ANSWERED:Not sure why I'm not allowed to make public trades anymore?

[Ribombee]

24 minutes ago, TJ09 said:

To help us develop better guidelines, can you explain what you find unclear about "Enter a message to help others understand what types of offers you are looking for?" That is exactly what the site asks you to provide, and outside of a singular exception ("haves" are a clear missing bit in the feature) nothing else is allowed.

 

So to expand on @DarkEternity's list, here's what you can put in the box:

• Wants ("[helping] others understand what types of offers you are looking for")
• Haves (for now: specifically "describing what you are offering")

Here's what you should not put in the box:

• Literally anything else.

 

People are asking to PM to get a more complete list of wants or linking to an ON-SITE group of dragons that need mates. This is easily construed as following the warning and description, as it is listed. The box is far too tiny to include a full list of wants, especially for people who are looking for specific mates for lineages.  For example, I have a fairly small list of dragons that need mates. An easy way is to direct people to my 'needs mates' group and say I will accept any perfect mate from that group. That is me listing exactly what I want, but because there is not a way to put "3rd gen checker male ice, female black, unrelated to X dragon" in the want box. I would not (did not) construe that at all as being anything but listing my wants and helping others understand what type of offers I am looking for. I would be making it very clear that I want any perfect mate for any dragon in that group, and any perfect mate from that group would be an automatic accept. Otherwise lineage breeders are just going to get a complete crap shoot of random lined offers, likely none of which will be what they actually want (especially if they have multiple lineages or lineages which are difficult to describe). Which, fine, if that is how it needs to be, that is how it needs to be. I need to make this clear; I am not going to argue the rule itself. You have every right, as owner, to make whatever rules you want. I am just saying that it seems to a lot of us (given how many people were and still are listing groups or listing to PM them for a larger wants list) that it seems perfectly logical to provide users with a way to see more of their wants based on what text we were provided.

 

Does that help to clear up the confusion a bit? 

As a suggestion, if you do not want people offering an on site group or to PM them for a complete list, you could include something such as the following:

 

"No links (on-site or otherwise), directing to scroll groups, or requests to PM is allowed, even if it is to further emphasize a list of wants."

 

Then it is perfectly clear that is not allowable. OR if you do intend to allow this, something like, "Any directing to groups or PM must be clear that it is to provide a full want list and not for any other kind of communication or outside links".

 

Editing to reply to this:

4 minutes ago, 49ER said:

I understand that, but to maybe understand what you are looking for, one might say PM me for a list or look at this list on my forum wishlist.  Not that I ever look at those, but I guess if I seriously wanted something maybe I would.  

 

I use these all the time in the trade hub! I love having a clear indication of exactly what someone wants, because then I can not have my eggs and hatchlings tied up for who knows how long hoping that what I am offering just happens to be something they want. I have asked people if their hatchling was influenced to follow the pattern, asked if there was anything else they wanted, looked at their complete offered wishlist on the forum or their group of dragons that need mates.   For lineage breeders, the wishlists on the forums or signatures (or even just a group of dragons that needs mates) is invaluable for seeing if we can breed the person something they want. Again, if this is not something you want, TJ, that is fine. It just needs to be clear that you are not allowing any directing of potential traders to more wants than what can fit in the text box.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Ribombee

[49ER]

Which brings up another suggestion, maybe allowing a note the offerer can put next to their offer, such as this hatchie is influenced or precog'd this gender,  If someone does not have a forum account then there is no way to PM them to ask them if it is going to be the gender you want.

[Moonlightelf]

I would personally like to also know if I even can have a link to full list of wants to Google Drive for example. I have a lot of dragons that I actually want, but since the text field is so small, I need to put "Any CB"... possibly even specify if I want them as an egg or hatchling. Then it begins to be hoping that it's something I actually need/want and won't be something I've completed CB collection of. So technically right now with statement "Any CB" I am lying to people about my wants, when in truth I am looking for only some dragons.

 

Heck, it would be even better if we could compile such list on-site with enough space to explain even for lineage needs.

The "Have" may sound bit silly, though if there is something to specify about the said egg/hatchling, I'd like to point it out so people don't have to go all the way into my trade to see the lineage for themselves. So having this as separate field would be great.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Moonlightelf

[Shadowdrake]

1 hour ago, Moonlightelf said:

link to full list of wants to Google Drive

Nope! all links are forbidden and outright denied if you try to have the http: part in your tp, as stated along with the other 20 or so restrictions spread out in a thread somewhere in the suggestions forum. Not even on-site links like groups or whatever are allowed.

