Jump to content
Sketch

Trade Hub "Information/Rules" Page

Recommended Posts

So here's my points of confusion with the current rules. This is stuff I've heard is not allowed but yeah not officially.

 

- Is asking for specific eggs ok? Not addressing a specific person, but just 'I want this code' because they could be asking for an egg in the AP, or even an egg that doesn't exist. Like if I put a trade saying 'I want the exact code: Murky' (which currently doesn't exist). What about 'I want Murky code?' How about 'I want 2g pillow thudwed' when there's only one 2g pillow thudwed and it's currently on someone's scroll? 

 

-Is spam just stuff unrelating to trades? Can people ask for impossible dragons? How would you tell if tell if they were spamming or just uninformed? 

 

 -Can we tell people to message us on the forums?

Edited by Murkydepths

Share this post


Link to post

The page from the forum which I linked here predates the trading hub but it has been the guide for trades for many years. It's founded in common sense and good manners and has been successful in maintaining order in the trading forum.

 

1. A logical move would be linking the forum rules to the front page of the trading hub so the rules are easily found.

 

2. Since there is no formal messaging system in the Cave, I think messages about warnings or bannings would go to the offender's email.

Edited by dragongrrl
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post

They get no messages and if they are not on forum, they will never be told in any way. They just discover they cannot post in the hub any more.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kaini said:

So how can this be made clearer?

 

At the very least I would say make it clear that asking for a specific code/egg falls under the rule about applying to only one person. Yes, logically it makes sense once it's explained, but so many people are confused by it that it's probably worth an extra sentence to make it clearer. I don't even check help threads/TLQ that much and I've still seen that issue pop up a lot.

 

Also, are on-site links also forbidden? I assume so since people only mention group numbers but if so, it is not mentioned in the rules.

 

Edit:

19 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

They get no messages and if they are not on forum, they will never be told in any way. They just discover they cannot post in the hub any more.

 

Didn't someone say on the previous page that they got a notification about being suspended temporarily?

Edited by MissK.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

They get no messages and if they are not on forum, they will never be told in any way. They just discover they cannot post in the hub any more.

 

This is not the case. The user receives a notification, and there is an on-site page that lets the user know which messages caused the temp suspension. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kaini said:

off-site links, links to the forum or links to groups (mentioning a group by its number is OK) (explicitly stated above)

"Off-site" is explicitly stated.

But the confusion rests in the fact that links to the DC forums and groups on someone's scroll are not "off-site". In fact, they are very much "on-site" because they are Dragon Cave links. If people are receiving warnings and/or bans for posting on-site links in their trades, then this needs to be made explicitly clear. Because people are otherwise getting into trouble for doing what appears to be allowed

 

It seems very counter to me that there is even resistance or "what do you expect us to do about it?" when members are saying they want more clarified and easy-to-access rules or explanations. People want to stay in compliance with the rules but it's difficult to stay in compliance when those very rules are vague AND/OR don't mention something that players are getting into trouble for that would otherwise seem very common-sense (like being allowed to post on-site links).

Edited by ValidEmotions

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, ValidEmotions said:

"Off-site" is explicitly stated.

But the confusion rests in the fact that links to the DC forums and groups on someone's scroll are not "off-site". In fact, they are very much "on-site" because they are Dragon Cave links. If people are receiving warnings and/or bans for posting on-site links in their trades, then this needs to be made explicitly clear. Because people are otherwise getting into trouble for doing what appears to be allowed

 

It is allowed and no one is getting into trouble for on site links? That isn't happening? The rules very clearly say off site. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kaini said:

 

So how can this be made clearer?

 

Honestly, I think a very simple change that could make things clearer is actually *saying* 'Rules' somewhere. The screenshot you posted (that has been posted by others as well) doesn't say 'rules' anywhere. It doesn't say anything to the effect of 'these are things you have to do/follow'. It doesn't even say you *have* to do those things (note the 'should' in the 'should be applicable to many people'. It might go a long way towards making things clearer if it's simply clear those stated things are *RULES* and not merely suggestions of what 'should' be done. 

