Print

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

[Bocchiere]

How should this be handled? I'll add a poll once our options are all laid out. I think a good middle ground is that only council members and the involved parties should be able to post in the discussion topic. Plaintiff, Defendant, and the Jury, pretty simple.

Option 1: 1 discussion topic. Open to council members and the plaintiff and defendant.

Option 2: one discussion topic open only to council members

Option 3: two discussion topics one for council members only and one for every one

[Moonfire]

http://forum.shinobilegends.com/index.php/topic,8956.0.html

I think that is exactly the reason why we think about this here now.

Also i disagree with you.

I think council discussion should be open for view to all, yes.

Why? So everyone can see it, but not to partake in the discussion directly. As i see it, this only slowed down the current thing. You may need to wait longer than 7 days now. I see no chance for it to be resolved now. Simply put cause due all those opinions, it got alllll over the place.

This was to be avoided. How can we avoid it? If the council talks in their forum among themselves and then does a voting, again among themselves.
You trusted us and thuse voted for us to be chosen as council

You may talk about this issue within the thread when asked. Or in an additional thread.

Which , frnakly put, could have been created by you as well, there was no reason of anyone interjecting the council discussion. In fact didn't the second thread just prooof that all could be put in one simple post, as i had proposed?

Another thing, people jump the gun. I would propose that people actually wait for a result, or imput of other council members before taking action.

Cause a result may be entirely different in the end.

You are impatient, i get this, so am i, but we try to make clear and fast descissions. We are still in this trial and error phase.

We need a clean working environment. We need peopel to wait out proposals and let us do an actual discussion. If we ask you to stay out, do so please.

If you really wanna add a thing and aren't sure if you may, why not pm? OR make an open thread linked to the council thread and inform us. I am okay with imput, but i do not need someone to be like "oh you could just do the gming the beast thing again, would be cool"

or

"why should i wait for any of you to get online and say the answer when i already know it 12 hours ago?"

This is not even constructive.This is however a reason for us to rethink the boards...as it did escalate.

[Bocchiere]

My issue is that currently the council is a massive waste of everyone's time.

I figured the council would handle matters that could not otherwise be settled, not EVERY. SINGLE. INFRACTION.

When someone refuses to defend their bijuu I should not need to assemble the Avengers and have them unanimously agree that yes, that is still against the rules. At best I should have to bring it to the council's attention and one of you can nod in acknowledgement. There is no discussion to be had about that, it is not an issue that needs to be hashed out, merely an infraction that needs to be processed.

Hell both issues that have been brought to the council so far have had the defendants admit their guilt, there was literally no argument. So what does the council need to discuss? Oh yeah you've decided that now people don't get bijuu via stripping you have to do an rp event to get them. So you need to talk about that. The issues have been so cut and dry that an entirely new step needed to be added to the process so it could be dragged out for a sufficient amount of time, since presumably Eric will break out into a rash if he doesn't extend everything by at least a week.

As the council has been operating it is at best completely unneeded and at worst making things needlessly convoluted.

You guys are the equivalent of witnessing a murder and calling the police, so the coppers show up, stand around the body talking for an hour, and then turn around and say to you, "Yeah he's definitely dead." Well gee I only saw him get shot in the head three times but thanks for doing such a bang up job.

Both of these issues so far have required roughly 30 seconds of attention. One of the council members needed to post, "Ryoji/Warren admitted to not following the rules, there is nothing to debate, the bijuu goes to Bocchiere." So why has that not happened? Even say something like Bocchiere can operate as if he has the bijuu while the other council members filter in to voice their approval, since the outcome is a given.

The only solace I take is that once I have all the bijuu the council will never need to be called on again, since I accept all challengers.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

while i think your reply is a bit more insulting that required, i have to agree.
While I dont' agree that the Gedo mazo is a bijuu, nor a vote to make it so was legit...like i can get my clan members to vote on making Konoha our territory hands down without even using my alts we outnumber them...not legit...

SINCE IT WAS VOTED ON AND MADE A THING....

the challenge was ignored, the *cough* bijuu goes to the challenger.

what's to debate?

I Would be ticked to be made to jump through so many hoops.

I noticed Chi mentioned he didn't want a GM t just hand it to Bocc...

well...its his by the letter of the rules, yes?

i don't like it but here we are.

fair is fair.

and no. the council does not have the power to make rules. making it mandatory that ceded bijuu be rp'd for by the new owner. that would have to be voted in by the public as a rule.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

now a reply to the topic...

by the time an issue goes to the council, it has been talked to death.

the participants of a match have no doubt talked up and down.
the judge has no doubt exhausted all his means or even been dismissed
and that is in cases where issues are in question.

so the council should have time to talk without hinderence. I like what genny did. in his first post he put in bold letter the session was closed. then once the council talked he changed it to open and permitted people to reply.

Certainly the council could request each person involved to make one post explaining their sides. ONE POST. no rebuttals. the time for back and forth between participants is over at that point.

but all that is left is for the council to decide if an infraction exists, and what they are to do about it as per the rules.

such instances will no doubt illuminate issues where the rules are not comprehensive enough and need adjustments. Ammendments could then be initiate and voted upon by the public for the next go round.

but in the interest of timeliness, i feel where a rule does not apply the council should do the best they can to handle it.

I do not see them as just mouth pieces to validate the rules but to put their minds to work for us. I do not see them as useless. I see them as the last straw, the last resort when we can't seem to manage resolutions on our own.

to put an end to the ridiculousness that such issues inspire between us all.

in the interest of people like myself and others who just can't seem to stfu...i think a closed section to make threads, though visible to the public, should be available to the council. with a section for the general public to speak within as well. Like what Ace volunteered to create.

i don't think that is a bad use of this forum's resources.

