Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Uchiha, Rares]

Seems good to me. It shouldn't seem unreasonable for the village to lose it after two consecutive failures.
The council's duty should be that of moderating bijuu and their rules and what not rather than taking the role of a kage if a village becomes incompetent.

[Raifudo Oppa]

Anyways... I can't really make rules about inactive kage except to say if that kage is inactive to make a call, we'll make a call for them to who it goes to based on either self-elected or generally-elected people of that village.

We're not taking the bijuu from the village. Hell, we're not even choosing for them. The village itself will make the choice of the candidate they want. I'm not here to govern a kage for how they do things, etc., I'm just here to keep the flow of progress going as passively as I can.

The fact we have to wait for a jinchuuriki to go inactive > kage go inactive before redistributing > kage is elected > kage is given bijuu > kage distributes bijuu is too tediously long and unneeded of a practice to wait for.

[Uchiha, Rares]

Yep, the first two seem a fair and long enough of a stretch.

[cmage]

Since we're all on the same page, tell Ranketsu she doesn't have the Sanbi due to her past inactivity(stretching far beyond 2 weeks to the point where she deemed me active Mizukage again). I wish to see how well this is going to go over because she refuses to acknowledge that she was stripped of it.

[Uchiha, Rares]

I see no issue with that, the law shall apply to everyone. EVEN Ranketsu. xP
The thing is, she's been inactive, for quite a bit.


Also, the 1 month me and Rai were talking about were not the time in which the jinchuriki loses it, but the village all together. But yeah, you need both the kage and jinchuriki to be inactive for a month or in some cases the kage and the second in command, granted that the kage is already a jinchuriki.

[Zojin]

So I read the discussion about Bijuu inactivity (I won't even dive into the other issues regarding battle and whatnot quite yet).  I don't know if this is my place to say this, but may I suggest some solid rules?  Some of you will probably already agree/disagree with the below list since it's pretty much my own spin on what I've read in the conversation so far:

1. If a current jinchuriki is inactive for longer than a month the bijuu in question shall be stripped of its host and placed under the security of the jinchuriki's village Kage.

2. While a village houses a hostless Bijuu, it is the village Kage's responsibility to "fight" and "protect" said bijuu from any challengers if they chose to not hand the bijuu over.  This also means that in a Jinchuriki match, the Kage has the possibility of dying just as it is in any official bijuu challenge.
((- Should the defending Kage already have their own Bijuu sealed within them during the period challenged for the inactive bijuu, they are allowed to use the tails of their own Bijuu for the duration of the match-))

3. The village kage of the sealed bijuu is given an unlimited amount of time to distribute the beast to a host.  However, until the beast is sealed within a host, the kage is responsible for accepting all challenges for it instead.

4. In the event of the inactive host returning to activity while the Kage is under the possession of the Bijuu in question, the kage has the choice of resealing the Bijuu back into the returning user.  However, if this user becomes inactive once again for a period of more than 3 weeks the bijuu will again be stripped of them and given back to the Kage.  After this second strike, the inactive host in question will be unable to receive that particular bijuu again until it is passed on to a new host and won back via challenging the new host for it.

5. If it so happens that BOTH the active jinchuriki AND the host's current villages kage are inactive for a period of longer than 1 month, that village is deemed not responsible to house a Bijuu (and quite frankly in dire need of getting their shit together).  In instance of this, the beast shall be returned to the village it was originally taken from.
((-In order to prevent an inactive kage from being the ultimate reason why a certain village may lose their bijuu, this will inspire the village as a whole to elect a new Kage to replace the old one quickly in the instance of inactivity-))

6. In the event of the Bijuu's original host (before it was passed to the inactive user) happens to be a missing-nin or a non-village affiliated ninja, then the Bijuu will go to the most recent village that ninja originally associated him/herself with before going rogue.

*Note that I am only adding the second half of rule 5 and all of 6 simply because I am under the impression that there has not yet been an "official" bijuu council established.  There has been quite a lot of talk about this council, though from what I've seen, no for sure list of people besides the occasional ("I know Zen and Rai are on the committee for sure at least...." etc.).  In the case of an officially approved Bijuu council creation, the inactive bijuu shall be given to the council for redistribution instead of going to the previous host's village*

[Raifudo Oppa]

So I read the discussion about Bijuu inactivity (I won't even dive into the other issues regarding battle and whatnot quite yet).  I don't know if this is my place to say this, but may I suggest some solid rules?  Some of you will probably already agree/disagree with the below list since it's pretty much my own spin on what I've read in the conversation so far:

1. If a current jinchuriki is inactive for longer than a month the bijuu in question shall be stripped of its host and placed under the security of the jinchuriki's village Kage.

