Trading Hub Feedback

[49ER]

I also think it is more than about "common sense" or it is in TOS.  The only rule that is against TOS has to do with asking for a certain code.  But almost everything else that is considered against rules in hub, ARE legal on forum.  So how is it not common sense to figure what is ok on forum is not ok here?

[Fuzzbucket]

42 minutes ago, osmarks said:

What we need but are not getting: an expanded definition which is not useless like "helps people understand what you want" and does not leave stupid amounts of wiggle room for the moderators to seemingly arbitrarily decide "X is good, Y is bad". Also, for that to be written on the create trade page, where people will actually see it and where it's not stuck within 51 pages of feedback where it's not even conclusive.

 

 

And we have been told we will get that. There's not much point their posting a list which isn't right yet. Wouldn't  we all rather have a list that's CORRECT, rather than a temporary one that isn't ? probably needing reposting every time someone picks a hole in it ?

 

(I have asked Starscream to "favourite" that long post with everything so far understood as information, so that it will stick at the top of every page of this thread.)

[osmarks]

Most of it's not "understood" but overextrapolated to what they want.

[Fuzzbucket]

I don't think that's what Starscream wants; it seems to be extrapolated from what they have been told along with what people have been modded for. Even so - it is a mod's view and as such has to be a good deal of help.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

Yeah, but for the most part it does seem like the mods have the rules hashed out for the most part. I see no reason they can't just take the rules that are listed here and stick them into the Hub. Oh, but then people wouldn't be forced to go onto the forums *sarcasm*

[Fuzzbucket]

The mods have to wait for TJ's OK. From past history here we have a fair idea that delegation is not a big thing for him... Also they don't have the power to edit the main DC site.

[osmarks]

Then TJ09 should do it.

[Fuzzbucket]

I think "should" is not something we have any right to say.

 

When he does - and I am sure he will - that will be great. Until he does we can muddle along, surely.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

But until then people are still going to be banned because the the rules aren't there js

[Fuzzbucket]

Temporarily banned, and honestly, it isn't THAT hard not to be. Not to mention that TJ has said that a vanishingly small number have been and that all of them had clearly known what they were doing. OK 1ce1and apparently didn't - but what they did IS clearly against the ToS, so... We all should have read them, and we all should remember them.

[osmarks]

1 minute ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Temporarily banned, and honestly, it isn't THAT hard not to be. Not to mention that TJ has said that a vanishingly small number have been and that all of them had clearly known what they were doing. OK 1ce1and apparently didn't - but what they did IS clearly against the ToS, so... We all should have read them, and we all should remember them.

I can't believe that you read the full ToS of every single site you use. Not to mention that the DC one is years out of date and doesn't reflect the existence of new features like the market.

[Fuzzbucket]

59 minutes ago, osmarks said:

I can't believe that you read the full ToS of every single site you use. Not to mention that the DC one is years out of date and doesn't reflect the existence of new features like the market.

 

It isn't out of date till TJ says it is. Other than the hub - what else isn't covered ? And yes, I do read them actually - ever since the day I fell foul of them on another forum I frequent - but even if I didn't - they are there for all to see, we agree to them when we sign up, even if we don't read them, and anyone who falls foul of them has only themselves to blame. As they say in court - ignorance of the law is no defence.

[osmarks]

Just now, Fuzzbucket said:

 

It isn't out of date till TJ says it is. Other than the hub - what else isn't covered ? And yes, I do read them actually - ever since the day I fell foul of them on another forum I frequent - but even if I didn't - they are there for all to see, we agree to them when we sign up, even if we don't read them, and anyone who falls foul of them has only themselves to blame. As they say in court - ignorance of the law is no defence.

It is out of date, as it actually bans the Market. See the link in my sig.

[Fuzzbucket]

I wouldn't have called the market BUYING as such, but OK.

[osmarks]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

I wouldn't have called the market BUYING as such, but OK.

There are no official means through which eggs, hatchlings, or dragons can be bought, whether from the site or from other users. Exchanging any sort of currency, real or virtual, for eggs, hatchlings, or dragons is expressly forbidden.

