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

[Bocchiere]

Because the swords were listed as claimed by "sealed" for a year and no evidence was provided to me actually showing what Kiri was saying about someone using them was true, I wasn't considering that as them having an owner regardless since I would then just be allowing Kiri to keep them out of rp as long as they wanted as long as they dusted the swords off once every 89 days which is not the point of the rule

[Eric]

Because the swords were listed as claimed by "sealed" for a year and no evidence was provided to me actually showing what Kiri was saying about someone using them was true, I wasn't considering that as them having an owner regardless since I would then just be allowing Kiri to keep them out of rp as long as they wanted as long as they dusted the swords off once every 89 days which is not the point of the rule

The rule gives provision for inactive owners, not for the owners not using the claimed items. If you want to make that part of the clause then go for it, but as originally written the clause only gave authorization for stripping from inactive owners, regardless of whether or not they're actually using the blades or not.

I don't care if people claim white zestu. Mine are custom more or or and anyone can claim what they want.

A for FTG each person had a custom scroll. You can't lay claim to a custom thing. That the way I we it. If no one at l knew it anymore then I would at it could be claimed by magically forming a new custom scroll

The swords are each single objects.

The jutsu is more important than the scrolls, and the jutsu is what I believed would have been claimed. As I have already been corrected on though, all of the claimants would have to go inactive for that to be evoked.

The swords are, as said by Kiri and advocates on numerous occasions, claimed as a group, not individual, and thus the swords would not (and currently are not) treated, per say, as individual claims. Even if they are to be considered for individual claim:

http://narutoprofile.wikia.com/wiki/Seven_Swordsmen_of_the_Mist

Most of the swords did/do have individual owners (between 2 people really), at least according to the Swordsmens' page, and Gitsune at the least has been fairly active. Whether the page is up to date or not is beyond the point, as the more recent Kiri statements have largely grouped the Swords as claimed under a single umbrella rather than a single spoke. From what has been given to the general public that I have accessed, the swords are apparently not treated as case B, but rather a case A, to reference my earlier post on this matter.

[Ѕhadow]

Onto editing the current rule which is 60/90 days of inactivity the item can be claimed. As always with SL we need to put down some more elaborations and hem up any loopholes.

I'll make a template which everyone seems to love when I do.
(I put 75 days since it's the middle ground of the two most popular options)

Rules in order to claim an item from inactivity:

ITEMS THAT ARE CUSTOM CANNOT BE CLAIMED WITH THESE RULES. ONLY CANON ITEMS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE.

First check;
Account which item is claimed by hasn't been logged into for 75 days.
Account has been logged into, but no signs of rp can be seen for 75 days. (This is to keep the person from bypassing the logged in check)

Second check;
Make sure the item isn't already claimed by someone new. (On the Wikia and forums)
Go ahead and claim the item on the wikia AND on the forums. (Not everyone uses both)

Third check;
At this point you can start to make plans for an rp which you should do. It is strongly urged that you contact a game master. They're here to help with situations such as these. Research what you can and try to best fit it in from a IC perspective.

Fourth check;
Enjoy rp'ing with your new item.

Special stipulations:
It is impossible to cover all loopholes and due to that these rules may seem at times not specific enough. If that happens with an item you would like to claim make a forum post about it and discuss it with the members.

If the previous owner logs on while the new owner is currently rp'ing the transference than the old owner can talk to the person who is in the process and discuss what they want to do. Though the new owner does not have to give the item back or revert their rp.



A few notes on replies-

@ Bec: Basically you claim the item first and then do the rp. This will keep others from trying to asshole the claim away from you. Common sense. After that you can take as long as you want (reasonably) to rp getting the item without having to compete in an rp speed race.

@ Eric: This rule applies to items ONLY. No jutsu or anything else. The fact you keep bringing them up here means you want them to be included in the same rule. Items and jutsu can vastly differ and due to that their rules can as well. If you wish to apply the same kind of inactivity rules then I think it'd suit better to make a solo topic for that. Putting items and jutsu in one basket I fear would cause a whole lot of confusion that could be avoided if, as said, you made a topic for each.

