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
- Kazna (Pirate@142)
(#233)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:45pm
Not that the site has ever honored our breeding rules when they went and sold off all those pets from the banned user LOL
I wasn't offered first purchase when yall sold things that came from my pets and had those breeding rules, just saying.
- Dar & Zel
(#43)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:45pm
Ah but all the rules change when they come into contact with staff, don'cha know?
- Kandria
(#293)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:51pm
I also back this clarification, I would have to take a break of hiatus, to come back to find a user had used a loophole to break rules on some of my really rare species and pets.
While I feel people going into buying my uses know I'm strict with them, it would still make me reconsider ever selling uses or letting people breed if I knew there was a loophole like that.
I also feel like this will be something users know going forward, so they wont' breed with people with those types of rules, unless they're willing to accept if said user goes inactive they'll face this issue.
That said I do want to clarify, that case-by-case situations will still be looked at for anything like was mentioned in the post (like a user clearly ignoring a PM rather then just being inactive)
- ChaosAzeroth
(#43055)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:02pm
How does this stack with baby contest prizes? I was under the impression that was among to contact but not feeling confident I understand anything anymore. X3
- Macbeth
(#8188)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:05pm
Reminder that even with the ToS talking about rights, Slash still mentioned about tip toeing around IP, esp when it came to OCs, just in case of legal issues (even if defined in ToS, stuff still happens), and wanted users' designs not distributed if banned for those exact reasons.
but yeah this was kinda betrayed with the auctioning of the banned users pets :^s but only as a special case? iirc slash wasn't crazy about it coming to that and there was a bit about it not being the typical thing to do and treading that line that was meant to protect. Which is...not great, but that whole situation was a mess.
and with the auctions selling off pets without considering the previous users' rules additionally. was. pretty bad. I don't believe that's the fault of current staff for the most part.
- Eve
(#2775)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:06pm
Khaos (#11644) - In those situations you should have discussed it with both users before proceeding with the breeding, but I do know that these things can get overlooked. I know of only one occasion where it ended up coming to staff because both users wanted the pet. I believe in those situations we encourage the three users to discuss the matter - it might be that one doesn't want it, or that one would be happy to get first rights if it goes for sale again and give it to the other user. There are solutions, but again I stress that it should be discussed before going ahead with the breeding arrangement.
Pirate & Kazna (#233) - The banned user put all of Aywas in a bad position and affected the ability of other users to play because of their actions and the effect it had on the site. While the current staff understand why that decision was made, and we hope to never be in that situation again, but if we sadly are we do hope that we would find a better and more agreeable path to go down.
ChaosAzeroth[WTFWhy] (#43055) - Could you clarify what you mean?
- Gone x2
(#550)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:08pm
Hiatuses are fine. Hiatus are great. I just feel there needs to be -some sort- of cutoff point because honestly, it's beginning to feel like walking on pins every time you try and do anything nowadays. It feels like there are new rules being sprung up - contradicting older information - with very little user communication or talk. What would have really been appreciated is some sort of discussion around this instead of a "oh by the way we're changing this deal with it"
You either need to stick with the one month rule, or get rid of it completely, as far as I'm concerned.
User interaction and debate would be brilliant when it comes to these types of rules and changes as it feels like the minority of users are dictating what ends up effecting the majority. One person sneezes and we all fall down, so to speak.
I've been around a while. I've never heard of any case where these types of rules are indefinant - it was always assumed to be to a point and that's the sort of answer I got two, three years ago when exploring this exact same problem - and to be honest, had I been meet with these types of rules in place when I first started, I wouldn't have stuck around. It always seemed like these types of things were to a point.
It's confusing enough for me to keep up with the changes and I have that base foundation to start with. I feel sorry for the new users logging in for the first time to be greeted by red lines everywhere.
- Purr
(#73710)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:09pm
Personally I think there has to be a middle ground between 'NO RULES EVER' and 'all rules have to be followed TO THE LETTER with NO EXCEPTIONS', and I'm not entirely sure that the path Aywas has chosen is the best solution.
That said, I'm glad some of these rule clarifications are finally being made public. c:
- ChaosAzeroth
(#43055)
-
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:10pm
If a baby is a raffle prize does it work like this or is it like other transactions? I had a raffle where the winner doesn't look to be coming back, I can give more info I don't feel comfortable here why I don't believe they are coming back and I'd rather not be stuck with a pet someone else owns if possible.
Posted on: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:43pm
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?