Mind Crush

[Jack-Wyler]

Can I check my opponent's hand when I use this card? because it's not really written on the text of the card and Netrep only answer me in the case of my opponent has not the card in hand.

 

[slither]

As for Dark Designator, that IS how my friends and I used to play it before we saw "official" rules, and I still don't agree with those rules. I think either DD needs an errata or Konami needs a smack in the face.

Many things are hard to agree with, only thing left is learning to live with it. Assuming cases or literally calling upon what "should" be allowed to happen or how cards "should" be placed takes a road to nowhere, we can only rely in simple judgemental facts. The list regardless or not is one of the closest "official" things we have, and as so we have to live with it.

 

[Jason_C]

Many things are hard to agree with, only thing left is learning to live with it. Assuming cases or literally calling upon what "should" be allowed to happen or how cards "should" be placed takes a road to nowhere, we can only rely in simple judgemental facts. The list regardless or not is one of the closest "official" things we have, and as so we have to live with it.

Of course, far be it from me to argue with the list. They have the power to simply declare themselves right.

But what I am arguing is that Mind Crush says what it says, and anyone who hadn't read the List's response would play it as it says to be played. I will not concede that there was any logic applied to the decision made by the List. They arbitrarily chose to change a card's effect without errataing the card. I maintain that there are many possible OTHER ways to interpret what the card COULD have done if it weren't literally interpreted. I maintain that the List randomly selected one possible skewed interpretation and named it "official". I maintain that logic would suggest we should play the card as it is written.

 

[masterwoo0]

Of course, far be it from me to argue with the list. They have the power to simply declare themselves right.

But what I am arguing is that Mind Crush says what it says, and anyone who hadn't read the List's response would play it as it says to be played. I will not concede that there was any logic applied to the decision made by the List. They arbitrarily chose to change a card's effect without errataing the card. I maintain that there are many possible OTHER ways to interpret what the card COULD have done if it weren't literally interpreted. I maintain that the List randomly selected one possible skewed interpretation and named it "official". I maintain that logic would suggest we should play the card as it is written.

Well, you have said that the Judge List made a inaccurate call, but the Ruling for Dark Designator is basically the same effect, and the ruling for it didnt come from the Judge List.

Unless you actually wrote the specific ruling, any ruling given from anyone other than Konami is speculation. In order for you to say you are correct, you have to say that Dark Designator's text and ruling are "incorrect", because it IS an actual ruling, and not an interpretation.

Mind Crush is EXACTLY like playing "Go Fish". When you ask your opponent if they have a Jack, and they say "Yes", they dont show you their whole hand just because they had one card. You only get to see the card you called.

The exception being that you also dont get to see their hand if you guess wrong, that is because there is a rule for that, and the rule is, when you guess wrong, you "Go Fish".

Even D.D. Designator states that you look at your opponents hand. This is not a case of simplification of text. You guess, they dont have, you look. You guess, they have, you dont look.

 

[Jason_C]

In order for you to say you are correct, you have to say that Dark Designator's text and ruling are "incorrect", because it IS an actual ruling, and not an interpretation.

Nope. I just have to say that EITHER Dark Designator's text or ruling is wrong. Either Dark Designator is in need of an errata, or Konami is in need of a slap in the face. But didn't I already say that? Why are you continuing to shove Dark Designator in my face?

http://www.cogonline.net/threads.17639&page=3#

Mind Crush is EXACTLY like playing "Go Fish". When you ask your opponent if they have a Jack, and they say "Yes", they dont show you their whole hand just because they had one card. You only get to see the card you called.

I've never played "Go fish", don't know the rules, and don't care enough to look them up. But it sounds to me like you're still ignoring the fact that they could have ANOTHER copy of the same card. That's one point DaGuy has made which you have still never addressed in the least way. No matter whether they discard zero, one, two, or three cards, at some point, they will eventually say "I have no more of that card", at which time you have every right to check and make sure they are telling the truth.

What you and the List have not taken into account is that discarding one and discarding zero are the same in one critical way: They both involve the discard of a certain number of cards followed by a claim that there are no remaining cards. Therefore, if you can check for zero discards, I dare anyone in the world to provide a remotely logical reason why you can't check for one discard.

