Print

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

[Eric]

So how is the ratificaiton of amendments going to go? Once this goes pubilc it's going to be much trickier to keep track of who 2/3's of the total rule abiding population is unless abiders sign off somewhere or something. I presume it's going to go something like this:


1) Make thread regarding proposal. This is primarily discussion, and is fairly informal.

2) Some condition is met and now an official thread is made by a Council Member outlining the full details of the proposed amendment. A vote is held for a certain amount of time.

3) when voting closes, the votes are tallied and the amendemnt either passes or is rejected, depending on what voting condition we want to have (mere majority or 2/3 or something like that).

3b) If an amendment is rejected, then it has to go back to the discussion/drawing board. If enough changes in the voting populace climate or if the amendment is modified significantly, it can then be resubmitted by a Council Member.

3c) If an amendment is approved, it is added to the rules.

- An amendment may be made that nullifies another amendment.

- An accepted amendment may be put into force no later than 3 days after the voting closes. When it is put into force, it is considered a rule, and must be added to the rules page as an amendment.

- An amendment that is nullified by another amendment is struck through, not completely deleted, from the rules page.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

I am all for the democratic process.

However, this bijuu thing seems to send sanity out the door.

I propose...god I can't believe I am doing this...

I propose that it just be handled like the SSM and their swords.

The SSM are solely responsible for the distribution and use of the swords. They have a carefully laid out procedure for inclusion in the membership and the swords themselves, as hereditary village relics, serve as their badges of office for the village rank of a swordsman. As such they are not subject to the claims of others and such claims are summarily ignored. This of course does not exclude the possibility of theft through legit rp.

Thus, due to the volatile nature of bijuu claims and their subsequent handling, I propose a similar situation be instituted. And as such...

You either abide by the procedures for bijuu acquisition as laid out by the committee or your claim to such will not be considered legit by the community at large. Had it not turned into such a huge disaster and been possible to be self moderated, then these rule sets would not have even been necessary. But I for one, after having to step in and put months of work into creating a system for their regulation, do not wish to see it all undone just because no one can agree...it was no one agreeing that put us here to begin.

When new games are instituted the rules for that game are already created and you just play by the rules from the start.

So...

I propose that we put the rules out there. Say that for now...for now... the bijuu will be handled like this. It is to be considered a trial run to see how well it works. That as problems arise, issues will be ironed out on an individual basis. Hopefully it will be workable. And by putting it to the test, a beta test if you will, or alpha...not really sure of the difference there...we can truly know how inclusive a job we have done.

But I do not feel we should ask if everyone agrees to each and every point that is included.
Look how long it took just us few to get where we are? Imagine how much longer, by including the entire public, it will take? We could very well NEVER arrive at a system for their use.

Certainly if we have bombed miserably here the community will start a poll to get these rules voided. And that is as it should be.

But god almighty, let's just present them as a beta test and run with it!

[Bocchiere]

Thankfully the rest of us that understand the point of having rules in the first place also ignore Kiri's claims of being immune to the rules of claimed canon items because they're special and they feel like it.

Other than that yeah this all sounds fine, I don't see it being that much of an issue.

[Warren]

How about we just don't bring the kiri swords into this, because that's not only not for here, plus also far from as simple a topic as you claim.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

whoa. for sure. it was just an example.

[Eric]

I am all for the democratic process.

However, this bijuu thing seems to send sanity out the door.

I propose...god I can't believe I am doing this...

I propose that it just be handled like the SSM and their swords.

The SSM are solely responsible for the distribution and use of the swords. They have a carefully laid out procedure for inclusion in the membership and the swords themselves, as hereditary village relics, serve as their badges of office for the village rank of a swordsman. As such they are not subject to the claims of others and such claims are summarily ignored. This of course does not exclude the possibility of theft through legit rp.

Thus, due to the volatile nature of bijuu claims and their subsequent handling, I propose a similar situation be instituted. And as such...

