Print

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

Yes, make it Official as is

8 (44.4%)

Yes, make it Official with edits

5 (27.8%)

No, throw out the current version

5 (27.8%)

No, throw it out no matter the edits made

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Voting closed: March 13, 2016, 02:53:47 PM

[Eric]

If there are 3 owners of say the mighty hammer and one of them goes inactive for 180 years, the other deletes his account, and the other is on and rps then the one who is still on keeps the weapon.

If they all are active and on then it wouldn't matter.

As long as one of them is active it will always go down the list before anyone else can claim it. Just makes sense.

So how is ownership defined? Can I really say that I am an owner of the 3-pronged kunai even if I don't currently have it on my person? Or even in my arsenal? Am I an owner just because I have access to it as a weapon?

Why exactly does ownership need to be defined if more than one person has it? I don't see the collation.

The Seven Swordsmen of the Mist. I did not want to bring that back up, but that is the elephant in my room when it comes to this issue. If the Mist claim that the swords belong (are thereby owned) by Kirigakure, then as long as one member of the Swordsmen (or even Kirigakure) is active, then the swords cannot be stripped from them based on this activity clause.

Some of the swords were being stripped on the wikia because the swords were either not seen as having a single discernible owner (because of some of them being sealed) or that an owner was not actively RPing with the swords. The way the old clause was written, ownership being spread that wide prevents the items from ever being legitimately stripped under this clause, unless any who would care are removed from the picture.

Ownership needs to be defined, or at least addressed, because part of the point of making the clause was to keep canon items in circulation. If there are multiple owners who never use the weapons nor can have the weapons taken away from them IC for one reason or another, then that grants those weapons/items practical immunity to this clause, despite being the target demographic (being owned, but neither used by the owner nor obtainable by someone else)!

As for Kay, just the (1) activity would be the practical means of enforcing this rule, with (2) being possible if there are a specific set of items that someone or a group is eyeing (*cough* The Great Swords *cough*). If people want to make a functioning activity clause then it's going to have to be unambiguous and not hide its intent (the previous clause lacked some details that made its high profile enforcement illegitimate as far as I'm concerned).

[KayentaMoenkopi]

Why?

the instigation of RP should not be more difficult for a village/group item than for an individual owner item.

I will have to more thoroughly read the discussion upon another night. Just keeping in mind I like things to make sense in storyline RP.

I will check in again at a later time.

[Ace]

For those of you who know what is occurring behind the scenes, I barely have time to read any of this. All I will say is this, I'm tired of the inactivity and people thinking they are entitled to keep "their" belongings.

Fix it, please. =)
I will always continue to have faith in you.

And I don't want to hear it's difficult, or any other excuse. Some of you know what I've fixed, and what I am and have been doing. I don't need anyone telling me otherwise.  

[Ѕhadow]

That scroll is VOID. Officially it was tallied and marked up and agreed upon by the then active leader(s) of the SSM.

The swords didn't have any owner. Plus the fact that they haven't been handed out to anyone since that topic was made years ago. It was fair play to me.

So to put it:

Ownership is defined by someone actively using said item. In correspondence of the 75 day rule.

The swords weren't being used and weren't going to be anytime soon. The scroll is void and won't be edited anytime soon. Not to reopen wounds that haven't healed at all yet, but so far in my clashes with Kiri they say they'll do something and then they don't.

[Ѕhadow]

For those of you who know what is occurring behind the scenes, I barely have time to read any of this. All I will say is this, I'm tired of the inactivity and people thinking they are entitled to keep "their" belongings.

Fix it, please. =)
I will always continue to have faith in you.

And I don't want to hear it's difficult, or any other excuse. Some of you know what I've fixed, and what I am and have been doing. I don't need anyone telling me otherwise.

#Acey-kuns2kwheneverherunsforoffice


-end offtopic post-

[KayentaMoenkopi]

Ownership needs to be defined, or at least addressed, because part of the point of making the clause was to keep canon items in circulation. If there are multiple owners who never use the weapons nor can have the weapons taken away from them IC for one reason or another, then that grants those weapons/items practical immunity to this clause, despite being the target demographic (being owned, but neither used by the owner nor obtainable by someone else)!

Uhm, how is this any different than a host with multiple bijuu? the group is responsible for their defense. As long as the group exists, then they have to keep activity going. At any time someone could instigate rp to acquire them.

Or village relics. "We have come to steal your buxom brunettes!" ARGH...well Suna would seriously have to step up and protect them.

anyway...just again, a thought. not too well defined at this point in my 4 day insomnia festival. Just letting you all know I am interested and will take a serious look and participate in the future. I am not ignoring the concerns presented here. 

[Bocchiere]

I always considered the rule to be counting days since login, I never considered rp activity. The issue was the no discernible owner not the fact that the owner wasn't using them. I was not trying to suggest you have to use your canon claims on any particular schedule.

Again, regardless of how many people have access to the item, declare one owner who is responsible for maintaining activity. You may change who that owner is at any time (providing proof of the change if questioned) but still have just one owner for items.

Like I said before Bocch, Saejima, and Desare all have access to the 4 tails but Bocch is the owner. I believe it is that simple.

[Ѕhadow]

I used both rp and login for myself just seemed better to double down.

