Forum:E-Mailed Rulings from Konami

What should we do about rulings obtained by e-mailing Konami, such as the one recently added for "Morale Boost"?

I'd prefer it if we don't include e-mailed rulings. They can be falsified (this ruling was false, for example), and e-mails from Konami haven't always been 100% reliable. Moreover, we could get a lot of pointless rulings that would just clutter up the page (e.g. if someone gets an e-mail from Konami saying that "Judgment Dragon" can't be "Monster Reborn"-ed, then they'd add it, even though it is obvious [for some definition of obvious]).

On the flip side, these are *technically* official. Also, we don't have a Judge List any more, so this is the only way for people to get individual rulings answered. (Granted, the community went years without a Judge List, so we can function without one. We're just spoilt :P)

Opinions? --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 17:52, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we state clearly that the rulings came from an e-mail, similar to what was done for Morale Boost. Furthermore, have a general disclaimer that these rulings maybe false and that they are subject to change.-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 18:08, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a disclaimer saying that some of the content may be false will work too well. It's not very convincing following a ruling that you're told might be false. If we do include that section, I doubt we'll deliberately leave stuff we know is false there just because it has a source. That brings us back to square one where people may argue over what they think is right and wrong, but pointing to the official source won't automatically decide which is right.

Also this site gets enough unreliability claims. Including sections with admittedly dodgy information won't help that. -- Deltaneos (talk) 16:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of against including them. Most of my reasons have already been said. It may add some overexcessive stuff like the "Judgment Dragon"/"Monster Reborn" example above. Although this probably too skeptical, the source would be a screencap of an e-mail. Someone could easily forge a fake screencap and upload it.

I know it's impossible to be right 100% of the time, but I didn't think Konami were known for sending back wrong answers. Is it more like 1/100 or 1/5000 incorrect answers they give? I'm sure the probability of a wrong answer increases with the difficulty of the question and it's the more difficult ones people will want to include. -- Deltaneos (talk) 16:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

As for the forging, it will be hard to prove. However, we can't just disprove an e-mail ruling just because it sounds fishy. Granted, if someone posted that JD could be summoned by Monster Reborn, there's no doubt that would be 100% false and it would be taken off the page. On the other hand, if it was a BKSS ruling that can't be extrapolated from the others and is actually 100% official, it would make it hard to disprove. Therefore, we can't just ignore all e-mail rulings.

I suggest that e-mail rulings should not be posted directly to the page but kept on hold so that the community can work to verify that it is true before being posted. General Rules like Nomi and Semi-Nomi summoning conditions and etc... will be ignored immediately. As for the really hard to believe ones, we can just send our e-mail to Konami to double confirm them. Furthermore, if they are OCG rulings we can cross-reference from the Japanese YGO wiki. Then set up a General Disclaimer state that these rulings are subject to change. This will say that we should follow all these rulings unless proven that Konami gave us an incorrect answer. How does that sound?-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 05:47, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

What about rulings that totally change the effect of the card itself such as when they did with Green Baboon Defender of the forest or with Ocean Dragon Lord- Neo-Daedalus?I know The second one was changed because its effect was printed wrong but the first one was changed simply because people were using the card for its effect and so they decided to kill it and replace it with another card,would it come to a certain point in time many of the cards would no longer have the effect their printed with?And if so wouldnt it be more like Konami itself controlling the game rather then the what the cards are supposed to do?Raventheblack (talk • contribs) 06:04, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

That's is what happens when a card is errata'd. It's different than issuing a new ruling.-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 10:28, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

I think the Wiki should include the e-mailed rulings. I don't understand how the Company that produces the game can make "Fake Rulings", wouldn't those Become the legitimate articles?. And Redundant rulings are not That bad. Personaly when when I first joined the wiki I hade NO idea what Nomi and Sem-nomi meant and I really think This card Can/Can't be summoned by cards like Monster Reborn, Call of the Haunted, Premature Burial, etc., would have bean ALOT easier to read than the articles that try to justify Konami's Grammar. Let's face it: Some of their workings don't make sense, shouldn't a first priority be to Inform you of things , instead of to Explain some things(not to same some explanations aren't helpful)

