Tiny Little Questions

[Fuzzbucket]

7 hours ago, missy_ said:

Thank you, @pinkgothic  I appreciate you taking the time. 

I realize you said wait for others to respond for more clarification and to get a sample size >1 but ... while I am waiting ... (Forgive me, lol)

 

Regarding my question #2, (and realizing you didn't say for sure it isn't), I am surprised (and confused) and hope it is okay to simply put the eggs and list one's forum user name, especially if it is different than one's scroll.  I have seen it many times and always assumed it was okay.  It isn't something I see that often, but just like with listing a dragon's code, or a group name, it seems like a similar thing, since it relates directly to DC.  Also honestly a bit alarmed, since the rules don't prohibit this, and the rules also list nothing about dragon groups or dragon codes, but since they are all on site, and again not directed at a single person, it would seem okay. I hope to hear others' thoughts on this.

 

Same as above with regard to #3.

 

I will wait and hopefully others will have some answers as well and I can get a sample size >1 (love that, lol). Thank you! 

 

I'm pretty sure listing your forum name in any way is not OK. You can always name a dragon on your scroll "PM me on forum.... You can say "a mate for dragons in group 2578935" but NOT link it. I wouldn't link an individual code either.

 

Basically - minimum is best. It's not that hard to spell out what you want. I think pink gothic has it pretty much spot on.

[SkyWolf25]

11 hours ago, missy_ said:

1. Are there any more rules other than the general rule which reads, "Use of trading messages for any purpose except those stated above may result in disciplinary action, such as loss of ability to create public trades. Off-site links are forbidden."?  I worry that there are more rules that are being applied, that I am not finding or misunderstanding.  

 

2. Is it okay to say PM me and give one's forum name? (Obviously on the DC forums, which are connected to the Trading Hub). The rules don't seem to say; I assume this is okay? Does anyone know?

 

3. Is it okay to say Please see my post on in the Trading Forum for more ideas, or something to that effect? Sometimes everything one wants cannot be fit into the Trading Hub text field; is it okay to direct people to the forum and to say you have a thread on the forum? Again, I would think this is okay, but does anyone know?

 

4. Is banning always permanent? I don't mean people who have more than one scroll (obviously they will get burned, banned, etc.) but it seems from when the Trading Hub was new, a number of people were permabanned, when the rules were not clear.  Again, I don't know what happened, as I was not here. But in reading a number of threads, the common theme is: users are upset, users want to understand more about the Trading Hub rules, thread gets locked. I cannot find an open thread to discuss this; is there one? If so, could someone please direct me to it? Thanks. 

 

5. Where I can go to discuss and give more detailed feedback on the Trading Hub? For example, I would like to see more clear rules, and I would hope there would be different types of action taken besides permanently banning someone, unless they were multiscrolling or something equally bad.  I am not bringing this up to discuss any specific player; but instead to discuss how these rules affect the larger player base. I bring this up because for any Dragon Cave player, the thought of a permanent ban would be unnerving and disheartening, especially when I believe most people try very hard not to break any rules.  Most players are using the Trading Hub almost exclusively for trading, so naturally, one wants to make sure one is not breaking any rules. And getting permabanned would be so disheartening. So completely understanding the rules and how they are implemented is vital.

 

If there is not a current open thread, I would like to suggest we have a simple thread called "Trading Hub feedback" or "Trading Hub discussion" where we can discuss how we can make the Trading Hub better. 

 

I have the greatest respect for the mods and for TJ, and I know how busy he must be. I just want to know how/where to discuss this and the questions I mentioned above. 

 

Thank you.

 

1. That rule should be taken literally: Anything that doesn't help other users know what you Want or Have + off-site links + things meant for a specific person are forbidden. Common messages people are reported for include: I want (specific code of one egg/hatchling), (username) it's for you/you're egglocked/I traded for the wrong egg pls give it back, Look at my cool egg(yes, this is a thing.).

 

2. HeatherMarie is correct. You can put 'PM (username) for more details' in addition to your Want/Have message to help interested people know what you want, but since your basic Want/Have info should be immediately accessible to the players viewing the trade messages(otherwise it would be against the rules), you can't write 'PM me' on its own.

 

3. Same as 'PM me', though I wouldn't recommend this as not many users would take the trouble to go searching for a trade post.

