Trading Hub Feedback

[osmarks]

Maybe confirmation on reject would help.

[purpledragonclaw]

Similar to when you abandon an egg? That might work, at least it would give people a second chance to review the offer again.

[HeatherMarie]

Given how close the different buttons are and how close the different *offers* are to each other (which I've mentioned in the past) I'd *love* a confirmation when declining. I figure some people would be annoyed with an extra step when declining, though, especially if they often get a lot of unwanted offers.  (If there is a confirmation added when declining, can we PLEASE get the actual offered sprite shown on the confirmation page, both for that and for accepting? Pretty pretty please?)

[Shadowdrake]

Perhaps different confirmations for rejection and acceptance? Say, a small pop-up asking if you want to confirm the rejection for instance.

[Starscream]

4 hours ago, osmarks said:

Maybe confirmation on reject would help.

I would 100% support this.

[Fuzzbucket]

Yes - with password/action - whichever your scroll is set to..

[deleted_account]

Not sure if that's still true, but I often couldn't tell which set of accept/reject buttons is for which offer without taking a VERY close and careful look, it's not intuitive, could there be a line added betwen offers?

[HeatherMarie]

6 hours ago, MhKhu said:

Not sure if that's still true, but I often couldn't tell which set of accept/reject buttons is for which offer without taking a VERY close and careful look, it's not intuitive, could there be a line added betwen offers?

 

Yes yes yes yes please! I've mentioned this multiple times, actually. Even took a screenshot to show what I meant. When you have multiple offers they are very close together and especially the accept/reject buttons are *very* close to the neighboring offer. I would very much appreciate some more space between the offers, or a line between them, *something*. (It would also help to show the sprite on the accept confirmation page, because right now it's not at all obvious if you clicked the correct accept button, but that wouldn't really help with multiple offers of the same breed.)

[animatedrose]

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 11:56 AM, Shadowdrake said:

Thanks for the quick fix.

 

Trading Hub

The trading market is now paginated, and the rules have been made clearer—in particular, it should now be extremely obvious that anything other than "wants" or "haves" is not allowed, nor are off-site links. Violations of the trading rules will no longer result in a guaranteed permanent ban. In most cases, the first ban will be for a day, though for particularly bad offenses, more severe consequences may still happen.

-----

 

Um... Unless "forever" suddenly means "a day", this still says permaban to me. Unless warning about rules in the Hub prior to the update resulted in a permaban no matter what. Which really should be stated in the non-vague way. For clarification.

I'm sorry but if permabans are still floating around for unstated offenses...that is seriously NOT a thing you should keep under wraps.

[Kaini]

38 minutes ago, animatedrose said:

Um... Unless "forever" suddenly means "a day", this still says permaban to me. Unless warning about rules in the Hub prior to the update resulted in a permaban no matter what. Which really should be stated in the non-vague way. For clarification.

I'm sorry but if permabans are still floating around for unstated offenses...that is seriously NOT a thing you should keep under wraps.

 

"more severe consequences may still happen."

 

The majority of people who had bans got theirs retroactively switched to a day. For a couple people, theirs remained permanent, because their offenses were particularly bad and they 100% knew they were breaking rules.

[animatedrose]

So...permabans are still a thing. Good to know.

[osmarks]

If we're talking about the people who posted trades trying to summarize the rules getting a permanent ban, that seems pretty unreasonable given the circumstances. Yes, it was against the rules and given that they were posting about the rules I'm sure they knew as much. But given the circumstances and lack of usefully timed response to the rule situation, it was a necessary evil which probably didn't cause any significant problems in the long run.

Edited August 28, 2018 by osmarks

[49ER]

Also TJ had posted that the bans would not be permanent and would apply retroactively to anyone banned before the changes

[osmarks]

1 minute ago, 49ER said:

Also TJ had posted that the bans would not be permanent and would apply retroactively to anyone banned before the changes

I don't think it was said as such that all the bans would be temporary. I may be wrong.

[49ER]

I am pretty sure the ones that posted rules in trades were led to believe that, it was being talked about on this thread.  Personally it is not something I would have done, but there it is.

[purplehaze]

27 minutes ago, osmarks said:

it was a necessary evil

Really? It isn't like massive numbers of people were being banned right and left for innocent mistakes. And everyone here knew that new rules were in the works and it had been said that bans would not necessarily be permanent. So who was being saved from what?

