Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, make it Official as is

8 (44.4%)

Yes, make it Official with edits

5 (27.8%)

No, throw out the current version

5 (27.8%)

No, throw it out no matter the edits made

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Voting closed: March 13, 2016, 02:53:47 PM

[Eric]

The title and question are fairly self explanatory, but let me explain using my wikia post:

Because of the nature of the previous threads, I'm going to create a poll on the forum regarding this inactivity rule; this poll will stay open for a week or two (Spring Break is up and bouncing). It will be fairly simple; agree or disagree to make this inactivity "rule" official. Regardless of whether it has been put into action before, from every source that I have seen regarding this regulation, it was never officially made a rule, only agreed upon by some to be in effect.

This poll is not about reversing what you've done here on the wikia; you've already returned two of the swords and Kiri can just claim the other swords and simply declare the claims on here regarding the swords to be illegitimate, boycott the wikia, etc. This poll is about going forward, and seeing whether this inactivity clause is to be kept or thrown out.

Let me reiterate, this is not about altering the Kiri swords situation, this is about going forward with this inactivity clause. For the record, this is the clause as currently recorded on the wikia:

If a canon claim belongs to someone who has been inactive for 90 days someone else may claim it. If it is a summoning contract or jutsu merely add yourself to it without removing the previous user. If it is a unique item than you replace the previous wielder. This only applies to items, contracts, and techniques with a single user (Unless ALL the people making a claim are inactive).

Give your vote and a reason, short or long. Do not flame and do not get off topic: this is about decisively approving or disapproving of the Clause, not about expressing hatred towards disagreeable parties.

With that said, I personally disapprove. Once upon a time I may have been fine with it, but not if this is going to be the way that it is enforced; via the wikia and not through discussion. Now you can argue that an exception here was made because it was Kirigakure, but in the case of Kiri the swords themselves were sealed, but the owners (the SSM, the establishment, etc.) were not inactive, merely the swordss themselves were inactive.

If there is no difference between not using the tools for a very long time and the owners being truly inactive, then this clause has the possibility of having new claimants taking things from active people who simply don't zone much (that's when weapons and tools would be used the most no?) or have not found a reason to use it yet in a fight.

In a case for making this clause a thing, who the "owner(s)" is/are should be made clear in the stripping and retention cases, and that the owner(s) were inactive should be the reason, NOT that the items, jutsu, summonings are simply not being used for a very long time.


PS:

For clarificaiton, with the fleshed out poll options, I say no to the current version, and would change my mind if some edits were explicitly made to it.

[Sabumaru]

Yeah the clause is fine, anyone who disagrees with it is just scared of having their claims taken away.
But if you can't put in the time to play, you don't deserve those claims. Simple as that.

[Bocchiere]

Read that first part of it again, "If a canon claim belongs to someone" not "If a canon claim nebulously belongs to a group of people simultaneously whilst none of them actually currently have ownership." There was never an allowance for claiming an item sealed so doing it caused issues because it was not supported by anything. Under any other circumstance this would have been simple and easy because it would have just been, Johnny has the Kusanagi, Johnny has not logged on in 10 months, Billy takes the Kusanagi. So blame that not the rule.

I'm open to suggestions for edits because I don't know what could need to be edited. There's no possible reason to just not have this in some version though, you're not a reasonable person if you think items should just be allowed to sit on people who haven't been here in a year and be totally removed from rp.

[Becquerel]

Why not just do away with claims? They've seemed to cause nothing but strife now and in the past. That's just an option of what can be done.

I'll save my opinion on the matter at hand for later though

[Bocchiere]

Bec if we did away with everything people have ruined for others by taking advantage of them we'd have nothing left.

[Ѕhadow]

@ Bec | We've toyed around with the idea of getting rid of claims. Use the search bar. It wouldn't work.

I kind of wrote the rules for the inactivity thing and personally I'm also open for edits if any can be made. However as it was for the swords. They didn't have an owner or were being used.

If the Kusanagi was put into a Konohagakure treasury and kept for 9 months without an owner you can bet I would claim that.

So I guess the one edit I would make is to add that example. If a canon item isn't owned by anyone/being used for the same amount of time as a person who has a canon item is inactive 60/90 days (dependent on your own mindset) it is free game to claim.

[Eric]

Yeah the clause is fine, anyone who disagrees with it is just scared of having their claims taken away.
But if you can't put in the time to play, you don't deserve those claims. Simple as that.

Don't lump everyone who disagrees into a single blob, especially since it isn't true.

I personally have little fear of having any canon claims of mine taken away or unadulterated, and I disagree with this clause. I don't typically prohibit people from using the canon shadow imitation techniques and in truth have very little canon anything to lose in this discussion. I just tend to tell "newer to the dark side" folks who want to use them to at least claim to be a Nara of some sort, and that's a request not a demand.

Read that first part of it again, "If a canon claim belongs to someone" not "If a canon claim nebulously belongs to a group of people simultaneously whilst none of them actually currently have ownership."

Kayenta and the Mist argue that a group of people, not just a single individual, has ownership of the swords. Bocchiere and the writer(s) of the clause would/are disagree on that. "Ownership" is very different in that discussion:

A) Ownership may be plural, and does not necessarily entail championing of the item in question.

B) Ownership is singular, and does entail championing of the item.