 

4. No, bans are not always permanent. The first two bans serve as warns and are temporary. The third ban is permanent and will make you lose the ability to create public trades. Intentionally malicious messages may be permanently banned without warning, but I'm sure you don't mean those kind of messages. The trading ban was permanent without prior warns when the trading system first started, but after much user feedback it changed to how it is now. People who were permabanned were switched to temporary bans, excluding some cases where TJ felt permabans were warranted. 

 

5. There currently isn't, but you can create a thread in the Help section. However; as I've answered in 4, there are methods other than permanent bans. The trading system gives you two warns, bad names for dragons would only result in the dragon dying/unnamed(unless it's exceptionally severe), with continued name abuse making you lose the ability to name dragons, and the same goes for descriptions. Scroll burning is only reserved for severe rule-breaking. I mention all of this since you brought up banning for multi-scrolling, and I wonder if you're taking scroll burning and permabanning from trades to be the same thing? Trade permabans only ban you from creating public trades, so they're on a different scale from multis.

TJ has closed the thread regarding rule specifying in the past because 1. A long list of all things allowed/not allowed will make people tl;dr it or use loopholes to break rules and then point out what they did is not on the list of forbidden things, 2. As I've answered in the first question, the rules are simple if taken literally and he feels that it is clear enough on those grounds. He did say in a recent suggestion thread that a message telling you what Trading message you were warned/banned for is planned, so that should help people know what to avoid.

If you still think things should be changed, you can start a thread.

 

I hope this helps.

Edited September 8, 2019 by SkyWolf25

[tjekan]

13 minutes ago, SkyWolf25 said:

 

TJ has closed the thread regarding rule specifying in the past because 1. A long list of all things allowed/not allowed will make people tl;dr it or use loopholes to break rules and then point out what they did is not on the list of forbidden things.

 

That is not how it works. Specifying what the rules are does NOT cause people to disobey them more often. To the contrary, it helps the law-abiding majority to do what you want them to do. The people who would disobey a rule on purpose and then argue about a loophole would have violated unwritten rules and argued about not being informed anyway, so you're not even gaining anything by obfuscating.

 

[SkyWolf25]

1 hour ago, tjekan said:

 

That is not how it works. Specifying what the rules are does NOT cause people to disobey them more often. To the contrary, it helps the law-abiding majority to do what you want them to do. The people who would disobey a rule on purpose and then argue about a loophole would have violated unwritten rules and argued about not being informed anyway, so you're not even gaining anything by obfuscating.

 

That was a general reasoning of the party against long-listed trade rules and not something I necessarily agree or disagree with.

That said, after sifting through previous threads I think it was more of 'overspecifying rules limit their meaning and end up not being that effective', but in either case they are from threads closed a long time ago and this is not the right place to start a discussion about it. ^^;

[Nokturna]

Hey, I wonder where one would get a 2g Thuwed?

 

I thought all Thuweds are owned by TJ and there isnt exactly a way to ask him for thuwed breeding

 

[Herk]

Grab them from the AP - a whole bunch went through there a couple of hours ago. You can stalk his thuwed site and check when the dragons produce offspring, then watch that to know when they'll hit the AP.

[lethanavir]

23 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

We do not know what happened.

 

True! We don't know what happened. We aren't allowed to ask, we will not be told, and the affected person's word is inherently labeled lies. Does nobody see a problem with that... Sure, I didn't know FullMetalTriforce personally, but to be fair I also don't know anyone in charge, so I am just being objective here. Because anyone could end up in their position, and it isn't radical to think that humans make mistakes. Any justice system does, daily- and here, the people can't even meet face-to-face.

 

What I take away from this is... that people become irate when the facts are not confirmed, and yet... it is also illegal to ask that the facts be presented from the sole figure capable of doing so? We are disallowed from supporting a community member that has been ostracized and left in isolation by a horrible label? I don't understand. Speculation is bad!- yet speculation is all we're left.

 

I never intended to step on anyone's toes. I felt strongly that the incident was central to the suggestion- the focus of the entire thread- hence the reason I brought it up.

Anyway, my mistake, because I am a firm believer in free speech but it just isn't honored everywhere these days.

 

23 hours ago, olympe said:

Ah. You know, it's quite unusual for a thread to disappear within mere hours of being closed, so ...  I must admit that this kind of situation does not exactly raise my confidence in the modding team.

 

Mine as well.

[Fuzzbucket]

Free speech - sure. But from past experience, over a very nasty not at all this kind of thing incident a few years ago, when TJ DID state the facts in a thread - facts which were verifiable on other sites on the net - and he was castigated anyway as a liar, I'm not sure stating why he does what he does would have helped. Judging by the twitter (was it ?) links you posted, he did explain why, and the people involved don't see it the way he does.

