I'm Officially Confused

[Jason_C]

Can someone please tell me the exact definition of the word "official" when referring to sources on Yu-Gi-Oh! rules, policies, and etiquette?

I've been hearing a lot of talk about it, and I'd like to understand more what people are saying. The Judges' List is not an official source of rulings, correct? But it IS an official source of policy updates, etc, correct?

 

[skey23]

You know, there is one other place everybody forgot to mention that is just as official as the UDE FAQs apparently.


entertainment@upperdeck.com

Afterall, this IS where we're supposed to be sending all of our card questions to begin with.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

In which case, how do we resolve questions in the meantime, if the Judge List is not considered "official"? .

Easy.

1st We go by the Official rules. (Directly)
2nd We try and extrapolate from the Official Rules.

And if we can't narrow it down to one possibility using the official rulings than the Judge list can offer an "opinion" and we can go by that opinion for the only reason of being fair. Keeping in mind that we are still waiting for an official ruling and we know that our current answer is only good in the meantime, so we don't get too attached to it, and when the ruling comes we're not going to think that Konami changed a ruling on us.

Even an "expert" opinion from a Game Official is not a ruling. But without anything to contradict that opinion we should follow it to be fair.

No need for any dilusion that the opinion is official.

 

[Kyhotae]

Bzzt. It's a List for a group of Judges. It's the Judges' List (plural possessive, as Jason says).

BZZT!!

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/all_forums/?forum=judge-yu

judge-yu Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG UDE Judge List

It's the Judge List. Sorry.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Easy.

1st We go by the Official rules. (Directly)
2nd We try and extrapolate from the Official Rules.

And if we can't narrow it down to one possibility using the official rulings than the Judge list can offer an "opinion" and we can go by that opinion for the only reason of being fair. Keeping in mind that we are still waiting for an official ruling and we know that our current answer is only good in the meantime, so we don't get too attached to it, and when the ruling comes we're not going to think that Konami changed a ruling on us.

Even an "expert" opinion from a Game Official is not a ruling. But without anything to contradict that opinion we should follow it to be fair.

No need for any dilusion that the opinion is official.

An opinion that overrides everything else. If you want to look at it as an opinion, that's understandable. But you can't deny the weight of it's influence, which is greater then the card text or the FAQ itself.

 

[Jason_C]

An opinion that overrides everything else. If you want to look at it as an opinion, that's understandable. But you can't deny the weight of it's influence, which is greater then the card text or the FAQ itself.

What you're claiming here is that opinion of UDE > Fact from game-makers.

 

[Digital Jedi]

What you're claiming here is that opinion of UDE > Fact from game-makers.

Not at all. What I'm saying is just slightly different from what I said earlier. The Judges List always ends up having the final say when related to non-Japanese TCG matters. Whether it be the opinion of UDE, an interpretation by Stewart, Schultz and Okagawa or simply a passing down of info direct from Konami, whatever it may be, because it's from this source, it will override anything we currently have. Even if it's in the FAQ. Which has been the practise for some time.

 

[masterwoo0]

Even an "expert" opinion from a Game Official is not a ruling. But without anything to contradict that opinion we should follow it to be fair.

No need for any dilusion that the opinion is official.

This isnt a matter of being "fair". How long are you supposed to be fair for? Being "fair" means that when the ruling is found to be incorrect, the "official" ruling is added to correct the now "unfair" ruling given in any situations prior to it being corrected.

Since that doesnt happen, that means that a Ruling that occurs in an Officially Sanctioned Tournament is binding and "Officially Rendered". You can certainly state that a in the absence of a Konami Ruling, that anything else is nothing more than opinion, but that is the basis for all of our Rulings to begin with. They start from scratch, and build a reasonably structured guideline for a "Judgment Call" when a card effect has a anticipated or unanticipated interaction. The Opinion then becomes a Ruling.

Additionally, if Kenjiblade answers a question on the Judge List, while simultaneoulsy working for UDE, does that mean that he becomes a unofficial representative by doing so?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Additionally, if Kenjiblade answers a question on the Judge List, while simultaneoulsy working for UDE, does that mean that he becomes a unofficial representative by doing so?

We call Referees/Linesman/Umpires "Officials"

But do their calls make a rulebook?

 

[masterwoo0]

We call Referees/Linesman/Umpires "Officials"

But do their calls make a rulebook?

Semantics hardly boost your argument. Their calls come from a Rule Book, and if there are calls that require judgments to be made, like a unseen play, it doesnt take days to make, and it is Officially part of the record.

 

[Jason_C]

Nobody here is spinning anything into semantics. The Judge List is not an official source for rulings under any circumstances. We should, at all times, make our best effort to extrapolate from card text and posted rulings to determine the outcome in any situation. If it is wholly impossible to narrow a situation down to one possible outcome using extrapolation, then we should pose the outcomes which have been determined possible to the Judge List. They then offer a suggestion on what the proper outcome is. Until we have further clarification, we should play it that way for lack of a decent reason to play it any other way.

