User:Designless Square

FACT, CITATION, OPINION, AND CONJECTURE
JUDGED. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE "ON THIS WIKI, THE NAMES OF SPELLS AND TRAPS SHOULD BE FRAMED IN QUOTATION MARKS, WHILE THE NAMES OF MONSTERS SHOULD NOT." (WHILE THIS MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER FOR NEWCOMERS TO UNDERSTAND STRATEGIES INVOLVING CARDS WITH WHICH THEY ARE NOT FAMILIAR, IT IS UNNECESSARY AND IMPRACTICAL.) JUDGMENT TO BE TRUE. FOR EXAMPLE, "THE YU-GI-OH! WIKI SAYS WARRIOR IS THE MOST SUPPORTED TYPE" CONTAINS A CITATION. THE WIKI DOES NOT CONTAIN THOSE EXACT WORDS, THERE ARE VARYING DEFINITIONS OF "SUPPORT," AND MUCH OF THAT SUPPORT GOES TO ARCHETYPES LIKE ELEMENTAL HEROES RATHER THAN THE TYPE AS A WHOLE, BUT YOU COULD FIND BACKING FOR THAT STATEMENT ON THE WIKI. IT CAN'T BE ABSOLUTELY "WRONG" OR "RIGHT" UNLESS THE AUTHORITY HAS FACTS BEHIND THE JUDGMENT. (IN THIS CASE, THE INFORMALITY OF "SUPPORTED" MAKES THIS IMPOSSIBLE.) ABSOLUTE, UNEQUIVOCAL DATA. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE "SIMORGH, BIRD OF DIVINITY CAN BE SUMMONED WITHOUT USING TRIBUTE MONSTERS BY USING 'MAUSOLEUM OF THE EMPEROR' AND PAYING 2000 LIFE POINTS." THERE ARE ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS FOR "SUMMONED," "TRIBUTE" AND "LIFE POINTS." THIS RULING COMES FROM THE KONAMI F.A.Q. AND IS NOT DEBATABLE. 
 * EXPRESSING AN OPINION INVOLVES MAKING A JUDGMENT ON SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE FORMALLY
 * CITING A SOURCE MEANS REFERENCING AN AUTHORITY THAT HAS DECLARED A CERTAIN FACT OR
 * GIVING A FACT MEANS EXPRESSING SOMETHING ON WHICH AN AUTHORITY THAT HAS RECORDED
 * WHAT, THEN, OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT YET PROVEN UNTRUE, OR RULINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MADE? DOES BUTTERFLAY EQUIPPED WITH "TWIN SWORDS OF FLASHING LIGHT - TRYCE" DO 2000 DAMAGE OR 1500 DAMAGE DURING THE DAMAGE STEP?  THE ANSWER IS NOT OPINION OR FACT. IT IS CONJECTURE.