Jump to content
TJ09

Trading Hub Feedback

TJ09

Please report all bugs in the Help section. This thread is for discussion and feedback only.

Message added by TJ09

Recommended Posts

Also - if people on discord are worried - post the rules we all here already know over there...

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know about anyone else here but I get why people are scared to trade now. None of these new rules would've been known had people not broken them, been banned, brought it to public attention, and started this discussion. And those people are likely still banned right now because of it. If they'd have never spoken up, guaranteed more people would be getting banned because of rules that were never brought to light.

 

I'm not interested in being one of those people who breaks an unmentioned rule, gets banned, and has to play martyr because the Hub is now unusable to me. Sorry, but eff that.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

Yeah. This. I still personally don't understand how the current Want-box description is so misleading, but it's really fairly easy to trade safely. Use the Want box for what it's meant for, ie *wants* (and maybe haves, at this point in time). Don't call out other users, don't put nonsense or lyrics, don't put links and don't put codes that aren't yours. That sounds pretty simple to me. I've done at *least* 100 trades through the hub since it appeared and I've never had any issues. 

 

I understand wanting on-site rules about the hub, but it's already been said that will happen. If you really don't feel comfortable using the hub until it happens, don't use it, but the rules laid out here by mods do seem pretty straight-forward so anyone who's read those should be fine.

 

^

 

Again it's pretty easy to stay within the rules - it should be common sense. 99% of people on the hub are perfectly fine. The site is going to be updated with better wording on the rules, but I doubt it'll sit down and spell every little possible violation out. It shouldn't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Kaini said:

Again it's pretty easy to stay within the rules - it should be common sense. 99% of people on the hub are perfectly fine. The site is going to be updated with better wording on the rules, but I doubt it'll sit down and spell every little possible violation out. It shouldn't have to.

 

And as sure as you try to do that someone will come up with a new way to misuse it and cry "but you didn't say we couldn't!"

 

I think some people are blowing this totally out of proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, purplehaze said:

 

And as sure as you try to do that someone will come up with a new way to misuse it and cry "but you didn't say we couldn't!"

 

I think some people are blowing this totally out of proportion.

Adding more rules or making them more specific does not actually reduce what the rules cover.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, some parts of the rules are self-explanatory with what we have on site. No song lyrics, for example.

Some become evident through site behavior, like off-site links. If you continue to post a link without the http(s), then it's on you if you get into trouble. (I still hope that TJ will give us an official heads-up to allow links to *our own* groups and *our own* dragons' lineage pages..

For forum goers, not asking for special code eggs that they missed should be a no-brainer, but for those not on here, it may be less apparent.

 

No direct communication between scrolls is also a given, at least for those of us on the forums. I hope that things like "The xyz egg from the person whose offer I accidentally declined or zyx" will be acceptable since a) it's a want that's not necessarily exclusive to one person and b) it doesn't mention the person by scroll name, so it cannot be tracked. (Kind of an anonymous call-out?)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, purplehaze said:

 

And as sure as you try to do that someone will come up with a new way to misuse it and cry "but you didn't say we couldn't!"

 

I think some people are blowing this totally out of proportion.

 

Amen to that.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, purplehaze said:

 

And as sure as you try to do that someone will come up with a new way to misuse it and cry "but you didn't say we couldn't!"

 

I think some people are blowing this totally out of proportion.

they still will, I have little doubt about that. We can't think of every scenario that comes up right off the bat. Things happen and we end up saying, "that's not right"

 

@olympe I really hope that we can allow on site groups (at the very least).

Edited by Starscream

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, olympe said:

No song lyrics, for example.

Nobody cares about the song lyrics. No one who's arguing that rules should be added ever brings up the song lyricsWhy do people who don't think rules are necessary keep bringing this up? I could make a point about how consequences should be clearer, but I won't because none of DC's consequences or their timespans have ever been explained anyway.

 

2 hours ago, olympe said:

No direct communication between scrolls is also a given, at least for those of us on the forums.

This is not the forums. This is the trade hub, on DC. The only place where "forum etiquette" indicates "no direct communication between scrolls" is the suggestions area, because people argue against it every time it's brought up. Everywhere else on the forums, communication is already a given because we don't have scroll-to-scroll anyway. And "no direct communication between scrolls" is meaningless given it's communication on the trade hub that is somehow an issue to the point that indicating any other way of communication, even on the official forums or, say, an email, is enough to get you in trouble.