Also I've never heard that Union Monsters don't protect from simultaneous destruction either. I've justified it by auguring that by it saying If the equipped monster would be destroyed, destroy this card instead,so it provides a preemptive form of protection. Or was the ruling deleted for the Semi-official thing? Could someone help me with this matter?--Helix-king (talk • contribs) 06:09, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

It's not Konami that are forging rulings. It's the players that we are worried about. This wiki has no ties to Konami so they have no obligation to inform us of anything. As for your thoughts on Union Monsters, I don't want to be rude but what you think doesn't matter. What I think also doesn't matter. As long as Konami issues a new ruling, we should try to follow it. -- HHTurtle  (Talk) 10:28, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

1: I am aware the wiki has no ties, 2: I am aware Konami's word is above our opinion , and 3: That was a little rude, I just wanted a answer to the ruling since I can't find a official source concerning my dilemma, not a "You don't matter" response, that was uncalled for man. - Helix (I can't log in right now) — Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, I wasn't trying to be rude. I'm just saying our opinions don't matter concerning a ruling that may not make easy sense like the BKSS rulings. Let's sat that card A has this ruling and card B that works similarly to card A has a new e-mail ruling that says otherwise. We can't just dismiss that e-mail ruling as false right away. It could be a BKSS ruling that can't be extrapolated from similar cards.-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 03:40, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one that submitted the Morale Boost ruling. Since there are no longer any judge boards I figure that being able to submit them makes it easier to share official rulings made this way. Also, konami's emailed rulings are actually official (I've heard that it's Kevin Tewart that answers them now) as opposed to UDE's email which wasn't reliable.

Anyway, I agree with basically what has been said, since they are official it helps to be able to share them. Things could be done to confirm such rulings if necessary, but obvious fakes could just be deleted.

Also, I don't think that people forging rulings in this way would be that big of an issue. — This unsigned comment was made by Chaosgodkarl (talk • contribs) 0:50, July 4, 2010

Actually, about the "e-mails aren't 100% reliable", this was more of a problem in the past, when the ruling line was just being set up. (I remember that we got a ruling saying that "Cosmic Horror Gangi'el" is considered an "Alien" monster.) However, lately, they've been pretty accurate - well, except for some cases that clearly contradict the OCG rulings and are silent in the TCG, but that's a different issue.

How about if, under the ===E-Mailed Rulings=== header, we include a simple disclaimer (something like, ";Warning: These rulings may not be reliable. Please read this."). The this would link back to the established standards page, where we write a disclaimer.

By the way, where is the established standards page? --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 14:19, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

You mean this page? It might be a little outdated. -- Deltaneos (talk) 15:00, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Forging rulings is a very big deal. I've heard complaints from other places about the inaccuracies of this wiki. Most of them are vandalism. However, you have to understand that messing up a ruling can cause serious arguments and may affect the credibility of this wiki.

@Deus Ex Machina: Deltaneos has already pointed out that stating that the ruling may not be reliable won't work well. It doesn't sound convincing and may cause people to interpret them in their own way. I agree with him. That's why I suggest that the disclaimer only state that the rulings are "subject to change" as above.-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 14:31, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

IMO the subsection title Emailed Rulings says enough about what those rulings are. It's also of note that ensui (the one who maintains netrep) said that if he had a large enough source of rulings, and a way to distinguish those sent by email, that he would add them to netrep. Chaosgodkarl (talk • contribs) 18:26, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

"Subject to change" actually sounds pretty good. I'm still worried about fake rulings, but the only other solution seems to be to block e-mailed rulings entirely, which no one seems to want, and isn't entirely productive. I'm also worried about starting some kind of slippery slope, but that's a horrible argument against it >.< --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 17:40, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

First Example: Mind Crush

I've stumbled upon this rulings reversal for Mind Crush.

From: Nik Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Mind Crush

My question is: Is the player that activated Mind Crush permitted to check the opponents hand to verify that there are no copies of the named card (or no more copies of the named card)? My understanding is that the player is not allowed to look at the hand, but I'm being told by "official" source that you are allowed to. Thanks

We have recently received a new ruling that says the following:

“If the maximum legally allowed number of copies of the declared card cannot be verified as public knowledge, you may ask your opponent to verify their hand.”

This cards should be shown quickly so as not to interrupt the flow of the duel and the opponent should never handle the cards. The intent of this ruling is to show that an effect has been successfully completed, not to reveal private information to an opponent or allow him to take extensive time strategizing over it.

