Finishing a post without responding to something means that that action is solid and cannot be changed by future posts.
That action cannot be reacted to later.
So if in two rounds that action causes something else to happen, B must react to THAT action, and not the initial one.
Zero tolerance for retroposting
Three strikes for proven metagaming seems fair.
Thanks Saiteki for writing this out so I didn't have to.
Go team.
Who exactly is doling out the punishments for these, offenses?
And shouldnt there be a guidebook on how to RP?
Thank you for making my post so much more colorful.
Wanna follow me around and do that all the time?
Who exactly is doling out the punishments for these, offenses?
And shouldnt there be a guidebook on how to RP? There is already a starter's guide on getting into biju affairs from a desk jockey PoV, but no guide to how to RP around here.
Not being able to react against react against react against react against react against react against react doesn't seem fair if the characters have the reflexes to do it.
Person A makes handsigns and uses fireball jutsu. Person B uses shunshin to, using a katana, slash at Person A in the middle of their handsigns, using sharingan to monitor movements and adjust as needed to slash. Person A jumps backwards and exhales the ball of fire in an attempt to get B away. Person B does a sidestep-jump-juke thing and as a result finishes slashing action on Person A? Person A, when fireball is dodged, activates byakugan and withdraws their own katana to meet Person B's slash headon? Person B though still is adjusting for movement and goes around the katana?
At what point does Person A have to take the slash, or at what point is B forced to not "continue" a previous action? What about actions that supposedly "account for anything to come" and thus lead into the next post as something already stated to be prepared for?
Easier said than done really because it's better to train someone than give them a handbook and say "Here you go! Now do something!"
In light of my more recent fight, I have come to understand that there is no established consequence for breaking some of the more...overlooked guidelines of SL such as Retroposting and Metagaming. This is something I would like to have addressed for future reference when observing not only a Biju fight, but perhaps even in traditional IC RP. I realize that there is a footnote saying these things are forbidden in the biju rules, but we should probably solidify what it means to break them...
In light of my more recent fight, I have come to understand that there is no established consequence for breaking some of the more...overlooked guidelines of SL such as Retroposting and Metagaming. This is something I would like to have addressed for future reference when observing not only a Biju fight, but perhaps even in traditional IC RP. I realize that there is a footnote saying these things are forbidden in the biju rules, but we should probably solidify what it means to break them.
... I suggest putting a set limit on how far back a person can react. Just for example lets say...3 full actions. If it is within the realm of possibility, you can react to upwards of three action prior to your current round. So the beginning of your opponent's most recent set of actions against you. You can obviously still interrupt your opponent within these parameters, but you also can't go back 2 rounds and reto-fix a mistake you made...
My suggestion is a “3 strikes and you’re out” kind of clause...
... In the case of retro-posting, I would propose that so long as your opponent isn't rushing (which is a whole different can of worms, and a debate for another time), you should be reacting to actions as they come, point blank. For example, if your opponent uses a technique, such as a cloning jutsu, and can reasonably follow it up with another action before your character could realistically react to the first, I submit that you only be allowed to react to the second action. However, if a judge rules that an action is not viable, at any point, I also submit that the following actions become null, and the fight continue from the last legal action. In the event that this would be a large setback (IE erasing a long string of rounds and possibly compromising the entire match), I submit that the ruling be brought before the Council for judgment. That being said, if you feel an action should be ruled legal or illegal by a judge, you should bring it up as soon as possible, and not wait until such a point that it requires a rollback...
As for consequences to breaking these rules, I second that there be a penalty system of some kind implemented, with a three-strike basis. I submit the first strike be a warning, the second strike being a forfeiture of the bout or match, and the final strike being a heavier penalty, such as stripping of a Beast, or banning from challenges for a set period of time, to be decided upon by the Council...
The issue, then, comes when you try and react to void something that already happened.
To me, finishing a post without responding to something means that that action is solid and cannot be changed by future posts.
So if A performs an action, no matter how minute, and B does nothing about it, that action cannot be reacted to later.
So if in two rounds that action causes something else to happen, B must react to THAT action, and not the initial one...
