Best way for me to dig into this conversation is to roll back to a transition post:
One must first concede the point that the claims list is broken...
Just like the biju rules were considered broken. They worked for some, didn't work for others. If the justification for the claims list being broken is the same as the justification for the old biju rules being broken (the premise is similar for those who may recall that thread chain) then the truth is less about the list being broken and more of the attitude towards the system altogether.
The claims list, for the most part, has plenty of strippable stuff (canon and filler alike) at this point to fill half a board if each one was as hotly contested as a particular few. But only a few items, the SSM and the Gedo Mazou, seem to cause great stirs because of their significance both in-game and in the world of naruto.
If the Mist lost their badges, then they need to go get those badges back. Or, knowing what I know to be more likely, find some new badges if there is still a will to play the game.
The opportunity for everyone to have a chance, "fairness", versus the freedom to do things "proper" according to whosoever is asked at a particular time carries on because it is a consistent tug of war. It's fair that items don't go unused, especially if there is high demand for them. On the other side of the coin, the strive for fairness will tear out individual privileges and rights to the point of either being in the ship or in the water.
The activity clause for a host, in charge of how his beast is used, is to rp, to post. IT may remain sealed even during a match and never used to defeat their challenger. It is not stated that they must RP using the beast...Nor is it stated that they must have a challenge in order to retain their beast. A host can literally go months without facing that situation, never using his beast, far exceeding an activity clause for a claimed item, as long as they are active in rp.
Gitsune, SSM acting leader in charge of the organization and so in charge of how the swords were to be used, was here and rping. It should not matter what that rp was or where the claimed items of her organization reside during such a phase. By the very virtue that the Unnamed Scroll exists, its use for storing swords counts as activity in order to retain ownership. Had it not been storing swords, by this line of thought, it would not have been meeting its own activity clause and been subject to OOC theft. Quite the Catch 22. This too is an item that is improperly being controlled by the rules pertaining to the claims list. Again with the blender? Keep it in the kitchen already.
The two rules, as you observed, are different; a host's activity clause to RP and an individual's canon claimed item. The significance, among other reasons including logical difficulties in constantly using the biju (and hiding/evading hunters back in the day) is why the host does not have to use the beast in order to fulfill the activity clause. An item, however, is not, by the system, held to that same value standard for one reason or another. You could put them in a hat and draw them out if it so fancies you.
A host, overall, has far more restrictions on him or her than a standard canon item holder ever would, particularly with the recent set of rules regarding challenges. However, there seems to be overlap in that both are held responsible for being active RPers, especially when their trophy is desired.
I put forth the alternate view point, once again, that it was those who wished to steal the SSM swords [through OOC means] that broke the claims list.
I reiterate, the claims list being broken for the same reasons as the old biju list being broken ultimately draws to a point of where does "fairness for everyone" stop and "individual right" begin? It is a fundamental existential civilizational conflict in pretty much every community that has lost its equilibrium in that regard.
Bocchiere and party, in advancing the stripping of the items so that they may go into circulation, advocated for "fairness" in this particular case, as it is more fair to have an item in circulation than to have it hoarded away. At the same time, the individual right for a village that has SL historically retained at least SOME of it swords both by tradition and by RP, and has a motivation other than power for maintaining its traditions has very little sympathy in the court of fairness. Kayenta and Party are frustrated that it seems everytime a rule is passed, it seems like another slice to their tradition, their independence, their freedoms. To clarify, there has been plenty of side switching on affiliations, but some have remain entrenched one way or another for quite some time.
To be more than a stater of things observed, I say that when it comes to items, the strive for fairness that aggravates the biju rules at times should not apply to claimed items, even of the canon sort. Items should not come in multiples so that everyone can have one (and thus devalue ownership of it) nor should they be judiciously stripped if the reason for a lack of the item being used is more substantial than "have no need for it".
Can't be fair to everyone and keep everyone's individual liberties intact.
We see this again when, in an effort at overall "fairness", limiting everyone to just one claimed item is met with stark resistance (far starker in fact than the SSM swords) as individual characters have acquired their belongings through earning them either in RP or in OOC would be deprived of their. Yes, you can earn something OOC, especially if the effort to attain it exceeds the actual worth of the object.
Maybe we should look to things in SL RP that aren't broken to gain insight on where a new system might need to lean.
Poll
Author
Topic: Claimed list restructuring (Read 11112 times)