B is very convenient and is the convention used for the tailed beasts; there can only be one champion at any time. A is also very convenient, and is generally used when there are multiple users of jutsu (lightning release armor) where there is not much centralization/order for ownership, but many claimants.

Other examples of A are:

Hiden (secret techniques of the clan sort)
Restricted Techniques (Edo Tensei, Hiraishin, etc.)
Special canon tools (three pronged kunai that aren't as popular as they used to be)

The examples for B are numerous, and I don't really feel need to be emphasized.

The problem with B is that there has to be an Owner/Champion at all times, otherwise the item in question is in limbo and claimable by anyone. The problem with A is that if one of the claimants is snatched/brainwashed/ otherwise, then the claimed item/jutu can switch to a new claimant without the permission of the remaining claimants.

The Mist Swords fall under A, to be technical. However, to more control the distribution of the swords, the Mist implemented a scroll/seal/method that would functionally keep the swords from leaving Kiri's possession unless one were to go through the rigorous process of becoming a Ninja Swordsman and then defecting, finding a way to keep the sword from returning to Kiri's possession upon declaration of the defection.

That's kind of RP intensive, especially if other logical ways of getting the items are not available for, reasons.

Anyways, I have somewhat deviated from my point what with my discussion of the Swords. The definition of "owner" in this clause needs to be expanded to include multiple owner situations and not just selectively one-owner situations, because not all claims have only a single owner. Additionally, the owner(s) need to actually be inactive for this particular clause to be evoked, not merely the claimed thing not being used.

Another, separate clause can be included to deal with acquiring the claimed (most of the time it is either get it from an owner or claim it when there are no owners/claimants), but for this one I think it needs to be considered that not all claims have a single owner.

[JayJay]

A primary reason why I customize everything I have. If you don't RP, you shouldn't have claim to canon items. But if you do RP, whether or not you're using the item or it's sealed on your person, then you should have claim to it. If you're inactive for long periods of time, like RP once every new moon, then a sort of challenge should apply for new ownership. If completely inactive and only log on to keep your character alive, then you shouldn't get mad when you get stripped. In accordance for techniques, the wanted party should make a small effort in copying the technique, with a penalty of it not being at its full potential for a certain amount of time.

To make a long story short concerning the canon claims list.

Items- New owner replaces old due to inactivity.
Techniques- New user added alongside inactive, if the technique is doable for the character.

Summons- New summoner RP their addition to the list if nearly all signers are inactive.

Custom items and whatnots should be taken to the village leaders or something.

[Warren]

Why'd only customs go to village/organization higher ups, yet non-s be deus ex machina bait for whoever can rush to snatch it first?

[Ѕhadow]

Custom stuff cannot be touched. That's just stupid.

[Warren]

...still kinda leaves my question standing tho.

Like, say some suna person has canon Hiruko puppet, aka Sasori's tank body, and a custom puppet. They go inactive, why would the custom go to suna people, yet the Hiruko suddenly poof into thin air to whoever types their name in quickest?

For a loner/nomad/whatever it'd work, but somebody clearly in village or whatever it'd make no sense.

[Ѕhadow]

...still kinda leaves my question standing tho.

Like, say some suna person has canon Hiruko puppet, aka Sasori's tank body, and a custom puppet. They go inactive, why would the custom go to suna people, yet the Hiruko suddenly poof into thin air to whoever types their name in quickest?

For a loner/nomad/whatever it'd work, but somebody clearly in village or whatever it'd make no sense.

The custom doesn't get touched. Custom items belong to the person who made it forever. Nothing less nothing more.

The Hiruko goes to whoever claims it first. Does it make sense IC? Of course not, but once that person claims it they could make an rp by a chance maybe.

The rule was put into effect to let others rp with canon items and not let someone who clearly doesn't want to play the game anymore keep them from doing that.

[Bocchiere]

I think that items still only have one owner. Like on the claims list all my guys can summon the 4 tails but bocchiere is the owner. I think for items like the swords even if miltiple people could make use of them they should still have one designated owner. Merely because they can only be used by one person at a time unlike jutsu and summons. If they want to change the claimed list everytime a swordsmen loans a blade that's fine but it seems like unneeded work.

[Eric]

I think that items still only have one owner. Like on the claims list all my guys can summon the 4 tails but bocchiere is the owner. I think for items like the swords even if miltiple people could make use of them they should still have one designated owner. Merely because they can only be used by one person at a time unlike jutsu and summons. If they want to change the claimed list everytime a swordsmen loans a blade that's fine but it seems like unneeded work.

Two people could use a puppet at once, in theory. Two people could use the thread-and-needle sword of the Mist, in theory. Though not practical, technically multiple people could use most items at once. But usage-ownership are not interdependent with weaponry and tools: you don't have to be an owner to use them per say (as in your example), and you don't have to use something to be an owner (Gedo Mazo).

[JayJay]

Because yall give extra attention to canon things, so they get those rules. Custom made techniques have to be firstly seen before a copy attempt. Plus, unless that custom whozeewhatsit reached an IC notoriety like most canon stuff, then it's only obvious the leader they fall under would know about it.

But I see what you mean, it's all a big flaw. There's no real way to play this out fairly. I would say an RP battle royal for it, but that might only add fuel to the chaotic flames.

I would say, whoever finds the body of that nomad has a say on everything they physically have, and if they have a way of learning techniques through studying then a few techniques as well. It should promote more RP. Retains first come, first serve in that case.