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
- XerxesTexasToast
(#75910)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:42pm
Yeah, this is complicated and unsettling enough that I went back and added a time clause to my Mayday Teo's rules. I don't want my inactivity to ruin anyone's day.
- Tae
(#66637)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:43pm
This is why I don't generally breed with other people's pets and try not to have a lot of rules on the ones I do have. Makes things a lot less complicated.
- K-HAO-S
(#11644)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:55pm
Yeah.... I've gone back and done the same. It seems that as time goes on more and more rules are becoming normal to see and this is one of them and its .... a bit much IMO to expect someone to wait forever on me to come back in order to do something...
- Eve
(#2775)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:11pm
Again, the whole point is that people are protected - if we had come in and said (as some people have suggested) "Okay if you're away from the site for 6 months all your rules are void" then there would have been hell to pay for taking that choice from people and making their property vulnerable if they have an unexpected long illness, or work or university keeps them away for an extended amount of time.
By keeping the rule as timeless that means people are able to set their own leniencies, and they can have different leniencies for different situations (and even for different people). For example you could have a harem and say "if I'm idle for 5 months, rules 1, 3 and 5 are dropped" and that's absolutely fine. You could have a specific and special pet that has rules without timed leniencies, and no matter how long you're away for those rules are in place and should be abided by. You can have a species that becomes free when you've been away for 10 months, or make it so the species rules stay absolutely strict no matter how long you're away.
There is nothing here that is stopping you from creating and allowing leniencies. There is nothing there stating that you must initialise leniencies. There is nothing saying you MUST report someone to staff if they break your rule. This is about continuing to safeguard the people who aren't here right now, to safeguard you if someone DOES break a rule that you DO care about. It's literally the exact same way things have been handled since the site began.
- Inu
(#3296)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:51pm
I dunno, if people quit for a year or longer, their priorities aren't with Aywas, If they get banned and don't attempt to appeal in within a couple months, their priorities aren't with Aywas. In both cases, I think they should lose all rights with the 'chance to buy' thing. Its a courtesy rules, one that I'm sure many people have broken at some point on this site. Sometimes real life, gets overwhelming and you forget the simpler rules.
Yes people appeal bans, yes people come back. But there comes a time where if they don't log on for a long period of time, without a message on their lookup explaining WHY (out of the country, no computer, etc) or banned without appealing it for several months. Then they likely don't care about Aywas, or that rule, all that much.
- Oiseau
(#1570)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:42pm
Inu (#3296) I have depression, and my episodes can last for months where I don't feel like doing anything, including Aywas. I still care about Aywas, even when I'm inactive for months at a time, so this solution wouldn't work.
- Gone x2
(#550)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:53pm
Illness and work sucks. No one is saying you should have a "6 month until void" rule - that's quite absurd! However, going in and enforcing this in suck a fashion without so much as asking users for their opinion on the matter, can you not possibly see why people are upset? If the entire 7 pages so far have almost entirely consisted of a backlash and I have yet to see anyone (besides Kandria) agreeing with this change - maybe, perhaps, it's time to revise it? :/
We can change our own rules... But wait! According to the thread that was just locked, we have to contact all individual parties regarding this change. We can write waivers..... But waivers, where the people have literally stated *in writing* after x amount of time their rules are waived is not officially recognized and wont be upheld.
I'm sorry. Little known fact - I'm in and out of hospital a ton. Sometimes months at a time - it takes two seconds to log in and go "I'm in hospital I can't come on" - heck I can get someone else to do it if it's such an issue. I've done it before multiple times - if people can't get online in a reasonable amount of time that's on them. Their priorities aren't Aywas - and honestly fair enough - but you can't hold back the entire sight, or every possible user with that one user's pets, because a single person hasn't been on. Which is exactly what you are doing. In the case of breeding, if a user doesnt hand in their list in x time, they're either kicked or reassigned. In commission payments, if you dont pay in x amount of time, you can be banned. In pet sales, if you dont respond in x amount of time, your trade can be forceably made if you have agreed to it (and in some cases you can be banned). In fact, this rule is consistant on *every* part of sight. So... Why isn't it here?
It doesn't make logical sense and honestly, given the backlash already, I would urge the administration team to really think about if this is the stance they want to take, given how displeased the general population seems to be by this decision.
- AshtaraSilunar
(#46728)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:56pm
Ugh. Not happy about this. I had put a 'right of first refusal' rule on several of my pets, assuming that it meant people needed to offer. I definitely don't want anyone to have to wait indefinitely on me. I'm also not pleased that I now have to go through all of my bred customs and contact people to clarify this.
If we have a line on our profiles that says roughly "For any rule that states I must be offered a pet before it can be sold to anyone else, if I have not responded within X time, please feel free to sell it.", would that override?
I also agree that the need to offer should be waived for permabanned users, at least. I think there should be a time limit (6-12 months?) on the offer, but based on the other responses, that's not going to happen. :/
- Gone x2
(#550)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:00pm
"6 months until all rules are void" Sorry. Should have clarified.
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:39pm
Spice (#1431)
Not to be rude, but I think real estate isn't a good comparison to digital assets-- especially when you consider OOAK pets with full rights are technically the owners' intellectual property. IRL if that's the case, the contract by the word must be followed.
Two different interpretations assume that they can be interpreted differently. Right of first refusal, with no time limit stated, is absolute. An example of a rule that can be interpreted differently would be "Do not breed for profit."
While in the ToS it does have a safety net for intellectual property, that's not always good enough to hold off a lawsuit (win or lose, you lose money and would be detrimental to the site). iirc facebook has been sued several times already for their "if you submit it to the site, photos and all, we own it" (i believe this typically happened on reselling their assets to another party(photos, etc)).