[Eric]

My issue is that currently the council is a massive waste of everyone's time.

I figured the council would handle matters that could not otherwise be settled, not EVERY. SINGLE. INFRACTION...

Apparently you did not read the rules that you agreed to abide by and occasionally cite like the holy book when you hit a wall with other methods.

How short your memory seems to be when such debates went on and on and still nothing was done in the end. The get rid of biju vote comes to mind in that regard. If it could have been settled with just a group consensus, making a Council would not have been a priority of the rule making body.

If Warren could be made to give up his biju possessions without votes and discussions and strippings, he would have stopped being a host about a year ago.

But as you know, that has not been the case.

since presumably Eric will break out into a rash if he doesn't extend everything by at least a week.

That's funny, I was one of the main proponents for putting an end to all of this nonsense months ago and not drag on the senseless biju matter any longer. Now that's attempting to put the dog out to pasture, not gathering all of the biju and causing more hubbub. 

--------


Most of the topics regarding a decision have mostly been on what to do with the tailed beast after it has been stripped. The rules are fairly clear that during the circumstances of a match when you go inactive, the challenger tends to get the beast.

In the first case, it was not completely clear cut because Bocchiere was not fighting Rusaku at the time; some other guy was, who also was inactive.

In the second and current case, again, there was no match initiated between the two so the rules do not specify that it goes to the challenger. It's in writing, don't get pissed at us because where the beast goes was specified in some places and not in others.

The obvious resolution, more or less, has been the resolution of choice, more or less. Sometimes it was done so that you could still get a fight of some sort, since we all know how good and eager you are for a grand ole' fight.

One post from the accused and one from the accuser is honestly enough, period, especially since, as Kayenta put it, the topic is usually beaten with a stick before the Council thread is even made.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

It had better be beaten with a stick before a council thread is made.

the council is not the first round go to body to hound with every issue in the world that should have been resolved between the contestants amicably in the first place! Or the judge in the second place. Or the replacement judge in the 3rd place!

the council is the LAST place to go.

of course some issues never get to an actual match so no judge is involved...inactivity, refusal to accept a challenge, and whatever else fits that bill. but you get my point here.

[Bocchiere]

it was not completely clear cut

Yeah? Is that what happened Eric? Because in both situations the people were admitting they broke the rule going into it so there was nothing to discuss there (not that it stopped you trying). We already knew for both situations that the punishment was being stripped, so there was nothing to discuss there. I was pending challenger for every one of those bijuu (Ryoji was fighting Athos for his bijuu, none of Ryoji's were on the line) so there was nothing to discuss there.

Please, explain how that isn't clear cut because I can't see how it could be more clear cut. Please, help me try and understand your logic.

[Eric]

it was not completely clear cut

Yeah? Is that what happened Eric? Because in both situations the people were admitting they broke the rule going into it so there was nothing to discuss there (not that it stopped you trying). We already knew for both situations that the punishment was being stripped, so there was nothing to discuss there. I was pending challenger for every one of those bijuu (Ryoji was fighting Athos for his bijuu, none of Ryoji's were on the line) so there was nothing to discuss there.

Please, explain how that isn't clear cut because I can't see how it could be more clear cut. Please, help me try and understand your logic.

I'll put it in more visible print for you:

... In the first case, it was not completely clear cut because Bocchiere was not fighting Rusaku at the time; some other guy was, who also was inactive.

In the second and current case, again, there was no match initiated between the two so the rules do not specify that it goes to the challenger. It's in writing, don't get pissed at us because where the beast goes was specified in some places and not in others...

Innocence or guilt was not really a talking point in topic #2, what to do with the beast was, for reasons I have already explained in my above quote: no fight had started, and the rules left out where to shove the beast if no fight has begun; therefore the Council has the privilege to discuss the matter of where it goes. That's the book.

The reason innocence or guilt was contested in the first case was because from my point of view, the case read like an innocent man pleading guilty of all charges in all given circumstances out of ignorance of the law. Rusaku was a fairly consistent participant in the biju shenanigans so until it was clear he would probably cause more issues staying host as a result of his marriage and such, I felt it necessary to make a defensive point in his favor.

As for where the beast goes, again, no fight between you two had been initiated, rules silent on that, Council gets the opportunity to discuss where it goes, which we did.

[Bocchiere]

I saw that I was just hoping you were hiding some secret actually good logic somewhere.

He was in an entirely ooc fight that had nothing to do with the bijuu we were stripping him of, and the idea that it would go to anyone else besides the next person in line for it is ridiculous. If you have any idea how bijuu fights work than both of those are common sense answers.

Also added the three most common options up above in an effort to keep this on topic

[KayentaMoenkopi]

i like option 3. keeps the closed session clean and the second thread can be referred to. The participants can always be invited to make one post each in the closed session as the council sees fit.

[Bocchiere]

i like option 3. keeps the closed session clean and the second thread can be referred to. The participants can always be invited to make one post each in the closed session as the council sees fit.

That's what I'm leaning toward now as well.

[Eric]

I saw that I was just hoping you were hiding some secret actually good logic somewhere...

Going by the rules and allowing you to get the fight that you want? Such terrible logic there.

---------------

I am also leaning towards option 3. There is no stopping a public debate thread from emerging anyways so it would be stupid to try to mandate that only a Council posting one can be made.