Print

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

[Camel]

Yes, Rakudo, it is behind my back because you didn't just message me about it, last time you did this it was about me getting Jiongu applied to myself and you were entirely mistaken about the circumstance. Kamui, you are also completely wrong. I got Saiken originally from Uzumakiwarrior and I had it for 6 months before Pete beat me for it. The rematch for it you were speaking of was called off in exchange for me getting Edo Tensei from Pete, which just happened  to get voided not too long later by your claim for it.

Like I said before I didn't know, I only had by word of mouth to go by since I had little access to internet.
But then you were gained access to it again even after you messaged me about it when Pete was downgrading it you didn't want it until after I assure you that my rules would be somewhat different.
But that's in the past now and we can assume you are happy with the new rules that are made of the combined of mine's and Pete's.
Also we are not obliged to message you about every little thing, thus this why the forums is used for those topics.

[Bocchiere]

All of the rules but the ones that make no sense are perfectly fine.

[Raifudo Oppa]

Now that everyone seems to have cooled down a bit:

I'd like to inform all of you that, in the act of doing so, arguing will lead to my calling upon a moderator to do their job; moderate. Which includes locking the topic, editing posts, and whatever they have in their bag of tricks.

I want this to go smoothly; with cooperation we can get this done in an orderly manner.

I still need people's inputs on whether /un/limitation is a good/bad idea.

[Eric]

So, I ask one last time: please voice your opinion on the matter of a limitation or a free-numbered union of people. That is all. No names. No count of how many people. Just whether you think casting a limit is a good idea or a bad idea, and if letting any-and-all to join is a good idea or a bad idea.

A limitation on the number of people. No names, no amount.

Casting a limit itself is a good idea; we are discussing this on the SL forum that a large portion of the site doesn't even bother to visit (might not even know exists) and as such, the select few who do view this forum are having the power to choose something that will affect all of RPing SL directly or indirectly at some point. So already, even with the "unlimited" view, we would get a limitation handicap to rule out a large number of SL visitors.

I added that so that I can also "vote" on this, "...if letting any-and-all to join is a good idea or a bad idea." [Raifudo] and have a reference.

The ones who will be likely selected, or know, or care, or even consider the bijuu council will most likely be people who pay attention to the forum or at the very least have contact with someone who does. As a result, I say, anyone may be a candidate seeing as already the people who can be on the council are in a sense limited to those who:

Care.

Know this is going on, and thus visits the forum.

Know someone who knows this is going on and that said person has visits the forum. or access to someone who knows this is going on and visits the forum etc...

Long story short: A limit is good, any and all may join, the method of selection (if one) to be pending the next "poll" I'm guessing.

Here's mine for a third time.

[Isaribi]

I feel as if the limit in the ballpark of 8-12 is too small, solely for the purpose that with how many different groups of people there are on SL, 8-12 cannot possibly accurately describe them all. However, I feel as if a limit should be in place somewhere between 18-22. With 18-22 people, you have a small enough group that you are able to sort through information quickly and you will be able to maintain the quality of information as well with the number.

I must say, it is rare I come onto the forum. It just isn't one of the things I check every time I get online. If this council is limited to a small number, I'm out, which I'm sure few people will cry over. If it is limited to a larger number, I may still be out, but I'll find a way to offer my opinion.

Kay, thank you for making sure everyone knew I was on vacation, and thank you for the kind words you said a couple pages back. If my heart weren't covered in ice, it would have been quite warming. 

[Zenaku]

*looks arond for Zojin  *

[Madara]

13 or 15 members are enough to settle anything; the number of members should be odd, though.

[Isaribi]

I forgot to add something concerning something I read in this earlier.

In a council such as this, I would begin to think that unbiased opinions are more valuable then a bunch of people fighting over something. In what conversations I have read (and I must admit, I got lazy and skipped like.. most of the pages.), it appears a few people are too close to the topics being discussed to be useful. It is easy to tell this because those who aren't close to the topic will not get vehement, while those who are too close, will.

If a limitation is set, Kage appointment (hell, even Kage involvement) is not exactly a good idea, in my opinion. There would need to be a way to select people who are not too close to the topics needing to be discussed.

So, I offer a different solution. Perhaps a flexible limitation.


There will be a bank of ~30 people who are all "Councilmen and women." However, whenever a new topic is discussed, only a handful of people (perhaps 9-11 or fewer) will participate. These people will be chosen at random; drawn out of a hat. This would keep results of discussion fair because at this point, the council is made up of a small amount of people who were drawn, randomly, out of a larger body of people. In this instance, there would have to be a few people who would be chosen to preside over discussion; I would suggest the village leaders, the moderators who wish to participate, or simply electing one person whom nobody likes.

