Shinobi Legends Forum
Roleplay => All That Is Bijuu => Council => Topic started by: Nathan on December 04, 2015, 12:39:18 AM
-
Hooray! Nah, but seriously I propose we use this topic to discuss if there should actually be one since not everyone has given their input on whether or not it should be. If you all agree then we should move to the exact number -- seemed like 3 was the popular vote -- and then once those are out of the way we can work out the actual conditions for being a council member.
Essentially I'm saying we should use this topic to discuss the rules, conditions, etc. of a council if the topic didn't give that away. We can make other topics for nominations and the like once we have the finer details -- such as the rules -- ironed out; albeit, that's assuming if everyone actually wants a council, but that's what this topic is for! :D
-
Yes, and I agree with *three*.
I am also satisfied with *five.*
My vote will go to the majority, three or five that is.
The rules... let's see what others have to say. I might just build about them. :P
-
- I prefer the number 5 for a council. It permits a wider view to be represented so the council will not me prone to holding to one thought/bias on how the bijuu rules should be handled and interpreted.
- I like the notion of prior hosts being council members.
- Current hosts being ineligible.
- If a current council member wants to go bijuu hunting they should step down and a replacement should be installed prior to going on the hunt/challenger for their beast.
- I am ambivalent on how the members are chosen, either by community vote or appointment.
- I don't feel staff members should be on the council, for this is an RP issue and I believe Neji doesn't want staff meddling there.
as to council rules;
- If a council member is shown to be biased or no longer participating in council business, they should be replaced.
- Length of service? 6 months?
- I propose a warning for first offense of all infractions of breaking the bijuu rules except the inactivity clause. Stripping a host should not be the 'go to solution' for everything. Mistakes will be made.
-
- I prefer the number 5 for a council. It permits a wider view to be represented so the council will not me prone to holding to one thought/bias on how the bijuu rules should be handled and interpreted.
- I like the notion of prior hosts being council members.
- Current hosts being ineligible.
- If a current council member wants to go bijuu hunting they should step down and a replacement should be installed prior to going on the hunt/challenger for their beast.
- I am ambivalent on how the members are chosen, either by community vote or appointment.
- I don't feel staff members should be on the council, for this is an RP issue and I believe Neji doesn't want staff meddling there.
as to council rules;
- If a council member is shown to be biased or no longer participating in council business, they should be replaced.
- Length of service? 6 months?
- I propose a warning for first offense of all infractions of breaking the bijuu rules except the inactivity clause. Stripping a host should not be the 'go to solution' for everything. Mistakes will be made.
Alright, so, if current hosts and staff members are ineligible (Which should be reviewed), and being a host previously is a prerequisite, then I'd honestly like to see if anyone can put down a list of 5 names that meet that criteria.
I sure as hell can't.
1: Eric?
2-5 ???
Also, not sure if this was already spoken about in the dwelling (Because that became a cluster-fu**), but why aren't current hosts eligible to be apart of this council? We are the ones who will be affected by at least 50% of the rules placed down, and if that is the case, I personally would like to have a few of us as representatives. Not all 5 obvs, but like two >> Like Senators. Elected by the Hosts, for the hosts.
-
I have been reading the discussion in Ace's dwelling from start to finish.
I have a few comments but I will only mention those that relate to the idea of having a bijuu council.
There's always a need for a council. However, I personally think it's okay for a council member to be a judge also because the responsibilities of those 2 positions are different. Even if the participants disagree with the judge (who happens to be a council member), the most likely case is getting a 2nd opinion from a different judge. In the end, the council as a group would not get involved with such matters.
Council - enforce bijuu rules
Judge - oversees the match and make decisions, if called upon.
Both positions require to be unbiased anyway.
I also prefer the number 5 for council. As Nathan mentioned in the dwelling, having a council who was a previous may be a preference but definitely not mandatory.
I'm okay with giving a warning for first offense but only ONE warning and it needs to be noted/recorded somewhere in the event that the host decided to do that again.
However, that means the host in question would need to comply within certain amount of days.
For example, if you give them a warning for not posting within the 2 week mark. How many days would give the person to do so? 3 days?
And I think the 'one warning' rule should apply to only NEW people that have never been a jink/own a bijuu before. Experienced hosts should know better.