 

The fact that you are not allowed to say "don't PM me" is already ridiculous. To say that "forum etiquette" says "no forum communication allowed on the site it was made for" is even more patently ridiculous, given that people are officially allowed to name their dragons "PM X on Forums". If communication must be blacklisted on the hub, say so right after you implement it, not 3 months later when people are finally speaking up about being banned.

 

The forums has its own set of rules. The official IRC has its own set of rules. Dragon describing has its own set of rules. DC itself has its own set of rules. Why are people accepting that a site function that involves communication with other people doesn't need any rules, just wordless banning?

 

Yes, it is easy to follow the rules, but it's also easy to step over the (invisible) line once or twice and either 1) get docked for it or 2) not get docked for it and, either way, propagate the idea that it's okay to do so, because any consequence is invisible to the rest of the trade hub who just see someone posting "PM me on forums" and go "oh! I have a forum account I never use, maybe I can get PMs there for my trade too!"

Share this post


Link to post

 

5 minutes ago, Shadowdrake said:

The forums has its own set of rules. The official IRC has its own set of rules. Dragon describing has its own set of rules. DC itself has its own set of rules. Why are people accepting that a site function that involves communication with other people doesn't need any rules, just wordless banning?

 

IRC rules, are still based upon forum rules, only modified for a live situation. If I had a means of communicating to a user to give them a heads up, believe me, I would give them a heads up.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Interactions with other users

All interactions with other users must be willful. Bothering other users to return abandoned eggs or posting the eggs, hatchlings, or adult dragons without a user's permission are prohibited.

 

It seems like this TOS rule, on-site, covers the whole 'posting codes you don't own' pretty well. Posting other people's dragons without permission is specifically against the rules, *on-site*. So I honestly see no reason whatsoever to argue that specific-code-naming is okay or that it isn't clear that it's *not* okay... It's right there in the TOS. People can try to come up with loopholes and exceptions of why it 'should' be allowed, but that doesn't change what is currently in the TOS. 

 

Personally the way I see 'don't PM me' or 'PM this-name on forum' is this: It's not on-site. It's not something that's possible to do IN the game. I see it no different then posting an email address or saying to contact you through a completely different website. The forum is *not* the game. It's completely separate, completely separate log-ins, etc. So forum communication should stay on-forum, and shouldn't be talked about in-cave. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

It seems like this TOS rule, on-site, covers the whole 'posting codes you don't own' pretty well. Posting other people's dragons without permission is specifically against the rules, *on-site*. So I honestly see no reason whatsoever to argue that specific-code-naming is okay or that it isn't clear that it's *not* okay... It's right there in the TOS. People can try to come up with loopholes and exceptions of why it 'should' be allowed, but that doesn't change what is currently in the TOS. 

 

Personally the way I see 'don't PM me' or 'PM this-name on forum' is this: It's not on-site. It's not something that's possible to do IN the game. I see it no different then posting an email address or saying to contact you through a completely different website. The forum is *not* the game. It's completely separate, completely separate log-ins, etc. So forum communication should stay on-forum, and shouldn't be talked about in-cave. 

All I can say is, its pretty  much "not on topic" with what is allowed on teh want box -  and usually off topic things are squelched.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

It seems like this TOS rule, on-site, covers the whole 'posting codes you don't own' pretty well. Posting other people's dragons without permission is specifically against the rules, *on-site*. So I honestly see no reason whatsoever to argue that specific-code-naming is okay or that it isn't clear that it's *not* okay... It's right there in the TOS. People can try to come up with loopholes and exceptions of why it 'should' be allowed, but that doesn't change what is currently in the TOS.

 

This little piece of the TOS also covers messages like 'x I'd accept your offer but you're egglocked'. All interactions with other users must be willful - not an unwanted and off-topic callout on the hub.

Share this post


Link to post

How is making an offer not making a connection for willful interactions. Like, if you make an offer to someone, you are willfully interacting with them. You could just as easily make a case that offering is opening an interaction - because it is - but because of the way the rules in the cave are right now / the weird thing this website has about people ever knowing about each other's existence, it feels like things get twisted a lot to justify no communication.

 

If you offer on someone's trade you reached out to THEM first. 