 

I think a thread in suggestions asking for a warning system would be smart, but not one tying it to a specific incident. A lot of your suggestions for warnings were very good ones - especially when they related to "lesser" offences than this one appears to have been. But tying such a thread to something we don't know the truth about will colour it in ways that aren't helpful.

 

Another forum I'm on has a public "banned" thread where anyone who is banned is named and the very very basic (three or four words) reason is posted. It's locked for comments and is only available for admins to post. Would that help ?

Edited September 8, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[olympe]

@Fuzzbucket I doubt it would help to have a banned thread, considering that forum and main site don't officially belong together.

[Fuzzbucket]

But if people "want to know what happened" that can NEVER be shown on the cave site, where TJ has already explained that direct communication is not allowed ever because of his job. So what are we talking about anyway, then ? The discussions happen HERE or on the discord - where very many players don't go.

 

lethanavir seems to want us to be told what happened in individual cases - and that could only ever happen on forum. Not that I'd be really comfortable with it anyway, but...

[tjekan]

37 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

when TJ DID state the facts in a thread - facts which were verifiable on other sites on the net - and he was castigated anyway as a liar, I'm not sure stating why he does what he does would have helped.

 

Because the people who castigate are cranks. Nothing would ever satisfy them anyway. Rules and explanations are there for the majority who heeds them, and should be provided for their sake.

 

Helping good community members should be the goal. You can't just say "Well, this won't have any effect on bad community members so nevermind."

[purpledragonclaw]

I am the mod who moved the thread because it had been discussed in the previous two threads that are still available for viewing in Suggestions/Requests. I felt nothing positive could come from leaving the thread available, given the other two threads have TJ's direct responses. I am sorry a portion of the community is not satisfied with the results, but this was the right thing to do. The speculation is not helping, only making things worse. This is a situation, like many situations, that cannot be fully disclosed to the community as a whole, and I understand that lowers trust in the modding community and will accept that since it's not a crystal-clear explanation, but it's all we can do. Please try to understand this.

[Fuzzbucket]

10 hours ago, tjekan said:

 

Because the people who castigate are cranks. Nothing would ever satisfy them anyway. Rules and explanations are there for the majority who heeds them, and should be provided for their sake.

 

Helping good community members should be the goal. You can't just say "Well, this won't have any effect on bad community members so nevermind."

 

Yes, the people who castigate TJ for explaining why he did something  are cranks. But - we don't know that the people complaining  about their treatment aren't just as cranky. And we can never know. But from the tumblr post listed in the removed thread - if there was an IP where garbage like that is being spouted - sorry, but that IP needed blocking. You wouldn't leave access to a sexually abusing IP up there just because there were innocent people using it too. Perhaps the sibling's scroll could be unburned, if it really wasn't involved (and we do not know...) as long as it was only accessible from a different IP.

 

(As a matter of record, I BELIEVE there is one burned scroll that has been reinstated with certain privileges removed - I found it while researching this before I posted yesterday. So TJ does listen to genuine misunderstandings or grovelling apologies.)

 

7 hours ago, purpledragonclaw said:

I am the mod who moved the thread because it had been discussed in the previous two threads that are still available for viewing in Suggestions/Requests. I felt nothing positive could come from leaving the thread available, given the other two threads have TJ's direct responses. I am sorry a portion of the community is not satisfied with the results, but this was the right thing to do. The speculation is not helping, only making things worse. This is a situation, like many situations, that cannot be fully disclosed to the community as a whole, and I understand that lowers trust in the modding community and will accept that since it's not a crystal-clear explanation, but it's all we can do. Please try to understand this.

 

Thank you PDC - I am with you 100%. A warning system might be good for lesser offences than these, though.

[Ruby Eyes]

This is actually a tiny little question ...

 

Could a lengthy conversation like the above be extracted from this thread and moved to its own thread?

[Fuzzbucket]

I think it would be better vanishing. But maybe we could use a suggestion thread for warnings ?

[Shadowdrake]

On 9/7/2019 at 9:28 PM, tjekan said:

 

This could be, but... at the 9:25 drop, there were 6 people in the desert. By 9:26, the biome was empty. Six people taking 3 eggs apiece does not usually empty a biome. Something weird is going on here.

The 5-minute drops only spawn a few eggs at a time during non-release time, about 3-5 to my estimate. If it had already emptied earlier in the hour than it's very likely to keep on emptying as people try to take advantage of what was a previously empty biome.