 

You could say "will accept most cbs" and have that still be true.

 

 

 

Edit to add before I forget in the morning.

 

Things that are "Wants ("[helping] others understand what types of offers you are looking for")" but are still prohibited:

Off-site links to lists of offers you want.

On-site links to lineages or groups of dragons as examples of offers you want.

IOUs of dragons not currently available that you want, such as holidays.

A specific egg that is not on your scroll that you want.

 

The current hub is a crapshoot and god help you if you didn't know the unwritten rules.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Shadowdrake

[osmarks]

It seems that we need either a bigger box or a nicely integrated group linking facility.

 

Oh, and rules which are actually coherent, consistently applied, make sense, and are actually displayed in the hub.

[Alrexwolf]

I'm literally just so frustrated. TJ, you ADMIT that haves is against the rules - but it's not bannable. Why? These things need to be STATED. The reason is because he wills it, I guess. And I doubt mods would WANT to ban for it because that's ridiculous. All the poor mods can do is quote the vague rule that is on the page; I feel terrible for them having to enforce this stuff :x 

 

The problem is that there is no distinct line between "have," helping and things like PMs, links, etc. helping. PMs help understand. Trade groups help understand. The rules are so arbitrary and nonexistent; there's not even a place where we can see all of them written out point for point on the forums! People shouldn't have to read through hundreds of pages just to glean information about what they did wrong or what is wrong. 

 

Besides the lyrics spammers, I don't see anything bannable about what most people have done. You've given them a new feature and punished them for using it to help themselves as the box STATES. You've taken away not only opportunities from THEM, but from other users who will not be able to trade with them coherently any longer. You're literally punishing the group over something that's not defined anywhere, has never been stated clearly, etc. 

 

i feel like a broken record, I don't understand what's difficult to understand. 

 

also, if haves are allowed, doesn't that mean group links and stuff should be... "Have: Prize related to X // Want: Unrelated Prize," how is that not defining a have...? what's the difference there besides arbitrary "rules," that aren't defined. 

[49ER]

That is true....the guidelines that are stretched out and hammered out throughout a lengthy thread in the Suggestions section does NOT constitute clearly showing the rules.  Not everyone uses forum, or would think to read through a long thread in Suggestions to find the rules.  And I still do not feel my question about the trade ban has been answered, as to whether it is permanent or temporary and what the appeal process is.   

[Starscream]

7 hours ago, Kaini said:

 

I think it's pretty self-explanatory. If individual things that are a 'no' were listed, people would just find something outside that list to do and then point to the list and say 'it doesn't say not to'.

 

exactly this. I see this all the time. the problem also with listing every single thing in the list is that it becomes too big, TL;DR kicks in and people then say "I didn't see it." 

 

So the easiest method is to say, its a want box, not a chat box, so post only the things you want. Saying something like pagination in the want box (seen it) won't float. it needs to be about that specific trade.

[JavaTigress]

7 hours ago, Ribombee said:

I agree that this needs to be clearly laid out. No where in the TOS or anything does it say that asking to PM for a full list of wants is not allowed. Fortunately I had someone warn me, as I had no idea that anything like that was not allowable.

 

 

What constitutes "misuse" is not clear. I was completely blown away when someone warned me about this help thread, as it was not even remotely clear to me based on anything in the news section of the forum OR the Terms and Conditions. One would expect that blurb about misuse to be about using the input area to be rude/inappropriate or otherwise break site rules as they are listed in the Terms and Conditions. 

 

 

To me (and clearly to many users, because that kind of thing has been really common in the Trade Hub), asking to PM for a full list of wants, linking to a forum post wishlist, or linking to an on-site group of dragons that need mates seems like a great way to help others understand what types of offers they are looking for. That is exactly as I took it. If people are going to be banned over asking to PM or for on-site links, that needs to be patently clear BEFORE people get banned. For anyone not looking specifically at this thread or having been warned by another user, they are going to have no idea that such things are not allowable because it is all within site, especially since it was quite common at the opening of the Trading Hub to link to things like on site groups. Given that off-site linking is perfectly allowable on the forums, one could easily argue that posting an off-site wishlist (which DOES help others understand what types of offers they are looking for) seems perfectly logical and safe to do. This is especially true since the Trade Hub was touted as a replacement for Dragon Market, which asked for some kind of way to contact the user (and was typically in the forum of a DC forum post or PM). Anyone coming from there is going to be of the mindset that it is perfectly normal and useful to link to an on-site group or forum trade post/wishlist. The fact that multiple people had no idea about this (at the very least myself, the original poster, and 49ER) shows that it is not clear. Another person thought that putting 'haves' would get a ban (which I certainly would have thought was more likely to get a ban than a link to an on-site group that needs mates, as the group is showing what the trader wants whereas 'haves' is not), which shows that the whole thing is muddy as to what is and is not allowable.

