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?

 

[masterwoo0]

we should go with the official text and ignore the List.

Okay, lets do that. And in all cases where there is a Ruling for a Card, we go with the Ruling.

Sounds like a grand idea. So, at every Tournament, when I get called over to read someones card text for them, I'll just remember the fact that someone said that the card text will be used in the absence of a Official Ruling, because it makes no sense for you to interpret a card effect, based upon extrapolation, when it will always be a opinion as to if that is how it is supposed to work or not.

What is Official for one card should be printed on all Rulings for similar effects. That way you eliminate mistakes based upon opinion. In a case where an effect states that if there are no Spell and Traps Cards in the S/T Zone, "X" Monster can attack directly. Under the current way we do things, it would be okay to also say that Field Spell Cards are included as well.

But, since Official Card Text doesnt make that clear on most cards, we would have to make a Ruling based strictly on the clarity of the Card Text....

"Since it doesnt expressly say "Field Spell Zone AND Spell and Trap Zone, it can still attack directly if there is a Field Spell Card!"

That's why you don't use Card Text in every instance where there is a absence of a written Ruling. With nothing to clearly say the [incorrect] Ruling is way off base, it can be left up to however the Judge chooses to clarify it.

 

[Digital Jedi]

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.

You stated that your argument was in favor of ignoring the Judges List if they were contradictory to the FAQ. What is left to assume? We are supposed to follow the instruction given us by the Judges List. If we decide they are incorrect or we decide to go by the FAQ instead of them, we are going by our own opinion.

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.

It is a term that carries very little meaning within the English TCG anymore. If they decided to start calling the Judges List "official", it wouldn't change it's function or validity in any way.

 

[Jason_C]

If we decide they are incorrect or we decide to go by the FAQ instead of them, we are going by our own opinion.

This is not true. It is entirely possible for the Judge List to make a wholly invalid ruling which can be PROVEN to be incorrect without opinions coming into play. Do you want links to the Master Monk and Mind Crush threads?

If they decided to start calling the Judges List "official", it wouldn't change it's function or validity in any way.

Yes, it would. It would make them able to over-ride officially posted rulings, which at the moment they cannot do.

 

[Digital Jedi]

This is not true. It is entirely possible for the Judge List to make a wholly invalid ruling which can be PROVEN to be incorrect without opinions coming into play. Do you want links to the Master Monk and Mind Crush threads?

That's what I'm trying to point out. Whether the logic is justifiable or not, we still have to go by the Judges List. That is the structure in place. To go by any other structure is to go by personal opinion.

Yes, it would. It would make them able to over-ride officially posted rulings, which at the moment they cannot do.

That is also what I'm trying to point out. They do and have.

 

[masterwoo0]

This is not true. It is entirely possible for the Judge List to make a wholly invalid ruling which can be PROVEN to be incorrect without opinions coming into play. Do you want links to the Master Monk and Mind Crush threads?
Yes, it would. It would make them able to over-ride officially posted rulings, which at the moment they cannot do.

Why dont we just toss in the XYZ Fusion Ruling that was once there, then disappeared, and then returned again.

Those were straight from Konami.

So they changed the Master Monk ruling after a time. So what? It was wrong, they changed it, and now its right. But, that doesnt mean that it wont be changed tomorrow. Who says when something is wholly right or wrong? Konami. They can decide to change a Game Mechanic overnight. They can decide to make Sacred Phoenix of Nephthys effect work from Removed from Play, and that will be that. All the arguments we have had for and against it working the way it does will suddenly be reversed. All because of those words made famous some time ago....

Because Konami Said So.

 

[Jason_C]

we still have to go by the Judges List. That is the structure in place. To go by any other structure is to go by personal opinion.

Your statement: To go by any other structure than the List is personal opinion of those doing the "going".

Fact: Konami sets rules or "structures".

Inference: You are claiming that going by what Konami says instead of what the List says is personal opinion.

I am claiming it is not. Konami is ALWAYS right because Konami makes the game. The List has no more power to over-rule them than you or I do.

Those were straight from Konami.

So they changed the Master Monk ruling after a time. So what? It was wrong, they changed it, and now its right. But, that doesnt mean that it wont be changed tomorrow. Who says when something is wholly right or wrong? Konami. They can decide to change a Game Mechanic overnight. They can decide to make Sacred Phoenix of Nephthys effect work from Removed from Play, and that will be that. All the arguments we have had for and against it working the way it does will suddenly be reversed. All because of those words made famous some time ago....

Because Konami Said So.

