Shinobi Legends Forum - Shinobi Legends Game Site

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Ever wondered if your ideas have been talked about in the forum already? Well, try out the "search" option, where all your questions can be answered.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: May 09, 2021, 11:09:52 AM 
Started by Eric - Last post by Eric
Following up on this:

... Given the extenuating circumstances of this pandemic and how the freezes were made to the Claimed List, I think the activity clause could be temporarily suspended as we don't know how our other players are handling everything and/or getting sick...

What is everyone's thought on this? Note that this would only affect challengers/hosts, not the Council, as formally there is no activity clause for the Council.

I personally see no pro to this, as the activity clause is functionally the only way beasts get moved out of inactive hands, and I would much rather we maintain a state of "you need to let people know if something's going on" then an unstated covid so don't bother.

We are overdue for a few things related to biju, new Council elections chief among them, but i think overall interest/investment in formal Biju related stuff is more to blame than COVID.

 2 
 on: May 09, 2021, 11:00:30 AM 
Started by Eric - Last post by Eric
A brief review of the situation at hand:

This thread is a biju council vote thread for the placement of Shukaku, the one tailed beast, which would have automatically been stripped from Kamui per the activity clause of the biju rules and granted to the latest challenger Hazama. Hazama, however, never posted a preferences post to the challenge thread and went inactive during the time period in which he would have had the beast (himself violating the 14-day activity clause), therefore he too has broken the biju rules at this point. At the time of this post there was no new challenger for the beast, so it can't just automatically go there either.

See the following thread for more of the discussion: https://forum.shinobilegends.com/index.php/topic,9526.0.html

Current Biju Council members/subs ONLY should be posting here: https://forum.shinobilegends.com/index.php/topic,9121.msg232662.html#msg232662

Council members, post your vote at a minimum. If you choose, you may give a brief explanation of your vote as well. Simple majority rules, the timeframe is 14 days for voting (which is twice the usual voting precedent for rule updates), ending April 23, 2021.


1) The beast could be still fought over by both contestants. Solely for the purposes of the fight and rule application in said fight, Kamui would still be considered "host" and Hazama would be considered "challenger".

2) If there is not a fight to be had between these 2, then the Council needs to have a separate discussion on what to do with the beast.

 3 
 on: May 09, 2021, 10:06:37 AM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by Eric
So, the Hazama account does exist, the SL name provided by Jay, and there was still no public RP post from Kamui during the timeframe of the original discussion. Kamui still violated the 14-day activity clause, which would not be ignored just because the challenge had not been a week old. Extenuating circumstances. pandemic or not, would have required some sort of notification:

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.

Even when coming to defend himself here on the forum, he did not mention any RL circumstances that prevented him from posting. Sure, private info he didn't need to go into detail about, but I don't see even an allusion to such. I am of the mind that Kamui should still be stripped of the beast for his previous inactivity.

In the rules there are exceptions to be made on a case-by-case basis for this sort of thing, as determined by the Council, but a blanket suspension of the inactivity clause when the inciting event (the pandemic) has no clear end on a global scale does not seem like a good idea to me. But blanket suspension of the activity clause is, essentially, a rule vote/discussion, and a separate discussion thread can be made about that.

In the meantime, to facilitate resolution on this matter, I'll go ahead and create a formal Council vote thread regarding what to do with the beast.

 4 
 on: April 27, 2021, 05:43:41 AM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by Dart Terumī
Kamui's account as of 4/26/21

 5 
 on: April 27, 2021, 05:42:45 AM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by Dart Terumī
I have found the Hazama account (ハザマ) on SL but as of today, 4/26/21, it's been 20 days inactive.

I wish someone would have grabbed the time stamp from when Kamui's account was alleged inactive. When I looked him up, he was only 2 days inactive.

The only active posts I could find for Kamui's activity was in the Main Zone in the Fighting Zones. There is indeed a gap between the 114d post and the 41d post. If Alexa is correct, that's from 1/2/21 to 3/16/21.

Hazama's challenge was created on 3/10/21 which Kamui accepting on 3/16/21.
Kamui was never given his fair chance in accepting the challenge before Hazama decided to try and strip him.


Given the extenuating circumstances of this pandemic and how the freezes were made to the Claimed List, I think the activity clause could be temporarily suspended as we don't know how our other players are handling everything and/or getting sick.

Nonetheless, Kamui did in fact accept the challenge for Shukaku and I believe, as part of the Council, that Kamui and Hazama should have their fight and Shukaku not be immediately granted.

Because as unfortunate as it may be, there was never a screen grab of Kamui's alleged period of activity for me to review.

 6 
 on: April 24, 2021, 11:56:46 AM 
Started by Mei - Last post by Mei
Hello,

For the Sennin Mōdo KG, the hotkey for 'Gather Senjutsu Chakra'  was the letter 'J'. But then it 'relocates' after activating Byakugan, being a hotkey for 'Jyuken'.  However, within the Sennin Mōdo, there is a list of Kuchiyose no Jutsu and one of them is Gamatatsu. And Gamatatsu seems to always have a hotkey on 'G' no matter what action I take.