You either abide by the procedures for bijuu acquisition as laid out by the committee or your claim to such will not be considered legit by the community at large. Had it not turned into such a huge disaster and been possible to be self moderated, then these rule sets would not have even been necessary. But I for one, after having to step in and put months of work into creating a system for their regulation, do not wish to see it all undone just because no one can agree...it was no one agreeing that put us here to begin.

When new games are instituted the rules for that game are already created and you just play by the rules from the start.

So...

I propose that we put the rules out there. Say that for now...for now... the bijuu will be handled like this. It is to be considered a trial run to see how well it works. That as problems arise, issues will be ironed out on an individual basis. Hopefully it will be workable. And by putting it to the test, a beta test if you will, or alpha...not really sure of the difference there...we can truly know how inclusive a job we have done.

But I do not feel we should ask if everyone agrees to each and every point that is included.
Look how long it took just us few to get where we are? Imagine how much longer, by including the entire public, it will take? We could very well NEVER arrive at a system for their use.

Certainly if we have bombed miserably here the community will start a poll to get these rules voided. And that is as it should be.

But god almighty, let's just present them as a beta test and run with it!

I don't fully understand what exactly is being proposed here. How do we account for just the rule abiders unless there is some "sign-off"? And it seems, by bringing up the Swordsmen, that you would want it to be even more inclusive, to the point where it's the Council making the rules, something which indeed I would be very astonished to hear from you considering you didn't even want the Council members judging fights.

So I presume you meant the more inclusive of rule abiders, in which case there still needs to be a process to sort out how this group makes the amendments. Recall, these amendments are any and all changes to the rules after the initial publishing; this includes inclusions that emerge from ironing out issues that arise as they come up, especially with the IC portions of this (since I have little doubt it will have the most problems that arise over time).

Whatever the group making the amendments, there needs to be a formal process for it that is a part of the original rules. I personally, while I do agree that democracy can be chaotic, would like to point out that much of the community is more likely to reject the rules if they have absolutely no say at any point in how the rules are changed. If they have to lobby just to get heard then they are going to be more likely to reject the rules.

And frankly, I feel that if the community at large en masse rejects even these rules to the point where those who support the rules are outnumbered 1:2, then I don't see much hope for keeping the tailed beasts in play with any sort of regulation.

If there is a selected group to make amendments, there needs to be a way to get in that does not require flying to the moon, but is a little more stringent then mere declaration in a thread.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

I figure for us to just put them out there, say that this is the rule set we came up with. that we would like to present this for game play, and that as the need for amendment or reworking of items occurs through game play they will be addressed at that time.

I see no need to bog it down right from the git go. Often times if you just do, rather than asking for permission to exist, then things work out well enough.  Seems to me that no one has been jumping up and down stiff legged that we are gathered here to create these rules, but rather the community is looking for us to come up with a solution.

Perhaps I am wrong about what their silence means?
 But perhaps not. Every time someone has a complaint about anything else they sure are vocal enough.

[Bocchiere]

I think we should make it clear that these are the new rules the community will be using that is not to be debated. Also make it clear that changes will be made as they become needed.

[Eric]

... I see no need to bog it down right from the git go. Often times if you just do, rather than asking for permission to exist, then things work out well enough.  Seems to me that no one has been jumping up and down stiff legged that we are gathered here to create these rules, but rather the community is looking for us to come up with a solution...

Yes, most of the reception seems to be surprise rather than abhorration, which is a decent sign. However, for the biju acknowledging portion of the community, following the agreed upon rules is not intended to be "optional", hence the need for a process of amendment. Pretty much everyone still here working on these rules agreed to follow the rules, establishing a base community from which the other biju acknowledgers will by and large file into once this goes live. Those who don't follow the rules won't be acknowledged as hosts or as legitimate challengers.

This is a bit like a last hoorah, the way I see it. If even this approach does not work, then the tailed beasts just can't be part of the mainstream continuum as an "official" element with one and only one set and on and only one set of rules with the current community.