I find it odd that you worked so hard to basically prove my point: Because Konami says so. NOT because the List says so.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Tell me where exactly is there a statement that says we are bound by the rules on the Judge List?

 

[Digital Jedi]

Tell me where exactly is there a statement that says we are bound by the rules on the Judge List?

I can't tell you, DaGuy. This has been the culture since I joined the the game, backed up by the behavior and statements of UDE representatives, the Level 3s. Do you have any indication that it is not what we're supposed to do?

Your statement: To go by any other structure than the List is personal opinion of those doing the "going".

Fact: Konami sets rules or "structures".

Inference: You are claiming that going by what Konami says instead of what the List says is personal opinion.

I am claiming it is not. Konami is ALWAYS right because Konami makes the game. The List has no more power to over-rule them than you or I do.

Again, your arguing the semantics of it. I'm arguing the actual application of it. We always have gone by the list, even when it opposed the FAQ, card text and errata lists. Ultimate Offering and Exiled Force come to mind.

 

[slither]

Your statement: To go by any other structure than the List is personal opinion of those doing the "going".

So what would you go by then, if you couldn't clear up a discussion and there are no rulings that Konami has posted? Cards text? Yes, probably, but there are always 2 parties and 2 different ways to interpret a card's text.

The Judge List relieves that issues from Judges if there is no concensus between them which makes it fairly if not the most official as you can get at a point in time.

 

[Jason_C]

I can't tell you, DaGuy. This has been the culture since I joined the the game, backed up by the behavior and statements of UDE representatives, the Level 3s. Do you have any indication that it is not what we're supposed to do?

This paragraph contains three sentences, and at least three blatant and tremendous fallacies of logic.

First, the statement "This has been the culture since I joined the game". This is the fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem. There is no reason why something should be right just because it's been that way for a while.

In fact, I shouldn't even say it's been that way. Some people have treated it that way. It never has been.

Now let's examine how it uses the behavior and statements of UDE representatives / Level 3s to "back up" why things should be that way. This is the fallacy of circulus in demonstrando. The reason it's a fallacy is because you're assuming that the UDE reps have a say in the matter. If DaGuy and I are correct and UDE is not an official source for such rulings, then what UDE says shouldn't be assumed to be true.

And the last sentence, the question. The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Because you were not able to back up your claim that UDE is an official source, you ask us to provide proof that it is not. We are the skeptics of the claim, not the proposers.

Yes, probably, but there are always 2 parties and 2 different ways to interpret a card's text.

No, not always. Sometimes there's only one. Master Monk thread.

 

[slither]

No, not always. Sometimes there's only one. Master Monk thread.

"Sometimes", that is one particular case and from all the given rulings 2 or 3 that have been incorrect is a miniscule percentage to discard the Judge List, even more just saying it's wrong.

That was one situation and we have to get past it already.

 

[masterwoo0]

I find it odd that you worked so hard to basically prove my point: Because Konami says so. NOT because the List says so.

I dont find it odd at all. Its like a Parent and a Child. The child will never out grow the parent. While the Parent may give the Child certain latitude, the Parent will still make the Rules to be followed. I have continued to state that the Judge List is only part of a Hierarchy. If they establlsh Rule, and it is later proven to be wrong by Konami, then that is the part of the hierarchy that determined that it is incorrect, because they are the last entity that can make that decision.

A Floor Judge can make a Ruling. The Head Judge can override it. He is the last entity that can do so at a Tournament.

The Judge List can make a Ruling. Konami can override it. They are the last entity that can do so.

Until either "entity" intercedes, the given ruling will be considered correct, and properly rendered. Does it matter who gives the opinion in order to make it official? No. Its a Ruling. A Ruling is Official because it must be, in order to prevent a "open loop" condition. Even if it is later overturned, it was still overturned by a "more" official source, whether it be the Head Judge or Konami.

So, in the case of a Floor Judge who is overturned by his Head Judge, the ruling he made was immediately in question, with the entity available to either verify, or disprove it. In the case of the Judge List and Konami, verification is a MUCH LONGER process, and is nowhere near comparable to a Tournament Condition. What we get from the Judge List may be valid for a year, 2 years, and then be found to be invalid simply because Konami finally decided that it was. But that is only because they themselves have to power to interpret the same information however they chose because they are the final say so.

The Judge List can certainly say that Jinzo is a Multi-Trigger Effect, similar to Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV8, and later, Konami can either agree or disagree, and state that Jinzo is a "Continuous Effect", which is final, as there is no one higher in the food chain. But, until Konami does so, it is considered correct (and Official).

