Notice.

[demonicvampiregirl]

Then maybe we just need more mods.

Or mods that are trade mods alone and they are the only ones that deal with the trade threads?

[rubyshoes]

I knew that when I replied to that.

 

People usually state if they support IOUs or not (I don't do trades right now so I have not experienced that). I don't see how allowing them when it is user based makes it sound like that site supports them is what I was getting to.

But it does. If we (i.e forum) allow it, it does seem like we support it.

[Pixxelation]

Big red letters are pretty hard to miss when posting in a thread. Maybe a whole IOU subforum could work?

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Or mods that are trade mods alone and they are the only ones that deal with the trade threads?

The thing is I imagine any mod is game for getting PM'd about bad IOUs. Which is why there should be an across-the-board rule, made clear in both trading threads AND added even more clearly into one-way transfers, that contacting staff about unfulfilled trade promises results in a warning.

 

If you put it in big honkin' red letters at the top of one-way transfers that staff can't enforce promises of future offers in return for transfers, and that they're taking those offers at their own risk--then I feel absolutely no pity for anyone who still contacts a mod about it.

Edited October 2, 2012 by angelicdragonpuppy

[rayden54]

But it does. If we (i.e forum) allow it, it does seem like we support it.

Not if you make it plain that you don't.

[rubyshoes]

Big red letters are pretty hard to miss when posting in a thread. Maybe a whole IOU subforum could work?

Trade threads are often multiple pages long so they wouldn't see the big red letters unless they looked at the first page which I don't think most do.

[brairtrainer]

have words show up on all pages like the note with the completed dragon section then...that seems like a better idea.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Trade threads are often multiple pages long so they wouldn't see the big red letters unless they looked at the first page which I don't think most do.

Ruby--if you post a common in the rare trading thread, you're banned from that thread. Yet that rule is only stated on the first page. If banning people for not reading in that case is fine, then warnings for people not reading about IOU stuff should be fine, too.

[demonicvampiregirl]

But it does. If we (i.e forum) allow it, it does seem like we support it.

Seem being the key word there when people don't read the rules.

 

If they do not understand the risk at the start they will always come to you even if you put a rule like that in place.

 

The ones that have been using it properly knew this before hand and they still took the risks themselves, knew the rules and dealt with any issues that came up.

 

I myself, even though I don't trade, knew that when I ever make a IOU knew that I could get ripped off and it was my own risk. I wouldn't blame the mods or run to them. I'd PM them nicely asking them for their part of the IOU and if I never got a reply would continue on and try again.

 

 

The thing is I imagine any mod is game for getting PM'd about bad IOUs. Which is why there should be an across-the-board rule, made clear in both trading threads AND added even more clearly into one-way transfers, that contacting staff about unfulfilled trade promises results in a warning.

 

If you put it in big honkin' red letters at the top of one-way transfers that staff can't enforce promises of future offers in return for transfers, and that they're taking those offers at their own risk--then I feel absolutely no pity for anyone who still contacts a mod about it.

 

The reason I suggested that is so people knew there was trade-specific mods to go to so that the other mods wouldn't be PMed about it. They would handle the trades alone when/if contacted. The other mods could even forward the message to a trade-related mod and they could handle it from there.

Edited October 2, 2012 by demonicvampiregirl

[Ashes The Second]

Yes. Having IOUs as a "have" or a "want" is both included.

 

 

Gifting topics aren't affected as those are gifts not IOUs (as long as it is a true gift and nothing is expected in return).

 

The above will be added to the first topic.

 

If you have IOUs as either a have or a want in your trades, please remove them.

 

 

edit: The word topic above should have been post - meaning the first post in this topic/thread.

So you cannot put 'Have: Dragon here --> want: dragon here'? That's kinda how we trade?

[Xylene]

The whole reason IOUs are disallowed is because sometimes people offer IOUs and do not fulfill them. Maybe they got banned, got tired of the game, or maybe you and the person you made a deal with had a fallout and they're punishing you by refusing to pay up. The thing is, IOUs are UNOFFICIAL. Which would mean if your trading partner dumped you, tough luck.

