Print

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

[Raifudo Oppa]

And Raifudo. The election was a failure due to corruption. This corruption included the people running for election! How then is that body to be trusted now? Ace ruled upon this already so please stop trying to push it through as a valid option for the council. In lieu of that failure, the old council stands as THE council including only those who wish to serve upon it.  Many who are eligible do not wish to be a part of it. I, however, do.  Why not just merge the two groups and be done with this tugging of wills? Those who wish to serve will do so anyway. So where is the problem?

Oh, don't talk about corruption like you're a beacon of glimmering justice and hope.

And need I remind you:

Re: Rewriting the Bijuu rules, The council, and Jinchuuriki Elections.
« Reply #547 on: May 17, 2012, 02:26:02 pm »
Gah...
Alright, alright.

Three votes might be from accounts from less than two weeks from the deadline for voting.
Neji will be the only one to verify the creation dates.

3 votes might be.

Then we have this:

32 - Zenaku
30 - Raifudo
28 - Uchiha, Rares
23 - Asadi
22 - Yūmei
21 - Cmage
20 - Kamui
19 - Nathan
18 - Uchiha_Tracey

Worst-comes-to-worst: The only difference we'll find is that CJofthedesert is in instead of Uchiha_Tracey. Everyone else has a vast difference in quantity-of-vote.

Your "old council" failed the voting process for a reason: No one wants that giant mess-of-a-group to make rules or go around trying to give their 2-cents together. Countless reasons arise; ask the people who voted against it.

The problem is simple to realize. The general public had made its selection for those nine to contribute to the process of keeping the bijuu flow properly.

Edit: Toned down some of the word usage.

[Uchiha, Rares]

While there were various other errors such as same ip votes and same ip candidates, most, if not all were generated by the fact that quite a few were leveling for others at that point. However, I was assured by Ace that I'd be one of those that would have still made it, and I trust at least other 3-4 from that list are unquestionably in the same case. Needless to say that the reason for which this fell down is that Ace spotted same IP among the top 9 and could not reveal who it was, but honestly, everyone that knows the particular 9 would most likely certify that there is no way they are the same person, 2 exceptions... MAYBE.

I personally think that the need for a 5-9 members council is of dire need, I hoped things would go smoothly without such given that the idea seemed to be horribly revolting and what not, me being less eligible than Bocc, Athos, Solo, Trev and the alike. <.<; I never get tired of that one. xD

But yeah, bottom line, if this village stripping topic showed us anything, it's that we do have a need for such in order to decide properly rather than "If Kay agrees it goes, if not, the idea can go make love to itself." Not bashing or anything of the sort, just saying it doesn't seem like an exactly fair procedure.

Edit: Note that the Kay part was merely due to quite a few supposed council members are inactive on SL, a lot more on here.

This council is obviously bound to meet complications due to both the ridiculously high number of members and the inactive. I'm not demanding that the last poll be appointed as the ultimate bijuu council, it is one of the multiple solutions just. I'm simply saying that SOMETHING needs to be done about this.

[Zojin]

I can see why there are problems about stripping inactive Bijuu from a village or organization.  I wanted to stray away from any kind of "superior court" council, though I fear it might be needed.  So without further a do, bing bang boom:

============================
Bijuu Inactivity Rules v 3.0

* Note that the words "Village" and "Kage" can be interchanged with "Organization" and "Organization Leader" *

1. If a current jinchuriki is inactive for longer than 2 weeks the bijuu in question shall be stripped of its host and placed under the security of the jinchuriki's kage.

2. While a village houses a host-less bijuu, it is the kage's responsibility to "fight for" 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 in question has the possibility of dying just as it is in any other official bijuu challenge.
* Should the defending kage already have their own bijuu (X) sealed within them during the period challenged for the inactive bijuu (Y), they are allowed to use the tails of their own bijuu (X) for any duration of the challenge.  They are unable to use the powers of the sealed bijuu (Y) unless they are that bijuu's jinchuriki *

3. The kage of the host-less bijuu is given an unlimited amount of time to distribute the beast to a host.  However, until the bijuu 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 repossessed bijuu, the kage has the choice of resealing the bijuu back into the returning user.  However, if this user becomes inactive again for a period of more than 2 weeks the bijuu will once again be stripped of them and given back to the kage.  After this second strike, the inactive user in question will be unable to receive that particular bijuu until it is passed on to a new host and won back via an official challenge.