Share this post


Link to post

There is a big difference between offering on a trade and publicly calling out a specific user. When you offer on a trade you are initiating a very limited type of 'communication' with the trade-poster only. No one else can see that trade offer or your scroll name attached to it. When someone posts another user's scroll name in the 'Want' box on a public trade, however, that is viewable by *everyone* and is making that scroll name a potential target. Huge difference. Offering on one specific trade with one specific user is lightyears away from being okay with your scroll name being put out there in the hub for everyone to see.

Share this post


Link to post

If a person has a made an offer they are willfully initiating the offer and reaching out in a bid to get said offer accepted though and the trade to go through,

 

Otherwise if their interaction with the person they were trading with was not wilful they would not have offered in the first place. If they had decided to revoke their permission for the trade to take place, the offer would have already been cancelled rather than leaving that offer still up. 

 

Maybe the reason why they are egglocked is the fact that they literally forgot and are still interested in the offer or their eggs are taking a while to hatch or their dragons are taking a while to grow up and not because they are wilfully going to report everyone who mentions the word egglock for harassment. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, DarkEternity said:

If a person has a made an offer they are willfully initiating the offer and reaching out in a bid to get said offer accepted though and the trade to go through,

 

Otherwise if their interaction with the person they were trading with was not wilful they would not have offered in the first place. If they had decided to revoke their permission for the trade to take place, the offer would have already been cancelled rather than leaving that offer still up. 

 

Maybe the reason why they are egglocked is the fact that they literally forgot and are still interested in the offer or their eggs are taking a while to hatch or their dragons are taking a while to grow up and not because they are wilfully going to report everyone who mentions the word egglock for harassment. 

 

That doesn't matter though. Yes, making an offer is willful interaction. It is *not* willful interaction for that trader to post someone else's scroll name in a public trading hub. You make an offer on a specific trade. You are initiating contact with that specific trader. There is nothing whatsoever about making a private offer on a trade (private because no one else can see that offer) that translates to 'yes it's totally fine if you post my scroll name on the public hub for the world to see'. There is no direct scroll-to-scroll communication available, which might suck when wanting to inform an offerer they are locked, but that does *not* give permission to call them out in public.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

That doesn't matter though. Yes, making an offer is willful interaction. It is *not* willful interaction for that trader to post someone else's scroll name in a public trading hub. You make an offer on a specific trade. You are initiating contact with that specific trader. There is nothing whatsoever about making a private offer on a trade (private because no one else can see that offer) that translates to 'yes it's totally fine if you post my scroll name on the public hub for the world to see'. There is no direct scroll-to-scroll communication available, which might suck when wanting to inform an offerer they are locked, but that does *not* give permission to call them out in public.

You don't need to actually mention their scrollname in order to tell them that they are egglocked by mentioning a very generalised version of their offer instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Shadowdrake said:

Nobody cares about the song lyrics. No one who's arguing that rules should be added ever brings up the song lyricsWhy do people who don't think rules are necessary keep bringing this up? I could make a point about how consequences should be clearer, but I won't because none of DC's consequences or their timespans have ever been explained anyway.

 

 

 

Well, not song lyrics specifically - but I have seen two "cookies please" the last couple of days. It clearly needs spelling out that stuff that has NOTHING to do with dragons is verboten.

 

7 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

Quote

Interactions with other users

All interactions with other users must be willful. Bothering other users to return abandoned eggs or posting the eggs, hatchlings, or adult dragons without a user's permission are prohibited.

 

It seems like this TOS rule, on-site, covers the whole 'posting codes you don't own' pretty well. Posting other people's dragons without permission is specifically against the rules, *on-site*. So I honestly see no reason whatsoever to argue that specific-code-naming is okay or that it isn't clear that it's *not* okay... It's right there in the TOS. People can try to come up with loopholes and exceptions of why it 'should' be allowed, but that doesn't change what is currently in the TOS. 

 

Personally the way I see 'don't PM me' or 'PM this-name on forum' is this: It's not on-site. It's not something that's possible to do IN the game. I see it no different then posting an email address or saying to contact you through a completely different website. The forum is *not* the game. It's completely separate, completely separate log-ins, etc. So forum communication should stay on-forum, and shouldn't be talked about in-cave. 

 

This, exactly.