2. While a village houses a hostless Bijuu, it is the village Kage's responsibility to "fight" and "protect" said bijuu from any challengers if they chose to not hand the bijuu over.  This also means that in a Jinchuriki match, the Kage has the possibility of dying just as it is in any official bijuu challenge.
((- Should the defending Kage already have their own Bijuu sealed within them during the period challenged for the inactive bijuu, they are allowed to use the tails of their own Bijuu for the duration of the match.-))

3. The village kage of the sealed bijuu is given an unlimited amount of time to distribute the beast to a host.  However, until the beast is sealed within a host, the kage is responsible for accepting all challenges for it instead.

4. In the event of the inactive host returning to activity while the Kage is under the possession of the Bijuu in question, the kage has the choice of resealing the Bijuu back into the returning user.  However, if this user becomes inactive once again for a period of more than 3 weeks the bijuu will again be stripped of them and given back to the Kage.  After this second strike, the inactive host in question will be unable to receive that particular bijuu again until it is passed on to a new host and won back through challenging for it.

5. If it so happens that BOTH the active jinchuriki AND the host's current villages kage are inactive for a period of longer than 1 month, that village is deemed not responsible to house a Bijuu (and quite frankly in dire need of getting their shit together).  In instance of this, the beast shall be returned to the village it was originally taken from.
((-In order to prevent an inactive kage from being the ultimate reason why a certain village may lose their bijuu, this will inspire the village as a whole to elect a new Kage to replace the old one quickly in the instance of inactivity.-))

6. In the event of the Bijuu's original host (before it was passed to the inactive user) happens to be a missing-nin or a non-village affiliated ninja, then the Bijuu will go to the most recent village that ninja originally associated him/herself with before going rogue.

*Note that I am only adding the second half of rule 5 and all of 6 simply because I am under the impression that there has not yet been an "official" bijuu council established.  There has been quite a lot of talk about this council, though from what I've seen, no for sure list of people besides the occasional ("I know Zen and Rai are on the committee for sure at least...." etc.).  In the case of a officially approved Bijuu council creation, the inactive bijuu shall be given to the council for redistribution instead of going to the previous host's village*

1. It's 2 weeks of no-notice inactivity. Then it goes to kage.
2. Kages cannot assume the role of an active-host in the sense they use the hostless bijuu as their own.
3. That's already set in place. We said if the kage is also inactive for 2 weeks, we distribute it to their village for them.
4. No need to give the in-actives the incentive of having a rule for themselves. The kage has the right to pass it to whom they desire.
5. We're not going to punish a village for something they cannot control -- inactivity of certain individuals. The bijuu will go to a host that is self-elected and seen positively or generally-elected by his/her peers and fellow villagers.
6. Already established.

I'm just, honestly, thinking of calling the elected 9 from the thread to be considered the "council". I don't need the run-around claim of "I hold this title" and "that reason is why", etc. The thread/poll was fairly erected and self-elected; voted by the community as a whole and properly advertised.

[Zojin]

1. It's 2 weeks of no-notice inactivity. Then it goes to kage.

Even better.

2. Kages cannot assume the role of an active-host in the sense they use the hostless bijuu as their own.

I believe this was covered when I stated "should the defending Kage already have their own Bijuu sealed within them during the period challenged for the inactive bijuu, they are allowed to use the tails of their own Bijuu for the duration of the match" =]

Meaning for example, if I am kage with the 2 tails sealed within me, then yes I am able to use my 2 tails to defend myself against a person who challenges me for the formerly inactive 4 tails.

3. That's already set in place. We said if the kage is also inactive for 2 weeks, we distribute it to their village for them.

Who consists of "we"?  There is no official council if that is what you are referring to.  There is only a hypothetical council as of now.

4. No need to give the in-actives the incentive of having a rule for themselves. The kage has the right to pass it to whom they desire.

I added this clause as it negates a giant loophole that can otherwise be exploited.  Host A goes inactive and has the Bijuu stripped by Kage B.  Host A returns soon after their Bijuu was stripped and Kage B returns the Bijuu to them.  Host A then again goes inactive for a period of 2 weeks and is stripped again by Kage B.  Host A returns yet again right after their Bijuu was stripped and has Kage B return it to them.  Rinse and repeat.  See where I'm going with this? 