 

At the very least it needs to be in news section of the forum. No one is going to know to look for rules in suggestions or help sections of a forum. 

 

 

"Announced" makes it seem that any changes will be in the news (especially since the LINK in the Terms and Conditions goes to the news page), which is where most people are going to assume rules will go. Having read the TOS when I joined, this is WHERE I go for news about rules changes because it was laid out as the place to see them. It should also go on the terms and conditions page.

 

It doesn't have to be an exact list of "not this and not that", but it is not at all clear that people are going to get banned over giving a more complete list of wants. 😕 

 

Even TJ's policy about communication is not clear if someone is not following the suggestions forum. In the TOS, all it says is:

 

 

There is nothing not willful about someone choosing to PM someone, choosing to go look at their scroll, choosing to look at an on-site link. This also does not give any indication that providing such information in the trades is against the rules. No where in the rules is it clear, especially to someone who is either not on the forums or not looking through the suggestions/help sections. Given that many people only use the forum for the announcements, for trades, or another very specific area, it is unlikely that a large portion of the userbase is going to see these rules.

 

Most people WANT to follow the rules, but if we don't know what they are, they are pretty hard to follow. All we are asking for is to make it clearer so more people are not banned for something that seems completely innocent and within the rules of the Terms and Conditions. It is fine if those ARE the rules; we just want to have the rules be clear. Every other rule on the site and forum is quite clear and logical. "Giving an inappropriate name to your hatchling may result in disciplinary action" is a warning we get when naming dragons. A typical user is going to understand what inappropriate means. Describing dragons comes with a whole page of what is allowable. 

This... very much this.

 

IF the punishment for violation is a perma-ban, then I really think the rules for use NEED to be spelled out somewhere, and CLEARLY, too.

 

Particularly as regards NO LINKs WHATSOEVER being permitted, because as some have stated, I can easily see how a mistake in that regard could be made without intent to break rules.

 

Quote

•  

  8 hours ago, Kaini said:

 

I think it's pretty self-explanatory. If individual things that are a 'no' were listed, people would just find something outside that list to do and then point to the list and say 'it doesn't say not to'.

 

exactly this. I see this all the time. the problem also with listing every single thing in the list is that it becomes too big, TL;DR kicks in and people then say "I didn't see it." 

 

So the easiest method is to say, its a want box, not a chat box, so post only the things you want. Saying something like pagination in the want box (seen it) won't float. it needs to be about that specific trade.

 

 

I see this point of view, too, @Starscream. BUT some of those situations can be dealt with as they arise.

 

I can see the benefit,still, of explicitly addressing some of the biggies... and Links and requests for PMs would cover a LOT of things, IMO.

The fact that I am seeing these sorts of threads fairly regularly says to me that SOMETHING is being missed.

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by JavaTigress

[Starscream]

I admit it would be easier if there was a way for mods to communicate to users regarding a problem on site (outside of forums/irc)

[JavaTigress]

24 minutes ago, Starscream said:

I admit it would be easier if there was a way for mods to communicate to users regarding a problem on site (outside of forums/irc)

Oh, goodness!

 

I can't imagine how frustrating that situation must be if a person is NOT a forum member at all, but still needs to be dealt with by a mod.

[Shadowdrake]

9 hours ago, Kaini said:

If individual things that are a 'no' were listed, people would just find something outside that list to do and then point to the list and say 'it doesn't say not to'.

It sure sounds like people are doing this now with no malicious compliance intended because there's literally no info on the rules whatsoever. Have you considered that rules should be a guide for the majority of players to help not get banned instead of being afraid of some theoretical gotcha instead? You know, like the guidelines on the forums or the guidelines on descriptions? And it doesn't help when half the things banned fall directly under "offers I want" and the other half excludes the official forums.