Would it be possible to remove the G hotkey on Gamatatsu and make it permanent on 'Gather Senjutsu Chakra' and 'Enter Sage Mode' as well. And for consistency, it would be great if you could make the 'G' a permanent hotkey for 'Exit Sage Mode' even though it is already hotkey'ed on the letter 'X'.

So my feature request is for 'Gather Senjutsu Chakra', 'Enter Sage Mode', and 'Exit Sage Mode' to have a permanent hotkey on the letter 'G', by removing that same-letter hotkey on Gamatatsu.

Hope it is possible. Please and thank you. 

 7 
 on: March 28, 2021, 09:36:20 AM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by JayJay
Oooh, I had no idea this was going on. Bummed I missed all the excitement.
btw, Hazama is under this thang -> ハザマ <-

 8 
 on: March 18, 2021, 03:51:58 AM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by Eric
First off, Eric. What's the point of issuing a challenge and not giving the challenger a chance to respond within the given time frame? I should be allowed at least a week to respond, before anything is even done due to the rules stating that we need a week to start the fight or otherwise, the said beast goes to the challenger. I would ask for a council meeting to add this specific clause to the rules, but we don't even a full council to even call a vote. So why bother at this point in time lol?


The rules state that breaking the activity clause constitutes a stripping. Since the Council historically (and especially now) did not tend to actively hunt for rule breakers, the individuals who made strip threads tended to have a vested interest in where the beast went, IE, were usually the challengers. Naturally, when stripped, the Council often awarded the beast to whoever was the last challenger; therefore, it would make sense to make a challenge and then bring up the activity situation as an issue afterwards as, based on history, this would increase the chance of being awarded the tailed beast (in a timely fashion).

As far as I am aware, the "week to setup a match" does not supersede the RP activity clause. The 14 day activity clause is only modified during an "active" match, which is after the match has been setup and formally started:

Quote
Hosts must make a RP post in public once every 14 days while not engaged in an active challenge.

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...

Also, why issue a challenge and not even have that said character exist on the server? Rules state that the both the host and challenger must have an active account on forums and the server where we RP on. No character was specified and I assume that it was his character, Hazama, whom happens to not even exist on Shinobi Legends. Believe me, I checked and found no trace of any activity from the challenger. You can even check for yourself and you'll see why I am bit...confused about why you're stripping my character without even checking to see if the challenger was even existed on Shinobi Legends.

I concede that it was a short-sighted not to check on that when I did go through the trouble of checking the Uchiha Kamui account activity, but technically the rules don't state that you have to have a SL account in order to make a challenge. It states only that a forum account is needed:

Quote
A host must have/create an SL forum account.

Challengers will also have/create an SL forum account.

I *indeed just looked for myself and couldn't find a "Hazama" in the ninja list; without a SL account the only other way to meet the activity clause is to RP here on the forums, which while meeting the letter of the rule as the forum is a public place, doesn't really fit the spirit of it  since most people (even when I was still actively RPing) didn't RP here on the forum.

I am glad there is some discussion on this; before calling a public vote, are the other Biju Council members somewhat active? If not what's left of the biju Council can call for a vote to decide (in the absence of the full representation that would be expected) the fate of Shukaku.


*Editted for clarity

 9 
 on: March 17, 2021, 08:16:54 PM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by Timothy
I'm partial to Camel and Haz working something out, myself. Preferably an actual fight for us to read somewhere after they settle their differences.

 10 
 on: March 17, 2021, 06:22:00 AM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by Camel
First off, Eric. What's the point of issuing a challenge and not giving the challenger a chance to respond within the given time frame? I should be allowed at least a week to respond, before anything is even done due to the rules stating that we need a week to start the fight or otherwise, the said beast goes to the challenger. I would ask for a council meeting to add this specific clause to the rules, but we don't even a full council to even call a vote. So why bother at this point in time lol?

Also, why issue a challenge and not even have that said character exist on the server? Rules state that the both the host and challenger must have an active account on forums and the server where we RP on. No character was specified and I assume that it was his character, Hazama, whom happens to not even exist on Shinobi Legends. Believe me, I checked and found no trace of any activity from the challenger. You can even check for yourself and you'll see why I am bit...confused about why you're stripping my character without even checking to see if the challenger was even existed on Shinobi Legends.

As far as I am concern, the challenge is void until further notice and the stripped beast is given to the council. Rules state that the council votes on a new host and it goes from there, but we have a dilemma with the council's activity. So it wouldn't be fair to have one-sided vote, since we need more than two council members to make it bipartisan.

So where do we go from here? Me and Hazama can work something out and go through with our match on the forums in a respective manner, after he restore his account and what not. Or we can go the stripping route where it'll have to come to a public vote, due to no council and we'll see who becomes the new host afterwards.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Page created in 0.127 seconds with 27 queries.