@ Kayenta: The previous owner can be listed. I'm down with that. It's the same thing we do with the summons. We bold the current contract holder. ~

[Ѕhadow]

Because the swords were listed as claimed by "sealed" for a year and no evidence was provided to me actually showing what Kiri was saying about someone using them was true, I wasn't considering that as them having an owner regardless since I would then just be allowing Kiri to keep them out of rp as long as they wanted as long as they dusted the swords off once every 89 days which is not the point of the rule

The rule gives provision for inactive owners, not for the owners not using the claimed items. If you want to make that part of the clause then go for it, but as originally written the clause only gave authorization for stripping from inactive owners, regardless of whether or not they're actually using the blades or not.

[Rusaku]

Obviously the Inactivity clause thing should be official, because logic. Didn't bother reading ANY of this thread, but from past experiences I'm sure Bocc and Shadow have this under control. 

[JayJay]

Onto editing the current rule which is 60/90 days of inactivity the item can be claimed. As always with SL we need to put down some more elaborations and hem up any loopholes.

I'll make a template which everyone seems to love when I do.
(I put 75 days since it's the middle ground of the two most popular options)

Rules in order to claim an item from inactivity:

ITEMS THAT ARE CUSTOM CANNOT BE CLAIMED WITH THESE RULES. ONLY CANON ITEMS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE.

First check;
Account which item is claimed by hasn't been logged into for 75 days.
Account has been logged into, but no signs of rp can be seen for 75 days. (This is to keep the person from bypassing the logged in check)

Second check;
Make sure the item isn't already claimed by someone new. (On the Wikia and forums)
Go ahead and claim the item on the wikia AND on the forums. (Not everyone uses both)

Third check;
At this point you can start to make plans for an rp which you should do. It is strongly urged that you contact a game master. They're here to help with situations such as these. Research what you can and try to best fit it in from a IC perspective.

Fourth check;
Enjoy rp'ing with your new item.

Special stipulations:
It is impossible to cover all loopholes and due to that these rules may seem at times not specific enough. If that happens with an item you would like to claim make a forum post about it and discuss it with the members.

If the previous owner logs on while the new owner is currently rp'ing the transference than the old owner can talk to the person who is in the process and discuss what they want to do. Though the new owner does not have to give the item back or revert their rp.



A few notes on replies-

@ Bec: Basically you claim the item first and then do the rp. This will keep others from trying to asshole the claim away from you. Common sense. After that you can take as long as you want (reasonably) to rp getting the item without having to compete in an rp speed race.

@ Eric: This rule applies to items ONLY. No jutsu or anything else. The fact you keep bringing them up here means you want them to be included in the same rule. Items and jutsu can vastly differ and due to that their rules can as well. If you wish to apply the same kind of inactivity rules then I think it'd suit better to make a solo topic for that. Putting items and jutsu in one basket I fear would cause a whole lot of confusion that could be avoided if, as said, you made a topic for each.

@ Kayenta: The previous owner can be listed. I'm down with that. It's the same thing we do with the summons. We bold the current contract holder. ~

Did you just say, what I was trying to say, but smarter!?

[Bocchiere]

The point with the swords was after I took them Kiri just said " no gitsune uses them sometimes though" that doesn't designate her an owner to me and, again, no evidence was provided to back their claim up.

I was applying it to anything on the canon list which is why I made specifications for jutsu and such. For things like the swordsmen blades even if they are available to multiple people they should have one declared owner, if they change who that owner is as they pass it around that is fine.

[Eric]

Because the swords were listed as claimed by "sealed" for a year and no evidence was provided to me actually showing what Kiri was saying about someone using them was true, I wasn't considering that as them having an owner regardless since I would then just be allowing Kiri to keep them out of rp as long as they wanted as long as they dusted the swords off once every 89 days which is not the point of the rule

The rule gives provision for inactive owners, not for the owners not using the claimed items. If you want to make that part of the clause then go for it, but as originally written the clause only gave authorization for stripping from inactive owners, regardless of whether or not they're actually using the blades or not.

I can read Shadow. That line literally says: "60 days inactive (both RP and account activity) and they lose their claimed rights". There is not a thing that says that the item has to be used. Call it a loophole or whatever, but it's not written in plain English that that is what was intended.

...@ Eric: This rule applies to items ONLY. No jutsu or anything else. The fact you keep bringing them up here means you want them to be included in the same rule. Items and jutsu can vastly differ and due to that their rules can as well. If you wish to apply the same kind of inactivity rules then I think it'd suit better to make a solo topic for that. Putting items and jutsu in one basket I fear would cause a whole lot of confusion that could be avoided if, as said, you made a topic for each...