The second sentence is very explicit. Oh, and I guess the hub might be banned too.

[JavaTigress]

On 8/19/2018 at 12:47 PM, purplehaze said:

Y'know, it has always been against forum policy (if not explicitly written rules) to post codes of growing dragons that don't belong to you and mods have always edited those out when they are found or reported -- so why expect the hub to be different?

Quoted for truth!

 

HOWEVER! I would add that it seems to be MORE the problem that while the above is true, GROWN dragons were always another matter.  IE, AFAIK, and correct me if I am wrong, if I were looking for a mate for a particular dragon, I could post the lonely one's code link in a trade thread with what I was offering as a want indicate that it needed a mate... THAT seems to be what is tripping people up? CERTAINLY I can understand why there might be issues with posting links, BUT... I can see how mistakes are made IF people are assuming the rules are the same as those for the forum.

 

Quote

There are no official means through which eggs, hatchlings, or dragons can be bought, whether from the site or from other users. Exchanging any sort of currency, real or virtual, for eggs, hatchlings, or dragons is expressly forbidden.

The second sentence is very explicit. Oh, and I guess the hub might be banned too.



Hmmmmmm....IF @osmarks is right, then perhaps the ToS ITSELF could use a revamp, to account for the fact that there now IS an official 'way to purchase dragons'

Edited August 25, 2018 by JavaTigress

[Moonlight_Eevee]

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Temporarily banned, and honestly, it isn't THAT hard not to be. Not to mention that TJ has said that a vanishingly small number have been and that all of them had clearly known what they were doing. OK 1ce1and apparently didn't - but what they did IS clearly against the ToS, so... We all should have read them, and we all should remember them.

The ToS says nothing about the trading hub though so that is iffy at best. New users who don't have a form account aren't going to realise there are rules for the want box until they come here which again, they would have to dig through 50+ pages to find every little thing, you know, just to see why they were banned because there are no rules other than no misuse

Edited August 25, 2018 by Dalek Raptor

[osmarks]

1 minute ago, Dalek Raptor said:

The ToS says nothing about the trading hub though so that is iffy at best. New users who don't have a form account aren't going to realise there are rules for the want box until they come here which again, they would have to dig through 50+ pages to find every little thing

Technically, under some interpretations it does say something about the hub - specifically, it bans it, possibly, though that's about as tenuous as most of the arguments for the rules being "obvious" extrapolated from the data we have.

[JavaTigress]

6 minutes ago, osmarks said:

Technically, under some interpretations it does say something about the hub - specifically, it bans it, possibly, though that's about as tenuous as most of the arguments for the rules being "obvious" extrapolated from the data we have.

Bottom Line... the rules need updating.

 

I mean... AM I technically guilty of violating ToS, then, by purchasing dragons from the Market ( because I certainly HAVE done)?

The way it reads currently, I think you could argue so.

 

It needs to be made clear.

 

AND since some things have been added that didn't used to exist, the rules need updating to account for them ( Most especially the market and trade hub!)

Edited August 25, 2018 by JavaTigress

[Fuzzbucket]

11 minutes ago, Dalek Raptor said:

 New users who don't have a form account aren't going to realise there are rules for the want box until they come here which again, they would have to dig through 50+ pages to find every little thing, you know, just to see why they were banned because there are no rules other than no misuse

 

Quote

Wants

Enter a message to help others understand what types of offers you are looking for.

Warning: Misuse of this text may result in disciplinary action, such as loss of ability to create public trades.

 

It isn't detailed but it is there, and if you follow the letter of it, you won' t be banned. Say what you want and only what you want and don't call our another user's dragons and you should be OK.

 

@JavaTigress

 

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

 

 

The ToS does actually include other people's adults.

[osmarks]

You can also want something as a mate for a group (grey area), from an online wishlist (ban), want a specific code (???), plus probably other stuff I forgot.

EDIT: and also a thing from a specific coded-prize parent/SAlt, which is again a grey area, I think. Oh, plus you can put in haves.