If the Bijuu is constantly returned to someone who is systematically inactive, I can see that sprouting many problems.  Bijuu need to be given to a person who is constantly active.  Hence this "two strikes" rule.

5. We're not going to punish a village for something they cannot control -- inactivity of certain individuals. The bijuu will go to a host that is self-elected and seen positively or generally-elected by his/her peers and fellow villagers.

Yes, you are definitely correct. No one has control over the actions or inactivity of another.  However, what they do have control over is how quickly and how effectively they react to the situation.  Unless I am mistaken about the process of how one becomes Kage, the moment that a village concludes that their current leader is MIA they (or a single person/second in command if that is how they chose a leader) are/is capable of installing a new one to take the old one's place.  It even works this way in the manga.  As I stated before, this rule can possibly serve to "inspire the village as a whole to elect a new Kage to replace the old one quickly in the instance of inactivity." 

What is a village supposed to do in the event of a missing Kage?  I highly doubt they are supposed twiddle their thumbs and wait around until the inactive kage happens to return and pick a heir to the throne so to speak.

6. Already established.

Listed simply for clarification.

I'm just, honestly, thinking of calling the elected 9 from the thread to be considered the "council". I don't need the run-around claim of "I hold this title" and "that reason is why", etc. The thread/poll was fairly erected and self-elected; voted by the community as a whole and properly advertised.

I have no say as to who exactly is on the council since, quite frankly, I don't have an opinion on the matter ^ ^;
However, if there is to be any further discussion with the use of "we" and "Bijuu council" as possible beast designators, then I suggest establishing an official and working council first.

[Uchiha, Rares]

Well, it is splendid to see we are managing to get somewhere with this.  I would say this was discussed, elaborated, and agreed upon enough for us to put it up there and move on to the next issue. No?

[Raifudo Oppa]

1. It's 2 weeks of no-notice inactivity. Then it goes to kage.

Even better.

2. Kages cannot assume the role of an active-host in the sense they use the hostless bijuu as their own.

I believe this was covered when I stated "should the defending Kage already have their own Bijuu sealed within them during the period challenged for the inactive bijuu, they are allowed to use the tails of their own Bijuu for the duration of the match" =]

Meaning for example, if I am kage with the 2 tails sealed within me, then yes I am able to use my 2 tails to defend myself against a person who challenges me for the formerly inactive 4 tails.

3. That's already set in place. We said if the kage is also inactive for 2 weeks, we distribute it to their village for them.

Who consists of "we"?  There is no official council if that is what you are referring to.  There is only a hypothetical council as of now.

4. No need to give the in-actives the incentive of having a rule for themselves. The kage has the right to pass it to whom they desire.

I added this clause as it negates a giant loophole that can otherwise be exploited.  Host A goes inactive and has the Bijuu stripped by Kage B.  Host A returns soon after their Bijuu was stripped and Kage B returns the Bijuu to them.  Host A then again goes inactive for a period of 2 weeks and is stripped again by Kage B.  Host A returns yet again right after their Bijuu was stripped and has Kage B return it to them.  Rinse and repeat.  See where I'm going with this? 

If the Bijuu is constantly returned to someone who is systematically inactive, I can see that sprouting many problems.  Bijuu need to be given to a person who is constantly active.  Hence this "two strikes" rule.

5. We're not going to punish a village for something they cannot control -- inactivity of certain individuals. The bijuu will go to a host that is self-elected and seen positively or generally-elected by his/her peers and fellow villagers.

Yes, you are definitely correct. No one has control over the actions or inactivity of another.  However, what they do have control over is how quickly and how effectively they react to the situation.  Unless I am mistaken about the process of how one becomes Kage, the moment that a village concludes that their current leader is MIA they (or a single person/second in command if that is how they chose a leader) are/is capable of installing a new one to take the old one's place.  It even works this way in the manga.  As I stated before, this rule can possibly serve to "inspire the village as a whole to elect a new Kage to replace the old one quickly in the instance of inactivity." 

What is a village supposed to do in the event of a missing Kage?  I highly doubt they are supposed twiddle their thumbs and wait around until the inactive kage happens to return and pick a heir to the throne so to speak.

6. Already established.

Listed simply for clarification.

I'm just, honestly, thinking of calling the elected 9 from the thread to be considered the "council". I don't need the run-around claim of "I hold this title" and "that reason is why", etc. The thread/poll was fairly erected and self-elected; voted by the community as a whole and properly advertised.