But I'm done for tonight. G'night all.

As Bocc said pick an owner even if 60 people use it. If that person that was picked as the owner goes inactive well then..

[Bocchiere]

I used both rp and login for myself just seemed better to double down.

But I'm done for tonight. G'night all.

As Bocc said pick an owner even if 60 people use it. If that person that was picked as the owner goes inactive well then..

Counting rp seemed secondary since if they're not logging in they're not rping, so why bother looking at rp when you already know they havent been on in 180 days?

And what I mean by evidence is just have a pm that you gave ownership to someone else but havent changed the wiki yet. Otherwise any time the rule is actually enforced people will just go, "Nuh uh! I gave the ownership to Zubaz and he was on yesterday! We just haven't changed the wiki yet!"

Well ok show me the pm you sent before I claimed the item from you that says you gave ownership to him.

Or we could just be more strict about it and say make sure you change the wiki or it doesn't count.

[Becquerel]

Well, I would like to throw another idea out there that kind of getting rid of the claimed things.

A big difference between this game and a lot of other games is that people want to just start at the End Game with max stats and the best items. Now, that would be fine if you're playing a game like Dark Souls or Metal Gear or something else because everyone has the opportunity to get everything. In that way, the multiplayer aspect of those games are very inclusive. Here, not everyone has the opportunity to get everything, because the more established people have already scooped up the items. That makes this game very exclusive and rather hostile. A work-around for this is that people can just make custom items that do just about the same things as these exclusive items, sometimes more, but some people don't like that either.

Why not just do away with the claimed list and use it as more of a choice list. People can choose to get the samehada if they want, or they can choose to get the Kiba blades, or they can do something else. That's because it's pretty hard to keep track of every little piece of activity that goes on and it will be more like a chore for the people who choose to have 'claimed' items because they always have to check in with somebody. Kind of like being on parole. The reason why this could be viable is because it allows people to build their characters however they want and the odds of two people using the same item interacting with each other are fairly low (because some people prefer to stay with their cliques and comfort zones).

And actually using the items frequently can be a bit hard to do. Like myself, I have plenty of items in my collection (which I need to get back to updating again lol I hope I pick up this advancement cycle) which are mostly either used by my NPCs or just collecting dust. I make the items just to dump my imagination onto 'paper' and develop lore for my character and his lab and the world around him. If I get The Legendary Shovel and have it claimed, the need to dig a trench might not be something that happens frequently.

It's just an idea. Because the exclusivity of the weapons in this game sure do seem to be causing as much trouble as the bijuu did not too long ago, and it would be nice to finally come to a conclusion. And if a weapon could be made once, why can't it be made again? Though, not a lot of people want to RP as a smith or inventor because it's a different play style It's too bad, because I think having variety in characters like that would be neat.

[Eric]

I always considered the rule to be counting days since login, I never considered rp activity. The issue was the no discernible owner not the fact that the owner wasn't using them. I was not trying to suggest you have to use your canon claims on any particular schedule.

Again, regardless of how many people have access to the item, declare one owner who is responsible for maintaining activity. You may change who that owner is at any time (providing proof of the change if questioned) but still have just one owner for items.

Like I said before Bocch, Saejima, and Desare all have access to the 4 tails but Bocch is the owner. I believe it is that simple.

I used both rp and login for myself just seemed better to double down.

But I'm done for tonight. G'night all.

As Bocc said pick an owner even if 60 people use it. If that person that was picked as the owner goes inactive well then..

This, this is why we talk things out  and make sure everyone's on the same page. 

Yes, one owner for one item is simpler, but that basically means that an entire village/organization cannot really "own" an item, only a single individual.

And what about the rare case of there being multiple versions/copies of a single item? Like the Edo Tensei scrolls, automatic kunai launchers, the Konoha Blades, etc.?

Bec:

...Because the exclusivity of the weapons in this game sure do seem to be causing as much trouble as the bijuu did not too long ago...

Not. Even. Close. Judges presiding over biju fights helped cut down on the forum topics about "is this legit" or if "that is legit", and the rules limbo has also generated a vacuum for challenging rule following or breaking threads.

...Why not just do away with the claimed list and use it as more of a choice list. People can choose to get the samehada if they want, or they can choose to get the Kiba blades, or they can do something else. That's because it's pretty hard to keep track of every little piece of activity that goes on and it will be more like a chore for the people who choose to have 'claimed' items because they always have to check in with somebody. Kind of like being on parole. The reason why this could be viable is because it allows people to build their characters however they want and the odds of two people using the same item interacting with each other are fairly low (because some people prefer to stay with their cliques and comfort zones)...

It will result in the Uchiha syndrome; the more powerful items/articles will have multiple users and the less powerful/immediately useful ones will collect dust. Samaheda, Gedo Mazou, Yatara Mirror, etc. would definitely have at least 2 people in the same RP circle clamoring for them. If there is no regulation we'll have another Uchiha pandemic that is not Uchiha this time!

A big difference between this game and a lot of other games is that people want to just start at the End Game with max stats and the best items...

I am pretty sure that if it was an option plenty of people would start out with endgame material in alot of other games, especially ones involving RP. Just so happens a really good RPer can quickly get to endgame RP stuff on this site, with a few exceptions.