Shinobi Legends Forum - Shinobi Legends Game Site

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


New members: you need admin approval, please petition *in game* if you made an account. :)

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Eric

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 229
Council / Re: Potential inactivity: Jay Nara
« on: July 14, 2018, 12:02:26 am »
I do have to address the issue if we allow this event to take precedent. The reason we have the activity rules at all, referring to public posts, is to ensure that beast hosts are available to find in RP. At least that's what I see as the "spirit" of the rules as you refer, Eric.

If we allow NPC posts to be considered activity, then what's to stop someone from demanding the need for an IC hunt, refuse to allow orchestrated hunts like with Sabu and you, lock themselves away in a pocket dimension, and continue to post forever as NPCs to keep up with their activity...

Hosts can't demand the need for an IC hunt and refuse to allow orchestrated hunts because:

...Players cannot hunt and capture a biju IC outside of a biju hunt. If the host is killed in a RP unrelated to the biju hunt, then the biju will go to the Biju Council. There are no guarantees that the biju may go anywhere else after that (IE, challengers who challenged for a biju OOCly or IC hunt do not necessarily get first picks if this happens), but the Council must grant the biju to a player no later than 2 months after the biju first gets into its possession, unless a tournament or other event is on-going for the beast.

A host cannot require an IC hunt without abiding by the orchestrated guidelines and negotiating with the hunter(s). A hunter cannot just up and ambush a host IC outside of a biju hunt and immediately get the beast by unsealing or what have you.

Whether or not hosts or hunters have been taking this into account in the past few months is beyond my current knowledge, but OOC fights are still the most popular for good reason.

However, if you want, you can propose a discussion/vote on a rule change explicitly stating that the post requirements for activity must be IC with the biju holding character.

Biju Rules Workshop:,8578.msg225815.html#msg225815,8578.msg224647.html#msg224647,8578.msg224651.html#msg224651

Inactivity proposal for RP items:,8868.msg229056.html#msg229056

In-Match Activity Requirements:,8830.msg228508.html#msg228508

These are a few prominent examples I have regarding how Activity rule posts are considered. What are the thoughts of the other Council Members? So far the count is:

Dart - Activity RP posts cannot be NPC posts
Eric - Activity RP posts can be NPC posts

After doing my bit of research though, I'm leaning more on Dart's position than my initial one.

Council / Re: Potential inactivity: Jay Nara
« on: July 13, 2018, 07:14:52 am »
I meant it to be, considering my circumstances. Which was why I chose it to react to the man's post instead of making it something separate.

I wanted a few extra techniques to be finished before I made my return, but I don't want to encounter this situation again, so I'll just do so.


In Jay's defense to some degree, I have made similarly "lazy" posts as activity on my own in order to fufuill my activity quota, but it was always my actual character, sitting in a zone inviting a challenge.

Example: Rusaku sits down atop the roof of a building within the empty township and waits for incoming challengers, fluctuating his chakra so he can be found.

While even that is more involved than Jay's post, I still got guff from other players for being lazy. So I'm not exactly a good example. 
I don't personally like the idea of it being an NPC post, and not Jay himself, but I'm not familiar with what the rules actually mandate in that regard. I'm interested in your take, Eric. I also want to hear about the private dwelling RP being considered public activity and if it fulfills the aforementioned quota.

Don't get me wrong, length is not the factor as long a it passes for actual roleplaying and not just chatter or something of that sort.,9118.msg232145.html#msg232145

As far as the rules go, if you search for the acronym "RP" (Match Case) you can see all of the instances in which it is used in the current set of rules. From that you could say that in general, RP as far as the rules are concerned refers to the stream of events that influences characters in the SL RP world, IE, IC events. It does not per say have to be the player's own character that they are playing as, as long as it's a post that is a part of the public RPing sphere. That is how I am looking at it at the moment.

If you want to speak on the spirit of the rule, a few forum searches can probably dig up more information on that.

According to our current rules, there HAS to be a PUBLIC post that the Host/Summoner posts about. As far as Iím aware, this means it has to be the individual in charge of the beast in order to allow IC paths to play out as need be. Not NPC posts created by the person.

In the "Forum Account and Challenging the Host" section, the terms "host" and "challenger" are regularly used to refer to players rather than characters. As a result, as long as it is verifiably Jay the player making the public RP post, then as the rules are written, the RP post is valid.