I have no say as to who exactly is on the council since, quite frankly, I don't have an opinion on the matter ^ ^;
However, if there is to be any further discussion with the use of "we" and "Bijuu council" as possible beast designators, then I suggest establishing an official and working council first.

2. Yeah, like your #6, it was lasted for clarification.
3. "We" consists of the people posting here and the general agreement.
4. I can see what you mean now. Yeah, that seems fine -- it prevents promotion favoritism.
5. In theory it's easy, yeah. "This person takes this person's place in case of their absence, etc." I just want the bijuu to move on as passively as it can.

[Zojin]

2. Yeah, like your #6, it was lasted for clarification.
3. "We" consists of the people posting here and the general agreement.
4. I can see what you mean now. Yeah, that seems fine -- it prevents promotion favoritism.
5. In theory it's easy, yeah. "This person takes this person's place in case of their absence, etc." I just want the bijuu to move on as passively as it can.

3&5 - Has it been decided that stray bijuu should follow the "bijuu council" method? or the "whoever had it last" method?  I suggest the latter since not only would it inspire a village to make sure they aren't stuck kage-less, but also make the owner of the hostless Bijuu an automatic decision.  Kind if kills two birds with one stone ^ ^.  I personally try to stray away from any kind of superior ruling "council" since anything involving the judgement of people allows for human error/favoritism to come into play in regards to decisions.

Before moving to another topic of discussion can we list in one for sure post what the most recent version of the"rules of inactivity" are?

[cmage]

2. Yeah, like your #6, it was lasted for clarification.
3. "We" consists of the people posting here and the general agreement.
4. I can see what you mean now. Yeah, that seems fine -- it prevents promotion favoritism.
5. In theory it's easy, yeah. "This person takes this person's place in case of their absence, etc." I just want the bijuu to move on as passively as it can.

3&5 - Has it been decided that stray bijuu should follow the "bijuu council" method? or the "whoever had it last" method?  I suggest the latter since not only would it inspire a village to make sure they aren't stuck kage-less, but also make the owner of the hostless Bijuu an automatic decision.  Kind if kills two birds with one stone ^ ^.  I personally try to stray away from any kind of superior ruling "council" since anything involving the judgement of people allows for human error/favoritism to come into play in regards to decisions.

Before moving to another topic of discussion can we list in one for sure post what the most recent version of the"rules of inactivity" are?

Example Time!!! Let's say this, Kiri's Jinchuuriki for Sanbi goes inactive for weeks and we remove it; as active Mizukage it goes to me. Then I get in some random accident which leaves me hospitalized for a month or so; I come back on to find out that the bijuu was given to some schmuck in Konoha because of the "whoever had it last" method. It's complete unethical and blatantly unfair, I had no control over the accident and no way of communicating such an event to anyone and lost a bijuu because of that. The our council in Kiri/the former Mizukage should be able to pick the new host should something like that come up.

[Zojin]

Example Time!!! Let's say this, Kiri's Jinchuuriki for Sanbi goes inactive for weeks and we remove it; as active Mizukage it goes to me. Then I get in some random accident which leaves me hospitalized for a month or so; I come back on to find out that the bijuu was given to some schmuck in Konoha because of the "whoever had it last" method. It's complete unethical and blatantly unfair, I had no control over the accident and no way of communicating such an event to anyone and lost a bijuu because of that. The our council in Kiri/the former Mizukage should be able to pick the new host should something like that come up.

I do believe this could merely work as yet another incentive to quickly place the Bijuu within a host instead of sealing it in a pot. Pass on the Bijuu before a wild scenario such as the above example happens lol.  On another note, if a village's kage who is normally active suddenly disappeared for a 2 week+ period of time without warning, I fell like people will take notice to this and possibly elect another Mizukage to prevent the Bijuu from being moved to a different village.

Though honestly if something as extreme as a Kage's real life hospitalization were to happen, I'm very sure people will excuse the absence if properly explained once they are able to be online again, and have the Bijuu returned to that village.

[Angra Mainyu]

Though honestly if something as extreme as a Kage's real life hospitalization were to happen, I'm very sure people will excuse the absence if properly explained once they are able to be online again, and have the Bijuu returned to that village.

Konoha isn't that chivalrous. 

[Uchiha, Rares]

You need to understand the case in which such would be done is an exceptional one. I mean, with no such rules, they could be a lousy as they please and just keep having an inactive jinchuriki after the other and so on.

The fact that under inactivity cases the bijuu will simply go to the kage, is, I believe, more than enough favoritism for the villages.

The mere thought of a village not undergoing proper punishment for high scale incompetence is truly revolting.