News

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:11am

Eve (#2775)

I don't think releasing would be a good idea though, I thought ID ressurectors brought back the pet in question? Or is it only the ID that's given?

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:16am

Belawy (#6513) - Only the ID is brought back ^^

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:25am

This leads to the problem where some species have a no-edit rule, to stop users who tried to get around only having one psd use by later using a different design on the same pet. It's far less common, but it exists.

In general I agree with the clarification to a point, but it does make what was previously considered a gentle suggestion into a draconian order. A better compromise is similar to what happened in the inbreeding situation, where the site told species order they had to DEFINE what inbreeding was to them, as people has wildly different opinions.

It'd go like this, existing species owners with this rule get it grandfathered in... provided they never edit the rules post. Any rules post with a timestamp of before the theoretical rules change is fine, and after would have to abide by the following:

"In the case of a 'contact before selling or trading' rule, Species owners must specify a date by which this rule becomes void, up to six months maximum. After this point it's assumed you wave your rights to the sale of that particular pet"

With the musings debacle you firmly established that even if someone is injured or can not log onto the site, it's still their business to uphold their streak. It's the indication of a "it's your responsibility for you to handle your own crap", and this would fit the spirit and the letter of that previous ruling.

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:09am

Guess this will mean all my rules will need to be updated with more specific lay outs. o3o

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:23am

How about the following, instead?

"The creator/original owner/[insert title here] is responsible for responding to requests for permission to sell within one month, unless they notify all owners of their pets of a hiatus with a specific timeframe before the end of that month - for example, twelve months from the notification.
If a hiatus will be extended, they must notify all owners of the extension within one month following the previously stated timeframe.
If they fail to do so, their answer is assumed to be 'you have permission to sell this pet'.
If the pet is still in the current owner's possession and not being held for an already-agreed-upon payment-plan or hold-type transaction with another user, the [insert title] can request it be sold to them. If the current owner doesn't respond within one month of this request with either the sale of the pet to the creator or an 'I've decided to keep it', their answer is assumed to be the latter, and their request for permission to sell must be repeated should they seek to sell again. Failure to do so may result in an on-site punishment, as determined by staff."


Hopefully this doesn't come off as harsh, since it's not meant to be, just my take on how it should be handled. Instead of punishing active users for the inactivity of others, require those who'd seek out the right to a buyback to be, y'know, present for such buybacks and forward about when they're going inactive, so as not to leave the active users in a purgatory of wanting to be rid of a pet but waiting on a possibly-gone-from-the-site-for-good user to give the go-ahead. It also forces the users who expect such a rule to be upheld to actually keep track of the pets they want to control such an aspect of, helping prevent wrongful punishment and ensure rightful ones.

Basically, make the people who want control over the buying and selling of their pet designs after they're out of their possession responsible for keeping track of and being present to enforce the 'offer it to me for buyback first' rule. Make it so that only those who're willing to put forth the effort to maintain such control have the ability to do such, while those who won't put forth the effort don't get to see the benefits. Some leeway can absolutely be given for people to track all their designs down, so long as they can show that they're actively trying to do so!

Again, I mean no disrespect, I'm just throwing an alternative solution out there, see if I can't find a better compromise. Might as well try to help, yeah?

... anyways, 4am, time for bed for me, sorry about the new wall I just kinda... built here with my babbling ^^"

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:25am

I agree with the site in some of the stance they've taken, rules are rules after all.

However I do agree that there should be some sort of time limit or something in place. Simply releasing or using a potion on the pet in question could also technically be considered a loop hole in the rule too as they 'didn't get offered the chance to buy the pet' before it ceased to exist on site anymore.

Hence why I think that there should be a time limit or something similar in place, otherwise no matter what you do with the pet, it could be classed as, in Eve's words 'trying to get around the rules'.

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:44am

Is it ok to unbreedable potion pets to stay on the safe side? Or with pets in a "first offer" situation this would be circumventing the rule? Or since they don't specify the pet has to be breedable it's ok?

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:47am

Regarding my last comment, i feel it is a bit unfair to hold players accountable for banned players rules since they violated rules to get that way but I didn't realize this was an issue, and since they are banned I can't ask... but nor do I want to have an issue if/when they come back.

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:47am

As someone who's almost always had that rule on breedings with their pets and who is now mostly inactive and only logs in to see what's going on - having a cut off time limit is a much better idea.
If I'm inactive or left the site, and I don't get online to reply to someone within x amount of time, it's only fair that the rule is waived. Having a pet sitting around that you can't make any of your GP back on if you no longer want it when someone hasn't been around or replied for months, or years, is ridiculous.
Most of those rules have the owner of the parent offer to buy it for the cost of the coin if the breeder doesn't want the baby, potioning it over or "releasing" it means you're out of luck buddy-o.
I don't see what the problem with a cut-off is.
Like, you still have to offer the pet to begin with, but if they don't respond within 1-3 months then???

Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:05pm

I definitely think this decision needs to be revisited, and it doesn't even affect me... this is just widening the rift and animosity between staff and users.
I guarantee people are going to lie and try to circumvent this "law" and who can really blame them? Some babies with this rule are ridiculously expensive, and people often keep/buy pets solely as an investment to be liquidated at a future time.
And you are literally telling them, that the baby they spent -sometimes- several hundred dollars on, is now a worthless pile of crap because some user up and quit three years ago?
And what happens if a parent to one of my customs gets a new owner, they implement the rule, and try to enforce it? If the original owner is gone, how do I prove the rules were added by the new user? I've got to go to every.single.user who owns a parent of my pets and get a pm with details? That definitely feels like a "game" and makes me want to keep playing... *cough*
Tack this onto a "fix" for a game that is probably going to push some users to quit when they lose their streak. I make money from art and never played Manju, but that income was literally all that some users had time to make in their busy lives...
Micromanagement doesn't work in a professional setting, and it definitely doesn't in a game. All of this time and effort is being spent thinking of ways to punish the user base when it could be spent thinking of amazing events to run or new features to add so that people have fun things to do.
And quite frankly, this site isn't big enough to support the paying users who are going to quit because it no longer feels like they are playing a game. It even makes me wonder if I should bother spending my time taking gp commissions, just to login one day and find Aywas gone.
And I remember reading some crazy news post/forum argument (it's been a while) similar to this in terms of micromanagement when I made this account for points on another site. It's one of the reasons I immediately logged off and didn't touch it for years... my thoughts were along the lines of, "who puts up with a game like that?"
I'm starting to get that feeling again and it sucks because I've grown pretty attached.