Edited August 25, 2018 by osmarks

[pinkgothic]

4 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

What part of "want" do people not get ?

Sorry for singling you out (you're not the only one insisting on this point of view), but this wording really, really hit a nerve with me because it came across as belittling and derisive. (I'm very sure you didn't mean it that way, but the emotional impact was had, all the same.)

 

My jaw hit the floor. My instinctive reaction was: How is "anything from my wishlist: <link>" not a want?! How is "I want more than four things, so please contact me using X to make it possible" not a want?! How is "Want: the thing I just accidentally declined" not a want?! How can you, with a straight face, if you work on answering those questions with your own sure stride, claim that this is no possible point of confusion, whatsoever, and asking questions like that is completely redundant and unnecessary? How can you honestly say "if you follow the letter of it, you won't be banned", knowing what you do about other people's understanding of this word from this very thread?

 

So I would like to ask the people doing so please stop treating people who find "want" nebulous as though they're idiots who can't read, or who want to wiggle past some kind of sacred law. Language is difficult - this should be obvious the moment you try to use a translation software to chain a sentence from English through three other languages and back to English (spoilers: in absence of clever contextual caching, the output will not equal the input).

 

The reason this entire thing is incredibly frustrating is because e.g. to me the word obviously includes things that have been explicitly excluded from its definition by the mods, in a way that to me feels terrifyingly arbitrary in parts. I am not denying them the right to define it however they want, this is their territory and their rules, but responding to the repeatedly stated confusions in this thread by saying "no, it's obvious, stop being obtuse" is not actually going to change that the word is nebulous and following it "to the letter" is not at all straight-forward.

 

(Even pointing to the ToS is bizarre, given it is obviously out of date, as has been pointed out in light of the Market. The rules of engagement on the site have changed beyond the ToS' ability to passively keep up with. People are largely making good-faith attempts at understanding how they have changed, in light of that the ToS is obviously out of date and guesses must be made!)

 

The reason "99%" of trades are adhering to the rules is because most of the points of confusion are all edge cases that don't get traded for as often as others. (Yes! Even linking to wishlists is an edge case! Only "power users" have wishlists.) It's not at all necessarily because a minority of players have some kind of special problem with language. It's because it is actually unclear. If you find it perfectly clear, I am happy for you - seriously! You've been blessed with an inner dictionary that coincides with the one of the moderators of this site. Others have not. Do not belittle those people, please.

I have not been banned from using the Hub - but I probably would have sometime down the line, if I hadn't found this thread. Do I deserve to be banned from the Hub? Probably not, though YMMV, maybe I'm some kind of intolerable pest the moment I misinterpret the word "want" in what to me seems good faith, I genuinely don't know and I am not even trying to be flippant with that (though, yes, I am hurt by the insinuation that I'm somehow missing the obvious, and thus using exaggerated language).

 

I am glad a clarification will be forthcoming. I am, however, very unhappy with that some people - even some moderators - are setting the people with concerns up as somehow slow-witted or intentionally trying to cause trouble. Please stop.

[Moonlight_Eevee]

@pinkgothic *cheers* THANK YOU! You put exactly how I feel and I'm not the best with trying to describe with what you just wrote. it indeed is 100% frustrating especially since the mods are forcing us to use the forums on the more advance trading when it SHOULD BE A CHOICE

[JavaTigress]

1 hour ago, pinkgothic said:

Sorry for singling you out (you're not the only one insisting on this point of view), but this wording really, really hit a nerve with me because it came across as belittling and derisive. (I'm very sure you didn't mean it that way, but the emotional impact was had, all the same.)

 

My jaw hit the floor. My instinctive reaction was: How is "anything from my wishlist: <link>" not a want?! How is "I want more than four things, so please contact me using X to make it possible" not a want?! How is "Want: the thing I just accidentally declined" not a want?! How can you, with a straight face, if you work on answering those questions with your own sure stride, claim that this is no possible point of confusion, whatsoever, and asking questions like that is completely redundant and unnecessary? How can you honestly say "if you follow the letter of it, you won't be banned", knowing what you do about other people's understanding of this word from this very thread?