This is only an illustration of how they can have an influence in the game. It is not an illustration of them over-riding official text or rulings, and you will never find such an instance. If the Judge List makes a ruling contradictory to official rulings or text, they should be assumed to be incorrect and ignored until further notice.

 

[John Danker]

If there is a judge list posting on a scenario we should use that in the absence of a FAQ ruling, If there is no FAQ ruling and no judge list answer then extrapolate from card text and posted rulings that relate to the card / scenario. As mentioned earlier at times the judge list over shadows even the FAQ as the FAQ isn't updated as often as it should be.

The problem with taking it upon ourselves to extrapolate from card text and posted rulings rather than using available judge list posts on the topic is that in any given scenario we're likely to have 2-6 different people extrapolating differently. That only sets up for MORE confusion and hearsay. Now, I'll grant you that your interpruetation may indeed be correct (and kudos to those who figure out that a judge list thread is off base, please send those corrections into UDE immediately) however, ruling against the posted ruling will only create more confusion.

I do agree that we can only wait so long for an "offical" ruling. I've argued this with UDE many times when they've told us not to get preconcieved ideas in our head about priority and other matters. We as floor judges don't have the luxury of telling the players, "Sorry, I can't rule on this scenario until Konami decides to come out with an official defintion and ruling on the matter"....we're FORCED to extrapolate and do the best we can with what we do know. I just can't justify using extrapolation over posted judge list rulings as it creates additional problems.

 

[Jason_C]

The problem with taking it upon ourselves to extrapolate from card text and posted rulings rather than using available judge list posts on the topic is that in any given scenario we're likely to have 2-6 different people extrapolating differently.

But this statement falls under what I mentioned about "If it is wholly impossible to narrow a situation down to one possible outcome using extrapolation...". However, I have seen instances in which there is one clearly defined answer in a situation and the Judge List has ruled contrary to that. This would be the time when they should be ignored, as they do not have the authority to rule over official text.

 

[DarkLogicianOfCaos]

But what does all this mean on a practical level? I mean, if the head judge at an event decides (s)he does not agree with a Judge List ruling, does (s)he have to follow it? (Would it matter if the Head Judge for said event is a level 2, knowing that Kevin, Dan, et al. are level 3? Ineveidbaly, doesn't it come down to the event's Head Judge, even if (s)he's wrong (not that mine ever is)? <oh, my nose....it's darkening to a lovely shade of mocha>

Maybe the UDE crew (or certain ones) should just be given an honorary level 4.
<ducks and runs for cover in serpentine fashion>

 

[slither]

I've found that whether or not the Judge List is 100% official, a Head Judge of a tournament follows any "temporary" calling posted on it. Why would it be? It can cause less chaos, any player can refute a Head Judges calling (even if there is nothing much to do but accept it) but a player will feel more comfortable seeing it posted somewhere than just plainly deducted.

 

[Jason_C]

But what does all this mean on a practical level?

>_>

<_<

How long have you known me?

I mean, if the head judge at an event decides (s)he does not agree with a Judge List ruling, does (s)he have to follow it?

A head judge is obligated to make the most intelligent decision he can. (I'm using the word "he" just because "(s)he" hurts my eyes). What qualifies as an intelligent decision? That's what we're debating here.

Ineveidbaly, doesn't it come down to the event's Head Judge, even if (s)he's wrong?

*Inevitably

Well, yes. But that's sort of like assuming there's nothing we can do to help a problem and then "proving" it by ignoring what we can do. It will ALWAYS come down to what the head judge says when you're at a tournament. But as the City of Gamers Online Community Forums, home to multiple high-level judges, we can still make our best effort to determine what the head judges SHOULD do, and then they can act accordingly.

 

[anthonyj]

And I believe we try to do that Jason. This is being looked at from two different directions and the answer is not going to be the same for both camps. For judges at UDE sanctioned tournaments they should strive to make the best ruling they can based on information provided to them by the body that has sanctioned the event "UDE". In that sense you aren't going to make a lot of points by being the Konami purist and stating that if it isn't "Official" you are just going to use your own best judgement. The Judges have been given direction on how to rule "The Judges List". This is the source of information that is most readily updated and although it has often had to retract a statement as being incorrect, there isn't a direct line to Konami to be disputing things and I doubt you'd be asked to keep Judging large events by throwing out everything that you don't agree with that comes down from Kevin and crew.

As for the purist who wants to argue that the opinions of Kevin are just that and until Konami tells him he has things right enough to put on the web site as official they should be treated as opinions you are correct as well. Unfortunately we may never get enough attention from Konami to be able to clearly define everything in this game. Konami can and does tell Kevin he is wrong about his perceptions, there is no reason to hold his rulings as final and irrefutable or use them to extrapolate other rulings from because they aren't "blessed by the Konami seal of approval". However, until Konami tells Kevin that he has got it wrong the best we can do is point out where extrapolation of other rulings and the card text point to the ruling being in error. Perhaps we could add it to the Unsolved Mysteries thread.