5. If it so happens that both the active jinchuriki and the host's current kage are inactive for a period of longer than 2 weeks, the bijuu shall go to the Bijuu Council [Members: TBA] for redistribution under their discretion within said village.

============================

I placed the Bijuu Council as TBA since membership is clearly something still under debate.

Oh, and an edited note: We all have different ideas and opinions, so lets keep rudeness or sarcasm out of the equation in this discussion.  It will only serve to potentially spur an unnecessary argument.

[Asadi]

Ho hum.

[Uchiha, Rares]

Now, now, who would be best suited to do such if not the GM? Go do it yourself. >_> I'm no mailman. You're the one that has created this thread and has mod power over it.
If you're a council member then freaking check this thread once in a while.

I'm guessing that setting a short day limit could work as a solution, it would be silly to stall ourselves by days/weeks/months just cause others are inactive. The day limit I would suggest is 3-7 days. I think setting this date should be our priority.

Given that to my understanding all these supposed council members were asked if they will to be such, the least they could do is check this thread every once in a while. Should be their responsibility.

Not to insult or anything... but your hypocrisy stuns me a little. You refused to as much as take part in that pool but here you are standing more than strongly.

Alas, at the very least, I'd strongly recommend a reshape of that old council in the sense of removing the following:
Known alts, others known to express their will to not be such(Pete is one if I recall correctly) and those refusing to contribute. There is no point in being a member if you won't act like one.

[cmage]

Ignoring all the council talk and going back to Zojin's post, I dislike the idea of the Bijuu Council dedicating who gets the bijuu inside the village of it's prior host. Easily they could give it some weak acad, just to make it easier for another village to take. The issue of a new host(due to previous host and kage inactivity) should be left to former kage of that village/elders/village council members.

Back to my situation though....

---Original Message from Godaime Mizukage Ranketsu(2012-07-28 02:34:54)---
It was always 2-4 times a month, and it wasn't just "getting on". I always committed to some sort of RP, including training a few recruits/ANBU. Two or three, actually, and them specifically.
Of course, it wasn't some super-hyper over-active activity, nor even adequate activity like now, but I did get on several times a month and I made sure at least twice, and did something that lasted hours, this I'm sure of. Never once did it say I was offline for more than 15 days at a time. Not once, I can be sure of that.
---Original Message from Sandaime Mizukage Rakudo(2012-07-28 02:32:04)---
The ruling has always been two weeks just so you know. Also showing up ONCE every one to three weeks is highly unacceptable as a jinchuuriki; in theory you were "inactive" from the day the uneven intervals started until your return. If I log on 10 times in the span of 4 months, that's still classified as inactive.
---Original Message from Godaime Mizukage Ranketsu(2012-07-28 02:29:18)---
Just for future reference, after not just reading through the fancy Bijuu rules and talking to Jonny-boy himself, I've found out that since my absence was indeed merited and I indeed had all intentions to keep my fancy little buddy, and came on in spurs of every one to three weeks, yes, it is still mine, and yes, I shall keep it to me.
No, I did not leave abruptly, nor have even one single "month long" or even "four week" absence. My inactivity was spoken of, as was my informal retirement. Though I wished to keep Sanbi in event I came back, which I did, and since I was not absent for more than a month without word, it is still mine, and yes, I shall keep it to me.

[Raifudo Oppa]

The bottom line is this. I am a council member and was never voted out by the council and your election was a total bust.

The only reason my election is "bust" is due to 3 possible(!) votes that Ace stumbled upon that might be from same individuals. Which I already explained the only difference it would make is that Uchiha_Taraka would be out and CJofTheDesert would be in.

I'm already dealing with Ranketsu myself.