 

So I would like to ask the people doing so please stop treating people who find "want" nebulous as though they're idiots who can't read, or who want to wiggle past some kind of sacred law. Language is difficult - this should be obvious the moment you try to use a translation software to chain a sentence from English through three other languages and back to English (spoilers: in absence of clever contextual caching, the output will not equal the input).

 

The reason this entire thing is incredibly frustrating is because e.g. to me the word obviously includes things that have been explicitly excluded from its definition by the mods, in a way that to me feels terrifyingly arbitrary in parts. I am not denying them the right to define it however they want, this is their territory and their rules, but responding to the repeatedly stated confusions in this thread by saying "no, it's obvious, stop being obtuse" is not actually going to change that the word is nebulous and following it "to the letter" is not at all straight-forward.

 

(Even pointing to the ToS is bizarre, given it is obviously out of date, as has been pointed out in light of the Market. The rules of engagement on the site have changed beyond the ToS' ability to passively keep up with. People are largely making good-faith attempts at understanding how they have changed, in light of that the ToS is obviously out of date and guesses must be made!)

 

The reason "99%" of trades are adhering to the rules is because most of the points of confusion are all edge cases that don't get traded for as often as others. (Yes! Even linking to wishlists is an edge case! Only "power users" have wishlists.) It's not at all necessarily because a minority of players have some kind of special problem with language. It's because it is actually unclear. If you find it perfectly clear, I am happy for you - seriously! You've been blessed with an inner dictionary that coincides with the one of the moderators of this site. Others have not. Do not belittle those people, please.

I have not been banned from using the Hub - but I probably would have sometime down the line, if I hadn't found this thread. Do I deserve to be banned from the Hub? Probably not, though YMMV, maybe I'm some kind of intolerable pest the moment I misinterpret the word "want" in what to me seems good faith, I genuinely don't know and I am not even trying to be flippant with that (though, yes, I am hurt by the insinuation that I'm somehow missing the obvious, and thus using exaggerated language).

 

I am glad a clarification will be forthcoming. I am, however, very unhappy with that some people - even some moderators - are setting the people with concerns up as somehow slow-witted or intentionally trying to cause trouble. Please stop.

Honestly this sums up my feelings pretty well, here.

I HOPE I wouldn't have done anything that would have got me banned. That said... I can TOTALLY see how people can misread it.

 

AND I don't think people who are HONESTLY and RESPECTFULLY asking for clarification of the rules DESERVE to be belittled.

ALSO! Seeing as I have seen a LOT of requests for clarification... I SINCERELY doubt that it is just a question of a FEW people and their willful ignorance.

I think there is GENUINELY a problem with the clarity.

Edited August 25, 2018 by JavaTigress

[olympe]

16 hours ago, Starscream said:

Quoting pink gothic and trying to answer, excluse the bolding, I just wanted it to stand out.

 

So, things that can get you banned / are not okay:  in a nut shell, anything is not a trade want, should not be in the want box.

• Obvious misuse like posting song lyrics or asking for pagination in the "Want" box. (For completion's sake.  Though we really do want pagination!)(So do I)
• Asking for a re-offer, regardless how it's worded (even "Want: 3G gold. The offer I accidentally rejected was perfect!"). The want box is not to be used as a shot box. So this is correct.
• Referring to another specific user in any way. Also includes PM (Me, you, them, kumquat).
• Referring to any link whatsoever (even dragon groups). for now, dragon groups should be avoided - we aren't banning those though.
• Referring to any specific dragon code whatsoever, for any purpose, except if you own the code, then it's okay. As I mentioned later in the thread that it is against the TOS:

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.

• Referring to any mixed-caps dragon code you don't own. scrambled codes could be codes, and mods don't have the time to start checking.
• Referring to any ability to contact you off-site.
• Declaring that you will only accept offers from scrolls meeting certain criteria. Some of the criteria involves wanting users to unhide their scroll -  which can put the user at risk from a malicious attack. Its possible, due to the lack of pagination for the one holding the to view the offers quickly and decline/accept, but there is no guarantee of this. On these grounds, its best to not request someone to take their protection off their scroll until we have some solid method of fixing this issue. We are looking into it, but this stuff takes time.