Again, the original clause did not specify, it merely said "claims", not "items" as the new clause does.

The only issue with this clause is that it doesn't consider the possibility of there being multiple owners of a single item, which is rare but not an unheard of scenario. What's the route there? Force there to be one and only one claimant, or make a difference between claimant and current owner/possessor?


P.S: The red box and otherwise even has the meaning of it listed below, which makes no specification on the owner actually using the weapon.

[Ѕhadow]

If there are 3 owners of say the mighty hammer and one of them goes inactive for 180 years, the other deletes his account, and the other is on and rps then the one who is still on keeps the weapon.

If they all are active and on then it wouldn't matter.

As long as one of them is active it will always go down the list before anyone else can claim it. Just makes sense.

[Eric]

If there are 3 owners of say the mighty hammer and one of them goes inactive for 180 years, the other deletes his account, and the other is on and rps then the one who is still on keeps the weapon.

If they all are active and on then it wouldn't matter.

As long as one of them is active it will always go down the list before anyone else can claim it. Just makes sense.

So how is ownership defined? Can I really say that I am an owner of the 3-pronged kunai even if I don't currently have it on my person? Or even in my arsenal? Am I an owner just because I have access to it as a weapon?

[Ѕhadow]

If there are 3 owners of say the mighty hammer and one of them goes inactive for 180 years, the other deletes his account, and the other is on and rps then the one who is still on keeps the weapon.

If they all are active and on then it wouldn't matter.

As long as one of them is active it will always go down the list before anyone else can claim it. Just makes sense.

So how is ownership defined? Can I really say that I am an owner of the 3-pronged kunai even if I don't currently have it on my person? Or even in my arsenal? Am I an owner just because I have access to it as a weapon?

Why exactly does ownership need to be defined if more than one person has it? I don't see the collation.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

Ok I have a serious concern here.

I would not wish to go for the actively used in rp issue.

This is a bit staggering to contemplate.

Claimed items...you are setting up a bijuu host situation for each and every item. Where activity proofs would have to be made and the whole nine yards.

So who is going to police every owner of every item, jutsu, summons, etc...in the entire community?

You have several types of activity.

1] account...they log in.

2] RP...they rp things...

3] RP item use...they use the claimed item in question in rp.

So once every 60 or 90 days....this means I have to use...at least once...in RP...

well, a shit ton of stuff. Mostly jutsu. I do not claim canon items. save my snake summons and my green lantern decoder ring.

I would push toward a bit of reflection here. What is the purpose again?

is it to circulate the acquisition of items, jutsus...claims?

Or is it to stimulate RP?

I am confused by this issue

Perhaps a person should consider what role playing means, why they do it, what their goals are.

Are these goals acquisition oriented? Or are they enjoyement driven?

Why are we concerned over who owns a canon item/jutsu/ summons again?

You know maybe if we activated the collectibles option in the gardens, for the tiny chibi plushy figures? It would sate some non-RP need within the hearts of people.

But I have to wonder how my enjoyment of this game is diminished, or how anyone's is, if I don't own the Kiba blades, even though I have no desire to be part of the SSM...especially when my custom made Heron mark blades that The Crazy ANBU Mole Sage made for me are much cooler anyway.

Is being better at this game than someone else the point? I mean, do I have less fun here on the site, less enjoyment if I can't defeat someone in a zone fight? Or was it just the playing that hooked me and made the game enjoyable?

Well that last pasrt is a matter of perspective. I know having goals for RP is cool. But once you obtain them...is the game over? Ta Dah!

Just some thoughts to consider while you try to institute rules concerning items...

at eric with this last post....

Seriously? MAn...I am going to look like  a pack mule if I have to carry all my loot with me wherever I go.

[Ѕhadow]

I'm urging this to apply to only items for that very reason Kayenta. Adding jutsu and all else adds way too much of a workload.

[KayentaMoenkopi]

I know this has been discussed. But I am a bit weary tonight so just bear with me.

Will there be village/organization item lists and individual item lists?

Or are all items going to be treated with the same consideration?

[Ѕhadow]

I like to simplify things. If I get what you're asking then all items will be on the same level. HAving various levels will only complicate things more than I think they need to be.