 

[masterwoo0]

Nope. I just have to say that EITHER Dark Designator's text or ruling is wrong. Either Dark Designator is in need of an errata, or Konami is in need of a slap in the face. But didn't I already say that? Why are you continuing to shove Dark Designator in my face?

http://www.cogonline.net/threads.17639&page=3#
I've never played "Go fish", don't know the rules, and don't care enough to look them up. But it sounds to me like you're still ignoring the fact that they could have ANOTHER copy of the same card. That's one point DaGuy has made which you have still never addressed in the least way. No matter whether they discard zero, one, two, or three cards, at some point, they will eventually say "I have no more of that card", at which time you have every right to check and make sure they are telling the truth.

What you and the List have not taken into account is that discarding one and discarding zero are the same in one critical way: They both involve the discard of a certain number of cards followed by a claim that there are no remaining cards. Therefore, if you can check for zero discards, I dare anyone in the world to provide a remotely logical reason why you can't check for one discard.

That's because I dont need to address it more than once that you dont get to look at your opponents hand if they discard a card. That's why they have Penalties for cheating. If you get caught, you get Disqualified.

You will never know if your opponent is cheating you unless they get caught. You could spend the whole game trying to check and double check their every more, asking them to count their cards for you ever Duel and in game, and you would eventually get to the point Daguy was trying to make about always calling the Judge over to make a call for the same player; "Play the game and stop trying to check me..."

This game is based upon "trust". If you think your opponent is cheating, that's for a Judge to decide, not you as a player. It's almost as ridiculous as trying to check your opponents hand if you call Sinister Serpent, and you know that you arent playing one in your Deck, so theres NO WAY they can have more than one. There is no Ruling to say that you can check his hand past the Discard of the one Sinister Serpent, for Mind Crush.

Just because you think an effect should be played a certain way, doesnt mean it is. We all have an opinion on the game and its mechanics. We got an interpretation from the Judge List, and not the average player, which you and Daguy are. It's not like I post answers to the Judge List. I am only a member.

If you wish to continue to dispute the result of the answer given from the Judge List, I have already stated its pointless, and I will continue to defend the answer given, just like anything else, until it is proven to be wrong, and that wont happen on this Forum.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming......

 

[Jason_C]

This game is based upon "trust".

Okay. Next time I'm at a tournament and a judge says he needs to check my deck, I'll just tell him the game is based upon "trust". If he argues that he can't trust me, I'll direct him to the ruling on Mind Crush and say "You're supposed to trust that they don't have any other copies, so you should trust that I don't have any banned or marked cards".

Just because you think an effect should be played a certain way, doesnt mean it is.

I know that. The List doesn't know that. I play Mind Crush the way it says to play it. The List plays Mind Crush the way they feel like playing it.

:edit

If this game were based on trust, then why do you get to check if your opponent has none?

Le pwned.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

This game is based upon "trust".

If this game were based on trust, then why do you get to check if your opponent has none?

If you think your opponent is cheating,

Who said i had to think my opponent was cheating?

and not the average player, which you and Daguy are.

The judge List has no more authority to create rulings than the average player.

If you wish to continue to dispute the result of the answer given from the Judge List, I have already stated its pointless, and I will continue to defend the answer given, just like anything else.

I claim that Banner of Courage means, you only Begin to increase the ATK of monster by 200 only during the Battle Phase( you cannot increase the ATK when you activate it) but since it doesn't say until the end of the Battle Phase, it continues on. So after 5 battle phases a monsters ATK is 1000 points higher than it was originallly.

You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm Right.

 

[masterwoo0]

If this game were based on trust, then why do you get to check if your opponent has none?


Who said i had to think my opponent was cheating?


The judge List has no more authority to create rulings than the average player.




I claim that Banner of Courage means, you only Begin to increase the ATK of monster by 200 only during the Battle Phase( you cannot increase the ATK when you activate it) but since it doesn't say until the end of the Battle Phase, it continues on. So after 5 battle phases a monsters ATK is 1000 points higher than it was originallly.

You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm Right.

Im no authority on whether your right or wrong. I can simply say you are, but that doesnt mean you are, nor does it mean that I am.

 

[Jason_C]

Im no authority on whether your right or wrong. I can simply say you are, but that doesnt mean you are, nor does it mean that I am.