 

edit: Also! You specifically mention 'abusive speech', but *that* is definitely not mentioned anywhere in the screenshot you posted. If specific language is a part of the rules, that should be stated. Is it just *abusive* speech, or does that include swearing in any form? 

Edited by HeatherMarie

Share this post


Link to post

While you do get a notification and a message on the site that says what trade post supposedly violated the rules, it does not (to my memory) say how you violated the rules and you are given very little explanation. How was I supposed to know that the Forums counted as off-site? The forums are literally linked on the actual DC site.

 You apparently will get temp-banned twice and then get a third final ban which completely keeps you from using the public trade hub. I know because this happened to me and I came to the TLQ thread each time like "wtf". I had asked to be PM'd in one or two trades and believe I may have mentioned an IOU (which isn't included in the official DC rules) and then I offered something in hopes that one of my eggs would be returned. This egg was in the AP which I believed meant it was fair-game for anyone to catch as the Thuweds are. Still banned from the hub.

 Why? Because the rules obviously are not explicitly stated as they should be and I didn't know what I was doing wrong. That's why I made a post similar to this one last year about updating the rules and making them more easy to access/understand.

Trading is such a vital part of most DC users' gameplay, it isn't fair to have such vague rules on the actual site as compared to those on the forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kaini said:

So how can this be made clearer?

 

Chiming in to say that you ignoring that multiple threads have been made in the past to specific trading hub rules listed on the actual DC Trading Hub is alarming. People are making good points because right now, they're vague. Are you just looking at this and thinking its not really worth any effort to put in? 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Sketch said:

While you do get a notification and a message on the site that says what trade post supposedly violated the rules, it does not (to my memory) say how you violated the rules and you are given very little explanation.

 

This right here is very important imo. It's great for users to be shown which trades of theirs were reported, but that doesn't actually help in any way if they don't understand *what* about that trade was against the rules in the first place. If I don't *know* something I did is against the rules, pointing to it and going 'this was reported' doesn't at all help me understand what exactly I did that I need to avoid doing. And just re-quoting the already-stated vague not-explicitly-rules text isn't going to clear anything up. 

 

 

53 minutes ago, ValidEmotions said:

 

It seems very counter to me that there is even resistance or "what do you expect us to do about it?" when members are saying they want more clarified and easy-to-access rules or explanations. People want to stay in compliance with the rules but it's difficult to stay in compliance when those very rules are vague 

 

(bolding for emphasis)  This, too. It's frustrating that players are specifically attempting to better understand rules so they can *follow the rules* and it seems to be constantly brushed off. No one is asking for a 'laundry list' of rules or a ton of extra text. Just a little clarification on something that *has been proven* to not be clear enough for users to actually follow the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

(note the 'should' in the 'should be applicable to many people'. It might go a long way towards making things clearer if it's simply clear those stated things are *RULES* and not merely suggestions of what 'should' be done.

Just adding because your remark made me recall:

Not every member is a native English speaker. There are many English-as-second-language speakers/writers who might still be learning English and thus are unfamiliar with all of English's nuances. In this regard, it becomes an important, vital, matter of accessibility

(Adding further: least of all, not to mention those who might struggle with understanding nuances in general or might have other obstacles to contend with in understanding such a vague set of rules that aren't even announcing themselves as rules.)

 

 

40 minutes ago, Kaini said:

It is allowed and no one is getting into trouble for on site links? That isn't happening? The rules very clearly say off site.

You very clearly have users that have experienced otherwise.

 

Edited by ValidEmotions

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

Honestly, I think a very simple change that could make things clearer is actually *saying* 'Rules' somewhere. The screenshot you posted (that has been posted by others as well) doesn't say 'rules' anywhere. It doesn't say anything to the effect of 'these are things you have to do/follow'. It doesn't even say you *have* to do those things (note the 'should' in the 'should be applicable to many people'. It might go a long way towards making things clearer if it's simply clear those stated things are *RULES* and not merely suggestions of what 'should' be done. 

