Print

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

[KayentaMoenkopi]

it needs an edit. until my family is better, is too long.
i said until in october.

[Ѕhadow]

it needs an edit. until my family is better, is too long.
i said until in october.

Same length as the Trev thing. >> I'll switch it

[Genesis]

I vote to not honor previous challenges. The challenge system, originally thought up by Kay, will make it an open for everyone and not 'first dibs'.

[Chinote]

The Plan for the Gedo Statue had been agreed upon 3-0 and will remain unchanged. It will run AFTER:
1) All 9 Tailed Beasts (0-3, 5-9) have been distributed or set to roaming.
2) Kayenta's family emergency is dealt with.

The current standing votes are whether to honor challenges made before the Council session, and on the amendment to the distribution of the 0-3, 5-9 Tails.

Current tally is
Honor Previous Challenges:
Nay: Chinote, Genesis
Yay:

Approve amendments to Bijuu Distribution:
Yay: Chinote, Genesis
Nay:

Should Eric not make an appearance, that gives us majority to enact these decisions, regardless of Hades' vote. Per the sort of agreement we made since the Council lacks rules, he has until Monday to vote. Hades voting for the current leaders would enact the proposal immediately, but voting against could potentially become a split Council if Eric joins him.

This is not to influence the vote, but to explain why we currently cannot enact these measures with only Genesis and I.

[Chinote]

Allow Trev, the current and only host, to participate. Yay or Nay

I don't think we should bar him, but at the same time, I'd rather see each Bijuu with different host, at least for the grace period following their sealings. Whatever happens after that, so long as it's within the established rules, is fair game.

I'm going to say Nay.


Allow NPCs to submit challenges. Yay or Nay.

I'm again voting nay, for the reasons I listed before. It creates a bad precedence for anyone to use NPCs to get around limitations on who can host/challenge.

[Genesis]

I'm going to say Yay.  I can't find a reason to bar him.

So we're tied.

[Hades]

If people are going to fight each other for a biju, give two set rules to speed it up. Reduce the time between responses from 7 days to 5 or 3. Also give them 2-3 pages on the forum max. Then a judge decided the winner based on how the fight was going, etc. That way you have expedited posting, and also a page limit so the fight doesn't go on forever.

If people would prefer the multiple challengers per Bijuu option, and if it gets implemented, then we will look into ways to expedite the process. There's no reason not to have each Bijuu either sealed or in combat in 3-4 weeks. (6 more days for Eric to vote, Silver if he's around, a week challenge period, then the actual RP.)


It appears that support for Kay's idea is growing, so;

COUNCIL ONLY:
The 0-3, 5-9 Tails will be distributed as follows:
A 1 Week Open challenge period in which case anyone may challenge ONE Bijuu of their choice.
Challengers who challenge for the same Bijuu will fight each other (1v1, tournament style if applicable [rules tbd]) and the winner will be awarded the Bijuu.
Challengers who's Bijuu does not receive another challenge will face the Bijuu (GMs tbd) in 1v1 combat. They must defeat, seal, or otherwise incapacitate the Bijuu to be declared successful and obtain control of the Bijuu.
Bijuu who do not receive a challenge in the one-week time period will be set to roaming. They may be hunted and challenged by any individual, group, village, etc.
Bijuu who's challengers fail to capture them will be set to roaming as per above.

Yay or Nay.


My vote's still Yay.

I also vote in favor of this.

[Chinote]

Then with 3-0, we'll continue with Genesis' thread and get things ready to go.

Still need Hades' vote on the other 3 items and Genesis' vote on the NPC deal.

[Genesis]

I changed my mind. I vote nay for allowing NPCs to throw down challenges. But alts are good, right?

Also, calling this to a vote:
Allow for a panel of five members to interpret and judge over this 'tournament'. These five judges will be elected via the community. Yay or Nay

The number can be changed, but basically I just want judges to rule over the fights. These judges will be elected by the community for the sake of more involvement. But the bijuu council will act as convener.

[Chinote]

But alts are good, right?

One challenge per person. They can choose which ever account they want. The goal is to have an even starting distribution, rather than have someone make 9 alts and challenge for everything.

I don't think we really need a vote on the judges. We said the rules of the tournament would be determined. Well, let's just determine them, starting with that. Are the 5 judges deciding on one ruling, or will each be taking 1+ fight to judge themselves? I think it'd be better as the later, otherwise it's going to take longer to have all the judges go through and vote on each match.

[Genesis]

Do you mean the former or the later, because you just described the later...I think.

[Chinote]

N-Nope. <<

[Genesis]

Lol

Yeah the later. I mean if one of the challengers want a Judge, they'll get it.

[Hades]

My apologies for missing some of this earlier.

As a result of our proposed challenge system being inclusive of any players desiring to possess a beast, I vote that we do not need to take any special action for previous standing challenges.

As multiple beast hosting is permitted, I vote in favor of allowing Trev to enter his name.

I do not have a problem with players/alts hosting beasts because they are existing characters. NPCs should be not be used.

I think that's everything I missed.

[Chinote]

Alrighty;

Trev will be allowed to challenge for a second Bijuu, following a 2-1 vote.

NPCs will not be allowed to participate, by a 3-0 vote. Only the player OR (NOT AND) their alt.

The previous challenges are void by 3-0 vote. (As Hades said, not really an issue anymore, but still nice to wrap it up.)

So we'll get some Judges and the participants of the tournaments can choose their own from the group or have one approved by us. That sound good to you guys?

Should we make any special rules for the tournament? Max time/post, inactivity, etc? Or just go with the basic "fight until one side can't" with a 7 day inactivity=forfeit? I wouldn't mind making it a bit more streamlined for this, say you each have 20 posts or something and it's not to exceed a 2-3 week limit. If you're going to be a host, you're going to need to be active, so you should be able to find the time to bang this out with your fight partner.