 

[Digital Jedi]

This paragraph contains three sentences, and at least three blatant and tremendous fallacies of logic.

First, the statement "This has been the culture since I joined the game". This is the fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem. There is no reason why something should be right just because it's been that way for a while.

This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."​

Maybe I should repeat the part where I say that the Judges List may not be official in name, but it is official in practise. You can debate the "right or wrong" of it all you want. I've only ever been pointing to what the Judges List is and how it functions. Never how I thought it should function, other then saying it's labels are misleading.

In fact, I shouldn't even say it's been that way. Some people have treated it that way. It never has been.

Way too existential to me. This is not a philosophy that you would be able to apply at a sanctioned tournament.

Now let's examine how it uses the behavior and statements of UDE representatives / Level 3s to "back up" why things should be that way. This is the fallacy of circulus in demonstrando. The reason it's a fallacy is because you're assuming that the UDE reps have a say in the matter. If DaGuy and I are correct and UDE is not an official source for such rulings, then what UDE says shouldn't be assumed to be true.

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form.​

Let me refer to my previous statement where I say the Judges List is not official in name, but official in practice. I never stated that UDE officials were, er, official. UDE reps have a say in tournaments and in every non-Japanese event. I get my instruction from them. I presume it is filtered down from Konami. But whether it is or it isn't, I have no choice at a sanctioned event but to go by the structure they follow. You can argue whether that is right or wrong all you want. But they're still the guys in charge. I still have to do what they tell me TCG-wise.

And the last sentence, the question. The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Because you were not able to back up your claim that UDE is an official source, you ask us to provide proof that it is not. We are the skeptics of the claim, not the proposers.

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.​

DaGuy asked me where is it written that we are bounded by the Judges List. I asked him where is it written we are not. I see plenty of evidence that we are supposed to go by the info posted on the Judgers List. Did Konami not put UDE in charge of this neck of the TCG woods? I don't have any reason to doubt they did. Let me refer to my previous statement where I say the Judges List is not official in name, but official in practice.

I've presented to you only facts. I never asserted the Judges List was official. How could I when the Judges List itself asserts that it isn't? In fact, I've repeatedly stated that it's unnecessarily confusing that they state they are not official, but they're still the prevading source of instruction. I only pointed out that in practice they are official, meaning, we still do what they tell us and apply it in tournament as law. At every turn you've tried to deconstruct my statements by attacking them from a standpoint that I'm not taking. If I thought you were doing that deliberately, I would say you were making a Straw Man argument.

 

[John Danker]

I think the original question is what is considered "offical"
In an official sense....the FAQ according to the ruling and governing body of the greater part of the world and the body that governs this game in this part of the world...UDE.

That's the answer to the original question.

Now that the question is answered, lets get down to brass tacks. While the judge's list isn't official....if you find yourself as a head judge at any major tournament and take it upon yourself to go against rulings posted on the judge's list without an extremely good reason that can be backed up with not only logic but the best interest of the game in mind (and keep in mind here that UDE will have to see it that way as well) you'll likely find that you won't be asked to be a head judge in a major event again.

That's not a threat by any means....that's just real world, it's the way it works and will continue to work. I commend those who strive to change the game for the better, Keep up the good work all.

 

[Jathro]

I'm a little late joining in, but let me see if I understand something:

The judge's list isn't official, but it's the "go-to" source for rulings in tournaments?

If that's the case, something ain't stirring the Kool-Aid :?

 

[Jason_C]

I've only ever been pointing to what the Judges List is and how it functions.

Exactly. You claim it functions as an official source even if it technically is not. I am only saying it does not function as an official source. It only functions as a "back-up" plan in case Konami really hasn't clarified something one way or another.

Way too existential to me. This is not a philosophy that you would be able to apply at a sanctioned tournament.

Not my problem. I never leave this chair.

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form.

Obviously, you did not actually click on the link I provided. Instead you clicked on the link to "argumentum ad antiquitatem", then hit Ctrl + F and typed in "circulus in demonstrando". I suggest you click on the link I provided, as that is more detailed and is not from an atheist website, since you seem to prefer it that way.

I never stated that UDE officials were, er, official. ... But they're still the guys in charge.

That's the thing. You used their own statements and behavior as evidence to support your point that they're in charge. If we hypothesize that they are NOT in charge, then their statements and behavior no longer are effective evidence. To illustrate, consider this simple example:

"This statement is true".

Note the above statement. If it is true, it proves itself true. Many would assume, then, that it is true. But it could easily be false, and therefore would be false in its declaration that it is true. You are assuming the Judge List is in charge, and then using their orders as evidence. This is circulus in demonstrando.

