Roleplay > Council

The Council's Job

(1/2) > >>

Eric:
Scroll down to the bottom if you want to skip to the background information to the response in a nutshell. You'll know it by the "long story short" quip.


--- Quote from: Optimal Saiteki on September 04, 2017, 07:03:21 PM ---
Er... Okay?
You still made a decision without being asked, though, from what I'm seeing. Why would you have left it be if no one said anything?
If something is your job, then it's your job whether or not anyone says anything about it, right? So either it's the councils job to rule on ALL infractions, or just the ones brought to you, isn't it? Or can they just pick and choose which violations to enforce? My point is, if no one brought it directly to the council, it's not a council matter. If it is a council matter, because it's a Bijuu rule and not just a general rule, then it's not just something you can ignore because someone "didn't know the rules".

--- End quote ---

To answer your question with more than "what normally happens", I will start by quoting all explicit times in which the Biju Council is called into action in the current iteration of the rules:


--- Quote ---The purpose of making a notification of absence post is to permit life to happen without wrecking your participation in the bijuu activity, while making it clear that there will be punishments for those who abuse this leave of absence, like forfeit of match, loss of biju, and bans pending a review by the council.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Hosts must make a RP post in public once every 14 days while not engaged in an active challenge. Hosts who fail to do this will have their bijuu stripped by the council.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Extenuating circumstances during the 'idle phase' of a host: Most events occur so as to permit making a post at some time during your 14 days to alert the community that 'something' is going on. Your leave of absence notice will reset the clock to a 14 day absence max. Should you need more time than that...which adds up to possibly a whole month if your notice occurs on day 14...then you will step down as a host and try again later when your life will permit participation again. You will not be banned from challenging someone for another bijuu. But the SL community will be permitted to move on. The council will handle requests for concessions on a case by case basis and their decision will be binding.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Extenuating circumstances during an active match: Here the activity clause is 7 days, in order to keep the fight moving along to a conclusion. Posting for a leave of absence is essential to holding your slot in the match. Should this not be possible, the council will determine how to handle the situation at the time of your return upon request dependent upon a challenger waiting list, if the beast has already been transferred, or how it impacts current RP. All decisions of the council will be binding.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote --- Death of Summoner: If the summoner dies while the bijū is unsummoned the challenger/hunter will transfer the summoning tattoo to themselves.  However, if the summoner dies while the bijū is summoned then the challenger/hunter can attempt to capture and subdue it, in the event that the beast has not already been captured prior to the death of the summoner. Now, if the summoner is also a host, and dies, the hosted bijū will respawn in 7 days at the location of the host's demise: the bijū will be GM'd by someone of the council's choosing.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Breaking any of the other rules results in one warning to be issued by the council. A second violation of the same rule will result in stripping.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---In the event that a host/summoner is stripped, and no challenger exists, the bijuu council determines how to handle the reassignment of the beast in question.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---When the Bijuu Council is called upon to assign a new host, the Bijuu Council can handle the reassigning of the bijuu in any manner they agree upon. Some ways they might to choose, for example, might be: Assigning to a new host they all agree upon, Asking for volunteers, Calling for a GM to host an RP for a wild bijuu hunt, Host a lottery of applicants [meeting in a paid zone and using the random die generators], or a tourney[not to exceed 2 months from start to finish]. However, judging the tourney matches will default to judge rules. Council members may not serve as judges.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Biju Tournaments and FFA are required to have a honor system that all participants are bound by, with punishments enforceable by the Biju Council.
--- End quote ---

More to your point, the Biju Council either automatically acts, such as is the case with activity where the rules outline what the Council has to do with the beast/player etc., and when the Biju Council must first discuss a course of action to take, such as when a beast is in no man's land with no challengers.

I could search for some convoluted and deep reasoning behind my reluctance to go hunting for issues with Biju, but really it is probably more that I have not really settled back into being a Council Member. It is most certainly improper to ignore a rule violation simply because contestants have not brought it up, especially an automatic one like the activity rule.

It is interesting that you bring it up, because the activity rule cited for Jay's autoforfeit does not specifically invoke the Council. In fact, extenuating circumstances (emergencies, high-importance events, etc.) is when the Council is invoked to review the situation on a case-by-case basis, hence why originally I stated that if the participants wanted the Council to make a formal call, then they can, as otherwise the fight is automatically over.

After a certain point most of the Council jumped in declaring the fight a forfeit, so unless Jay came in with a story about the Hurricane and pulled some opinions his way, making an appeal to the Council would have been a dead-end. Probably why he just went ahead and accepted it without much of a fight (though whatever caused his delay probably demanded his attention more).


Long story short: In that particular instance, the forfeit was automatic, so the Council really did not have a job there to do unless Jay or Rusaku or Warren wanted to make an appeal for an exception to be made.

Optimal Saiteki:
I know know know I'm going to regret this... but you're still contradicting yourself..
I'm bad with pulling quotes from other places, but

"Had Rusaku's post about the extension been followed up by nothing, then I would not have personally said anything until either called upon directly or until Rusaku had an issue with it. Imho, the violator should not be the only one who can miss out on not knowing the rules, as from my point of view the Council is not tasked with hunting for rule violations. It would make the job much more difficult and make us more like inquisitors than enforcers." - On Jay's extension

"It is most certainly improper to ignore a rule violation simply because contestants have not brought it up, especially an automatic one like the activity rule." - Literally just now.

Either you call them out when you see them or you don't. ><;

Old Man Xia:

--- Quote from: Optimal Saiteki on September 09, 2017, 05:34:59 PM ---Either you call them out when you see them or you don't. ><;

--- End quote ---

This would be the right reason after what happened. Either you do and get the issue taken care of, or you don't and let it persist and drag out than it should have.

Eric:

--- Quote from: Optimal Saiteki on September 09, 2017, 05:34:59 PM ---I know know know I'm going to regret this... but you're still contradicting yourself..
I'm bad with pulling quotes from other places, but

"Had Rusaku's post about the extension been followed up by nothing, then I would not have personally said anything until either called upon directly or until Rusaku had an issue with it. Imho, the violator should not be the only one who can miss out on not knowing the rules, as from my point of view the Council is not tasked with hunting for rule violations. It would make the job much more difficult and make us more like inquisitors than enforcers." - On Jay's extension

"It is most certainly improper to ignore a rule violation simply because contestants have not brought it up, especially an automatic one like the activity rule." - Literally just now.

Either you call them out when you see them or you don't. ><;

--- End quote ---

It is not a contradiction. Taking my entire 1-2 paragraph quote into account, I clearly state that while I was not going to say anything about the violation due to my personal viewpoint on role of Council Members, that course of action is the improper way of doing things as a member of the Council, especially when it involves an issue where the consequence is already laid out in the rules.

Optimal Saiteki:
So that was more you willingly disregarding established protocol, because you don't agree with it, even though it's something you should, as a council member, be calling out when you see it?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page