 

Willful breaking of rules is almost always treated more harshly than innocent missteps. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by purplehaze

[osmarks]

1 minute ago, purplehaze said:

Really? It isn't like massive numbers of people were being banned right and left for innocent mistakes. And everyone here knew that new rules were in the works and it had been said that bans would not necessarily be permanent. So who was being saved from what?

It may not have been necessary, then, given what we know now, but there were definitely people being banned who didn't know what for, and it was not certain back then that everyone who didn't know what they were doing would be temporarily banned. In any case, there was not any malicious intent, which is arguably what matters.

[HeatherMarie]

1 hour ago, purplehaze said:

 

Willful breaking of rules is almost always treated more harshly than innocent missteps. 

 

Yes. This. From what I've seen, 'innocent' bans, bans where people honestly didn't know what they were doing wasn't allowed, have been retroactively changed. Someone *deliberately* breaking the rules as a passive-aggressive form of 'warning' others is bound to lead to more severe consequences then honest didn't-know bans, and that's perfectly reasonable. Dare I say it, that's what should happen. Breaking the rules because you honestly didn't understand something or because the rules weren't spelled out is one thing. Deliberately breaking the rules because you are pissed that the rules aren't clearer and feel that everyone should know immediately despite reassurances that bans wouldn't be permanent, that *should* be dealt with more severely. 

 

edit: And I definitely don't think there is any argument that people who deliberately posted 'warnings' in the trading hub were doing it out of ignorance of the rules and didn't understand that wasn't allowed. Also, from what I saw in this thread, talk of 'warning' people started *after* it was confirmed that things were going to change, therefore 'warning' really wasn't necessary and wasn't this huge needed thing that people had to do because bans would be forever and nothing would ever change.

Edited August 28, 2018 by HeatherMarie

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, purplehaze said:

Really? It isn't like massive numbers of people were being banned right and left for innocent mistakes. And everyone here knew that new rules were in the works and it had been said that bans would not necessarily be permanent. So who was being saved from what?

 

Willful breaking of rules is almost always treated more harshly than innocent missteps. 

 

7 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

Yes. This. From what I've seen, 'innocent' bans, bans where people honestly didn't know what they were doing wasn't allowed, have been retroactively changed. Someone *deliberately* breaking the rules as a passive-aggressive form of 'warning' others is bound to lead to more severe consequences then honest didn't-know bans, and that's perfectly reasonable. Dare I say it, that's what should happen. Breaking the rules because you honestly didn't understand something or because the rules weren't spelled out is one thing. Deliberately breaking the rules because you are pissed that the rules aren't clearer and feel that everyone should know immediately despite reassurances that bans wouldn't be permanent, that *should* be dealt with more severely. 

 

edit: And I definitely don't think there is any argument that people who deliberately posted 'warnings' in the trading hub were doing it out of ignorance of the rules and didn't understand that wasn't allowed. Also, from what I saw in this thread, talk of 'warning' people started *after* it was confirmed that things were going to change, therefore 'warning' really wasn't necessary and wasn't this huge needed thing that people had to do because bans would be forever and nothing would ever change.

 

Yeah. Sorry - but the people who were warning had read what was in this thread and KNEW they were breaking the rules.

[49ER]

I agree that it was bad judgement.  And not defending it.  But forever is a loooong time.

[olympe]

1 hour ago, 49ER said:

I agree that it was bad judgement.  And not defending it.  But forever is a loooong time.

This, very much so.

I can understand permanent bans for people who linked to dubious content. I can understand longer-timed bans for people who broke the rules despite knowing better. But forever? For me, that kind of thing would be a reason to get a new scroll. (And we all know where this could lead.)

Edited August 28, 2018 by olympe

[osmarks]

Yes, sure, it was not necessarily good to post the rules as trades, though I think it probably helped quite a few players not be banned. But, as was said, being forever banned from trading for that seems too much. What's the point of punishing them like that anyway? Even if unbanned, they wouldn't do it again - the rules are up now, kind of - and it doesn't deter anyone else from posting trades with the rules in them, since that is unlikely to happen anyway.

[Fuzzbucket]

12 minutes ago, osmarks said:

 Even if unbanned, they wouldn't do it again

 

Don't count on it.

[purplehaze]

Some people on this forum seem to have a deep-seated distrust of TJ and the mods. Therefore I suspect they would do the same thing again if they felt a "need". If they had believed the statements that were made here they would have waited a bit longer to see how things worked out.

[Naraku]

Forever banned on first offense for... posting the rules to let others know what's allowed and not allowed. Yeah, definitely just as bad as posting malicious/adult links.