[JavaTigress]

4 minutes ago, Shadowdrake said:

Have you considered that rules should be a guide for the majority of players to help not get banned instead of being afraid of some theoretical gotcha instead? 

This. I mean.... that is how laws IRL work.

Can they cover every POSSIBLE situation? NO, of course not. But they can sure cover the important ones.

Leaving things too unsaid because of 'possible gotchas' isn't fair to those that want to follow the rules and end up making a mistake because IT WASN'T SAID. 

[Starscream]

4 minutes ago, Shadowdrake said:

It sure sounds like people are doing this now with no malicious compliance intended because there's literally no info on the rules whatsoever. Have you considered that rules should be a guide for the majority of players to help not get banned instead of being afraid of some theoretical gotcha instead? You know, like the guidelines on the forums or the guidelines on descriptions? And it doesn't help when half the things banned fall directly under "offers I want" and the other half excludes the official forums.

we are quite aware and working this out.

[animatedrose]

10 hours ago, 49ER said:

 That makes more sense then the multiple trades where people's wants are "I dunno, offer something, but I probably will keep it anyway"

 

omg, I HAAAAATE those kind of trades. If you're gonna keep the egg anyway, don't waste other people's time. I've seen this too often, especially with CB rares. Like, really? Really? Just...no. No.

 

I'm rather glad I'm not a user hunting for specific lineages, mates, and so on. Because the Trading Hub seems to have become rather useless to them now, I think. And I'm staying off that train permanently to avoid being banned.

[JavaTigress]

5 minutes ago, animatedrose said:

 

omg, I HAAAAATE those kind of trades. If you're gonna keep the egg anyway, don't waste other people's time. I've seen this too often, especially with CB rares. Like, really? Really? Just...no. No.

 

I'm rather glad I'm not a user hunting for specific lineages, mates, and so on. Because the Trading Hub seems to have become rather useless to them now, I think. And I'm staying off that train permanently to avoid being banned.

I see your point as regards the trading hub with the rules it has.... could BE those individuals would actually be better served to use the forum trade threads if they need somethign that specific?

[animatedrose]

32 minutes ago, JavaTigress said:

I see your point as regards the trading hub with the rules it has.... could BE those individuals would actually be better served to use the forum trade threads if they need somethign that specific?

 

That would probably be best, yeah. At least trading there hasn't been done away with yet.

[The Dragoness]

TJ, mods, can we please have a list of rules posted somewhere? Even just a plain post pinned on the forum would be hugely helpful for the time being. Right now, we have nothing to go by except vague comments scattered over numerous threads. Asking a mod also seems to not work either; I've seen several interpret the rules differently. And that's because what we do have for rules are very subjective. Labeling them as "common sense" or "self-explanatory" clearly isn't working at this point when very few people feel that way. If it's so clear, just explain? Because I would never think that things like linking dragon groups, including messages like "precogged as x," or asking for PMs wouldn't fall under wants. I probably would be banned myself if I hadn't checked random threads like this. We shouldn't have to check the forum to figure out how to use an on-site feature, especially when we have to dig through posts to find them. It's frustrating and, to be honest, makes absolutely no sense. I can't imagine how players without forum accounts feel.

 

And I would like to know how long bans last too, @49ER. That information should at least be available to the people who receive bans, but it appears that no one knows except TJ. 

 

Don't get me wrong, the Trading Hub was a great idea. But it's missing so, so many vital pieces that using it feels risky. I don't understand why it was revealed to players before being fully fleshed out.

[JavaTigress]

4 minutes ago, The Dragoness said:

TJ, mods, can we please have a list of rules posted somewhere? Even just a plain post pinned on the forum would be hugely helpful for the time being. Right now, we have nothing to go by except vague comments scattered over numerous threads. Asking a mod also seems to not work either; I've seen several interpret the rules differently. And that's because what we do have for rules are very subjective. Labeling them as "common sense" or "self-explanatory" clearly isn't working at this point when very few people feel that way. If it's so clear, just explain? Because I would never think that things like linking dragon groups, including messages like "precogged as x," or asking for PMs wouldn't fall under wants. I probably would be banned myself if I hadn't checked random threads like this. We shouldn't have to check the forum to figure out how to use an on-site feature, especially when we have to dig through posts to find them. It's frustrating and, to be honest, makes absolutely no sense. I can't imagine how players without forum accounts feel.

