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
- AshtaraSilunar
(#46728)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:44pm
Four messages into clarifying rules, and I've already encountered one species where ownership changed hands, so I'm waiting to hear if the rules are even the same. This is not fun.
- Aetheria & rage
(#46)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:24pm
If the owner of the pets in question has passed away IRL, how does that work then? And if we can provide proof of this (that they are now deceased), does that nullify this rule requirement of obtaining permission...? -rage
- Conium
(#39365)
-
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:32pm
Next species I make, it's going to have a simple rule of "if you're going to sell the pet, give me first refusal. If I don't answer within 4 months, it's fine... unless you're a mod or staff, then you're not allowed to sell the pet until I respond in the positive" that's fair, right?
- Be4
(#23531)
-
Posted on: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:24am
Honestly, this rule is totally fair. The staff has no obligation to impose a time limit on a deal made between two users; the site's obligation is to enforce the site rules, part of which is the terms of a contract (breeding or otherwise) must be followed.
When user A agrees to follow user B's rules, that's absolute; yes, user A didn't know user B would be banned/go on hiatus/ whatever, but that doesn't change the rules of the deal made between user A and user B. And yes, user B may not have meant for you to have to wait for a response, but without this clarification- and no user B- there's no way to know for sure. As such, site rules dictate that user A can't sell the pet because user B hasn't agreed to let them, and the staff must take that stance as it's how the ToS is. And no, they shouldn't change it; remember, user A alone agreeed to the breeding rules that user B created. The staff had nothing to do with it.
That's my interpretation, anyway. I'm just surprised people are surprised, I guess.
- 🐼Kaiyo🐼
(#489)
-
Posted on: Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:24am
Conium[treat4treat] (#39365) That would be a ToS infringement as you are not allowed to target users in any situation.
- 🐼Kaiyo🐼
(#489)
-
Posted on: Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:26am
Aeth & rage (#46) Unfortunately, while we hope that situation does not occur, we have no way to prove that the deceased was actually the owner of the account.
- AshtaraSilunar
(#46728)
-
Posted on: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:57pm
Since there was no answer to my comment, posting again. If I have a line on my profile stating "For any of my pets that have a 'right of first refusal' on them with no deadline, that rule is not valid if two attempts at contact are made and I don't respond within two months", will that override anything on individual pet profiles?
Posted on: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:59pm
I usually grumble about rule changes but understand why it needs to be done in the long run. But this, I'll never understand. Sure, this could have been Aywas's policy all along and you're only restating it now so everyone understands - but the problem is, a lot of people here are saying that there were multiple ways to interpret the rule, and that during the time this rule was NOT clarified, they either bred pets with the rule, or had the rule on their own pets, thinking it meant something completely different than how Aywas interprets it.
So I think it would totally be fine to implement this as the official interpretation of "first refusal" FROM NOW ON, since everyone has a chance to read it and such (and as long as it's put in the rules officially, and not just a news post that will be very easily missed by newbies later). But it is sooooo unfair on everyone involved to make it cover everything in the past, when many of us did not interpret the rule in the same way and would not have done the breeding/put the rule on their pets if they had known. And the ways you are giving us of "fixing" it for past breedings are a giant pain in the butt and totally unreasonable.
Anyway yeah, I have almost no stake in this personally since I'm not a big breeder, but I do love me some good drama, so... *pops some popcorn, sits butt in lounge chair, and watches the dumpster fire*