[tjekan]

3 hours ago, Ruby Eyes said:

This is actually a tiny little question ...

 

Could a lengthy conversation like the above be extracted from this thread and moved to its own thread?

 

Unfortunately not. The last ~3 topics I've had something to say about have all been placed into situations where there is no "correct" place to talk about them. One was apparently closed because somebody said something rude on the thread, which was deleted before I saw it, but now the topic is closed because of it.

 

So I suppose I'd better stop saying anything about this topic too. Before I do I should at least point out that I dont disagree with TJs decision to ban whoever this is at all, especially if there was sexual harassment involved; I know nothing about the case, I just disagree with the premise that telling the community what happened and what the rules are would create more trouble. Most people are not troublemakers and behave better with more understanding, not worse. 

[purpledragonclaw]

7 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

A warning system might be good for lesser offences than these, though.

 

For lesser offenses, sure. You would have to be specific about what offenses would be "lesser", however, that aren't already covered by the ToS. If that thread is used to re-discuss this same issue, however, which the previous two did devolve into, then that thread will be closed, again. 

 

2 hours ago, tjekan said:

I just disagree with the premise that telling the community what happened and what the rules are would create more trouble.

 

The rules are already clear about what happened, no gray area involved, nothing needs to be further clarified.

[tjekan]

1 hour ago, purpledragonclaw said:

If that thread is used to re-discuss this same issue, however, which the previous two did devolve into, then that thread will be closed, again. 

 

Ok, this is a genuine question: Why? This happened to a non mod related thread I was following recently. We have a perfectly good warning, deleting, and banning system on this forum. If some users disobey mods or post inappropriate things they are warned and their posts deleted. So why ALSO lock the thread and forbid the topic, the offending posts already having been dealt with? Is this primarily a time saving measure? ("Yes" is an ok answer...)

[Merenwen]

I made a trade in the hub, but forgot to say CB in the text, is there a way to edit the text and add CB Aeon Wanted or do I have to cancel trade and make a new one to add the CB part?

[Kaini]

8 minutes ago, Merenwen said:

I made a trade in the hub, but forgot to say CB in the text, is there a way to edit the text and add CB Aeon Wanted or do I have to cancel trade and make a new one to add the CB part?

 

You'll just have to cancel it and remake it to edit the text.

[purpledragonclaw]

22 minutes ago, tjekan said:

This happened to a non mod related thread I was following recently.

 

Link to this thread so I can have some context, please?

 

22 minutes ago, tjekan said:

So why ALSO lock the thread and forbid the topic, the offending posts already having been dealt with?

 

Because of the nature of this situation. That's why I asked for specific examples when discussing this in my post to Fuzz when she asked about making a new thread to discuss a warning system for offenses, to make sure that thread stays on that subject and that subject only. 

 

By the way, these posts in TLQ will not be scrubbed by me, because I want to be as open to the community as possible. There is just a hard line on what I can discuss. 

[Merenwen]

5 minutes ago, Kaini said:

 

You'll just have to cancel it and remake it to edit the text.

 

 

 

feared that. TY for confirming

Edited September 9, 2019 by Merenwen

[olympe]

4 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

By the way, these posts in TLQ will not be scrubbed by me, because I want to be as open to the community as possible. There is just a hard line on what I can discuss. 

Thank you!

 

9 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

(As a matter of record, I BELIEVE there is one burned scroll that has been reinstated with certain privileges removed - I found it while researching this before I posted yesterday. So TJ does listen to genuine misunderstandings or grovelling apologies.)

I can attest to that. My and my daughter's scrolls got burned several years ago, and TJ reinstated them with all privileges intact after I contacted him.

[tjekan]

1 hour ago, purpledragonclaw said:

 

Link to this thread so I can have some context, please?

 

Cant do from my phone, I'm afraid, but it's the one about fixing problems with the AP. The mod specifically said it was being closed because some person or people had posted rude posts about other members which had been deleted.

 

The same thing has, honestly, happened many other times in the past, usually in threads about raffles or sprite updates. I'd like to know if it's actual site policy to shut down topics on which a few users had to be censored, or just a random kind of thing. I never have any idea whether it's against the rules to bring the topic up ever again whenever that happens.

 

(ETA: the thread I'm referencing recently was in Suggestions and is called Cave Blockages - AP. Note, I never saw the deleted messages in question and am not trying to defend them in any way, just asking what the policy actually IS on shutting a topic because of a deleted post.)

Edited September 9, 2019 by tjekan