--> I'd like to add that I am simply offering solutions to the problem at hand. Attacking me for these ideas would be both silly and rude. Thank you and g'day.

[Zenaku]

I forgot to add something concerning something I read in this earlier.

In a council such as this, I would begin to think that unbiased opinions are more valuable then a bunch of people fighting over something. In what conversations I have read (and I must admit, I got lazy and skipped like.. most of the pages.), it appears a few people are too close to the topics being discussed to be useful. It is easy to tell this because those who aren't close to the topic will not get vehement, while those who are too close, will.

If a limitation is set, Kage appointment (hell, even Kage involvement) is not exactly a good idea, in my opinion. There would need to be a way to select people who are not too close to the topics needing to be discussed.

So, I offer a different solution. Perhaps a flexible limitation.


There will be a bank of ~30 people who are all "Councilmen and women." However, whenever a new topic is discussed, only a handful of people (perhaps 9-11 or fewer) will participate. These people will be chosen at random; drawn out of a hat. This would keep results of discussion fair because at this point, the council is made up of a small amount of people who were drawn, randomly, out of a larger body of people. In this instance, there would have to be a few people who would be chosen to preside over discussion; I would suggest the village leaders, the moderators who wish to participate, or simply electing one person whom nobody likes.

--> I'd like to add that I am simply offering solutions to the problem at hand. Attacking me for these ideas would be both silly and rude. Thank you and g'day.

I can see the logic behind this. I however, speak for everybody when i ask who's drawing these names out of this hat?

[Eric]

The better question is how do they intend to draw it from the hat? There are many randomizers out there, but I'm curious.

Since numbers are also being discussed, I suppose, I would go with merely 11 flat out.

[Solo Iori]

Number each council member, randomize the 11 numbers to be chosen, and then post who's going. Perhaps after a member has gone twice in a row, they must be skipped for the next debate.

[Isaribi]

Number each council member, randomize the 11 numbers to be chosen, and then post who's going. Perhaps after a member has gone twice in a row, they must be skipped for the next debate.

Aye, that was my thought also.

And, because I don't know how to quote you Zenny-kins, I now address you;
Does it matter who does it as long as it is done fairly? Hell, I can work a randomizer, and I am technologically challenged. Anybody could do it. It's easy to randomize 30 numbers and say, "Okay, these numbers go discuss" and just post a screen shot of the randomizer's results. Thus, it doesn't matter who does it because it isn't a particularly special job. The person who has that job can also be numbered, and if their number isn't called, they will not be in the discussion passed the randomizer.

This seems fair to me. How about everyone else? Kay? Zen? Rakudo?

[Isaribi]

Well I would like to have the number be 21. 3/village and 3 for the missing nin.

and I think if we HAVE to get that technical about who discusses and who votes then sure, why not?

I just think it is needless if we just talk about stuff and vote like adults with respect and behave ourselves and such.

you guys decide and let me know? Er, I will check here of course to find out. lol

anyway...once we get a council agreed upon I suppose they can just conduct business in the best means available.

Additionally here is a thought. The number generator can be corrupt. for instance...I make it generate random number from 1-X...21 if that is our total? to throw out...maybe 9 voters? and it comes up with 2,6,4,8,12,21,7,19,3...then I check the names and go...crap...not enough people in that list who think like I do...so I will just run the generator until I get the right amount, screenshot that and post it here...and the voting is rigged. only with the appearance of fairness.

I think it is a good idea but too easily corruptible and as stated...if we just come and discuss and vote and actually work then I feel it would not be required to add additional procedures to the workings of this council.

Or we could make it simple.
Kayenta, tell these 21 people their numbers. Don't tell me any of them. Now, when I run the randomizer, it is simply a list of meaningless numbers, no?

And Kay, you contradict yourself, which if I weren't an asshole I wouldn't point out, when you say that "I think it is needless if we just talk about stuff and ACT LIKE ADULTS" and expect this one person to not act like an adult and give the real numbers. So, you both say "I want you to act like adults, and I know you are capable of it, but I don't think you will!"

No? Yes? Yah. Bah.

[Isaribi]

It is unfortunate that you take my words to be specifically insulting to you when they were not meant to be. I think everyone here knows I am hardly subtle when I am being a wench.

I'm confused as to where I took it as personal insult. If this is in reference to the "I" usage in my first statement, really the only thing it could be referencing, there are two things. 1) The "I" usage was hypothetical; the tactic I suggested works with everyone. 2) I never took your words as an insult. Simply stating this proves you to be a wench, and if you want to go further into insults, please contact me elsewhere. I would be more than happy to insult you all day. Thank you for using a nicely placed ad hominem. 


*sigh* Am I the only one who is beginning to relate councils, such as this one, to the Red Herring Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy?

[Solo Iori]

Wow, this is just falling to shambles again.