Notice.

[High Lord November]

I'm sorry but that isn't the way it is seen. If we(i.e the forum) allow something we are seen as supporting it.

OK, I can see that.

But why is it so bad to be seen as supporting it? I apologize if we are going around in circles, but I'm a bit curious as to why that is (I'm also sorry if I missed it in a previously-mentioned post).

 

EDIT: Nevermind, this was answered in Starscream's post.

Edited October 2, 2012 by High Lord November

[rubyshoes]

It's two players that are doing it not the whole community. It's just two people's agreement not the site itself. I don't see how anyone could associate it with the whole site when it's an agreement between just two players.

And yet that do. Sorry but they do which is why the no IOU posts rule already exists and why this notice is being sent out that IOU posts be included as well.

[xeyla]

My $0.02:

 

I am currently trying to fulfill a IOU: a 2G silver from a Shadow Walker daddy. I've been trying for weeks now. I keep the tradee updated with a Google document. I seriously hope they know I'm trying for them, and not backstabbing them instead.

 

I like seeing the phrase: "I accept IOUs" in a trade offer. It makes me feel the trader is willing to give the tradee some time to get together what the trader is asking for. This is what an economy is about. This is how we build trust in others, and we forget the minority who try to break that trust. I was not aware that there were so many people who got the bad end of an IOU. It almost feels like its an epidemic that nobody knows about.

 

I know you claim IOUs are not an option of the game, but there will always be IOUs in an economy. It just so happens our economy is comprised of pixels. Pixels in the shapes of dragons.

 

 

[angelicdragonpuppy]

My idea for an IOU system....

I personally wanted to see something not dissimilar to the thuwed gifting system where a user can predefine a pair and send a link to a user so that when the pair is bred and result in the desired offspring it is sent to the user who is waiting for the IOU or gift.

 

What I had also wanted to see was only the receiver of the IOU could cancel the trade if they wanted to. However that idea was, it would not have stopped someone from using bait and just not breeding the IOU pair. However if they did and got the egg, it would be sent.

That... is really quite brilliant. Yes, they might simply not breed the pair--but that would prevent them from ever using the pair again. A good form of assurance, IMO.

 

Although I still think that simply updating the one-way transfer and adding some glaring warnings to trading threads that IOUs are not official is all that's required.

 

"This is a ONE WAY TRANSFER. Users recieving this transfer are not obligated to give you anything in return. Promises of future payments in return for this transfer are not an official feature of the site and cannot be enforced by staff members. Accept promises of future payment at your own risk."

 

 

[Thuban]

Since they're not a built-in option, why are mods so keen on regulating them?

 

Again, if it's made clear that IOUs are unofficial, there is no reason to prevent people from doing them. As others have said a lot of the reason this seems to be being done is because people think the mods can help them with IOUs gone bad (suggesting they think IOUs are an official thing). Address the problem of people not understanding IOUs*, don't address the non-existant problem of IOUs occurring.

 

*Although I honesly think you've done as much on this front as you can already. The one-way transfer warning is pretty straight-forward. If TJ's worried about some type of legal action against him for unfulfilled IOUs (which is the only reason, weird though it might be, that I can see for him being so against them on the forums), then add in a message about IOUs to the one-way transfers.

 

"This is a ONE WAY TRANSFER. Users recieving this transfer are not obligated to give you anything in return. Promises of future payments in return for this transfer are not an official part of the site and cannot be enforced."

Um.. we mod for offsite trading, when its reported (or at least i do). There is no built in option to prevent users from doing this because it looks just like a gift.. but when its reported, its modded.

 

 

Users will show up in chat offering to BUY eggs. When we see them, we ban them and report the scroll. Once again, theres nothing to prove its happening outside of the chat logs (or other means of evidence like screenshots)... but when its reported we do what we can.

 

People can not seem to grasp what that little tidbit of a rule that keeps getting quoted /actually/ means. At your own risk, doesnt seem to be something people fully grasp. Why should we allow something we wont mod to be allowed? If we allow it.. it sort of provides the obligation that when theres a problem we have to help. Thats something we can not help. I cant force a user to give something they dont have for a trade im not part of, yet, somehow even after pointing it out, and banning it in chat and specifically saying "i'm sorry, i cant help you because it was your trade, at your risk" im still expected to help. I cant just ignore a problem brought to me. Its not who i am. I dont care if we are all time enemies or that so and so has said horrible things about me or my kids... if anyone comes to me, with a problem, I will do the best i can to help, hands down every time. This is one thing i /cant/ help with. Its not something we do, so why allow it? Because its something we have always had? Thats not reason enough.