The tournaments aren't going to be able to wait for Takahashi to get fluent in English and come preside over every event. Konami chose UDE to be the guys in authority for these events. For better or worse that is who will call the shots there. Yes Konami is aware that this is not an ideal situation, why do you think they have pushed to clarify what is "Official"? But even what they claim is "Official" is subject to change when they decide it doesn't work anymore, or somebody made a mistake. If the text were always reliably translated we'd at least have a better chance to argue the "Text First" stance. As is we've seen over and over again the problems with the translations being incomplete or worse. We are playing in the dark with candles in a high wind, we do the best we can with what we have.

 

[Jason_C]

In that sense you aren't going to make a lot of points by being the Konami purist and stating that if it isn't "Official" you are just going to use your own best judgement.

Fallacy Straw Man. (Linked to a non-atheist website this time =/)

I never stated that if it isn't official we should use our best judgment. I said we should always go with what is official first and foremost, then if we can't find a definite answer from official text, we should defer to the opinion of the List. In other words, we should only ignore the List and make our own decisions if there is conclusive proof from official texts that the List is incorrect. That's not purism. That's rationality. If you know for a fact that something is wrong, why would you go rule that it is right?

We are playing in the dark with candles in a high wind, we do the best we can with what we have.

How inspiring.

 

[masterwoo0]

Again... This is a argument that will not find a acceptable solution as time is always going to be a factor. A ruling is considered "Official" once it has reached it's last point of being overturned or changed. But, this debate is not about what can be changed, it's about what "official" actually means.

If a Floor Judge states that Jinzo is a Trigger Effect, and that you can chain Divine Wrath to destroy it, and the affected player asks for a Head Judge Ruling, and the Head Judge incorrectly rules that is indeed a Triggered Effect (aside from the fact he should be shot), it is an "Official Ruling", as it can no longer be overturned and must be accepted. This poorly given ruling will more than likely never go any further than the Event it was given in, but the final outcome will not change the Match results once the error has been found.

The fact that a Official Ruling can be incorrect does not mean that it is any less official. It just means that, a) No one has caught the error, b) The error cannot be verified as fully incorrect, or, c) The error has been verified, but not updated.

From the beginning, I have stated that in the absence of an official ruling by Konami on a given card effect, as Judges, we are tasked to use judgment in creating a Ruling from similar situations. In the event there is nothing comparable, we must use the best common sense Ruling we can surmise. While it may not be fully acceptable at the time by the players involved, it is the only action that we can take in a "real-time" environment. So, we can keep saying that the Judge List is not Official, and that we are only making things up as we go along, until Konami decides to toss us a bone, but the fact remains that a call needs to be made in a Tournament Atmosphere, and Konami isnt there to do it...

 

[Digital Jedi]

Fallacy Straw Man. (Linked to a non-atheist website this time =/)

I never stated that if it isn't official we should use our best judgment.

Well...

If the Judge List makes a ruling contradictory to official rulings or text, they should be assumed to be incorrect and ignored until further notice.

You can see how it could be interpreted that way. So Straw Man wouldn't accurately define his response.

I think the point that we're trying to make is that the word "official" has lost all meaning to this game. Anywhere else, official means "that's what you go by". Here, it's been muddled. The Judges List has made rulings contrary to the FAQ before. And we're expected to play/judge by the Judges List at any event.

"Official" should be a term that makes it easy to explain what we are and aren't supposed to go by when determining rulings. But the powers-that-be have decided to play word games with the term. It no longer serves the function it's supposed to, which is making clear who and what we're supposed to follow.

So they labeled the Judges List "unofficial", the FAQ "official", but we still have to go by what's on the Judge List even if it contradicts the FAQ. So regardless of the lable, as I mentioned earlier, it may not be official in name, but for all practical purposes, it's official in it's usage.

How inspiring.

Was that really necessary?

 

[Jason_C]

You can see how it could be interpreted that way. So Straw Man wouldn't accurately define his response.

No, I can't see how it could be interpeted that way.

If the Judge List makes a ruling contradictory to official rulings or text, they should be assumed to be incorrect and ignored until further notice.

This is actually pretty straightforward. It says if we have official (which I'm using to mean "from Konami") text that directly contradicts a ruling given by the Judge List, we should go with the official text and ignore the List. It doesn't say we should make judgment based on personal opinion, or that we should implement our own ideas in place of what the List says, which is what Anthony was arguing against. So yes, it was indeed a Straw Man fallacy. Anthony argued against something that was not my point and implied that it was my point. That fits the definition of "Straw Man" perfectly.

Was that really necessary?

Nah.

With regards to the remainder of your post: Perhaps we should just not use the term "Official" to refer to rules anymore. We could just specify the source instead.