 

1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

There is a big difference between offering on a trade and publicly calling out a specific user. When you offer on a trade you are initiating a very limited type of 'communication' with the trade-poster only. No one else can see that trade offer or your scroll name attached to it. When someone posts another user's scroll name in the 'Want' box on a public trade, however, that is viewable by *everyone* and is making that scroll name a potential target. Huge difference. Offering on one specific trade with one specific user is lightyears away from being okay with your scroll name being put out there in the hub for everyone to see.

 

1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

That doesn't matter though. Yes, making an offer is willful interaction. It is *not* willful interaction for that trader to post someone else's scroll name in a public trading hub. You make an offer on a specific trade. You are initiating contact with that specific trader. There is nothing whatsoever about making a private offer on a trade (private because no one else can see that offer) that translates to 'yes it's totally fine if you post my scroll name on the public hub for the world to see'. There is no direct scroll-to-scroll communication available, which might suck when wanting to inform an offerer they are locked, but that does *not* give permission to call them out in public.

 

This, precisely. The ONE time I saw something that I wouldn't  have modded (If I had been a mod) was one i had offered on; my offer was rejected, and it immediately popped up again "Want: the 3rd gen gold I just accidentally rejected". I imagine that's OK, and I'm sure it's specific enough that the person offering would see it if they really wanted the egg (I did, and I got it !) it seems to me that that kind of thing is both legit and doesn't cross the line ?

 

For locked: repost with "Don't be locked...."

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

my offer was rejected, and it immediately popped up again "Want: the 3rd gen gold I just accidentally rejected". I imagine that's OK, and I'm sure it's specific enough that the person offering would see it if they really wanted the egg (I did, and I got it !) it seems to me that that kind of thing is both legit and doesn't cross the line ?

Really? Because according to one of TJ's replies, that sounds like the kind of thing he's against, and very similar to reposting a trade with "want: x egg but you're egglocked."

 

Quote

can you please explain what how you find it unclear whether "want to accept - you're locked" does/does not "help others understand what types of offers you are looking for." In my interpretation, it does not give me any information about what to offer except maybe "don't offer; I'm going to ignore this trade because it's low signal/irrelevant to almost every single person who uses the trading hub."

 

 

 

(re: another one of his posts: just because pagination doesn't fix bumping completely doesn't mean it wouldn't help curb a ton of it, given that bumping is a fix for trades becoming almost completely unfindable once they fall off the only visible page. filters are not a substitute. please give us pagination.)

Share this post


Link to post

There is a difference between bothering someone to return eggs, and just a polite PM regarding trade whether on forum or trade hub.  As is is, if we know someone's forum name, we can pm them about a trade and unless a person says don't PM me, how is anybody to know if someone does not want the pm?

 

And it is really sounding like you don't want to put up rules because you think someone will come up with a new evasion and say well it doesn't say I can't?  

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pretty sure that telling someone 'want: blah the offer I accidentally rejected' wasn't allowed....

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Shadowdrake said:

Really? Because according to one of TJ's replies, that sounds like the kind of thing he's against, and very similar to reposting a trade with "want: x egg but you're egglocked."

 

You may well be right. But at least it isn't calling someone out - and it IS a want.

 

52 minutes ago, 49ER said:

There is a difference between bothering someone to return eggs, and just a polite PM regarding trade whether on forum or trade hub.  As is is, if we know someone's forum name, we can pm them about a trade and unless a person says don't PM me, how is anybody to know if someone does not want the pm?

 

And it is really sounding like you don't want to put up rules because you think someone will come up with a new evasion and say well it doesn't say I can't?  

 

It doesn't sound like that at all - but you know that someone out there WILL deliberately try to circumvent rules just for the hell of it. It happens in here too - like censor evasion, to name but one thing. So - however specific the rules may get, people WILL try. That's pathetic - but it's life. It's the same kind of mentality as comes with viewbombing.

 

27 minutes ago, DarkEternity said:

I'm pretty sure that telling someone 'want: blah the offer I accidentally rejected' wasn't allowed....

 

OK - I believe that. But it IS a very specific want :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Or here is an idea...if you wanted one egg of x breed and someone offers you x egg, plus a couple others of other breeds, which you cannot accept, then repost saying I can only take ONE egg of x breed.  This way you don't have to make any reference to a prior offer, and in case the "targetted" person does not see it, maybe you will get an offer of that from someone else.

Share this post


Link to post

MUCH easier - if TJ could do it - would be the ability to accept any PART of a trade. We have been asking for this since long before the hub was invented...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.