Council / Re: Potential inactivity: Jay Nara
« on: July 13, 2018, 05:14:25 am »
Uzushiogakure at 11:03pm EST, excerpt:

(1d7h) Sugoi nodded, pushing himself back to his feet. He'd grab his coat and pull it on, the replace his sunglasses and pick up his cloak and mask before accepting the packet from the small woman, "Sure thing. Should have it in a day or so." he replied, and began to show himself out, giving her a firm -
> (1d7h) Sugoi - pat on the shoulder as he passed, "Oh, would you let the woman in charge know I'm heading back her way? And tell the kids not to play by the river." he added, seemingly completely serious, despite the fact that the two sentences had nothing to do with each other, and he made no mention of -
> (1d7h) Sugoi - who the kids in question were.
> (16h45m) <未来> Mr. Jay |Somewhere in the world, some kids were playing by the river...

There is no need to debate IC or OOC here, but given the context and from what you've said in this thread, is that really a RP post?

Rules/Foundation / Keeping track of beast transitions
« on: May 25, 2018, 04:22:25 am »
A host must create a thread with the name of his or her bijuu in the title to the Bijuu Arena board, and use this thread to: state his or her preference for battle, keep a list of challengers, indicate if he or she is a new host and when his or her grace period will be over, and post any notices of absence.


In cleaning up the Mazou thread I came across a conundrum where, for record keeping purposes (especially in the longer term) I thought it necessary to keep at the bare minimum a few posts to explain the transition. While my intentions for a challenger thread would have been to keep a record of all official challenges and transitions that have occurred ever via different challenge threads or all kept in one per beast, as there had been some initial resistance to adopting official challenge threads way back when. As one can tell by the challenge threads, that has not necessarily been the way the threads have been kept since then as previous challengers' records have been deleted on numerous occasions.

Bearing that in mind, I stopped at removing the challenges after Yomi's but before her claim post because I am not sure if leaving just hers would serve the purpose of record keeping, or if we are even doing that at all.

There was the record keeping in the "current in-game jinchurikii and summoners" thread but that too is an incomplete record at this current point in time.

So, my question is, how are we, if at all, do we keep track of beast changing hands beyond who is the "current" host?

Just wondering if the rule for mastery includes IC berserk events. Like say I've mastered Version 1 but in an out of control state, enter Version 2. Is that a no go? Or is it only if I claim to be in control of the Version 2 state as I would Version 1?

Going into berserk state is an automatic forfeit in a biju mach:

If a host goes over their mastery for any reason at any time during a biju match, it is considered an automatic forfeit by the host.

Outside of a battle for the beast (even an IC one), like for training or RPing an event that cannot be classified as a biju match of any kind, then while it still counts as going over mastery, it can be done without forfeit of the beast. But if it is done in a setting that could as a biju match, then it is a no go no matter what from what I have read of this rule.

Alrighty, its been two weeks since this was brought up. I will gladly take it into my possession if there be no objections.


Inactivity means that there is a hierarchy of claimants, depending on the order in which there was a challenge or stated interest for the beast.

1) Yomi    [5/08/2018 at 2:50:59 am]
2) Camel  [5/08/2018 at 8:25:33 pm]
3) Uchiha Madara  [May 10, 2018, 04:01:49 pm]
4) Nekomaru  [May 12, 2018, 01:12:36 am]
5) Athos [May 22, 2018, 07:38:08 pm]

If Yomi doesn't want it, then it goes to Camel. If Camel does not want it then you get it Madara, with Nekomaru as your first challenger. That's the order of the challenge list, that's the order of the creature claim.



This post will serve as the "placeholder" to explain the transition of the beast from Vail to Yomi, along with Yomi's original claim post. The date and time of claim will be forum time and be next to each person's name in my original post above. As Camel pointed out this is not a priority list for challengers once grace period is up, new challenges will have to be issued after that time.

Yomi's post accepting the tailed beast after any uncertainty was cleared up has also been preserved for grace period related reasons, just in case there is uncertainty about that start date, there are 2 logical places for it to have started rather than just 1. If the grace were to start from the 8th it would already be over ( 14 days and all) so I am under the impression it will start on the 22nd (correct/challenge me on this if I'm wrong, in new thead please).

** Athos added post post script, had not noticed that he also issued a challenge at one point **

Council / Re: Inactive Hosts Protocol
« on: May 19, 2018, 02:19:14 am »
So does that mean since jestar has been offline for 18 plus days I can put in for chomei? If so I would like to do so.

It's as good as yours.

Game Related Discussions / What do I do now?
« on: May 16, 2018, 03:03:16 pm »
Originally I had this super long almost confessional message written out about how I feel and how I came to this point and blah blah blah.

I decided that less is more in this case, and anyone who wants to know those specifics can private message me.

Anyways, I've been a tailed beast host and summoner, I have been an ANBU, a Sannin, a lawyer (forum), a secretary (forum), a student, written debater (both), a very awkward lover, a terrible sibling, a bad and good mentor, a clan leader, a good and bad role model (who knew right?) etc. Probably the only thing that has eluded me at this point that I had serious interest in at one point has been the rank of -kage, in particular Hokage.

