... Edit: You guys should really start editing these posts and cutting out the redundant/unnecessary/soapbox crap. It makes it so much more difficult to discuss this when we all have to read 10,000 words so you can make like two or three points.
While I can concede that almost all of my longposts have redundance, "soapbox" is a bit much to tag with them with in my opinion. I could make a point in say 2-3 sentences, but whether everybody gets what I mean or not is an entirely different story. I mean, look at Trump's "good people on both sides" remark.
With that said, I'll try to focus on my points and elaborate only if asked.
Wait, so are we talking about god-moding now? I thought this was retroposting and meta gaming?
Though it sounds like the general feeling is "work this sh$# out with your opponent and judges before the match. The council exists to rule on bijuu matters as a whole and not individual matches, and therefore it falls to those involved to be self-governing, more or less. So long as the set perimeters of the fight are within the general rules, those with a stake in them are to make sure their own rules are followed."
I'm paraphrasing. I could be completely wrong.
You paraphrased the jist of it. Judges are supposed to be the end-all for match decisions, unless an actual biju rule has been broken. The only time metagaming or retroposting are against the biju rules are during the Biju Hunt, last I checked, because both terms (retro as godmodding) are actively defined in that setting.
I suppose beforehand, with owner and challenger, one could agree to a certain judge to set specific rules like if 'I see you retroposting 3 times in a row and I feel like you're not going to recover, you'll be penalized somehow'...
Preferences in a nutshell.
With regards specifically to my suggestion of a three-strike rule: I was not referring to it happening repeatedly within a single match, but rather across multiple matches. Say User A is fighting User B, and is ruled to have metagamed during their match, and are warned against such. Then User A goes on to fight User C, and metagames again. And then a third time against User D. There is a point where it ceases to become accidental, and if there's nothing officially done about the problem, it can make people feel like nobody cares. Simply saying something is against the rules doesn't mean much unless there are clearly outlined consequences. We don't become judges by punishing people for breaking the rules, because we don't decide whether or not the rules have been broken. My proposal is only that when a judge decides that a rule has been broken, and when the player has a history of breaking the same rule multiple times, the Council mete out the appropriate punishment. Quite simply, I propose that we let the judges be judges, and that the Council be no more than executors.
Having the Council strip/ban/etc. for offenses brought up by players (including judges) I agree with, especially since it's already what is supposed to he happening anyways. What I do not agree with is for there to be a penalty other than auto-hit or auto-loss for metagaming, godmodding, etc. in an OOC fight. Even in the context of an IC Biju Hunt auto-hit would be preferred to stripping or biju stuff banning in my opinion.
Why? Again in short, I do not think it is fair that the punishment for breaking a written rule with minimal ambiguity is the same punishment as breaking a guideline with lots of wriggle room.