 

Some people think it's up to the mods to enforce IOUs, especially when they are posted on the OFFICIAL forums. Once again - IOUs are UNOFFICIAL. People don't like paying for nothing, but what do they do if their partner bails out? Most people go to a mod and say, "[user] owes me [dragon] and they didn't pay up" and the mods technically can't do anything because it is an UNOFFICIAL part of the game and everyone should already know that IOUs are AT YOUR OWN RISK. Rather than the mods continuously having to deal with IOU drama, you are not allowed to offer IOUs on the forums. Period. Yes, it sucks, especially if you are a reliable trader. However, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do on the mods' part because everyone whines at them when there are problems.

 

[/end rant?]

 

Personally I'm all for angelicdragonpuppy's suggestion of warning users for whining to the staff members - my question is, would it work to make people understand that it isn't the staff's fault? We all know how users can be. If they think they're entitled to something, they WILL whine, rant, and threaten to leave the site because 'the mods weren't helpful at ALL'.

[ThatDeadGirl]

Trade threads are often multiple pages long so they wouldn't see the big red letters unless they looked at the first page which I don't think most do.

Not knowing about the law doesn't make it less of a law. How hard is it to copy paste some standard text to anyone who complains about someone breaking an IOU? You guys have the same copy paste notice about spam threads? So copy paste a too-bad-so-sad-it-was-at-your-own-risk message, with a link to the pertinent rule/post when you get these PM's? It seems out of order to punish everyone because a few people are too dense to read the rules.

[LibbyLishly]

Here's a thought for all of us who want to trade IOUs and can't in the 'official' forum now:

 

I'm a mod on an awesome fansite called Lairs & Layers of Dragons. I propose that those who want to trade IOUs join this or a similar fansite and post an introductory post saying "I accept and give IOUs". We can start a master list of people who will faithfully fulfill IOUs and blacklist people who won't. I'd be willing to take on the initial creation of such a list. If we can't do it here, let's just take our trading traffic offsite.

 

Thoughts? Join L&L and PM me there (click on the name 'Libby' in the Committee List') or PM me here. I know a lot of people are going to simply boycott IOU trading now, but those of us who still need to trade may be able to search out good trades.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Personally I'm all for angelicdragonpuppy's suggestion of warning users for whining to the staff members - my question is, would it work to make people understand that it isn't the staff's fault? We all know how users can be. If they think they're entitled to something, they WILL whine, rant, and threaten to leave the site because 'the mods weren't helpful at ALL'.

If users take it upon themselves to rant and scream at mods for them repeating something that's already been made clear numerous times elsewhere on the site, they can and should be banned from the forums. And if they threaten to leave--let them leave. People who can't read the rules and then throw hissy fits because they didn't probably aren't the best type of people to want on a forum anyway e____e

[rubyshoes]

Ruby--if you post a common in the rare trading thread, you're banned from that thread. Yet that rule is only stated on the first page. If banning people for not reading in that case is fine, then warnings for people not reading about IOU stuff should be fine, too.

If you post a common in the rare thread, I remove it. I don't see anything about a ban for that in their rules. But the rare thread seems not to have any current active thread mods and may need to be revised as it is.

[bluebell_rose]

If you post a common in the rare thread, I remove it. I don't see anything about a ban for that in their rules. But the rare thread seems not to have any current active thread mods and may need to be revised as it is.

from rare trading center

 

This is a list of people with warnings for not heeding to the rules posted at the very top. If you are warned 3 times in a row, you will be BANNED from trading here. If you have a warning or two, they will disappear after a months time and you will start clean. If you remove the said egg/hatchling that goes against the rules within twenty-four hours, you will just receive a verbal warning the first time. Next time will be a full first warning. If there is Pending next to your name, it means you have 24 hours to remove whatever is breaking the rules before it becomes full. PM a mod once it's removed within the time limit.

Someone clearly does not read.

[rubyshoes]

So you cannot put 'Have: Dragon here --> want: dragon here'? That's kinda how we trade?

Please read the whole post. This was in reply to rather we included IOU posts as a have or as a want and we said neither was allowed.

