Member Login

Forgot Password?

Interested in joining?


Search Options ►

User Rules Clarification

Site Update

It has come to staff attention that there has been some confusion around rights, rules, and the "one month" timer.

Aywas staff consider user made rules to be absolute (unless they break the ToS or staff deems them unenforceable) - they remain active and intact even if a user is banned, has left the site, or has fallen inactive due to other reasons.

This also means that if your pet has a "right of first refusal" (must be offered to a certain person before it can be publicly put for sale) you cannot sell that pet until the user has said they do not want it. Even if the user has been inactive for weeks, months, or years.

We understand this may be a bother or create complications for some people, however the only way to ensure that all user rules are held to be valid and absolute is to hold all such rules to be valid and absolute.

In rare cases where a one month waiting period before selling anyway has been granted, this is where the user is active on site but not responding to a PM about the sale. (Please be advised that notification must be given by PM as not all users have pings enabled.) This is rarely given unless all avenues of contacting the active user has been exhausted.

We hope this clears up some confusion, and we will be instituting a KB article explaining this and other such unwritten rules that users follow.

Posted by Eve (#2775) on Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:42pm

Comments: 88

Dar & Zel (#43)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:46pm

I feel like this is exceptionally unfair to users who may own a pet where there's a 'offer first' rule in place and that owner hasn't been online for months or years.

Nothing like getting saddled with a pet you don't want anymore and being given absolutely no recourse for doing anything with it.

Creature Collector (#72649)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:48pm

I dont think the rule should stand
for BANNED users, it makes ZERO
sense. banned = never coming back
legitimately... so why punish others
who are still here an following aywas
rules. I agree with Darsh & Zel 100000%

Eve (#2775)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:49pm

We do sympathise - but felt this was a situation where if we put in clauses to "get around" a user rule we're opening an extremely dangerous window that could blow open a door to chaos. Especially with people who have exclusive or limited lines or species, considering all rules in the same manner (consent is required to circumvent) protects everyone.

♑ Kat & AK ♈ (#80)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:52pm

-flops- It's kinda sad people go inactive while we active people need to hope they come back one day....... Coz if not we will not be able to do certain things without their permission.... -sigh-

Eve (#2775)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:53pm

🎄 Anailaigh 🎄 (#72649) - Banned users can appeal their ban, and previously permanently banned users have returned to the site. To state that rules created by banned users are no longer valid would again be something we are not comfortable doing (at the least it would be considered profiting from banned users, which is not permitted). This rule has always been in place, we are simply acknowledging and announcing it as we have discovered that some people were unaware of it's existence.

Dar & Zel (#43)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:54pm

It certainly doesn't feel like you guys sympathize. And this is even coming from the person who has messages on record being told a 1-month rule applied to the 'offer first' rule with absolutely NOTHING mentioned about it being a 'special circumstance' or 'rare permission.'

Just that it was aywas following it's own 1-month rule that's in place regarding most things to do with sales and deals and agreements. I feel that as long as there is record of multiple contact attempts and a minimum 1-month span between initial contact and sale, that should count.

It's not people trying to 'get around' rules (making people out to all sound like we're trying to screw people over is kind of offensive, imo), it people trying to follow rules to the best of their ability but being given no recourse and no leniency and no understanding. It's not like the person who owns an offspring is able to know exactly when and for how long people are going to go inactive, it's something entirely beyond their control and this effectively makes it feel like they're being punished for something they didn't do and didn't know to expect.

Not a great feeling.

Macbeth (#8188)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:04pm

I don't think people would try to get around the rules, but honestly the way this is set up makes a lot more sense when you consider it's the users' intellectual property. It's not right for another user to make decisions against their rules, no matter what the state of the rights holder.

Call it harsh, but I don't think the one month waiting period should be granted often at all, unless agreed on by the rights holder.

Even IRL, when rights holders die, their work doesn't immediately go into public domain for years.

Eve (#2775)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:08pm

We don't believe anyone is trying to get around rules at all - however the problem is that if you make allowances for one thing, if you do not make allowances for another then you're accused of only helping some people and not others, or upholding rules as we want, rather than how we should. This is about being consistent so that users know what to expect from us - especially as we've had years where members of staff have not upheld the core tenets with everyone as they were meant to.

Again, it's a rule that has always been in place - and while it wasn't communicated to you that it is rare to give the timer, it perhaps wasn't seen as necessary to stress to you that it wasn't a common occurrence. We will in future endeavour to let people know if the situation they are in is rare or unique in how it is being handled.

johnny + vega ✨ (#1705)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:09pm

I do get what is being said about intellectual property, but doesn't Aywas have that sidenote rule that anything submitted to the site technically belongs to them? I personally feel like if a user is inactive, or especially banned, for more than a month or more then people should have the right to do what they want with the pet.

I do appreciate that Aywas tries to have some leeway with rules, unlike many sites that have a "once it's not yours you have no say" type thing across the board -- but there's a point where it's just excessive, isn't there? If someone hasn't been on the site for years then they clearly don't care about what they've left behind that much.

Dar & Zel (#43)

Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:13pm

This just feels like such a situation blind stance to take. The offer-first rule is different from pretty much any other breeding rule that gets applied to pets.

It's a courtesy rule as opposed to a restriction rule.

I can understand rules like 'Don't over breed.' or 'No breeding out of lair' or 'Edits must remain in lair.' not having a time frame. Because those types of rules are absolutes.
The 'Offer first' rule is basically just a way of saying 'I don't mind if an offspring goes up for sale, I just want a chance to buy it first.' It's not a rule saying OMG DON'T SELL THOSE PETS WITHOUT PERMISSION type of rule.

I fail to see how aywas following its own 1-month rule in regards to the 'offer first' breeding rule would be at all 'inconsistent.'