overlap options 1 and 4 have here is a bit odd to me.

Yea this is pretty much the point im trying to convey. The question itself can be read about 3 different ways none of which will lead you to selecting sumails correct answer(s). There is only 1 summon response window and this question horribly implies there are multiple in an unreasonable manner. Incorrect terminology and mixing english terms and card grammar inconsistently leads to this. I havent looked at the other questions yet but im bound to find more word combinations that make questions impossible to read.

I respect your opinion Genex, however, I do not agree with everything you said, it is not so simple to say that it is "horribly badly done this question", I doubt that you have found a test of this level, as well produced and detailed as mine, this was the closest that anyone has ever done, from a "Judge Exam", since 2012. The others I see out there are ridiculous. I deserve a bit of credit for doing and thinking of it all myself, I didn't have a team of people behind it.
When you are going to make questions for a type of test like these yugioh, you should take several points into consideration. First, you must mislead the inattentive reader, this is classic. Second is the most important point, which is concentration and textual interpretation, knowing what the scenario is asking for. Third: The wrong alternatives should not always be well formulated, or it will be very easy to deduce what is right from what is wrong, and several others. Really the grammar was not 100% well done, but it was not bad either, a job like this for one person alone, is extremely complex and takes time, but as I said above, I am satisfied with myself, I really liked the result and I intend to do more soon.

You vastly underestimate how important even 1 grammar change affects yugioh scenarios. As far as I am concerned even 1 use of incorrect grammar on any ruling test is unacceptable.

[Cromat]

How would you configure the question about "Bunilla", its ATK would be 37,5? How I can perform its ATK as 37,5 or how I would take 37,5 damage at DuelingBook?

And what's different with "until the end of this turn" or "until the end of your opponent's turn" and "until the End Phase"? A player's end turn isn't being their End Phase still? Once, one of my opponent said during my Duel, when I told them that "During the End Phase of my turn; your "Eldlich the Golden Lord" ATK will be decreased by 1000." But they told me that "No, it's still your turn until I draw card from my Deck at my Draw Phase."

Now that I consider these; I agree with Genexwrecker about how bad your questions are.

[Renji Asuka]

How would you configure the question about "Bunilla", its ATK would be 37,5? How I can perform its ATK as 37,5 or how I would take 37,5 damage at DuelingBook?

And what's different with "until the end of this turn" or "until the end of your opponent's turn" and "until the End Phase"? A player's end turn isn't being their End Phase still? Once, one of my opponent said during my Duel, when I told them that "During the End Phase of my turn; your "Eldlich the Golden Lord" ATK will be decreased by 1000." But they told me that "No, it's still your turn until I draw card from my Deck at my Draw Phase."

Now that I consider these; I agree with Genexwrecker about how bad your questions are.

Cards that say "until the end phase" literally no longer apply the moment the player enters the End Phase.

Until the end of the turn can last through the end phase.

Like if a monster said something like "You can only Special Summon Fiend monsters until the End Phase." You would be able to activate say Call of the Haunted to Special Summon say Blue-Eyes White Dragon.

But if the card says until the end of the turn, you wouldn't be able to do something like that.

[Cromat]

So, If I enter my End Phase and if I say to my opponent that "I am ended my turn, so remove 1 counter from "Eldlich the Golden Lord" please; because its ATK 2500 now." And opponent has right about by saying those: "No, it is still your turn."

Well.. it looks like I proved again how this game sucks. So topic can be locked; thanks.

[greg503]

BTW, Yugioh doesn't have decimals, so it rounds up (e.g. paying for Solemn Judgement at 1 LP causes your now .5 LP to round back up to 1)

[SumaiL]

Yea this is pretty much the point im trying to convey. The question itself can be read about 3 different ways none of which will lead you to selecting sumails correct answer(s). There is only 1 summon response window and this question horribly implies there are multiple in an unreasonable manner. Incorrect terminology and mixing english terms and card grammar inconsistently leads to this. I havent looked at the other questions yet but im bound to find more word combinations that make questions impossible to read.

