News
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
- Gone x2
(#550)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:24pm
The entire ToS seems structured in a rather obvious way that essentially goes along the lines of anything uploaded to Aywas - and there has been drama around OCs and the like in the past - is technically Aywas property and belongs to Aywas. As soon as it's uploaded to Aywas, it's no longer your IP - you may keep the rights to the linesets or whatever, but the IP itself stays with Aywas as you agreed to the ToS before joining the sight.
I can't see this rule going down well and honestly it's getting a bit ridiculous to tiptoe around all the rules being put in place recently. Between breeding, custom creation... Enough with the hidden rules - a rule really needs to be stated as a rule, or it needs to be removed - as simple as that. How can we be expected to stick to a rule that we do not know about? Sure it's all fine and dandy now but I would have never agreed to buy pets had I known I'd be stuck with them for life.
I feel this is way more than excessive. You can't be expected to hold up your entire lair just because one person hasn't been online. If a person was that worried about their linesets and rules, they wouldn't disappear for years on end or get themselves banned - while I do think a month is a little on the shorter side, I do not agree at all with this being shoved in place with little to no notice, without so much as a single word on user input.
Forfill ALL agreements within one month. Not selectively - not commissions only, ALL. You offer a pet to a user as per their rules. You then follow Aywas' ToS and are obligated to wait a month. At that point, it should become void. You have done your obligation - you have offered the pet, and you have waited for a month. No response is very obviously not interested - I do not feel like it's right to punish the users for someone not being online or being on hiatus, banned, whatever.
What happens with users who want to quit and sell up their account? Do they just miss out? They can't keep the pet - they're quitting. Most people come with a "do not delete" rule so it can't just be deleted. You can't sell it - but you want to sell the account - so the pet comes with you... Do you just... Buy another account and let it rot? But you're not checking the account... You're quitting... What happens here? Do they just need to log into their account every other week on the off chance someone will return and go "yep I want it back?"
I completely disagree with the idea of banned members still maintaining rules and rights. They were banned. They broke the rules, and cannot return - they lost those rights. Giving them power to dictate these rules while no longer on sight is just... Lost on me.
Sorry. I needed to get that out. I've been stung by this in the past and this in general really rubs me the wrong way.
- Dar & Zel
(#43)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:25pm
AremRae (#3998)
I feel like that takes too general of a stance on the whole situation though.
If a users knows they have pets with strict rules and that they run the risk of going inactive to for long periods, then I feel it should be on that user to add specific clauses to their breeding rules to protect themselves rather than user a vague, widespread courtesy rule for it.
If the offer first breeding rules wasn't as common and on pretty much every pet, then I could potentially see trying to avoid pets with that rule on them. However, with as everywhere as the rule is, if I tried to avoid pets with that rule, I'd effectively have to swear off breeding outside of my lair entirely.
- AremRae
(#3998)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:29pm
I've honestly only encountered it a few times myself, there are plenty of pets out there with little/no rules? I would say that I disagree, and it isn't difficult at all to find breeding without that rule in place. I also wouldn't call it a courtesy rule, if I use it it's basically because most of the time I want to buy the baby back so that I can keep control of it vs it going to a random user I wouldn't know. It isn't courtesy as much as a nice way of saying I'd like to buy back all the babies this pet makes, since I don't want something so set in stone as that because there are times I'm perfectly fine with the baby selling to whoever wants it depending on what edits it got/etc.
- Eve
(#2775)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:32pm
Opalite (#550) - The Sales and Breeding Rules section of the ToS which you quoted also states that you will "honor all breeding agreements made prior to the breeding of two pets in which you are involved" and "honor all sales agreements made, such as "auto buys" and "end of auctions"". As first refusal is considered part of a breeding or sale agreement, you are bound to uphold this first of all. If you have not fulfilled this, then you are breaking the ToS by attempting to sell the pet, which nullifies the agreement made with the third party.
- Gone x2
(#550)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:34pm
Eve (#2775)
Yes, but you are honoring the agreement by contacting them... And they have not forfilled it/answered within a month, therefore doesnt this become void? At least, that's how I've interpretative it up until this point.
- Dar & Zel
(#43)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:35pm
AremRae (#3998)
I see on probably around 50% of the pets I've looked at to breed with. It's an extremely common rule.
If the site takes this stance, they're essentially screwing over everyone who had a different impression of what the rule means. It's extremely unfair and blind. I can't see it any other way.
I've never once used the offer-first rule in any way intended other than, I'd like first shot if you're selling it. If you want something more strict than that (ie, your example of I want to buy back all offspring this pet makes), I still feel it is YOUR responsibility to outline that clearly and express clearly what you mean and expect by that.
- Eve
(#2775)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:38pm
Opalite (#550) - There is no rule that a user must respond within one month or their opinion/wishes are voided.
- Gone x2
(#550)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:39pm
Darsh & Zel (#43)
I agree with everything you've said until this point. I always thought that the breeding rules were up to the users to honor, but the owners to manage. Like in the case of inbreeding - you make sure you're not inbreeding, but the species owner needs to make sure nothing are inbreed so that the weight is on their shoulders and not yours. I always took offer first as OFFER - if they dont respond or dont even read the message, you've still for-filled your part and offered. They just haven bothered to get back to you - that's the fault on them, not you. You did your part.
- K-HAO-S
(#11644)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:40pm
Question... if you breed two pets with that same rule.. neither belongs to you... how is that handled since technically you're breaking one or the other's rules in offering it to one of those people before the other?
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:19pm
I appreciate the sites stance on this. Banned users miiighhttt be a different topic, but users going inactive I don't think should be. Some users go inactive due to mental health, or physical health or some other reasons and eventually would come back. As much as it sucks to have a pet sitting there that you can't sell, I agree with the sites stance here. As the owner of a couple of very special species/pets that I've only let breed out with very strict rules, if someone was able to circumvent that just because I went inactive for a month (which I basically have done at times because of my mental health, I won't have the ability to answer pm's or do much other than some work) I would be really frustrated in general.
Even in a situation where I chose to "leave" the site, I wouldn't want those rare things that might be in some other people's lair to just suddenly not retain some of the rules on them. I would definitely care about what happened to them, but it's not like I could take them back before I decided to leave sort of thing.
If you're buying a pet with a rule like this, you're taking that risk that the user might up and leave for a while and you'll be stuck with it. I think it just comes with the territory there, and if you don't like the idea of that you'd just want to avoid pets with those types of rules on them.