Also, not sure if this was already spoken about in the dwelling (Because that became a cluster-fu**), but why aren't current hosts eligible to be apart of this council? We are the ones who will be affected by at least 50% of the rules placed down, and if that is the case, I personally would like to have a few of us as representatives. Not all 5 obvs, but like two >> Like Senators. Elected by the Hosts, for the hosts.
Because there may come a situation where it's a conflict of interest. Like a situation may come where the host did something wrong that the council has to make a decision on. However that host is also a member of the council, so obviously that person is going to vote in his/her own favor. >.>
-
@Mei
Thats why we only have a select few who are Hosts and on the council. That way, if there is a conflict of interest, there would still be three other members who could counterbalance the bias with their own votes. Should they agree with the host though, then obviously they are in the right.
-
The issue with having current hosts as part of the council is policing yourself. If that worked out without creating a huge hassel, then our talks here over bijuu would never have occurred.
Bias...it happens, let's not go there?
I also like the idea of judges and council members being separate for the same reason. This would also free participants to pick a judge from anywhere...other than a council member. I think it should just be someone they agree upon, and judges should stick to enforcing the rules, not taking a hand in deciding a match outcome.
names of prior hosts. most inactive:
Eric
Kirk
Kayenta
Zenaku
Isaribi
CJ
Xia
Tetsujin
Raifudo
Hades
Shadow
Ōshō-Kiba
Luka
Shinro
so...maybe some people who were never hosts will have to be considered. But they should at least be RPers who are active with a sense of how things go.
-
The issue with having current hosts as part of the council is policing yourself. If that worked out without creating a huge hassel, then our talks here over bijuu would never have occurred.
Bias...it happens, let's not go there?
I also like the idea of judges and council members being separate for the same reason. This would also free participants to pick a judge from anywhere...other than a council member. I think it should just be someone they agree upon, and judges should stick to enforcing the rules, not taking a hand in deciding a match outcome.
names of prior hosts. most inactive:
Eric
Kirk
Kayenta
Zenaku
Isaribi
CJ
Xia
Tetsujin
Raifudo
Hades
Shadow
Ōshō-Kiba
Luka
Shinro
so...maybe some people who were never hosts will have to be considered. But they should at least be RPers who are active with a sense of how things go.
Nobody is completely unbiased (Minus Ace, and people who honestly don't care). There wouldn't be a single person nominated that would receive a unanimous vote, it just wouldn't happen, and frankly if I don't push for hosts to have a place within the council, then you guys are gonna nominate yourselves, vote for yourselves, then we are gonna have a council of people who are completely jaded anyway. >>
-
Staff should still be considered to be on the council.
I will continue to say say until it is realize, staff members are first and foremost *MEMBERS*.
Next, 6 months is way to long. Take it down to 3, my suggestion.
as to council rules;
- If a council member is shown to be biased or no longer participating in council business, they should be replaced.
- Length of service? 6 months?
Too vague. I'm sure you realize by now, being bias will be subjective to each person's view. Then you'll have 100 other useless topics discussing if the person was really bias, with people taking each sides.
So no, again.
And, yes, I am bias as well. We all are. There are ways to minimize that though Riku. ;)
-
Riku...you are one of us. So there is not 'yourselves' here that does not include you. We have hosts working on this issue from the get go.
I just feel that when it comes to enforcing the rules...that we...and that includes hosts...create, then a host should stay out of it. The council will not be making rules. We do that. And that includes hosts.
You feel differently. We are here to decide, not push things on people, but agree.
@ Ace; I figured those were just starter rules for the council and would be further discussed. They will need to be well thought out and worded properly upon final draft and such. As for staff on council, you are the one who was always telling me that staff is supposed to be hands off RP things. So...if you don't feel it is an issue in the case of bijuu council then...I don't care.
-
@ Ace; I figured those were just starter rules for the council and would be further discussed. They will need to be well thought out and worded properly upon final draft and such. As for staff on council, you are the one who was always telling me that staff is supposed to be hands off RP things. So...if you don't feel it is an issue in the case of bijuu council then...I don't care.
Yes, Staff should be hands off in terms of enforcement through their *staff abilities.*
I think you have been misunderstanding most of my statements....