 

This is a good point, can get behind this. 

 

24 minutes ago, Dalek said:

 

Chiming in to say that you ignoring that multiple threads have been made in the past to specific trading hub rules listed on the actual DC Trading Hub is alarming. People are making good points because right now, they're vague. Are you just looking at this and thinking its not really worth any effort to put in? 

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm here trying to understand what can be done and changed so I can voice it. Keep in mind it's not MY choice to change any wording on the site. I don't have that power, only TJ does. I'm not personally choosing to ignore anything, and it's not my effort to put in. I'm putting in what effort I am able by trying to understand the issue. I don't appreciate the hostility here, and I'd ask you be more respectful. 

 

12 minutes ago, ValidEmotions said:

You very clearly have users that have experienced otherwise.

 

Not that I know of. Said user is welcome to bring it up to us, in all seriousness, we can look into it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Even the popular interpretation of the current """rules""" have variations. Is even mentioning the forums allowed? (Not to mention the very stark difference between "free" as used in hub and "free" as used in, uh, the English language.)

 

Literally how hard is it to write and implement a list of simple, easy-to-read-and-understand rules? Even descriptions has the benefit of a) clear, detailed rules and b) actual human input when they fail to follow said rules.

 

4 hours ago, Kaini said:

 there will always be another one people come up with and then they'll point and say well it wasn't on the no no list!

That's a shame! I guess we should remove the many, many, many detailed lists of rules we have on forum, not to mention the TOS, and just play a game of "will a mod think this is against the unwritten rules today". Because clearly that will decrease the workload so much.

 

It's funny how everyone who wants a list of rules wants the same specific rules though! Weird, if we're all just making up new ones as we go.

 

How many vague against-the-spirit violations are you really expecting from a message with 100 characters? How many people will take the time to argue when most don't even have a contact method to ask what they've done wrong this time?

 

On 4/14/2021 at 4:30 AM, Fuzzbucket said:

links to groups

Links are automatically filtered out, anyway, this doesn't add anything. TJ even considered making a way to auto-link groups for convenience once.

 

On 4/14/2021 at 4:30 AM, Fuzzbucket said:

Trades should not be bumped more than once in 24 hours unless significantly changed (e.g. you add something to the trade.)

This is not a rule and I don't think it should be a rule because that's a lot more oversight on a mod's end. Way too much work checking both past and present messages, not to mention the messages only being reported the 2nd time so they'd have no record if the first one fell under such rules.

Edited by Shadowdrake

Share this post


Link to post

I mean zero disrespect but I find it mildly concerning that in a thread that's advocating for the clarification and easy access of rules, the only pushback against the suggestion is coming from someone who enforces those rules.

 

The hub rules as they stand are not clear. I've made the point before that the blurb on the trade page reads more like a suggestion than actual rules. People still have permanent hub bans from back when there wasn't any indication of the rules at all and it was "one strike and you're out".

 

Currently to find any rules that aren't unspeakably vague the user has to go hunt down a forum thread. Users have no indication that the rules are on the forum, and not every player has a forum account-- let alone that the rules we do have aren't in an easily-accessible location.

 

So what's the concern, here, exactly?

 

Is it page space real estate? Just make a page in Help and directly link to it from the hub.

 

Is it the fact that a list can't include everything? Make a bullet point of specific rules + examples, as has been suggested in this thread, and tack on an "including but not limited to" clause at the start.

 

Is it that the rules are already clear? As we can see, no they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Kaini said:

The hub rules are on the hub every time you go to make a public trade, and have been quoted here many times:

 

135599622_hubrules.png.0e7291468fd4ae60aab87994390086b7.png

 


As someone who doesn’t often use the trade hub, I would have no idea that that is the list of rules. Rules should be a clear, visible, understandable list of what is expected worded in a way that even the most daft person can understand what is and is not ok.

