... Because, as an alternate to the council, asking for clarification on what their role actually is...
Okay, I will give you the most technical answer on this, as anything else is not really clear:
If a Biju Rule is violated and: the punishment is not listed in the rules, the rules state that the Council must get involved (most if not all instances of this I listed in my first post), or what happens when the biju rule is broken is not stated at all in the rules, then the Council must get involved to settle the matter.
Technically speaking, all personal practices aside, there are no other mandates for the Council to act as a whole or as individual members.Example 1, in the Jay-Rusaku fight situation, the inactivity rule was broken, but the consequence, auto-forfeit, is stated in the rules. However, Rusaku failed (out of ignorance) to call it an auto-forfeit and made mention of the request for a time extension. The auto-forfeit rule in the case of failing the activity notice is now broken, but there is no punishment listed for breaking this rule, so the Council now has to step in and weigh in on the situation.
Alternatively, had Rusaku, upon the timer expiring, claimed the tailed beast for himself as a result of the activity rule being broken, then the Council would not be required to weigh in UNLESS there were extenuating circumstances great enough to warrant an appeal of some sort (IE, In real life Rusaku held Jay hostage or something to keep him from posting).
Example 2, again Rusaku v Jay fight. Rusaku accuses Jay of metagaming. Since they were fighting in an OOC battle, then metagaming is not against the biju rules (though most times it is grounds for reposting at the least at the preferences level) and so the Council would not have to weigh in on this. Let's say that Warren rules that Jay is not metagaming at all and that his post is fine. Even if there is actual metagaming going on and it is a bad call, the Council still does not get involved, because no biju rules have been broken.
Example 3, again Rusaku vs Jay fight, let's say that Rusaku and Jay went on a tirade like the older days of biju fighting and took up pages upon pages of discussion that turned into a full blown shouting match, filled with sneers, jeers, insults, etc. Instead of making a single post to mediate the conflict, Warren joins in playing devil's advocate, adding more fuel to the fire. At this point, the Council would be mandated to act/intervene in some way because the judge is violating a section of the "judging a match" section, the last paragraph to be exact.
Example 4, a particular player's biju preferences conflicts with the biju rules. They have no challengers and for the most part is squeaky clean. Whatever said conflict is, however, it is still a violation of the biju rules, and so the Council even then should act and make a decision, most likely along the lines of having the player change their preferences to more align with the biju rules.
I hope that helps clear up any confusion. I imagine the main reason this is kind of complicated is because the responsibilities of the Council are scattered throughout the biju rules and are, simply put, not codified very well. If there are any contradictions in the examples, then refer to the bolded statement and apply your interpretation of that.