New members: you need admin approval, please petition *in game* if you made an account. 
No:QuoteAfter Inactivity or defeat you may challenge a different host, or the same host for a different bijuu right away.
Doesn't this risk conflicting with the "you cannot challenge the same host for 3 months" thing? Or is the general consensus that you are challenging for the biju and not for the host?QuoteYou must check forum host preference threads to stay informed.
Informed of what, exactly? I don't think preferences should be changing mid-match, so unless you're talking other additions to the challenge list or the host replying to the challenger, I don't get what the challenger needs to stay on top of in that thread.
Call me messed up but I don't want to be 'forced' to RP anything that I'm not interested in. For example, bijuu training. I think some people would rather just count the days and when it's up, they edit their profile. >.>
- 30 days per tail. You must post rp to this effect during that time pertaining to communing and/or training with your beast.
- Beast taming ability KGs will be RP based only. Resets do not decrease number of days to proficiency as that is an OOC issue.
QuoteIf a Jinchuriki attempts to access more tails than they have mastered they will lose control of the beast. If they were not already in a V2 cloak they will immediately ascend to such at the level of tails they attempted to access. They must then rp is much the same way as Naruto having lost control of Kurama. The host is unconscious and subject to the whims of a furious bijuu. They will attack perpetually until anything that could be perceived as an opponent is killed, this includes their own summons, such as animals or Edo Tensei zombies. The host will gain a tail each turn starting after the turn they first lost control. After reaching the maximum number of tails in the V2 state the host will ascend to the full bijuu form on the next turn. If this happens the host is killed and the challenger need only subdue the rampaging bijuu to win the match. [Note: This is a stopping the match issue, until the consequences of accessing powers that have not been acquired are included.]
I think this is a little, well, not heavy-handed, but too handy. I mean, just think about it, you have a challenger barely hanging on in a 1v1 match, and then the host decides to forcefully use more than usual as an actual strategy to kill off the challenger and have the biju either be turned over to the village (preservation of village beast) or be under their GMing.
I think it would be better to just not allow it all, and consider that god-modding.
- Both parties choose a judge and abide by their decision.
- In the unlikely event of the gross incompetence of the judge, both parties must agree upon a new judge and this second ruling shall be the final word for good or for ill.
QuoteI don't agree because that was the judge's fault and s/he should live with it. There's no rush / timetable on giving a ruling. Of course, you would prefer one within 1 week time (a few days at least).
- Judges are NOT to be replaced because they do not agree with you. Cycling through judges until you get a ruling you like is NOT abiding by the rules and considered an abuse. One warning will be issued.
QuoteI disagree because people are entitled to have a second opinion if they feel they need one regardless. That's like saying, I'm not allowed to have a second opinion about my medical condition/treatment because I don't agree with the first doctor.
- No unresolved issues will be tolerated... As such:
- Compromises must be made in the event of a deadlock. Failure to come to terms after every option has been exhausted will result in stripping, challenger denied, and the bijuu handled according to the Stripping Rules. Both challenger and host will be denied access to all things bijuu for 3 months due to gross incompetence.
QuoteCorrect me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose of the Council is to resolve 'unresolved issues'? This is literally giving the Council more work than necessary because the time/effort into the Stripping process.
- Council members are ineligible to be chosen as judges.
QuoteI disagree and we are still in the process of voting on this matter.
- Attempts to commit fraud by providing a judge who is an alt [for your own match] by either party will result in a perma-ban of all things bijuu.
- Judges will acquaint themselves with the rules of all things bijuu, the preference list of the host, the terms agreed upon by the participants, and commit to activity.
- Judges may have to play crowd control in the event of a public verbal abusive fight. In the event of such an issue, the judge should make one post requesting that this behavior cease, to arrange to mediate between the parties in private, and place the match on hold. Should this warning/request be ignored, the judge should refer the matter to a site Mod/staff and not be drawn into participating in such behaviors.
QuoteIsn't that the responsibility of a site Mod/staff? Personally, all I expect from a judge is to post their ruling and the reasoning behind it. To expect a judge to do crowd control is too much.
No to the following:QuoteThe bijuu goes to village or clan leader.
Just send it to the Council from the get-go and cut out the middle man, especially if stripping occurred due to misconduct during a fight. From there, the Council decides on where it goes (obviously they cannot choose themselves).
I'm of course willing to make rules for it. You should still only be able to summon one bijuu in a fight. And as I mentioned before you should be required to defend them simultaneously. If I have the 4 and 9 tails and Billy Joe challenges me for the 4 tails and Joey Bill challenges me for the 9 tails I have to fight them both at the same time 2v1 (or 1v1v1 depending on how much they want to work together).
Any other ideas for rules for owning multiple bijuu?
Can it be an option? Sure, but something that must be agreed upon by all parties involved.
For instance: Mary Sue has the one tail and the two tail and Todd wants the one tail and they are fighting. Then Johnny Rotten comes along to try for the two tails? Mary Sue is like, fine jump on in Johnny, but Todd is more exclusive and like...nope...get your own room, cause Johnny just might throw off my stride.
Mary Sue would then have to conduct two separate matches at the same time, in an OOC manner. However, if Todd is up to the diversity too, then go for it.
be defined, especially if standards for biju RP fighting are not adopted. Otherwise we'll be debating if gross incompetence occurred at all if only one party has a disagreement with the ruling (or even if two).
You may not challenge yourself on an alt.For some reason, I read that as 'You may not judge yourself on an alt.' o.o
"In the unlikely event of the gross incompetence of the judge, both parties must agree upon a new judge and this second ruling shall be the final word for good or for ill."I don't agree because that was the judge's fault and s/he should live with it. There's no rush / timetable on giving a ruling. Of course, you would prefer one within 1 week time (a few days at least).
"Judges are NOT to be replaced because they do not agree with you. Cycling through judges until you get a ruling you like is NOT abiding by the rules and considered an abuse. One warning will be issued."As I mentioned earlier, I don't agree with this.
"No unresolved issues will be tolerated... As such:Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose of the Council is to resolve 'unresolved issues'? This is literally giving the Council more work than necessary because the time/effort into the Stripping process.
Compromises must be made in the event of a deadlock. Failure to come to terms after every option has been exhausted will result in stripping, challenger denied, and the bijuu handled according to the Stripping Rules. Both challenger and host will be denied access to all things bijuu for 3 months due to gross incompetence."
"Council members are ineligible to be chosen as judges."I disagree and aren't we still in the process of voting on this matter. o.o
"Judges may have to play crowd control in the event of a public verbal abusive fight. In the event of such an issue, the judge should make one post requesting that this behavior cease, to arrange to mediate between the parties in private, and place the match on hold. Should this warning/request be ignored, the judge should refer the matter to a site Mod/staff and not be drawn into participating in such behaviors."Isn't that the judge of a site Mod/staff? Personally, all I expect from a judge is to post their ruling and the reasoning behind it. To expect a judge to do crowd control is too much. >.>