DaGuy asked me where is it written that we are bounded by the Judges List. I asked him where is it written we are not.

Okay. Where is it written that rabbit's feet aren't lucky? Where is it written that I haven't been abducted by aliens eleven times this morning? I can't declare those things to be true just because you can't prove they're false.

I see plenty of evidence that we are supposed to go by the info posted on the Judgers List

But all the evidence you've shown me is fallacious. I can't see any reason why we should listen to the List unless we have nothing from Konami to go by.

I've presented to you only facts. I never asserted the Judges List was official. How could I when the Judges List itself asserts that it isn't? In fact, I've repeatedly stated that it's unnecessarily confusing that they state they are not official, but they're still the prevading source of instruction.

Fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam. You call your argument fact and then repeat it several times in the hopes that I will become convinced. Yet every "fact" which you've presented I have effectively shot down.

At every turn you've tried to deconstruct my statements by attacking them from a standpoint that I'm not taking. If I thought you were doing that deliberately, I would say you were making a Straw Man argument.

I find that to be ridiculous verging on trolling. If you can show me a direct example of me using the Straw Man fallacy in this discussion, PLEASE do. You are obligated to do so. Whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant "“ it is still a fallacy.



The wink was wholly unnecessary and derisive.

"Sometimes", that is one particular case and from all the given rulings 2 or 3 that have been incorrect is a miniscule percentage to discard the Judge List, even more just saying it's wrong.

That was one situation and we have to get past it already.

Fallacy Straw Man. I never claimed that the Master Monk thread was reason to discard the List. I said the Master Monk thread is proof that they should always be subordinate to anything we can extrapolate from official texts. And this "one situation" argument you make "“ I don't get where you're coming from. It doesn't take ANY situations to prove my point. It takes at most one to illustrate it. And if you want a second one for extra illustration, go to the Mind Crush thread.

without an extremely good reason that can be backed up with not only logic but the best interest of the game in mind

Don't worry. I'm not claiming we should ignore the list arbitrarily and I've never claimed that. I'm talking about when we can prove that they're wrong.

I'm a little late joining in, but let me see if I understand something:

The judge's list isn't official, but it's the "go-to" source for rulings in tournaments?

If that's the case, something ain't stirring the Kool-Aid

It's what some would "go-to" and I'm arguing those some are in error.

 

[DarkLogicianOfCaos]

Exactly. To illustrate, consider this simple example:

"This statement is true".

Note the above statement. If it is true, it proves itself true. Many would assume, then, that it is true. But it could easily be false, and therefore would be false in its declaration that it is true. You are assuming the Judge List is in charge, and then using their orders as evidence. This is circulus in demonstrando.

Unfortunately, some of the rulings we get seem a little more like:

"This statement is false."

wooops! <ROFL>

*oh, no. I forgot to remove my tongue from my cheek before rolling and bit my tongue.*

I still say, the UDE guys should give themselves honoray level 4 status, then we'll have to listen to them.

QUESTION: (sorry for shouting) But, if a head judge disagrees with Kevin, Dan, et al. at a Regionals/Nationals event, and someone protests to UDE, they aren't the ones who dole out the "judgeship", right? So what, if any action would be taken? I mean, would there be a court martial? Would they need to defend their calls and argue why their ruling is better than the Judge List ruling, and, so possibly get the List changed? I know you'ld better have a good reason, but what if you feel you do and it gets back to them? Maybe it is something that has been argued 'round the level 3 list and UDE desides to go one direction (oposite yours).

 

[anthonyj]

Jason, do you have any reason to doubt that UDE is the entity Konami has chosen to govern the TCG? If so I'd love to hear it.

As far as rulings and the Judge's List how about Fairy King Truesdale? There was no "Official" ruling or errata for this card for what 2 years or more? The Judges List was how the information was sent out that his effect did not work in attack mode.

I understand the frustration with the fact that Kevin and Dan have often been in error on card effects. As soon as you can convince Konami to change how things are run in TCG-land we won't have that issue any longer.

There are certainly other avenues that could have been chosen, but Konami doesn't seem to have much dedication to making sure the game is completely defined and understood by all (JERP is also "unofficial" so evidently there is a need for somebody to accumulate rulings and try to keep things straight on their end outside of the "official" source).