Clearly, staff may operate without their abilities in role play as Kamui continues to display. ;)
Clear now I hope? =)
-
Pov issues still should not excuse them from being accused of bias, because history's shown it can be really obvious sometimes. Who's to say one person won't for example pull such nonsense that whole rest of council will notice and point it out immediately?
And for that reason exactly hosts and fight judges should be kept off the council. It doesn't fully eliminate the potential for bias, but its still the least amount of potential BS, conflicting interests and the like, that we can get as things are.
-
I absolutely agree current hosts should not be on the council. I don't think there's any question about that. I could go either way with them being able to be judges for fights since it would be kind of unfortunate to not be able to use three really knowledgeable people for a fight decision.
I'm still thinking 3 people since as Kay pointed out there are not too many people who fit the bill. We could open it up to more people but I'd still want to keep it at 3.
-
A council, or some group that will actually enforce the rules, should definitely be in place. They must be respected enough that they can actually exercise their authority, but not so high on a pedestal that we have Neji himself as the only higher power. I feel that they should not be explicit judges, but should have the ability to fill that role if necessary.
As Ace said, staff members are still members. Using their mod powers in the role of a player is strictly forbidden, but with all the new nominations for GMs, if staff members were to be completely omitted along with the other conditions (not current or former host), then there is hardly anyone left to fill 3 let alone 5 slots that I can think of.
I think the only conditions should be that the Council member not be a current host nor a village head of a current host.
Now read me out before you start scratching your head in wonder at the suggestion. Among the most obvious bias will be village heads who think that they own the tailed beast and should be heavily invested in keeping it in the village by all means, OOC and otherwise. Some will be better than others of keeping the two things separate, but village-matess have a tendency to RP simillarly, or at least have similar ideas on how RP is conducted. Without an official, site-wide method of zoning and RPing (that is specific mind you, that "play nice" generalized stuff is not helpful when there are plenty of intricacies lying about) that is the most obvious bit of bias that can be had. And who more to be patriotic than the village head?
So, without completely reducing the pool to the point where we are stuck with a democratic oligarchy (because of so few choices) I propose that only village heads and current hosts be banned from being Council Members.
-
Staff can have the option of trying for council, I don't see the issue with them not being able to be on the council -- as long as they want to be, they can volunteer to be included in the voting process. That means that they ultimately accept the responsibility and agree that they'll be actively participating in the council duties, on-top of their normal staff work.
Current hosts should not be a part of the council, in hopes of only to avoid biased opinions more-so along with people who are calm, approachable and realistic. If a large problem from the get-go was current hosts, then it should be clear and evident that they should stay away from a position that decides on things regarding active hosts -- opinions will be biased. The council should be separated from judges and current hosts. Simple enough.
Also, I like the idea of 5 people. 3 is too small. 5 people would allow for more feedback, variability, and 2 people wouldn't gang up on one person.
I feel preferences should still be incorporated into terms, because that should be a host's home field advantage, considering they earned their beast and should have some say when making the terms for their fight. It should be just enough to benefit the host than the challenger, but should not skew a scenario; prevailing over a host should be a difficult feat to accomplish.
-
... I feel preferences should still be incorporated into terms, because that should be a host's home field advantage, considering they earned their beast and should have some say when making the terms for their fight. It should be just enough to benefit the host than the challenger, but should not skew a scenario; prevailing over a host should be a difficult feat to accomplish.
In an IC fight/hunt, the host is more than likely not already in his/her own village with his/her own allies. That alone is a homefield advantage that can be a tremendous obstacle to overcome. in an OOC fight though I can see how such an "edge" might be viable at this stage.
-
A key importance of this council will also be to take care of unforeseen matters.
Meaning, we are all humans, and in our rules and regulations we may have some loopholes.
Of course, if it is not against the rules or regulations than no consequence may be handed down to the person who took advantage of it.
But once that loophole or lack of a rule is exposed, it should be the elected council's job to patch it up!
This is where administration (aka, council) is important. The people chose the council, and the council addresses these types of concerns.
=)
Hopefully that makes sense. Works that way in most political systems, democracies.
Also, this avoids having too many chefs in the kitchen, resulting in months of discussion. ;)
EDIT: My vote now goes to having five on the council, reasons that previous posts have convinced me otherwise. Good cases were made for five, and not three.
-
5's good.
-
http://forum.shinobilegends.com/index.php/topic,8685.0.html
Please read that first! IMPORTANT
This is so we may be more organized, and so no one in he future may question the votes.
