Print

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

[KayentaMoenkopi]

I propose that:

Regardless of reason, each participant in a bijuu match is permitted to request a change in judge one time. Again, this new judge will have to be agreed upon by both parties so, use this option wisely if at all.

[Bocchiere]

Yup, pretty simple.

[Warren]

What then though if other party keeps refusing every judge, just to try push the original judge being in his favor through? Could end up rather abuse prone.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

Hmm...

Since each person would get to replace a judge one time, the other person could not refuse this or insist upon keeping the original/replaced judge.

So...

Warren and Kay fight over Shukaku. Judge is Asadi.
Warren replaces Asadi with Koji....Asadi can never be used again for this match.
Kay replaces Koji with Bocchiere...Koji can never be used again for this match and we are stuck with Bocch...

However...maybe:
Warren proposes Koji to replace Asadi but Kay says no. You have to agree upon a new judge. If you cannot agree upon a new judge, the council steps in to appoint one?

Or the council just bans both Kay and Warren from bijuu activity for 3 months for being stiff necked jerks?
This could force a person to compromise and stop deadlocking these events?

Either way, we are fighting...we have one judge. a difficulty arises, we get a second judge. more difficulties arise. We get a third judge. I think that is plenty enough leeway toward resolving the issue. If we can't manage to conclude a match after going through 3 judges then clearly either Warren or Kay or both of them are fuck ups and should be banned for 3 months so they can get their shit together and stop creating this mess.

[Hades]

I would propose the following process:

1 - The initial judge is agreed upon.

2 - Either challenger can replace the judge once. (Hypothetical: First challenger replaces initial judge with second judge. Second challenger either agrees and leaves it OR disagrees and replaces second judge with third judge.)

3 - If three judges are passed, the council may appoint a fourth. (Hypothetical: First challenger either agrees with second challenger's appointment of third judge OR disagrees and requests that the council elect a judge.)

4 - If either challenger wants the fourth (elected) judge passed, the council has the right to either elect a new judge OR ban both challengers for 3 months cool-down.

[Eric]

I say no passing of judges at all. Get it right the first time, live and learn. If both participants think it's crazy then both can just, not go with the ruling. Otherwise fingers crossed that the tard sauce is not in the pudding.