 

I prefer code catching, i preferred one cave, preferred the old gold sprites, pinks and frills. Yet when those all disappeared.. sure i was mad for a bit, but i adjusted. Instead of lashing out against the mods, against the small group of users you guys believe are responsible.. why not take a step back and think about all of the changes that have happened over the years, and the drama that came up afterwards.. and what side of the fence you were on (and no, this is not an invitation to discuss those situations, just a food for thought).

 

We may not always like the changes. I dont like half the rules i have to follow in real life, it doesnt mean i can choose not to. Sure, i could argue with the cop who pulls me over for not stopping at the stop sign for a full 3 seconds... but argueing wont get me anywhere. Staying calm and logically and /politely/ explaining things does the trick. Wont always get me out of that ticket, but authorities tend to respond better to polite requests rather than all out attacks

 

 

One of the things i have been trying to pitch: i would rather only see rare and holiday ious banned. If someone has a cb gold in hand and wants to trade it for a ton of cb balloons, then yay. the only risk here is the person getting scammed out of commons. Me i would much rather be scammed out of a common, than a cb metal.. or second gen holly. However.. other people might actually get upset about not recieving their cb hatchys. Whats considered common anyhow? blacks are common, but cb blacks are treated as rares at times. Springs were common but we didnt see many this year. There really isnt a clearcut way to define whats considered a rare and whats considered a common because the system is always changing. How would something like this be maintained? We dont have exact values for whats more rare than other things other than we know cb silver and cb gold are the most rare things you can /catch/ in cave.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Thuban

[rubyshoes]

I have a question that sparked off of derranged's post.

What if we posted in the trade topic the following:

 

Have

 

A very special egg (Please PM me for details)

 

Want:

 

Please PM me, we can discuss the trade there.

 

Then we wouldn't exactly be stating that we have an egg that doesn't exist at that particular point and time, but we'd still be able to trade for it... right? Or what if we just put a photo of said egg in our sig so that the post looked like:

 

Have

 

A very special egg (See sig)

 

Want:

 

Please PM me, we can discuss the trade there.

Without having the actual have this seems like an IOU.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Why should we allow something we wont mod to be allowed?

Because many people enjoy doing it, despite the risks?

 

I'm sorry if not being able to help out saddens you, but please don't put an end to all the IOUs people have fun doing just because a few people are jerks and you can't help their victims. As has been said, IOUs will continue to happen anyway. Doing this just makes it harder for the trustworthy people to do them as easily.

Edited October 2, 2012 by angelicdragonpuppy

[High Lord November]

I prefer code catching, i preferred one cave, preferred the old gold sprites, pinks and frills. Yet when those all disappeared.. sure i was mad for a bit, but i adjusted. Instead of lashing out against the mods, against the small group of users you guys believe are responsible.. why not take a step back and think about all of the changes that have happened over the years, and the drama that came up afterwards.. and what side of the fence you were on (and no, this is not an invitation to discuss those situations, just a food for thought).

 

We may not always like the changes. I dont like half the rules i have to follow in real life, it doesnt mean i can choose not to. Sure, i could argue with the cop who pulls me over for not stopping at the stop sign for a full 3 seconds... but argueing wont get me anywhere. Staying calm and logically and /politely/ explaining things does the trick. Wont always get me out of that ticket, but authorities tend to respond better to polite requests rather than all out attacks

Sorry, but I just have to point out: we're technically having a discussion here, trying to understand why this is so and proposing different solutions. It isn't at all

lashing out against the mods.

[danegrrrl]

Allowing IOUs in posts was seen as the forum/DC supporting IOUs which we do not. For me that is the main reason for the change.

Or, (and this seems so simple) a gigantic, bold-red lettered disclaimer at the beginning of all the trading threads stating that IOUs are not an officially sanctioned DC Forum trading method, nor is it encouraged by DC Forum. However, if users choose to inter into an IOU agreement with another use, those users partake in them at their own risk. DC Forum is not responsible for trades that do not end the way users had hoped, or those that do not end on amicable terms. IOU AT YOUR OWN RISK." Or something along that idea....

 

Why punish the hundreds of good members who uphold their IOUs because of a couple rotten weasel jerks with no ethics?

 

This has essentially trashed DC for me. IOUs were the one chance I had at getting some of the dragons I missed out on due to personal reasons and missed holidays. It's ruined the chance I had at winning a contest because now instead of trading for hatchling IOUs, I'm just supposed to hope and expect that someone magically has 8 hatchlings of exactly the breeds I'm looking for at exactly the moment I catch an egg I don't even know I'm going to catch yet?