Things I'm fuzzy on - AFAIK these have seen a lot of discussion, but I don't know if there was a statement made either way:

• Asking for the dragons one is trading to be treated in any particular way.

This is essentially is unenforceable - also - once an egg or hatchling is off your scroll, it is no longer yours and you have no say about what the other user does with it. This can fall under the interaction with users in the TOS. You cannot force your will onto another user. Also, If we allowed for this to be posted on the trading thread, then chances are it could cause bad blood or feelings should a user take the egg being offered and do as they please with it. People then start to want to post black lists declaring a user a bad person. (I don't care if you have a personal black list on your desk - you don't have to trade with who ever you dont want) But specific requests, should perhaps be kept to the forum threads -  where it is equally unenforceable. I am also contacting TJ regarding this.

• Asking for "too specific things". (Cropped up a few times in the context of codes - did we ever get confirmation whether asking for a 2G from a specific Prize was or was not against the rules? This suggests it's not, but I've lost track what the latest statement is.)

If your specifying a code that does not belong to you, then you are being too specific. In this situation, chances are the person who has that prize, also has a list and is going to fulfill that list. Its best to contact the prize owner (only if they indicate that they are willing to take requests) You could say you want a G2 Prize from lets say, Gold shimmer and a copper, and hope that what you are offering is what the owner of that gold shimmer wants (and if they have the luck) I posted a specified list of wants for my prize, just recently, but I mostly got everything else offered (and repeatedly) so I cancelled the trade.

 

Things that won't get you banned (listed here for reference, in case someone comes and says "but what about _____?", independent of whether or not I have any opinion about these - things I know that have cropped up in the discussion so far, basically):

• Haves, at least until a Have field is implemented. Correct
• Misrepresenting what you're offering (including using the word "free" for any constellation, or calling something CB that isn't). (The latter one is a pain, but at least you can check and see for yourself before you place an offer.)
• Reposting your trade(s) repeatedly, with a high enough frequency to dominate the first (and currently only) non-filtered trade page. (We need pagination or a timer - the former mostly)
• Saying you don't know if you're willing to trade the egg, but for people to offer. (On the bright side, they are being honest - its best not to invest your trading power with those)

Am I missing something? Did I get something wrong? I've honestly lost track, so I expect I misfiled some of these.

@Kaini, @Starscream,@TJ09, @purpledragonclaw: Can one of you please pin the post I re-quoted? It's the most comprehensive summary of all the rules for the trading hub that we have thus far, and it's a shame that people still have to search this whole thread for something like this.

 

6 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

This is what I'm seeing as well. There is a very very tiny but *very* vocal group that have been banned and either didn't realize it was bannable or disagree with being banned. The vast majority of people using the hub have *not* been banned and have probably not had any problems whatsoever (as evidenced by just how many trades there are, how many different users are still posting trades, etc). I have seen *hundreds* of trades on the hub, often over a hundred *per day*, that are completely fine and successfully get traded and nothing eventful happens at all. I have personally participated in at *least* 100 trades through the hub with no issue at all. Out of the *thousands* of people who actively play this game, only a very very tiny group have been banned or had any issues with that. 

Very much not true. Just yesterday, I PMed a long-time player who used to be very active on these boards in order to warn them against asking for PMs in the trading hub. And why did they do that? Because they had no idea that the forum trading rules didn't apply to the trading hub.  And just because 99% of all people never run afoul of the laws doesn't mean they don't need to be spelled out. In some countries, women getting raped are considered law-breakers because they had extramarital intercourse. If you collect sea shells in Turkey and try to take them home, you'll get imprisoned. (Sorry, I forgot the actual term of the offense. Was it "unlawful removal of cultural goods"? Something like that.) Some of the rules of the trading hub are equally unexpected. (Not asking for PM, no linking to on-site groups, no asking for re-offers in any way, shape or form...)