This E-mail from Konami seems to contradict the current Judge List Rulings that we have on our page: "If the opponent discards the named card, you do not check their hand to verify."

However, the e-mail ruling sounds more logical and prevents cheating. Let's say you call a card and your opponent actually has multiples of the card. According to the current Judge List Ruling that we have, your opponent can cheat by discarding only 1 of the copies and you are unable to check his hand to verify.

Therefore, I'm asking how should we deal with this E-mail Ruling?-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 04:59, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

You could add the outdated rulings to the talk page, similar to how it was done for Elemental Hero Prisma (Which, by the way, now seems to have problems with its header). Mind Crush has actually been that way for a while, as that's what ensui (from XeroCreative, maintainer of NetRep) has told me. The problem lies in that Konami doesn't issue public rulings for old cards anymore.

So let's get a procedure going to display for emailed rulings and change it. Chaosgodkarl (talk • contribs) 21:40, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Doing things the same way as with "Elemental Hero Prisma" sounds good (perhaps with fewer references? Looks like I went a little overboard there >.>).

For what it's worth, "Mind Crush" was always ruled this way in the OCG - your opponent has to somehow prove that he doesn't have any copies in his hand. The most common way to do this is to just reveal your hand, but there are other options. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 22:27, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

My opinion will be also to not include those rulings from e-mails:

1) There is a BIG danger of getting fake rulings from "unreliable" people.

2) That way we can get infinite pointless rulings. (Like the Judgment Dragon one.)

3) We already have some people that post correct rulings, but not official. So what if someone posts a such ruling and say he got it from Konami's email? It is correct, but never sent from Konami through an email, and the problem is that we CAN'T prove that Konami never sent that answer. And since we don't post unofficial rulings, that doesn't sound good to me either!

What about if someone uploaded a photo with a ruling he received?: Still no! I remember someone uploading a photo with a ruling about Union monsters. Every judge believed it and was following it until another person posted another email from Konami with the same question but with a different answer. Later a judge (probably we worked for Konami) clarified that Konami never sent the first email but only the second. So photos isn't an option too!

What about the ruling reversals?: About the ruling reversals, I think that what we did with Elemental Hero Prisma is the best, and safest, choice.

So, my opinion is: We don't post any ruling until it is posted to an official site (don't have one yet), or confirmed by an "official" person (Kevin Tewart, Jerome McHale, Julia Hedberg, ect), like the Drill Warrior and the Snyffus ones.

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 06:51, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

ATEMVEGETA, you are probably talking about the "Union Monsters saving the monsters they are equipped to when both of them are marked for destruction" scenario, aren't you? Are the officials planning on using the ruling for Spirit of the Six Samurai for all other Union Monsters or is it ruled differently for each Union Monster?-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 08:16, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

The correct ruling is that if both the Union Monster and its equipped target are going to be destroyed by the same effect, the Union monster cannot save its target and both cards are destroyed. The first (fake) email we got was saying that only the Union Monster is destroyed. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 11:30, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I understand that but there are rulings like the one that I have shown to you above. The ruling must be correct no matter how I look at it. This is because the present ruling that we have now under the Judge List Rulings category, allows the player to cheat. We can't just simply dismiss the above ruling as false without giving it consideration.-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 12:37, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

The official ruling that we received by an email was saying that in general, all Union monsters must follow Spirit of the Six Samurai's ruling. So none Union monster can save its target by a simultaneous destruction. If you found another ruling saying otherwise, then it is an outdated ruling. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 13:25, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the ruling reversal that I found about Mind Crush. I already stated the situation above.^^-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 15:43, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

We can do what we did with Elemental Hero Prisma. To mark that ruling as outdated by adding a note in its Rulings Talk Page saying that now it works otherwise. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 17:37, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I've already did the same for Mind Crush. You can see it here: Card Rulings talk:Mind Crush. Is this ok?-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 16:09, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 16:35, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 16:39, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

It looks good from here. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 01:00, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

With Mind Crush wouldn't it be easier to have a 3rd party look at the opponents hand to verify like have the judge look during official matches,it wouldn't take to much time out of the duel since you'd call a name, your opponent shows the judge and discards the card(s) if any, that way if your opponent is cheating the judge will know right away? 94.13.166.47 (talk) 21:27, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

"Out of Date"???