 

Ugh. Don't like it. It's like telling us we're all too stupid to understand what a "risk" is.

[sunsteps88]

Or, (and this seems so simple) a gigantic, bold-red lettered disclaimer at the beginning of all the trading threads stating that IOUs are not an officially sanctioned DC Forum trading method, nor is it encouraged by DC Forum. However, if users choose to inter into an IOU agreement with another use, those users partake in them at their own risk. DC Forum is not responsible for trades that do not end the way users had hoped, or those that do not end on amicable terms. IOU AT YOUR OWN RISK." Or something along that idea....

 

Why punish the hundreds of good members who uphold their IOUs because of a couple rotten weasel jerks with no ethics?

 

This has essentially trashed DC for me. IOUs were the one chance I had at getting some of the dragons I missed out on due to personal reasons and missed holidays. It's ruined the chance I had at winning a contest because now instead of trading for hatchling IOUs, I'm just supposed to hope and expect that someone magically has 8 hatchlings of exactly the breeds I'm looking for at exactly the moment I catch an egg I don't even know I'm going to catch yet?

 

Ugh. Don't like it. It's like telling us we're all too stupid to understand what a "risk" is.

This. Exactly. I support really everyone against the mods on this one..

*dont hate me*

 

I just don't understand why we have to do this... We all should have known there's a risk in the first place when an IOU was stated by ourselves or others.

But, I guess if it's still alright in pm's and without saying "IOU" then it can work..

This really is killing a part of DC though..

"I'm just supposed to hope and expect that someone magically has 8 hatchlings of exactly the breeds I'm looking for at exactly the moment I catch an egg I don't even know I'm going to catch yet? "

Edited October 2, 2012 by sunsteps88

[dragonpuck]

I don't like IOU's but they are basically the only way to get some of the things I want --- big Signature messages here I come-- although I am not sure what the difference is??

 

It is impossible to legislate morality. All of such laws that have been passed have been rescinded because they did not work.

 

It's hard to take things off forums when there is no such place-- IRC bans IOU's as well. requests in channels are not visible to new joiners and die when you leave -- how the heck do you get together???

[demonicvampiregirl]

Or, (and this seems so simple) a gigantic, bold-red lettered disclaimer at the beginning of all the trading threads stating that IOUs are not an officially sanctioned DC Forum trading method, nor is it encouraged by DC Forum. However, if users choose to inter into an IOU agreement with another use, those users partake in them at their own risk. DC Forum is not responsible for trades that do not end the way users had hoped, or those that do not end on amicable terms. IOU AT YOUR OWN RISK." Or something along that idea....

 

Why punish the hundreds of good members who uphold their IOUs because of a couple rotten weasel jerks with no ethics?

 

This has essentially trashed DC for me. IOUs were the one chance I had at getting some of the dragons I missed out on due to personal reasons and missed holidays. It's ruined the chance I had at winning a contest because now instead of trading for hatchling IOUs, I'm just supposed to hope and expect that someone magically has 8 hatchlings of exactly the breeds I'm looking for at exactly the moment I catch an egg I don't even know I'm going to catch yet?

 

Ugh. Don't like it. It's like telling us we're all too stupid to understand what a "risk" is.

This.

 

I even suggested something like this for the accepting aid/not accepting aid to be put at the top of everyone's scroll as well as having it on the hatchlings/eggs (it being optional of course!) and it had a lot of support.

 

People know the risks when they accept a IOU on each side. They should be pointed to the IOU part of the trade link and that is where it should end. They knew the risks when they took it. I don't see how punishing a whole community just because a few people wish to scam people is right. We all knew the risks going in so why take that option from us when we knew that ahead of time?

[rubyshoes]

Or, (and this seems so simple) a gigantic, bold-red lettered disclaimer at the beginning of all the trading threads stating that IOUs are not an officially sanctioned DC Forum trading method, nor is it encouraged by DC Forum. However, if users choose to inter into an IOU agreement with another use, those users partake in them at their own risk. DC Forum is not responsible for trades that do not end the way users had hoped, or those that do not end on amicable terms. IOU AT YOUR OWN RISK." Or something along that idea....

 

Why punish the hundreds of good members who uphold their IOUs because of a couple rotten weasel jerks with no ethics?