[ThatDeadGirl]

If you post a common in the rare thread, I remove it.  I don't see anything about a ban for that in their rules. But the rare thread seems not to have any current active thread mods and may need to be revised as it is.

*snip*

 

Rares only! NO Commons are allowed to be offered. Lineage dragons such as Dorkface, Datamonster, etc. must be low gen. No higher than 5th generation.

 

*snip*

 

Warnings & Bans

 

This is a list of people with warnings for not heeding to the rules posted at the very top. If you are warned 3 times in a row, you will be BANNED from trading here. If you have a warning or two, they will disappear after a months time and you will start clean. If you remove the said egg/hatchling that goes against the rules within twenty-four hours, you will just receive a verbal warning the first time. Next time will be a full first warning. If there is Pending next to your name, it means you have 24 hours to remove whatever is breaking the rules before it becomes full. PM a mod once it's removed within the time limit.

Bold is mine.

Edited October 2, 2012 by ThatDeadGirl

[Ashes The Second]

Please read the whole post. This was in reply to rather we included IOU posts as a have or as a want and we said neither was allowed.

I did. That's /exactly/ what you guys said. Can you please clarify? If we aren't allowed to go 'have: ____ want: ____' then how do we trade? offsite? o.o; I want ot be clear, and there was nothing harsh intended. I realize the mods will get a lot of crap, but I really do suggest you clarify. :/

[rubyshoes]

from rare trading center

 

 

Someone clearly does not read.

As I said the thread doesn't have active thread mods and that is not what is currently happening.

[rayden54]

It really seems to me that we're being treated like idiots.

 

This forum has a topic on religion, politics, abortion, gay rights, and cooking. All are on the OFFICIAL Dragon Cave forums. Obviously people must think the mods agree with all the posts there.

 

I don't see why the trading threads are any different.

[rubyshoes]

I did. That's /exactly/ what you guys said. Can you please clarify? If we aren't allowed to go 'have: ____ want: ____' then how do we trade? offsite? o.o; I want ot be clear, and there was nothing harsh intended. I realize the mods will get a lot of crap, but I really do suggest you clarify. :/

It is concerning IOUs only. We were talking about not allowing IOU haves or IOU wants in the trade threads. You have to have what you are offering as a have and you cannot ask for an IOU as a want.

 

That is a general "you" not you as a specific user.

[High Lord November]

But it does. If we (i.e forum) allow it, it does seem like we support it.

But you are allowing it regardless if you let people put it in their signatures. The only way you can not support it is if you ban it outright.

 

It's my honest opinion that it isn't going to make any difference whatsoever if the site supports it or not. People will complain regardless. You will still get the same PMs, saying that they got scammed and that you should do something about it. Allowing it, but raising awareness, will do a whole lot more than sorta kinda hiding IOUs.

 

[Ashes The Second]

As I said the thread doesn't have active thread mods and that is not what is currently happening.

That doesn't justify that the rule is still in place, and should be updated accordingly. Again, I do feel as if I'm being treated as an absolute idiot. We don't realize the risk of IOUs? Really? Sure, we only use them as a means to get better trades, but what about the loyalty system already in place? You'll be blacklisted if you're not honest, and don't uphold your end of the bargain anyway, so what purpose does this rule serve, to dumb us down?

[Xylene]

If users take it upon themselves to rant and scream at mods for them repeating something that's already been made clear numerous times elsewhere on the site, they can and should be banned from the forums. And if they threaten to leave--let them leave. People who can't read the rules and then throw hissy fits because they didn't probably aren't the best type of people to want on a forum anyway e____e

 

There's also the problem that the mods would still have to deal with these people, and it would also clog up their inboxes when they have other things to take care of. I was around to see a lovely bit of drama last christmas over a holly IOU that got broken - it took about 24 hours, had half the IRC in a tizzy, and ended with 2-3 people being banned (Though they were later unbanned). And that was ONE broken IOU. The whole drama with IOUs happens too often around the yearly events, so even though it sucks, it does make perfect sense.

 

It's sort of not just to prevent a slew of bannings, but also to save the mods a lot of time and headaches? I wouldn't be too worried - rules have been changed in the past. I have absolute faith that if the mods come up with a better solution they'll change this one.