[Q]

As a background ruling we've always required there be a wait between acquiring one SA and then learning and acquiring a second one. Due to the fact that our timeline and our characters matched, it was decided the amount of time to master a full on special ability like those applied on site, it'd take roughly three months to obtain. You can attempt to appeal for early acquisition if you feel you've gone above and beyond to do so, but quick and rapid SA acquisition / promotion will be tempered to fit more inline with Naruto canon and to better match sites description of each rank.

Approximately May 16 2021 there was a change to SA acquisition rules that added a 3 month wait period for acquiring special abilities; and while I am bringing it up currently because it's affecting me, I do believe the rule itself isn't particularly well thought out. 3 months is a hell of a long time on a forum where new players barely last that long. This 3 month time block doesn't promote activity and only hinders people. For characters/players that acquire an SA and rank up, it puts them in an awkward position where the rule only acts as a time-gate and prevents someone who otherwise meets all the requirements from ranking up or getting an SA. Every rule outside of this rule has a number of threads required to appeal: Special Ability Acquisition rules give a suggestion on number of threads, promotion rules give a suggestion on number of missions/threads, etc.

Additionally, during the time of the vote for that rule change, only 4/8 of the staff at the time weighed in on it, 2 of which aren't even part of staff anymore. I'm not going to say who voted and who didn't vote, because honestly that's not something i should put out in the public eye and i don't want anyone to get harassed for a past decision. I'm just saying that the rule itself never got a majority consensus, so it shouldn't have been put into effect in the first place. So my suggestion at the current moment is to revert the ruling itself to what it used to be before these time gates were put into place, where as long as the player had a mission or some threads between SA appeal and rank up they would be given the opportunity to rank up. You can discuss any actual numbers afterwards, this is just a quick fix solution.

From my observation, it appears like there are a number of staff, ex-staff, and players who currently don't like this, so this seemed like a reasonable suggestion. For players that end up reading this thread, please don't muddy it too much with comments. If you want to show your support just like the post and send me your opinion and I'll try help forward that opinion to staff.

[Yamato]

This is definitely being brought into staff consideration, but I'm gonna say that I don't like the hypocrisy you're displaying with handling this in this way. The decision was made after you stepped down from being a staff member, so I don't know where you're claiming to get your information regarding the vote. And bringing up something that you didn't see/have a hand in while making the claim to not want to "name names" is massively hypocritical. Along with the already obvious part where you only make this suggestion once it becomes relevant to you.

I'm just going to be candid and say that I was against the change myself when it was proposed, but that doesn't change how much self-interest is concentrated in this post. I'll also throw in the ironic reality that even if we reverted to the old system right this instant, your promotion appeal would have the same ruling because you've only done 1 thread of progress since acquiring your initial sage mode SA and it's been less than a month to boot.

[Q]

Is it in poor taste to make private staff votes public? Probably, but there's no real rule against it. I know the rule I'm trying to change isn't super popular though so i didn't want to drag names into it. It's definitely self serving, but it's not hypocritical. I'm not claiming to have some morals that would prevent me from complaining about something like this or presenting information that i gathered. I'm not a fan of the idea that "it benefits you, so it's bad for you to make a suggestion" though. I'm not even making the suggestion in the fashion of, "I was ex-staff so my opinion is right." I'm simply presenting you with the fact that it goes against how nfb presents its rules elsewhere, where they provide thread numbers and suggestions rather than a time block.

The 1 month rule that your referencing was also only for the actual rank up, such as the total time between chuunin and jounin being 1 month. With the time requirements for turning in missions, after genin it was basically impossible do all the necessary missions and rank up before that time frame so it never really affected anyone. That time wasn't applied to the time between SA appeals and rank up, as long as it had been 1 month since you last ranked up or made your character, but as staff you're more than welcome to deny my application for any reason you want.

[Yamato]

My point was that it was hypocritical of you to claim that you care about what you put in the public eye while still putting out something that shouldn't be in the public eye. Which it is because you could have made your exact same case while leaving out the entirety regarding the staff's votes on the matter, but you instead chose to use an argument that pertains to information that you don't have direct access to.

And my wording regarding your appeal was that the "ruling wouldn't change" the ruling being that you could promote but without gaining an SA. I'm well aware that the 1 month separation was from rank to rank, but my point was that there has been a less than an adequate amount of character development in between gaining your sage mode SA and then getting another, punctuated by the fact that it hasn't even been a month.

[Q]

I don't think the results of the vote is as harmful as the names of people that voted. In the same way for political elections we get to see the numbers for how people voted, but we don't get to know who voted for what. I don't see putting a number out into the public as being as bad as putting names out into the public.

Like I said, you're more than welcome to deny my appeal and then suggest how much progress you'd like to see. I never intended for my appeal to be approved as is, i just hadn't been keeping up with the rules after I left so I didn't know about this rule until you made me aware of it. I kinda just expected to be hit with a "I'd prefer to see another thread or two." Our back and forth here probably isn't going to be very fruitful though, so i'll go ahead and shut up now.

[Yamato]

You are using information that you, nor members of the site have access to as part of your argument. If staff wanted the results of votes to be made public we would do so, but you've taken it upon yourself to decide what you personally think is fair game. Which once more is my point. You've come to some sort of arbitrary conclusion about what is and isn't harmful to share when the fact that we don't share the results of some votes/decisions is solely our decision to make. I can't stress enough the point that YOU DON'T HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION. So there's nothing stopping you from fudging what the ACTUAL vote was, all conveniently presented for something that is affecting you right now.

And I don't think you've read my ruling on your appeal because you haven't given me a response on that thread. My ruling of course requiring you to make the decision on whether you'd like to promote without a +1 SA or wait. "Not keeping up with the rules" isn't a really valid excuse? counterargument? When there was an announcement explicitly made for the change.

[Q]

You're right, i shouldn't have asked to get that information and then try to use it in such a way. I'm sorry, it was a lapse of judgement on my part.

No, i have, I was hoping to wait for the time being. The excuse was more aimed for why i made this suggestion when i did.