 

And I would like to know how long bans last too, @49ER. That information should at least be available to the people who receive bans, but it appears that no one knows except TJ. 

 

Don't get me wrong, the Trading Hub was a great idea. But it's missing so, so many vital pieces that using it feels risky. I don't understand why it was revealed to players before being fully fleshed out.

My GUESS is it looked workable.

It may not have been OBVIOUS, initially, that pieces were missing, is my best guess?

[olympe]

1 hour ago, JavaTigress said:

My GUESS is it looked workable.

It may not have been OBVIOUS, initially, that pieces were missing, is my best guess?

That's one point. Another is that thousands of users are more creative than a lone coder. TJ probably never thought about people posting forbidden on-site links, bumping continually or asking for PMs.

 

[LuckyKitty]

12 hours ago, TJ09 said:

To help us develop better guidelines, can you explain what you find unclear about "Enter a message to help others understand what types of offers you are looking for?" That is exactly what the site asks you to provide, and outside of a singular exception ("haves" are a clear missing bit in the feature) nothing else is allowed.

 

So to expand on @DarkEternity's list, here's what you can put in the box:

• Wants ("[helping] others understand what types of offers you are looking for")
• Haves (for now: specifically "describing what you are offering." This is technically against the rules-as-written, but will not get you blocked from trading)

Here's what you should not put in the box:

• Literally anything else.

But there are some gray areas- like, I recently found out that what I got the trade-ban for is putting links on my trade. The links were to a list of things I wanted. The content of the link was perfectly within the rules; I just put it in an external link and I didn't know that wasn't allowed. And there are probably other things similar to this that I haven't encountered yet to list, that other people could fall into. And given that I've seen other people do that exact thing before I don't think I'm the only one who could benefit from more specific guidelines.

Edited August 6, 2018 by epickitty25

[Ribombee]

2 hours ago, JavaTigress said:

I see your point as regards the trading hub with the rules it has.... could BE those individuals would actually be better served to use the forum trade threads if they need somethign that specific?

 

Not really, in my experience. I actually get offers with what I want in the trade hub, whereas I don’t from the forums. That’s why I quit trading and pretty much quit playing other than to get new releases when Dragon Market went down. Finding lineage trades was getting almost impossible, and trading is what makes the game fun to me anyway. Trading Hub was the big “yay it’s back!” I know a lot of people left the forums due to the upgrade or whatever other reason, and trades through the forum have been terribly stagnant since. If the trade hub is just going to essentially be for CBs and unbreedables, it’s unfortunate and definitely not a replacement for Dragon Market. It is what it is, though, and I’ll be satisfied if there’s just more clarity on the rules to state that no links or direction to on site (including forum) want lists are allowed. (Which I’m still not even sure? Is directing to a specific group that needs mates WITHOUT linking it against the rules? e.g. “Any mate from my ‘needs mates’ group’”)

Edited August 6, 2018 by Ribombee

[JavaTigress]

5 minutes ago, Ribombee said:

 

Not really, in my experience. I actually get offers with what I want in the trade hub, whereas I don’t from the forums. That’s why I quit trading and pretty much quit playing other than to get new releases when Dragon Market went down. Finding lineage trades was getting almost impossible, and trading is what makes the game fun to me anyway. Trading Hub was the big “yay it’s back!” I know a lot of people left the forums due to the upgrade or whatever other reason, and trades through the forum have been terribly stagnant since. If the trade hub is just going to essentially be for CBs and unbreedables, it’s unfortunate and definitely not a replacement for Dragon Market. It is what it is, though, and I’ll be satisfied if there’s just more clarity on the rules to state that no links or direction to on site (including forum) want lists are allowed. 

OR.... perhaps some of those rules even get reconsidered?

[49ER]

@EpicKitty25, I hope you get your trading privileges restored.  It probably seems like we hijacked your thread here, but this issue is bringing up a lot of gray areas that need to be hammered out.

[Ribombee]

13 minutes ago, olympe said:

That's one point. Another is that thousands of users are more creative than a lone coder. TJ probably never thought about people posting forbidden on-site links, bumping continually or asking for PMs.

 

Oh absolutely. I don’t blame him for not seeing things coming. They just need to get fixed (something TJ stated he is working on), whether it be to allow on site links to groups/forum wishlists or to make it more clear those aren’t allowable. I can definitely see the problem with offsite links! They could be anything at all, including links to malware or unsavory content.