 

This has essentially trashed DC for me. IOUs were the one chance I had at getting some of the dragons I missed out on due to personal reasons and missed holidays. It's ruined the chance I had at winning a contest because now instead of trading for hatchling IOUs, I'm just supposed to hope and expect that someone magically has 8 hatchlings of exactly the breeds I'm looking for at exactly the moment I catch an egg I don't even know I'm going to catch yet?

 

Ugh. Don't like it. It's like telling us we're all too stupid to understand what a "risk" is.

I don't think another disclaimer really would help with the idea that members do think we (as the mods/forum) support IOUs.

Edited October 2, 2012 by rubyshoes

[demonicvampiregirl]

I don't think another disclaimer really would help with the idea that members do think we (as the mods/forum) support IOUs.

But we're not saying you support them. We the users support them (or not) and they state it when they get trade requests.

[rayden54]

I don't think another disclaimer really would help with the idea that members do think we (as the mods/forum) support IOUs.

Then they've got something else wrong with them.

 

How hard is it to read great big letters specifically saying you aren't involved.

[rubyshoes]

But we're not saying you support them. We the users support them (or not) and they state it when they get trade requests.

I was replying to the idea of another disclaimer at the beginning of trade threads. The current trade rules are not always followed (hence why we mods are always editing out improper trades etc) so a disclaimer at the beginning of a thread really wouldn't help with anything as most would just ignore it.

 

 

edit: Some of the trade threads already have notices in big red letters and they are ignored so I just don't see another notice as helping.

Edited October 2, 2012 by rubyshoes

[Pixxelation]

Maybe when posting, like when posting a topic in help?

[Starscream]

Then they've got something else wrong with them.

 

How hard is it to read great big letters specifically saying you aren't involved.

You have no idea how many people simply don't bother to check.

[brairtrainer]

Then maybe we just need more mods.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I was replying to the idea of another disclaimer at the beginning of trade threads. The current trade rules are not always followed (hence why we mods are always editing out improper trades etc) so a disclaimer at the beginning of a thread really wouldn't help with anything as most would just ignore it.

But if there are warnings in place, then it is clear that you are NOT responsible. If the person is too dull to read the giant glittery warnings, than it is their fault, not yours.

 

Again, why are you punishing everyone because a few people can't read the rules? Isn't the whole point of laws that they're there to be read and followed? If you explicitly and repeatedly say "IOUs are not official trading methods and staff cannot enforce them," then you are under no obligation to even respond to those people. Give them a warning for not reading the rules and turn them away.

 

There are already rules in some places that ban users for things like, say, offering commons in the rare trading thread; same logic applies here. Read the rules, or ignore them and risk getting a warning. Their choice.

Edited October 2, 2012 by angelicdragonpuppy

[demonicvampiregirl]

I was replying to the idea of another disclaimer at the beginning of trade threads. The current trade rules are not always followed (hence why we mods are always editing out improper trades etc) so a disclaimer at the beginning of a thread really wouldn't help with anything as most would just ignore it.

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.

[danegrrrl]

Okay, well, I'm sure you (The Mods) don't support people being rude and hateful to each other either? Right?

 

I know people get nasty messages. Why not take the PM system away too then? Because by allowing people to communicate with each other, some Einstein might get the impression that you support hate speak because you allow PM'ing.

 

See what I mean? It's a huge leap to think that just because some people say it's okay to offer an IOU that it's endorsed and supported by DC when it says so in the one way transfer link that it is at the user's own risk.

 

It's that whole taking from the whole because of a few thing. And I'm sorry, but it just feels like you all are implying that we all lack the basic brain capacity to determine that an IOU might be a risk.

Edited October 2, 2012 by danegrrrl

[bluebell_rose]

IMO, it serves users right for not reading a trade carefully. In the real world you wouldn't go whine at someone just because you didn't read the small print would you?

Edited October 2, 2012 by bluebell_rose

[rayden54]

I was replying to the idea of another disclaimer at the beginning of trade threads. The current trade rules are not always followed (hence why we mods are always editing out improper trades etc) so a disclaimer at the beginning of a thread really wouldn't help with anything as most would just ignore it.

There's a difference between not knowing something and ignoring it.

 

Put the notice on the trade threads. On the trade forum itself. And on the transfer page. At that point, if you still don't know. It's your own fault.

[Alse15]

What if users were told to include a disclaimer in their posts? Rather than the topics having them. So like:

 

HAVE:

 

Super awesome egg

 

WANT:

 

IOU of _____

 

 

IOUs are not supported by the forum, and as such we agree to this at our own risk