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: Bijuu Council Rules (MAIN THREAD!)  (Read 713 times)

Eric

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +100/-100
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3472
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2015, 03:01:13 am »


... I feel preferences should still be incorporated into terms, because that should be a host's home field advantage, considering they earned their beast and should have some say when making the terms for their fight. It should be just enough to benefit the host than the challenger, but should not skew a scenario; prevailing over a host should be a difficult feat to accomplish.

In an IC fight/hunt, the host is more than likely not already in his/her own village with his/her own allies. That alone is a homefield advantage that can be a tremendous obstacle to overcome. in an OOC fight though I can see how such an "edge" might be viable at this stage.
Logged
Anything you can think of I can't think of, let me know; that's how the sharing circle works.

Ace

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +68/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2015, 04:15:23 am »

A key importance of this council will also be to take care of unforeseen matters.

Meaning, we are all humans, and in our rules and regulations we may have some loopholes.
Of course, if it is not against the rules or regulations than no consequence may be handed down to the person who took advantage of it.

But once that loophole or lack of a rule is exposed, it should be the elected council's job to patch it up!
This is where administration (aka, council) is important. The people chose the council, and the council addresses these types of concerns.

=)

Hopefully that makes sense. Works that way in most political systems, democracies.
Also, this avoids having too many chefs in the kitchen, resulting in months of discussion. ;)

EDIT: My vote now goes to having five on the council, reasons that previous posts have convinced me otherwise. Good cases were made for five, and not three.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 04:30:38 am by Ace »
Logged

Warren

  • Site Staff (Game Master)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +58/-51
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 897
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2015, 05:02:33 am »

5's good.
Logged

Ace

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +68/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2015, 05:43:15 am »

http://forum.shinobilegends.com/index.php/topic,8685.0.html

Please read that first! IMPORTANT

This is so we may be more organized, and so no one in he future may question the votes.
We have to learn from our mistakes, why is not being done yet? =)

So, let's try it out...
I have started the topic for which only purpose is to determine the number for the council, three or five. Once all is done and said, topic will be deleted and final tally number will be recorded.
Logged

UettoSenju

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +38/-63
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1195
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2015, 05:52:02 am »

I say 3 members for the fact I feel the less members there are the more of a chance of heads not clashing.

I also feel that current host should not be on the seat of council members. The main issue here being that they may be the ones that come into question and at that point they couldn't make a ruling which means the council would fall into an even number count which could result in a tie.

The only way I could see this working is if we had 5 total council members 2 of which had to be current host and if 1 of those was to come into question both would have to not partake making the count of council 3. However, even then we fall into an issue. What if one of those elected council members was to lose his/her beast making them no longer a current host? I suppose we could still count them as if they were and if the other was to come to question they still have to set out. Then one may say I want someone else to set out and not them... all in all it could bring forth too much hassle and debate. We clearly don't need a system or rules that bring forth those things. As history here has shown when that stuff is allowed heated situations arise.


I have been working on crafting some stuff as to forming a system that the council can follow. I have not had the chance to write it all down yet I do apologize about that. However, I will try to bring it forth soon. For you all to over look and say what we can agree may be good and what may not be. Several of the things it would address are being spoken of here already.

I think the council and rules should function similar to that of a civil law system. Where the written rules are what the council pass judgment based upon, not a common law system where past records and trails are weighed to make judgment.
Logged

Bocchiere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +46/-59
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2224
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2015, 06:02:46 am »

Yeah I think I've had enough of hosts having an "edge" let's just make it so the fights actually happen from now on.
Logged

UettoSenju

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +38/-63
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1195
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2015, 06:21:48 am »

Yeah I think I've had enough of hosts having an "edge" let's just make it so the fights actually happen from now on.

That's what I am applying it is much easier for these host to give the run around if the challenger has to go to such lengths that they are giving themselves away to the host. Let's face it meta-gaming happens even when we aren't trying to do it. It is human nature to protect yourself.

I see this as a balance between host and challenger. The host can still make it hard to find rp wise they are host as they can keep their mouths shut and have friends close to aid them. While the challenger gets to use the aspect of surprise to the fullest. Of course they still have to find all this out rp wise IC and actually rp tracking down the host and what not.

I feel it cuts out all that middle ground crap and the actual rp can get started much faster.

Edit: I thought this was a reply to my post in the rules topic... I'm not sure who Eric was replying to or if he meant to post there. I got confused between the two pages being pulled up... sorry.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 06:33:34 am by UettoSenju »
Logged

Suishou Koji

  • Site Staff (Game Master)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +35/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 271
  • Elder of Shinobi Legends
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2015, 07:01:49 am »

I think five members would be good. It offers more feedback, like Court said. And we shouldn't be saying that staff members shouldn't apply. They are members of the community just like use so we should treat them like such.
Logged
I'm the Raikage. Yep, kind of a big deal.

UettoSenju

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +38/-63
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1195
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2015, 07:04:08 am »

I think five members would be good. It offers more feedback, like Court said. And we shouldn't be saying that staff members shouldn't apply. They are members of the community just like use so we should treat them like such.
There is a vote thread for this very issue.  :good:
Logged

UettoSenju

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +38/-63
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1195
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2015, 07:13:02 am »

I vote:

No current hosts or bijuu owners.

No Kage whose village has a host or owner. I agree no Kage of a village with a host or owner, cause that would be a conflict of interest if one had to be stripped. No one wants their warrior's stripped.

However, we are short on possible council members so... like Chusaki would be fine cause Suna doesn't have a bijuu. Becquerel would be fine too, Oto has no beasts do they? Is Ryoji still Oto or is he considered his own group now, the Boshoku? It is hard for me to keep up with host affiliations sometimes. Miyuu would be fine cause Iwa doesn't have one either.

Since they would not be judging matches...I see Kage's with no beasts in their village being an issue, even if a challenger is from there. But should that change...I feel they should step down.
Vote:
-No current hosts or owners of a bijuu.
-No Kage who possesses a village member with a bijuu.
-No potential judges of a bijuu fight (more like the council member can't judge a bijuu fight once nominated)
My vote:

- No current hosts or owners of bijuu.
- No Kage of village with a bijuu within.


Just to point out that during the time that Kage is serving on the council a member of their village may become a host. Thus we would have a Kage on the council who has a beast in their village.

I think it is important to look at things of the sort which create loopholes.
Logged

Ace

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +68/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Bijuu Council! (Rules)
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2015, 07:54:43 am »

Since this topic will now serve as a launching platform for votes, and will serve for the  future discussion of what might need to be voted on...

I would highly like for all to reconsider elections to be every 4 months.
Although I did vote 3 initially, I think that was not the best. Three is too short, while six is honestly way to long.

Tis all. ;)

http://forum.shinobilegends.com/index.php/topic,8690.0.html
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 07:56:15 am by Ace »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
 

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 20 queries.