We have to learn from our mistakes, why is not being done yet? =)
So, let's try it out...
I have started the topic for which only purpose is to determine the number for the council, three or five. Once all is done and said, topic will be deleted and final tally number will be recorded.
-
I say 3 members for the fact I feel the less members there are the more of a chance of heads not clashing.
I also feel that current host should not be on the seat of council members. The main issue here being that they may be the ones that come into question and at that point they couldn't make a ruling which means the council would fall into an even number count which could result in a tie.
The only way I could see this working is if we had 5 total council members 2 of which had to be current host and if 1 of those was to come into question both would have to not partake making the count of council 3. However, even then we fall into an issue. What if one of those elected council members was to lose his/her beast making them no longer a current host? I suppose we could still count them as if they were and if the other was to come to question they still have to set out. Then one may say I want someone else to set out and not them... all in all it could bring forth too much hassle and debate. We clearly don't need a system or rules that bring forth those things. As history here has shown when that stuff is allowed heated situations arise.
I have been working on crafting some stuff as to forming a system that the council can follow. I have not had the chance to write it all down yet I do apologize about that. However, I will try to bring it forth soon. For you all to over look and say what we can agree may be good and what may not be. Several of the things it would address are being spoken of here already.
I think the council and rules should function similar to that of a civil law system. Where the written rules are what the council pass judgment based upon, not a common law system where past records and trails are weighed to make judgment.
-
Yeah I think I've had enough of hosts having an "edge" let's just make it so the fights actually happen from now on.
-
Yeah I think I've had enough of hosts having an "edge" let's just make it so the fights actually happen from now on.
That's what I am applying it is much easier for these host to give the run around if the challenger has to go to such lengths that they are giving themselves away to the host. Let's face it meta-gaming happens even when we aren't trying to do it. It is human nature to protect yourself.
I see this as a balance between host and challenger. The host can still make it hard to find rp wise they are host as they can keep their mouths shut and have friends close to aid them. While the challenger gets to use the aspect of surprise to the fullest. Of course they still have to find all this out rp wise IC and actually rp tracking down the host and what not.
I feel it cuts out all that middle ground crap and the actual rp can get started much faster.
Edit: I thought this was a reply to my post in the rules topic... I'm not sure who Eric was replying to or if he meant to post there. I got confused between the two pages being pulled up... sorry.
-
I think five members would be good. It offers more feedback, like Court said. And we shouldn't be saying that staff members shouldn't apply. They are members of the community just like use so we should treat them like such.
-
I think five members would be good. It offers more feedback, like Court said. And we shouldn't be saying that staff members shouldn't apply. They are members of the community just like use so we should treat them like such.
There is a vote thread for this very issue. :good:
-
I vote:
No current hosts or bijuu owners.
No Kage whose village has a host or owner. I agree no Kage of a village with a host or owner, cause that would be a conflict of interest if one had to be stripped. No one wants their warrior's stripped.
However, we are short on possible council members so... like Chusaki would be fine cause Suna doesn't have a bijuu. Becquerel would be fine too, Oto has no beasts do they? Is Ryoji still Oto or is he considered his own group now, the Boshoku? It is hard for me to keep up with host affiliations sometimes. Miyuu would be fine cause Iwa doesn't have one either.
Since they would not be judging matches...I see Kage's with no beasts in their village being an issue, even if a challenger is from there. But should that change...I feel they should step down.
Vote:
-No current hosts or owners of a bijuu.
-No Kage who possesses a village member with a bijuu.
-No potential judges of a bijuu fight (more like the council member can't judge a bijuu fight once nominated)
My vote:
- No current hosts or owners of bijuu.
- No Kage of village with a bijuu within.
Just to point out that during the time that Kage is serving on the council a member of their village may become a host. Thus we would have a Kage on the council who has a beast in their village.
I think it is important to look at things of the sort which create loopholes.
-
Since this topic will now serve as a launching platform for votes, and will serve for the future discussion of what might need to be voted on...
I would highly like for all to reconsider elections to be every 4 months.
Although I did vote 3 initially, I think that was not the best. Three is too short, while six is honestly way to long.
Tis all. ;)
http://forum.shinobilegends.com/index.php/topic,8690.0.html