And, yes, there are objections:

 Zenaku
 Raifudo
 Uchiha, Rares
 Asadi
 Yūmei
 Cmage/Rakudo
 Nathan
 Uchiha_Tracey
 CJ of The Desert
 Kayenta Moenkopi
 Raishin
 Solo
 Raijin
 Izaku Raiken
 ShadowX
 Bocchiere

 Kamui - Gone.
 Tetsujin/inactive.
 Isaribi - Questionable.
 Luka - Questionable

Edit: Toned down some of the words and examples used.

Ignoring all the council talk and going back to Zojin's post, I dislike the idea of the Bijuu Council dedicating who gets the bijuu inside the village of it's prior host. Easily they could give it some weak acad, just to make it easier for another village to take. The issue of a new host(due to previous host and kage inactivity) should be left to former kage of that village/elders/village council members.

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.

[Bocchiere]

The fact that you left me on the list and popped off Luka and Isa made me so happy you don't even know xD He likes me! He really likes me!

[Raifudo Oppa]

Just because you're actually active and I have not really heard/seen Isa or Luka as of late. Which is why I put questionable -- so I can ask them myself.

[cmage]

Luka zoned the other day, but I've been having PM conversations with Isa about this tourney put on by thecurse and other things, so he's fairly active.

[Raifudo Oppa]

Luka and Isa are active

Luka zoned the other day, but I've been having PM conversations with Luka about this tourney put on by thecurse and other things, so he's fairly active.

Thank you.

Kamui is not gone and Ranketsu needs to be dealt with by the council as a whole.

He said he was going to leave. Deleted his account and whatnot. Ah well, guess I missed the update on that.

We have no council. I keep saying that. Over and over. I keep trying to promote the 9 that were elected by 50-some participated members as per your request. You keep saying no to it. Etc.

[Bocchiere]

Yeah, kinda fighting Rank as we speak and it's be cool to know if she had the bijuu or not. And you speak of the Bocchiere Supah Tenkaichi! Yes, that was the name I made up for this tourney to hustle people out of their dp.

[Bocchiere]

Yeah, about the Ranketsu thing, Rakudo sent me this message about what Rai said
"Well, even with it being terrible etiquette for a host to promote, if there is no such occurrence that a bijuu challenge was promoted, etc. it should be fine. The reason for the two-week inactivity ruling is so that hosts can promote role-play and such; I.E. bijuu battles. If I find a single challenge was proposed that you did not heed, it's gone. 'Cause, truthfully, there's no harm done if no challenge was given."
If this is in fact "legit" then I suggest Ranketsu be immediately stripped, and we should take her bijuu too, because I challenged her about 3 times and she always said she was too busy with her other challengers to fight me.

[Bocchiere]

I remember you saying that to me as well Bocc.

So...

Logging in now and then does not mean activity.  If you are not available in your role as a jinchuuriki then you are inactive.

Who exactly were these challengers of hers she was busy with when she talked to you, but had never received when she talked with Raifudo?

She never cared to mention who any of her challengers were.

Edit

I am also speaking to Rakudo on SL and he said that Ranketsu said she accepted all my challenges and beat me, which is of course not the case.

[Uchiha, Rares]

I did my fair share of advertisement back when such was required for the poll. I didn't now merely because I'd find it hypocritical for me to go pm this to others I disapprove of.

Not to insult them or anything but I am fairly certain that a few of those would be deemed as unworthy by quite a few.

First thing is first, we need to decide on an optimal way to function before anything is done.

So before we start, I suggest we vote on the following:

How many days should there pass for the voting on a rule to be closed:

3

7

10

14

unlimited - I personally think it is a drag to require half + 1 votes out of the total when not all members actually got to vote, we could end up stalled for weeks if not months.

I believe the numbers I have offered are fairly close to each other, I am not opting for a put in your number kind of vote due to the sheer fact that we could end up with one number/person.

There are 3-4 I'd personally want kicked out out of worldly reasons but I'm tired of having my judgement and lack of corruption questioned so I'll leave that be for the time being.

I'd personally like to suggest that the voting on this be closed in a week given that we deemed all of them as active and notified.

Lastly, I'd suggest updating the member list on the first page if such was not done already.