What does the "Out of Date" tag really mean, or should I say, represent? When does the Out of Date ruling get replaced?-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 16:39, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

"Out of Date" means that a new ruling has been created (or Konami officially said) saying otherwise.

I don't think the old ruling about Mind Crush will ever be removed! If an official ruling will be created saying otherwise, then we will post that new ruling as well and we will scratch the old one, like we did with Green Baboon, Defender of the Forest's ruling about the Damage Step.

Or, unless Konami officially say that that old ruling is no longer official. Then we will completely remove it. This will never happen though, so we will keep both rulings since both are official (one will be scratched though).

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 16:58, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So E-mail Rulings are still not considered as Konami officially issuing a new ruling?-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 17:04, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sure they are official. Konami doesn't issue rulings for older cards anymore, these need to be considered official. Otherwise you are continuing to display false rulings, which are no longer played that way in real tournaments. Chaosgodkarl (talk • contribs) 03:43, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Wait so think I see what you were saying. How about including an "Out of date" subsection on the page that lists a disclaimer that those rulings may be out of date? Chaosgodkarl (talk • contribs) 03:43, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Can you please sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) on Forum Threads and Talk Pages as that will create a signature for you?-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 17:40, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ruling Contradictions

Ruling contradictions are important as much as Ruling reversals. So we could mention those too like we do with the reversals. (Always in the Rulings' talk pages, not in the main pages, for safety). An example is Card Rulings talk:Linear Accelerator Cannon. Thoughts? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 15:06, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

I've seen what you did and it looks good. Just a bit disappointed with the TCG & OCG rulings contradictions.-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 15:09, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 15:19, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Rulings Clean-up

Can someone please organize the Card Rulings:Green Baboon, Defender of the Forest page? It looks messy with all the strikethroughs.-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 11:48, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Done. How's it look? --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 23:44, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

It looks good.-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 06:40, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sub-Page for E-Mailed Rulings?

I just noticed that the Talk pages should probably reserved for... um, talking... rather than presenting information. Perhaps we could use a separate sub-pages? Something like, Card Rulings:Random Card/E-Rulings? (Err, with a better name than E-Rulings, of course... I suck at making new names :P) --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 23:44, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem either way! It's fine with me! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 01:34, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

How about we just drop the "click here to see extra rulings" idea and just put it at the main card rulings page under a new category like E-mail Rulings?-- HHTurtle  (Talk) 06:40, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we still need to include the outdate template. That template now redirects to the talk page. Can we change it to redirect to the Card Rulings:Random Card/E-Rulings page instead? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:24, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I figured that people didn't like including the e-mailed rulings on the main page, since they're less reliable than what we usually put on the Card Rulings pages. I'm still a little uneasy about including them at all.

Anyway, I updated {{Out of date}}, so now we can redirect people to other places. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 19:41, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I've been playing around some more, and I ended up with this format. I couldn't find a way to get the sub-pages idea to both work and look nice, so I just included it in the main article (ew).

There's a modified {{Out of date}} header at the top, since the problem is more with contradictory sources rather than accuracy. There's a big, bright disclaimer on the "E-mailed Rulings" section, to warn against fraudulent rulings. And there's a "Notes" section, to explain what is out of date, rather than having people figure it out for themselves.

Comments/ideas? --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 15:31, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

I like the new look. However, I still insist that the the General Disclaimer be changed. Something like "Rulings in this section are unverified and are subject to change. Readers are advised that Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia does not claim all information presented in this section to be true".-- HHTurtle ^Talk   03:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I just wrote my warning up in a hurry... yours is a lot better XD --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 12:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

How exactly do you get emailed rulings from Konami? I've tried sending them some ruling questions for them to answer, but thus far, nothing. What am I doing wrong? 66.228.109.2 (talk) 16:05, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

You are doing nothing wrong. It's that just Konami stopped sending answers to questions anymore for some reason. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 19:34, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

for the makers of yu-gi-wiki (www.yugioh.wikia.com)

all yall are fakes and phonys and frauds konami is the creators and rule makers of the game not you — This unsigned comment was made by 66.168.202.190 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't know how we work here. We don't create rulings, Konami issues them and we compile so it is easier for everybody to find them. Next time, please sign your posts.-- HHTurtle ^Talk   12:40, September 28, 2010 (UTC)