News
Search Options ►Policy Change Poll
Pets
Currently, the on-site policy regarding mistakes is that:
If the administration or programmers cannot reproduce a "glitch" that irreversibly changed your pet, you will not get it back, unless it's a custom.
Currently, people who buy GP are arguing that if they paid GP to buy their pet, like a Monthly or a Special Edition, and make a mistake with a potion (for example), they should get the pet back because it was bought with real money.
This would work like this: if you have donated and bought the pet through the GP store, you have the right to have your pet changed back if something happens to it by user mistake (NOT glitch, glitches are always refunded). If you didn't, you don't.
So, the user who gains a Monthly Pet/Super Rare/Limited through Rogue, Hippie Mushroom, Glittering Rock, Eggs, the Wild, etc and accidentally change it are SOL because it wasn't bought through the GP Shop.
My stance against this is, in essence, I don't want to discriminate between the user who earns their rare pet through site means to the user who buys their pet in the GP shop. So they both get the same response: "Sorry, user error, not a glitch."
But I'm willing to change the policy to make special conditions for users whose pets they accidentally messed up, if they bought them through the GP Shop--if that's what the majority thinks is fair and right.
So air your thoughts?
Posted by Jack
(#1) on Mon Nov 2, 2009 6:19pm
- MixyFox
(#45)
-
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
If you won't be able to compensate the earlier mishaps, the later ones shouldn't be compensated, I agree. And when the confirmation page comes up(and I like the idea of putting up the image of your active pet), then it's a moot point. They are now warned in the item description and they will be warned via a confirmation page. After the double warning, you shouldn't have to make exceptions if someone still doesn't check.
- Lolita Figment
(#475)
-
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
-sighs- I apologize if I seem to be being an argumentative little prat right now, but this issue just... irks me.
- Hiiro
(#755)
-
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
Oh I get that, trust me. And I agree it sucks. I'm not saying that that shouldn't be a consideration. But overall I think that Slash being stuck with Status Quo = not quite working or change subject and get previous status quo backlash is just as horrible of a situation. Again, I'm not saying "OMG SLASH YOU HAVE TO DO THIS, IT'S THE ONLY WAY!!" lol, I was just giving food for thought. Ok so we can't use a glittering rock. Well how about some sort of system that allows you to "erase" whatever your pet is currently to a previous form? etc etc etc
- Jack
(#1)
-
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
There are no records for previous forms.
- Lolita Figment
(#475)
-
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
The issue with erasing what your pet currently is and returning it to a previous form would be that I'm sure there is no record of what the pet was previously. Again, it's all about integrity. Someone can go and say "Well, I had _insert rare pet here_ and I changed it by accident". There are no records to say "Yes, you had that pet" or "No, you didn't". If there were a way to add records of pets' previous forms, it would be a very good idea.
- Hiiro
(#755)
-
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
Hn =( It's just a stick situation all around. Well then I have to say the status quo should stay; though I personally wish I could be more helpful ><
- Jack
(#1)
-
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
Having records of pets' previous forms would kill the DB x_X Lol
- ~Zara~
(#792)
-
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
Maybe users could buy insurance for their pet? O.o
- Jack
(#1)
-
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
.... xD That's kinda funny actually
Posted on: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00pm
But if Slash does fix/hand out items to the current reports, it's kind of like a kick in the face to people who had the same thing happen, reported it, and have just had their reports lost. If it's not the current policy, then Slash has no obligation to compensate anyone. And sure, it would be nice to those few people who might benefit. But as a whole it just seems better to leave things as they are and add a confirmation page. People will complain either way, but at least that way is more fair.