Any other suggestions for what I might can get into that might can motivate me to RP again?

I mean, in addition to the above I have also reset a few times in-game, but I have been kind of bored of the rinse-repeat in-game orokill-reset thing for awhile ever since they stopped counting as heavily for RP powers (by that time RPing had become more important to me than playing the game). RPing was replaced by Foruming some months back in a rather cynical twist of priorities, so for anyone who asks why I lost interest in RPing, that's the short version of it.

Council / Re: Inactive Hosts Protocol
« on: May 15, 2018, 10:03:50 pm »
I mean that is how the inactivity clause works. Goes to next in line with whomever voiced documented interest first. No challenges or battles. Straight up: first come, first serve.

If they canít even participate in the challenge, then how can we expect them to fulfill the activity clause in actually possessing the beast?

Just making sure there was a topic made on this, a summer might see a in or out flux of activity for some hosts compared to say Christmas time.

Council / Inactive Hosts Protocol
« on: May 12, 2018, 07:54:00 am »
So fellow members of the Council, because I of all people will be the first to complain if there is no formal Council proceeding for this, I am posting this topic with this question:

Assuming that any hosts and/or challengers that are way past due on activity requirements have their beasts/creatures up for free claim? This is after priority is given to current active challengers of course.

I told myself I'll stay away from bijuu matters, but heck... maybe I can try injecting it into IC roleplay somehow.
So perhaps this is me stating my interest in hosting the beast... if no one wants it?,9477.msg237055.html#msg237055

Sabu was the last active challenger I had, but considering how the discussions on the RP hunt ended, to my understanding if he is still active and/or interested he would have first dibs. I did try to RTS it, but nothing there either, so, long story short, as long as Sabu is no longer vying for the beast then it is up for grabs at this point, as far a I understand it.

Bijuu Arena / Re: Current In-game Jinchūriki and Summoners
« on: May 06, 2018, 07:05:44 am »
I have formally given up my possession of the 5-tails.

Thanks for letting everyone know, but I have a question...two questions actually. Are you letting someone else take reigns of the Five-Tails or just letting us know that it's up for grabs for now?,9477.msg237055.html#msg237055

Sabu was the last active challenger I had, but considering how the discussions on the RP hunt ended, to my understanding if he is still active and/or interested he would have first dibs. I did try to RTS it, but nothing there either, so, long story short, as long as Sabu is no longer vying for the beast then it is up for grabs at this point, as far a I understand it.

Bijuu Arena / Re: Current In-game Jinchūriki and Summoners
« on: May 05, 2018, 04:33:06 pm »
I have formally given up my possession of the 5-tails.

This honestly should have happened a long time ago, but this is me officially relinquishing the 5-tails, as I have not and probably will not for quite some time be active enough to really do anything with it RPwise. I regret that this turned out to be the better of my options.

Village Square / Re: When Succ meets another Succ
« on: April 03, 2018, 05:27:55 am »

That and the next page are the moment I assume you are talking about.

The Wood Dragon jutsu has the preexisting feature of negating other chakra absorption techniques. This, in my opinion, is the only reason it was able to stop the preta path.

My opinion is different in this regard: (the trivia section)

If you scroll down to Hashirama's English dialogue, read from right to left order, he says:

That wood dragon will absorb chakra from you! Now your chakra-absorbing ninnjutsu are nullified and meaningless!

The wood dragon nullifies Madara's chakra absorption techniques because it absorbs chakra, not because it is some innate ability of the dragon's, at least according to Hashirama. This sticking point the wikia only added as trivia for the wood dragon and is not mentioned in the preta path article, despite that being one of the few times in the manga in which the preta path would have been bested.

Of course, it is entirely likely that this was used on Madara before he could activate Preta Path, but this is still a precedent of a chakra absorption jutsu being used to overpower and nullify the effects of the other.

Finally, my opinion regarding your Thesis:

That when two absorption techniques of similar power clash, they result in complete nullification of one another.

1) The Boruto manga had two of the exact same techniques with the same power against each other. Two chakra absorption techniques of equal power, just like two regular ninjutsus of the same strength as each other, cancel each other out. Therefore, unless "similar" is changed to "equal", as I see it, the thesis has no more supporting evidence now than it did when the dragon rolled up on Madara.

2) How are chakra absorption techniques ranked in terms of strength? Is it the power-ups behind them like most things? If that's the case might as well lump them in with every other jutsu scale.

3) Accepting this thesis would mean that barrier-wide and large area of effect chakra absorption techniques (Kirisame comes to mind here) theoretically can then be bypassed by using something akin to preta path or another chakra absorption barrier. It would reduce the utility of large scale chakra absorption barriers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 229

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 19 queries.