Shinobi Legends Forum - Shinobi Legends Game Site

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Ever wondered if your ideas have been talked about in the forum already? Well, try out the "search" option, where all your questions can be answered.

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Established Consequence  (Read 377 times)

Ethaniel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Established Consequence
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2017, 08:19:09 pm »



... In the case of retro-posting, I would propose that so long as your opponent isn't rushing (which is a whole different can of worms, and a debate for another time), you should be reacting to actions as they come, point blank. For example, if your opponent uses a technique, such as a cloning jutsu, and can reasonably follow it up with another action before your character could realistically react to the first, I submit that you only be allowed to react to the second action. However, if a judge rules that an action is not viable, at any point, I also submit that the following actions become null, and the fight continue from the last legal action. In the event that this would be a large setback (IE erasing a long string of rounds and possibly compromising the entire match), I submit that the ruling be brought before the Council for judgment. That being said, if you feel an action should be ruled legal or illegal by a judge, you should bring it up as soon as possible, and not wait until such a point that it requires a rollback...

As for consequences to breaking these rules, I second that there be a penalty system of some kind implemented, with a three-strike basis. I submit the first strike be a warning, the second strike being a forfeiture of the bout or match, and the final strike being a heavier penalty, such as stripping of a Beast, or banning from challenges for a set period of time, to be decided upon by the Council...

While I do like the suggestions for limitations on, well, the infinite response loop, I have to object to the 3 strikes initiative based on its premise. If during a zone fight with a judge present one of the players retros or metas and the judge rules it as such and mandates a repost, then what is the problem here? Yes, the number of reposts can get pretty long, which is why some people limit the number of reposts that can be had. But if in the repost the same mistake is made again, then again, in alot of preferences, that would be grounds for an automatic auto-hit or even removal from the biju match.

What the final judge rules, rules. I do not see the reason for a formal "3 strike" system in an OOC fight over general zoning rules. There is a judge for the match who can rule autohit as a result of not responding properly as long as there is no agreed upon term stating that that is not something a judge can do. At best the player can get a new judge and then that is it for an OOC fight; only in an IC Hunt can a judge's decision be appealed to the Biju Council.

As far as enforcement goes, if the Council starts enforcing and punishing players for breaking zoning rules in OOC biju matches (heck even IC Hunt biju matches) then we kind of start becoming judges. I mean, that is the whole point of having a judge for a match that does not involve the real storylines of either character. To enforce zoning rules or, as some have put it, guidelines, which is against the biju rules for the Council to do.

With regards specifically to my suggestion of a three-strike rule: I was not referring to it happening repeatedly within a single match, but rather across multiple matches. Say User A is fighting User B, and is ruled to have metagamed during their match, and are warned against such. Then User A goes on to fight User C, and metagames again. And then a third time against User D. There is a point where it ceases to become accidental, and if there's nothing officially done about the problem, it can make people feel like nobody cares. Simply saying something is against the rules doesn't mean much unless there are clearly outlined consequences. We don't become judges by punishing people for breaking the rules, because we don't decide whether or not the rules have been broken. My proposal is only that when a judge decides that a rule has been broken, and when the player has a history of breaking the same rule multiple times, the Council mete out the appropriate punishment. Quite simply, I propose that we let the judges be judges, and that the Council be no more than executors.
Logged

Timothy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +17/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
    • Shinobi Legends Biography
Re: Established Consequence
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2017, 08:38:12 pm »

Executioner Council ... Sounds like Sith Lords o3o
Logged
Every life has meaning, never lose sight of that.

Sabumaru

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +22/-20
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 366
  • Justin Trudeau will vouch for me
    • View Profile
Re: Established Consequence
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2017, 09:51:20 pm »

If during a zone fight with a judge present one of the players retros or metas and the judge rules it as such and mandates a repost, then what is the problem here?

What the final judge rules, rules. At best the player can get a new judge and then that is it for an OOC fight; only in an IC Hunt can a judge's decision be appealed to the Biju Council.

Nothing is true till your partners also say its true, everything that does not violate the game rules is permitted, and that people are not obligated to play with someone they think is playing unfair.

1) Community decisions, written down or not, run the day. I can claim that my character revived Rares Uchiha and have him ride a sage mode transformed Eric into Kirigakure to preach the One True Faith of Bijuuism, but if nobody else takes it as happening, my character might as well not exist in that capacity.