... And shouldnt there be a guidebook on how to RP...
...There are no rules on how you fight (except the rules that apply to the game)...
[Godmodding] is completely permitted, however you should know that most people won't want to fight you if you fight like that. Most prefer that you be fair and don't god-mode.
The best suggestion is: "Use what you think is fair for [your] level."
... In the case of retro-posting, I would propose that so long as your opponent isn't rushing (which is a whole different can of worms, and a debate for another time), you should be reacting to actions as they come, point blank. For example, if your opponent uses a technique, such as a cloning jutsu, and can reasonably follow it up with another action before your character could realistically react to the first, I submit that you only be allowed to react to the second action. However, if a judge rules that an action is not viable, at any point, I also submit that the following actions become null, and the fight continue from the last legal action. In the event that this would be a large setback (IE erasing a long string of rounds and possibly compromising the entire match), I submit that the ruling be brought before the Council for judgment. That being said, if you feel an action should be ruled legal or illegal by a judge, you should bring it up as soon as possible, and not wait until such a point that it requires a rollback...
As for consequences to breaking these rules, I second that there be a penalty system of some kind implemented, with a three-strike basis. I submit the first strike be a warning, the second strike being a forfeiture of the bout or match, and the final strike being a heavier penalty, such as stripping of a Beast, or banning from challenges for a set period of time, to be decided upon by the Council...
While I do like the suggestions for limitations on, well, the infinite response loop, I have to object to the 3 strikes initiative based on its premise. If during a zone fight with a judge present one of the players retros or metas and the judge rules it as such and mandates a repost, then what is the problem here? Yes, the number of reposts can get pretty long, which is why some people limit the number of reposts that can be had. But if in the repost the same mistake is made again, then again, in alot of preferences, that would be grounds for an automatic auto-hit or even removal from the biju match.
What the final judge rules, rules. I do not see the reason for a formal "3 strike" system in an OOC fight over general zoning rules. There is a judge for the match who can rule autohit as a result of not responding properly as long as there is no agreed upon term stating that that is not something a judge can do. At best the player can get a new judge and then that is it for an OOC fight; only in an IC Hunt can a judge's decision be appealed to the Biju Council.
As far as enforcement goes, if the Council starts enforcing and punishing players for breaking zoning rules in OOC biju matches (heck even IC Hunt biju matches) then we kind of start becoming judges. I mean, that is the whole point of having a judge for a match that does not involve the real storylines of either character. To enforce zoning rules or, as some have put it, guidelines, which is against the biju rules for the Council to do.
If during a zone fight with a judge present one of the players retros or metas and the judge rules it as such and mandates a repost, then what is the problem here?
What the final judge rules, rules. At best the player can get a new judge and then that is it for an OOC fight; only in an IC Hunt can a judge's decision be appealed to the Biju Council.
Nothing is true till your partners also say its true, everything that does not violate the game rules is permitted, and that people are not obligated to play with someone they think is playing unfair.
1) Community decisions, written down or not, run the day. I can claim that my character revived Rares Uchiha and have him ride a sage mode transformed Eric into Kirigakure to preach the One True Faith of Bijuuism, but if nobody else takes it as happening, my character might as well not exist in that capacity.
2) Over the entire course of this site, from vampires to zombies to dragons to furries to, well, alot of stuff, the only stuff that Neji and his crew overtly worked to shut down was stuff that violated the game rules. Other than that, people are limited in what they can do only by 1 and 3, which in turn are meaningless without 2 being a thing.
3) Void, bans on stuff like OP jutsu, special rules for jutsu, ignoring posts, etc. This in particular takes a hit with things like biju, but overall players have alot of say in what kind of RP their characters are involved in.
The IC rules were set up in such a fashion as to turn a Biju Hunt into a RPG-like setting, but it requires alot of preparation and so far has not been tested under the rigors of actual RP. It is open ended for the very reason that being too restrictive in everything would have neither gotten the votes to get in (I imagine) or would have had to be changed everytime a SL guideline changed.
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.
Executioner Council ... Sounds like Sith Lords o3o
... 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.
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.
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'...
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.