Print

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

[Uchiha, Rares]

Basks in his sheriffness. >>

[Nathan]

I own myself. However, I was leveling two other accounts that were on the list at the time, so yeah.

Edit: Also, I vote 3. Almost every one on the list Kay has gets on daily, so three shouldn't be a problem unless they go inactive or just forget to check the forums.

[Uchiha, Rares]

Don't god mode. >>

[Nathan]

Vote. <<

I did noob. >>

[Angra Mainyu]

I own a bunch of accounts, and voted for one of them. However, I only ever voted via this account, once too, and for about five people.

3 days should be plenty.

[Uchiha, Rares]

I'm gonna edit the front page with what we have so far as to membership.

Let's try to stay on task and please...pm those who have not responded here so we can move on.

I do not feel it is...what is the word...ethical!

I do not feel it is ethical to just not do everything we possibly can to get these people to reply in a timely fashion and just let the 3 days...which seems to be the overall wish so far...pass by.

I think this deadline should be until the time we start doing stuff without them, but not to mean they missed their chance to be on the council because they didn't respond in that time limit.

Of course. Those on that list may join in 2 weeks?... I guess... I will propose a rewriting of it of sorts in several viable fashions AFTER we get over the more important things. Other than that, I suggest we make it something like... You can join if more people accept than deny.

I don't mind bothering myself with pming them but to my understanding you have already done that so I see little to no point in any further persuasion.

Edit: Any given time to two weeks AND add in the fact we might be closed for applications at some point and open a spot only when one is kicked out or quits.

[Uchiha Sasuke]

I own Taraka and Uchiha Sasuke accounts.
I voted with one of the two accounts.
I'm still interested, and I'm still here.

[Uchiha, Rares]

Then by all means march forth and vote on our latest:

Time until voting on a matter expires:
3 days
7 days
10 days
14 days
UNLTD


ALSO! WELCOME ABOARD TRACY-CHAAAAN!!!!!!

[Shadow]

I was looking over the 19 candidates for the council. While doing such the 'equal' amount of power came to mind. While all 19 of us are capable of handling the job, I didn't want the council to be 'loaded'.

We'll all claim unbiased when voting on a rule, but I find that everyone is a little biased regardless of what they say.

Anyways; I think that the village of origin should come as a factor in the council candidate situation, so that one village does not have more 'pull' than the others.

I'm trying to get at least two from each village to be on council, so in terms of power, it will be equal based on village origin. Perhaps even one from each village, based on how many candidates from each village there are.

As in;
Kono - 2 members
Oto - 2 member
Kumo - 2 members

And not;
Kumo- 4 members
Oto- 1 member
Kono- 1 member

[Shadow]

Don't put off for tomorrow what can be done today. I say deal with it now so that it doesn't become a problem later. Also I did not state any names as, that would, slur it. I did not bring this point up to attack anyone or anything of the like. It's a mere counter-defense if such a thing were to happen.

[Uchiha, Rares]

For the record, the current Oto candidate(s) are nowhere near "capable" in my view. But I am nice enough to leave it at that. I'm not fond of the idea of the 10 most competent being in Konoha Kumo Kiri and Suna but just so that whiners won't whine and accuse of corruption not only do we kick out competent members but also allow incompetent cause they have a village? Too funny.

Sorry for being too straight forward but it simply had to be said.

Yes, a member limit is good and I was planning on having such a thing discussed AFTER we deal with the more serious and urgent issues. But upon that, having something as them being distributed among villages is nothing short of a stupid idea. We barely just started and you are already bringing up the idea of council members being corrupt? Laughable. If a village lacks competent people and one has a bunch then it's their own fault/merit.

If/when we decide on a member limit, it should go something like this:
Limit:7
member count: 10
In such case each should list the 3 they think should be left out. It's as simple as that.  It's needless to say that upon corruption one will be judged by the entire council and most likely get kicked out.

[Shadow]

Plan ahead Rares. Just planning ahead. ^_^

[Uchiha, Rares]

You raise a valid point, but studies would say that 7 is the optimal, I believe. The fewer members the quicker things will get done. However, as I said, something that should be discussed at some point as well as my objection to some members. But alas, I don't think either scenario is truly horrid so either way is fine.

[Raifudo Oppa]

It's called Dunbar's Number, Rares. And, yes, it is 5-8. But, y'know, I keep getting shot down for the number of participants because Kay wants everyone that wants to participate to participate.

[Uchiha, Rares]

It's called Dunbar's Number, Rares. And, yes, it is 5-8. But, y'know, I keep getting shot down for the number of participants because Kay wants everyone that wants to participate to participate.

Amusingly enough, if I were to remove those I disapprove of we'd be exactly 8. xP
Well it seems that there are 3 of us with this view at the very least, however, I would suggest to work on the more urgent issue first. No one is saying that removing members one does not view as fit or something of the sort can't be yet another issue that will be voted on.

To my knowledge, the "free application" and voting time set by Kay has expired if I am not mistaken.
As such here is the result of our first official voting: Council members have 3 days to vote on an issue before the votes are counted and the outcome is implemented.

3 days - 5 votes

7 days - 2 votes

10 days - 0

14 days - 0

Unlimited - 0

Now please correct me if what I am about to say is wrong but I trust that  the most urgent issue at hand is Ranketsu keeping the Sanbi or not.

I vote for Ranketsu keeping it.

Reasoning: The kage bearing the right/obligation to strip the inactive jinchuriki in spite of their will and solve the inactive jinchuriki issue was never implemented among the rules. It was discussed but not implemented. And as such, I find it unreasonable to act upon a law that did not exist at that time(or now). With Ranketsu returning back to activity, her case is no longer an issue as she is no longer an inactive jinchuriki.

ºGrace Periodº
After any challenge (& loss) from a challenger, a week must be given to the host before challenging them to a rematch (the one week grace period is in subject to a single challenger & as such does not signify a host can ignore challenges from all others during the time period). In cases such as obtaining a Biju for oneself, a 2-week grace period is granted In order to “commune” with one’s Biju. If a host shows inactivity for long periods of time (two weeks or more) without prior notice, you can report their missing & conference of a suitable host will take place when possible.

The fact that the above does not state how the new jinchuriki will be elected is somewhat of an issue.