I respect your opinion Genex, however, I do not agree with everything you said, it is not so simple to say that it is "horribly badly done this question", I doubt that you have found a test of this level, as well produced and detailed as mine, this was the closest that anyone has ever done, from a "Judge Exam", since 2012. The others I see out there are ridiculous. I deserve a bit of credit for doing and thinking of it all myself, I didn't have a team of people behind it.
When you are going to make questions for a type of test like these yugioh, you should take several points into consideration. First, you must mislead the inattentive reader, this is classic. Second is the most important point, which is concentration and textual interpretation, knowing what the scenario is asking for. Third: The wrong alternatives should not always be well formulated, or it will be very easy to deduce what is right from what is wrong, and several others. Really the grammar was not 100% well done, but it was not bad either, a job like this for one person alone, is extremely complex and takes time, but as I said above, I am satisfied with myself, I really liked the result and I intend to do more soon.

Explain to me why I should respect this test that asks me to question whether something is a typo, or intentionally worded poorly. Are you implying that we should deduce your mindset to know exactly what you're asking with each scenario? Isn't the point of a Judge/Rulings test to demonstrate knowledge of the games mechanics, not textual analysis?

Thank you for your feedback, but please know that I only commented here because you wanted to disrespect my work, keep in mind that it is not because you don't know the answer or don't understand that the question is poorly made. Some people have proven here that your argument is counterintuitive. I am sure that even the DB exams you missed several questions. Are you going to say that they are badly done too? You just couldn't get the correct answer right away and came here to say it was badly done. I agree with the grammatical errors, but it's a one-man job, and it's nothing official, but it's understandable and I doubt you've ever seen a better or similar one, and I challenge you to do so. The principle of my test is for people to take it several times until they get the maximum score. Try to find out where you went wrong and do it again.

[SumaiL]

Yea this is pretty much the point im trying to convey. The question itself can be read about 3 different ways none of which will lead you to selecting sumails correct answer(s). There is only 1 summon response window and this question horribly implies there are multiple in an unreasonable manner. Incorrect terminology and mixing english terms and card grammar inconsistently leads to this. I havent looked at the other questions yet but im bound to find more word combinations that make questions impossible to read.

I respect your opinion Genex, however, I do not agree with everything you said, it is not so simple to say that it is "horribly badly done this question", I doubt that you have found a test of this level, as well produced and detailed as mine, this was the closest that anyone has ever done, from a "Judge Exam", since 2012. The others I see out there are ridiculous. I deserve a bit of credit for doing and thinking of it all myself, I didn't have a team of people behind it.
When you are going to make questions for a type of test like these yugioh, you should take several points into consideration. First, you must mislead the inattentive reader, this is classic. Second is the most important point, which is concentration and textual interpretation, knowing what the scenario is asking for. Third: The wrong alternatives should not always be well formulated, or it will be very easy to deduce what is right from what is wrong, and several others. Really the grammar was not 100% well done, but it was not bad either, a job like this for one person alone, is extremely complex and takes time, but as I said above, I am satisfied with myself, I really liked the result and I intend to do more soon.

You vastly underestimate how important even 1 grammar change affects yugioh scenarios. As far as I am concerned even 1 use of incorrect grammar on any ruling test is unacceptable.

I'm considering all the opinions here, but I don't know if I can make something perfect and understandable for everyone, without grammatical errors, by myself. It's very difficult and complex already to make the quizzes and the grammar corrections take even more time. But who knows in the future, I'm waiting for someone to get the maximum score to start the next one.

[Christen57]

I'm out of the loop here. What grammar error is everyone talking about?

[Gnore]

My brothers in Christ, including wrong answers with details that clearly don't make sense is one of the most classic multiple choice question things ever. Have you ever taken a standardized test?

Those are certainly standard for multiple choice, but inappropriate for multiple response "select all that apply", unless an option to mark something as nonsensical is given. That bottomless/ddr bullet has a subjective truth value; identifying it as nonsensical is unable to determine its truth, as would be the case in multiple choice where there is only 1 correct option which necessarilly cannot be nonsensical.
For the 1st bullet, does the qualifier "but no[t] both" combine with the statement that either may be activated to result in truth?

I think it would be good to have an option to mark an item as needing further clarification before determining its truth.