Shinobi Legends Forum - Shinobi Legends Game Site

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please petition corrupted/Badnavs in game, nothing can be done from the forums.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
 11 
 on: June 04, 2021, 01:51:16 AM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by Dart Terumī
Apologies for the double post.

I had hoped that the vote thread would have lead to a formal resolution, but apparently not:

https://forum.shinobilegends.com/index.php/topic,9528.0.html

Out of the current Council members, only 2 of us (Dart and I) posted a vote. Among those who have discussed something in this thread... Checking the list of the 3rd Cohort, I suppose that would only be us 2 yet again.

This is problematic, although I have kind of been on the fence about this topic. On one hand, letting the two of them fight it out is an ideal situation, but if both or one of them goes inactive during that time, then we're kind of back to square one. It buys time to figure out the Council situation, but I'm not sure there's enough interest to keep the biju shifting hands much less fill the Council.

True enough, and so off topic momentarily, we need to create the 4th Cohort then in order to resolve any inactivity that might occur should these two fight for Shukaku.

 12 
 on: May 26, 2021, 01:52:48 PM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by Eric
Apologies for the double post.

I had hoped that the vote thread would have lead to a formal resolution, but apparently not:

https://forum.shinobilegends.com/index.php/topic,9528.0.html

Out of the current Council members, only 2 of us (Dart and I) posted a vote. Among those who have discussed something in this thread... Checking the list of the 3rd Cohort, I suppose that would only be us 2 yet again.

This is problematic, although I have kind of been on the fence about this topic. On one hand, letting the two of them fight it out is an ideal situation, but if both or one of them goes inactive during that time, then we're kind of back to square one. It buys time to figure out the Council situation, but I'm not sure there's enough interest to keep the biju shifting hands much less fill the Council.

 13 
 on: May 20, 2021, 09:25:00 AM 
Started by Eric - Last post by Eric
I vote option 2.

 14 
 on: May 14, 2021, 08:23:16 PM 
Started by Eric - Last post by Timothy
Not a council member, but I too think they should vote for the two to fight it out in style.

 15 
 on: May 13, 2021, 06:21:43 PM 
Started by Eric - Last post by Dart Terumī
I believe they should just fight it out.

 16 
 on: May 13, 2021, 06:21:16 PM 
Started by Eric - Last post by Dart Terumī
After reading your prior argument against my initial idea, I am of the same mind that a reason needs to be stated, at least to the Council, for why someone will be going inactive.

 17 
 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.

 18 
 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 May 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.

*Didn't notice my typo, at the time of making the post April had already been gone for a week+. Updated to proper month of May*


** So here we are on 26MAY2021 and only 2 of the current Council members, myself and Dart, have  at this point given a vote (opposing ones at that). **

 19 
 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.

 20 
 on: April 27, 2021, 05:43:41 AM 
Started by Hazama - Last post by Dart Terumī
Kamui's account as of 4/26/21

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 27 queries.