But he can, because he is arguing the more basic side. It's almost like Occam's razor. DaGuy is arguing the simplest possible interpretation: Exactly as the card says. You are arguing some alternate interpretation, so the burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove we are wrong (or the List can't prove we are wrong) then we are right.

 

[masterwoo0]

But he can, because he is arguing the more basic side. It's almost like Occam's razor. DaGuy is arguing the simplest possible interpretation: Exactly as the card says. You are arguing some alternate interpretation, so the burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove we are wrong (or the List can't prove we are wrong) then we are right.

Maybe I'm the only one who is understanding my point....

If you wish to continue to dispute the result of the answer given from the Judge List, I have already stated its pointless, and I will continue to defend the answer given, just like anything else, until it is proven to be wrong, and that wont happen on this Forum.

 

[Jason_C]

Maybe I'm the only one who is understanding my point....

Again, you're assuming the List to be correct and waiting for someone to convince you they're not. I suggest you look at the card text and see if the List is still correct.

They haven't the authority to make rules.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Why are you defending the answer given by the Judge's List?

And i guarantee any answer you give for that, we can prove you wrong for doing so.

But you have offered no proof that we are wrong for defending the text and rulings given.

 

[masterwoo0]

Why are you defending the answer given by the Judge's List?

And i guarantee any answer you give for that, we can prove you wrong for doing so.

But you have offered no proof that we are wrong for defending the text and rulings given.

How many times do I have to restate the obvious?? I am not the creator of this game. Neither I, nor you or Jason, can say with any degree of certainty, that you are correct. You can only speculate that you are.

You can argue that you are 99% right. but that 1% wrong means that you are not 100% correct.

I will not continue to move this past what the Judge List has stated, because until you prove them wrong, I am not wrong, as I am only relaying information, and basing my conclusion from that. If I said Trap Hole is a Trap. Did I make that answer up from the top of my head, or, was it already information that was given to us all, and I am just relaying it back to you? Proving me wrong means nothing. It would only mean that you were able to create a better argument against mine, and if I were someone who could not hold my end of a debate, then that would be no victory.

 

[Jason_C]

Neither I, nor you or Jason, can say with any degree of certainty, that you are correct. You can only speculate that you are.

Too bad we're arguing the side that is written in the rules of the game (that a card's effect is as its own text says it is) while the side you're arguing was made up by people who did not make the game. We are relaying information from the makers and the rulebook. You are relaying information from the List. The list has no authority in this situation to over-rule the makers.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

How many times do I have to restate the obvious?? I am not the creator of this game. Neither I, nor you or Jason, can say with any degree of certainty, that you are correct. You can only speculate that you are.

Well if the Game Creator matters, then why are you defending a point taht did not come from the Game's Creator.

While Jason and i ARE defending the text that came from the Game's Creator.

You can argue that you are 99% right. but that 1% wrong means that you are not 100% correct.

No, we can argue that we are 100% correct because there is a right and wrong answer for the time being.

I will not continue to move this past what the Judge List has stated, because until you prove them wrong, I am not wrong, as I am only relaying information, and basing my conclusion from that.

I pointed out on the Master Monk thread why we IGNORE the judge's list if it does not state why it contradicts the official information.

Like i said the judge's list is no more authoritive than anybody else, relaying a ruling made by the Judge's List is no different than relaying a ruling made by some random person on the street.

If I said Trap Hole is a Trap. Did I make that answer up from the top of my head, or, was it already information that was given to us all, and I am just relaying it back to you?

It says its a Trap on the card. That is official information.

Now if someone random on the street ran up and said Trap Hole was a Trap could you relay that information (without ever seeing the card). Of course not.

Proving me wrong means nothing. It would only mean that you were able to create a better argument against mine, and if I were someone who could not hold my end of a debate, then that would be no victory.

Do you not know what the word proof means?

 

[masterwoo0]

Do you not know what the word proof means?

I know that when you get an answer from Konami, you will have it. Until then, you only have what you have not given me, and that is proof.

I could certainly understand your condescending attitude if I were a child with no education. But, I have a Degree, as well as being a Certified Instructor with over 5 years teaching experience. I believe I understand what "proof" is, I am certainly able to coherently string together and understand a group of words, and that places me well above the intellect of a Orangutan, as well as understanding you do not have any verifiable proof.