2) Over the entire course of this site, from vampires to zombies to dragons to furries to, well, alot of stuff, the only stuff that Neji and his crew overtly worked to shut down was stuff that violated the game rules. Other than that, people are limited in what they can do only by 1 and 3, which in turn are meaningless without 2 being a thing.

3) Void, bans on stuff like OP jutsu, special rules for jutsu, ignoring posts, etc. This in particular takes a hit with things like biju, but overall players have alot of say in what kind of RP their characters are involved in.

The IC rules were set up in such a fashion as to turn a Biju Hunt into a RPG-like setting, but it requires alot of preparation and so far has not been tested under the rigors of actual RP. It is open ended for the very reason that being too restrictive in everything would have neither gotten the votes to get in (I imagine) or would have had to be changed everytime a SL guideline changed.
When a judge decides that a rule has been broken, and when the player has a history of breaking the same rule multiple times, the Council mete out the appropriate punishment. Quite simply, I propose that we let the judges be judges, and that the Council be no more than executors.

These seem to be the best things that have been said thus far.

Edit: You guys should really start editing these posts and cutting out the redundant/unnecessary/soapbox crap. It makes it so much more difficult to discuss this when we all have to read 10,000 words so you can make like two or three points.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 03:42:26 pm by Sabumaru »
Logged

Dispair is the sweetest salt besides ballsweat

Jestar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Established Consequence
« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2017, 03:28:41 am »

Executioner Council ... Sounds like Sith Lords o3o

Or Mace Windu before he got thrown out the window.

Im sorry I will leave now.
Logged
Death and Taxes. Lots of Death and Taxes.

Eric

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +100/-100
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3453
    • View Profile
Re: Established Consequence
« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2017, 02:11:44 am »


... Edit: You guys should really start editing these posts and cutting out the redundant/unnecessary/soapbox crap. It makes it so much more difficult to discuss this when we all have to read 10,000 words so you can make like two or three points.

While I can concede that almost all of my longposts have redundance, "soapbox" is a bit much to tag with them with in my opinion. I could make a point in say 2-3 sentences, but whether everybody gets what I mean or not is an entirely different story. I mean, look at Trump's "good people on both sides" remark.

With that said, I'll try to focus on my points and elaborate only if asked.

Wait, so are we talking about god-moding now? I thought this was retroposting and meta gaming?
Though it sounds like the general feeling is "work this sh$# out with your opponent and judges before the match. The council exists to rule on bijuu matters as a whole and not individual matches, and therefore it falls to those involved to be self-governing, more or less. So long as the set perimeters of the fight are within the general rules, those with a stake in them are to make sure their own rules are followed."

I'm paraphrasing. I could be completely wrong.

You paraphrased the jist of it. Judges are supposed to be the end-all for match decisions, unless an actual biju rule has been broken. The only time metagaming or retroposting are against the biju rules are during the Biju Hunt, last I checked, because both terms (retro as godmodding) are actively defined in that setting.

I suppose beforehand, with owner and challenger, one could agree to a certain judge to set specific rules like if 'I see you retroposting 3 times in a row and I feel like you're not going to recover, you'll be penalized somehow'...

Preferences in a nutshell.


With regards specifically to my suggestion of a three-strike rule: I was not referring to it happening repeatedly within a single match, but rather across multiple matches. Say User A is fighting User B, and is ruled to have metagamed during their match, and are warned against such. Then User A goes on to fight User C, and metagames again. And then a third time against User D. There is a point where it ceases to become accidental, and if there's nothing officially done about the problem, it can make people feel like nobody cares. Simply saying something is against the rules doesn't mean much unless there are clearly outlined consequences. We don't become judges by punishing people for breaking the rules, because we don't decide whether or not the rules have been broken. My proposal is only that when a judge decides that a rule has been broken, and when the player has a history of breaking the same rule multiple times, the Council mete out the appropriate punishment. Quite simply, I propose that we let the judges be judges, and that the Council be no more than executors.

Having the Council strip/ban/etc. for offenses brought up by players (including judges) I agree with, especially since it's already what is supposed to he happening anyways. What I do not agree with is for there to be a penalty other than auto-hit or auto-loss for metagaming, godmodding, etc. in an OOC fight. Even in the context of an IC Biju Hunt auto-hit would be preferred to stripping or biju stuff banning in my opinion.

Why? Again in short, I do not think it is fair that the punishment for breaking a written rule with minimal ambiguity is the same punishment as breaking a guideline with lots of wriggle room.
Logged
Anything you can think of I can't think of, let me know; that's how the sharing circle works.
Pages: 1 [2]
 

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 15 queries.