I think that both sides have presented evidence in favor of how things are and how things could be. And like I said before, if you aren't going to tournaments and want to scoff at the Judges List as "Unofficial" you certainly have that latitude. But it is hypocritical to tell those who have taken upon themselves to Judge at events that they shouldn't listen to the people who choose the Judges and give the directions as to how to judge at high level events. Got a problem with a Judge's List ruling? Good, point it out in a thread here and present your arguments as to why it is wrong. We've done that here to mutual benefit many times before. What we discuss here does have some weight with UDE, even if it only gets looked at when brought forward by one of the LV3 representatives that have the difficult position of carrying many of our negative comments with them as part of the message (I'm certainly guilty of adding to that burden myself, sorry guys).

If you feel that you can't present your argument that the ruling is in error without someone locking the thread, then I would suggest I've never seen a thread locked because someone espoused an unpopular belief regarding rulings. Threads get locked for the personal attacks and open hostility that has often been witnessed in those threads. If the discussion were to remain about the ruling and not about the egos there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Exactly. You claim it functions as an official source even if it technically is not. I am only saying it does not function as an official source. It only functions as a "back-up" plan in case Konami really hasn't clarified something one way or another.

Not my problem. I never leave this chair.

Obviously, you did not actually click on the link I provided. Instead you clicked on the link to "argumentum ad antiquitatem", then hit Ctrl + F and typed in "circulus in demonstrando". I suggest you click on the link I provided, as that is more detailed and is not from an atheist website, since you seem to prefer it that way.

That's the thing. You used their own statements and behavior as evidence to support your point that they're in charge. If we hypothesize that they are NOT in charge, then their statements and behavior no longer are effective evidence. To illustrate, consider this simple example:

"This statement is true".

Note the above statement. If it is true, it proves itself true. Many would assume, then, that it is true. But it could easily be false, and therefore would be false in its declaration that it is true. You are assuming the Judge List is in charge, and then using their orders as evidence. This is circulus in demonstrando.

Okay. Where is it written that rabbit's feet aren't lucky? Where is it written that I haven't been abducted by aliens eleven times this morning? I can't declare those things to be true just because you can't prove they're false.
But all the evidence you've shown me is fallacious. I can't see any reason why we should listen to the List unless we have nothing from Konami to go by.

Fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam. You call your argument fact and then repeat it several times in the hopes that I will become convinced. Yet every "fact" which you've presented I have effectively shot down.



I find that to be ridiculous verging on trolling. If you can show me a direct example of me using the Straw Man fallacy in this discussion, PLEASE do. You are obligated to do so. Whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant "“ it is still a fallacy.



The wink was wholly unnecessary and derisive.


Fallacy Straw Man. I never claimed that the Master Monk thread was reason to discard the List. I said the Master Monk thread is proof that they should always be subordinate to anything we can extrapolate from official texts. And this "one situation" argument you make "“ I don't get where you're coming from. It doesn't take ANY situations to prove my point. It takes at most one to illustrate it. And if you want a second one for extra illustration, go to the Mind Crush thread.

Don't worry. I'm not claiming we should ignore the list arbitrarily and I've never claimed that. I'm talking about when we can prove that they're wrong.

It's what some would "go-to" and I'm arguing those some are in error.

Now I'm confused. Now I'm not saying what I say I'm saying? Anthony's right. Now our egos are becoming too much a part of the discussion. I can't make my statements more clear then I already have, other then restating them, just for you to say I'm not saying them again. I made my points. You can choose to ignore them if you wish. Now the smileys are dirisive?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Jason, do you have any reason to doubt that UDE is the entity Konami has chosen to govern the TCG? If so I'd love to hear it.

How about the fact that UDE cannot edit the FAQ, their own website, without approval by Konami.

Surely if UDE had the power to present rulings then they would have that ability.

As far as rulings and the Judge's List how about Fairy King Truesdale? There was no "Official" ruling or errata for this card for what 2 years or more? The Judges List was how the information was sent out that his effect did not work in attack mode.

A) Errata /= Ruling.
B) They claimed specificallly to have information on how it works. There's a huge difference between doing that and jsut making a ruling.

Yes, not every ruling from Konami is on the website. There are "books" with rulings we don't have. However we have no way of knowing which rulings are in those books, and so we do not know if there are any rulings relevant to any one card in those books. So when the Judge List makes a ruling you can only assume that its made with the information available to us, because you have no proof that there is more information, (That's Burden of Proof). And so if we can use all of the information available to us to prove their ruling incorrect, the ruling is incorrect.

They don't have a magic button that brings up all the relevant rulings, and only the relevant rulings to make a ruling on a specific situation.

Of course, if and only if the Judge List claims specifically that they have more information on the issue, than we don't have the ability to prove them incorrect.