You have "Card Text" which does not explain itself. It is only a series of words in a syntax, that is open to interpretation.

 

[Jason_C]

I know that when you get an answer from Konami, you will have it. Until then, you only have what you have not given me, and that is proof.

What you apparently don't understand is that proof does not have to come from a person's own judgment or opinion. If no man had ever said that 2 + 2 = 4, it would still be true, assuming the definitions of the numbers and symbols involved could exist outside of man's mind. The symbols cannot, of course, but the concept could. And just because Konami hasn't said that 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't mean it can't be proven.

Likewise, DaGuy and I have provided conclusive proof of our stance on Mind Crush, which you have ignored and replaced with insults, claiming our proof is anal and reckless, and failing to address the actual concept involved.

I could certainly understand your condescending attitude if I were a child with no education.

Condescention (spelling?) is not appropriate under any circumstances. But he is not condescending. He is asking if you understand a concept for which there is considerable reason to doubt your understanding.

It is only a series of words in a syntax, that is open to interpretation.

I summon Webster's dictionary to the field in attack position. It attacks and destroys your "open to interpretation" statement. YOU don't get to decide how to interpret text. I don't get to decide how to interpret text. NOBODY gets to decide how to interpret text. The English language is NOT vague.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

I could certainly understand your condescending attitude if I were a child with no education.

I find that statement to be quite bigoted

If a 12 year old makes a vaild argument then everyone should listen.

If a 60 year Supreme Court Judge makes an opinion, nobody should care.

The official ANSWER for the time being from Konami is EXACTLY what is written in the text and the rulings. THAT comes from Konami.

Yes they are entitled to provide a different answer if they so choose, but until they do the ANSWER they have provided us so far is the official answer.

Make conclusion based on that.

And what i mean about proof is if an argument is proven wrong, than that argument is proven wrong. It has nothing to do with debating skills.

 

[Jason_C]

And what i mean about proof is if an argument is proven wrong, than that argument is proven wrong. It has nothing to do with debating skills.

Further clarification of this statement: Debating skills can be useful in arguments over opinions. Should we raise these taxes? Are the frogs threatened to the extent that we should protect them by law? What about abortion? These are topics in which a person can use their debating skills to get others to see their point of view. This is called "persuasion". It involves CONVINCING other people of a certain opinion. It is completely different from PROVING something to be true. By definition, once something is proven, it MUST be true. A valid proof will always come to a truthful conclusion if it comes to any conclusion at all, and all conclusions it comes to will be 100% truthful.

You're acting like we're trying to convince you we're right. DaGuy is saying we have already proven with 100% certainty we are right. Whether you are the greatest debater in the world or have the intelligence of a garden gnome, our proof is still valid.

 

[masterwoo0]

I find that statement to be quite bigoted

If a 12 year old makes a vaild argument then everyone should listen.

If a 60 year Supreme Court Judge makes an opinion, nobody should care.

The official ANSWER for the time being from Konami is EXACTLY what is written in the text and the rulings. THAT comes from Konami.

Yes they are entitled to provide a different answer if they so choose, but until they do the ANSWER they have provided us so far is the official answer.

Make conclusion based on that.

And what i mean about proof is if an argument is proven wrong, than that argument is proven wrong. It has nothing to do with debating skills.

I hardly think a Pre-Adolescent is referred to as a child from a respecting adult. I talk to my Grandson who is is less than 2 years old, and I would certainly wonder what level of Education you think he has. If I tell a child not to touch a stove because its hot, I should not have to tell a 12 year old the same thing, unless he has a limited intellect, which is what you seem to think "I" have. And I certainly don't think that sounds "bigoted". I think your comments are simply an attempt to create the illusion that I dont know what I'm talking about, while you have the complete blueprint of Konami Headquarters.

Anyway, who's to say where the text comes from? I do know it comes from someone who translated the text from Japanese to English. I dont know who that person is. For all we know, it could be contracted out, just like American Car Makers who have car parts made in India or Mexico.

Arguments have everything to do with Debating Skills. I was also on a Debating as well as Speech Team in my High School. If you cannot provide a reasonable, and convincing "argument", to your opponents viewpoint, you have lost any chance of "proving" that you have the more correct answer, even if it's a lie, or "untruth".