 

If I broke a rule that I couldn’t discern from that list, I would not understand what I did wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

Gonna agree with the majority of the users in this thread, the current 'rules' as they stand are vague at best and confusing at worst - I've been quite involved both on the forums and the unofficial Discord since I came back to the game which has helped me get by, but if I wasn't I'd be like a fish out of the water in terms of understanding all of the unwritten little things that are frowned upon.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm gonna be real, the fact that the only pushback against making the on-site rules clearer is coming from a mod is a real bad look, especially when the extant rules are not clear enough and clearly haven't been for ages given how often people break the rules without knowing why.

Share this post


Link to post

Lists provide emphasis and make it easy to parse what a player should and shouldn't do. As it stands, the current blob of text reads like a long-winded way of suggesting people to "Use common sense! Also don't spam with non-dc links". I suspect simply adding "rules" to it won't help its readability any.

 

Is it worth confusing well-meaning and honest players into breaking rules they couldn't parse, just to prevent the occasional bad-faith rulebreaker from saying, "Gotcha! I didn't actually break any of your listed rules, I deserve to be unbanned immediately"?

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that the message is a bit vague, but my other concerns lies in:

 

Quote

your message should be applicable to many people using the trading hub, not just a specific person.

 

There are a couple of reasons why I'm concerned:

  1. There is no way of contacting another user in-site. The only way of doing so is through the forum and not everyone is on the forum. 
  2. Specific trades often exclude a majority of players; sometimes trades exclude all but one individual. IE: 2g SAlts, 2g Prizes, Song Lineages, Specific Codes, etc. How are we defining "many" and "a specific"? Does this mean I cannot ask for a 2g from Jewel or Penk since only one person can provide this trade? I can provide quite a few more examples if needed.

I'm sure I'm missing 1-2 other things, but this is what I've mainly thought about whenever I read the message. 

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me that the guidelines were meant to be brief and the phrasing was deliberately chosen to cover as many scenarios as possible, which is understandable. However, it does not work: instead of being able to apply the rules to different scenarios, like Kaini does in the quote below, a lot of users find them overly generalised and vague. This means that many have breached the rules without knowing, and more will do so as long as they aren't stated in a more specific way.

 

8 hours ago, Kaini said:

The 'unofficial' rules fuzz stated:

  • spam - e.g. song lyrics or "hahahaha" or so on (Does not help anyone understand what you are looking for, covered above)
  • trades aimed at an individual player (Your message should not be applicable to only one person, covered above)
  • trades asking for a specific egg (as in "the egg with code 12345") (Your message should not be applicable to only one person, covered above)
  • off-site links, links to the forum or links to groups (mentioning a group by its number is OK) (explicitly stated above)
  • If you bump your trades too often (this isn't a thing. We've never taken action on someone for this, but look! This isn't stated above. purposefully.)

 

? All these rules are there.

[...]

So how can this be made clearer?

 

Since it's obvious that many people find the phrasing difficult to understand at the moment, I'm suggesting some ways to make the information more accessible:

  • Adding the word Rules as a title; this would draw more attention to the text. (This alone won't fix the issue, though.)
  • Breaking down the text to smaller bits that are easier to digest, perhaps using a list format. This makes it easier to understand for people who have problems parsing longer amounts of text.
  • Giving some examples to clarify what's meant by each rule. This does not need to be an exhaustive list, but the most common offenders, such as referring to a specific user or asking for a specific existing egg, should be included.
Edited by Aie

Share this post


Link to post

I personally just don't understand why a public trade should apply to many people (other than in the rare instance of possible harassment towards one player for whatever reason). If someone makes a trade post and is offering something in exchange for a specific 2G Thuwed (which is very common) or for the return of a lost egg from the AP, who is this trade hurting? Why shouldn't they be able to make this trade? Nobody has to offer what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Sketch said:

I personally just don't understand why a public trade should apply to many people (other than in the rare instance of possible harassment towards one player for whatever reason). If someone makes a trade post and is offering something in exchange for a specific 2G Thuwed (which is very common) or for the return of a lost egg from the AP, who is this trade hurting? Why shouldn't they be able to make this trade? Nobody has to offer what they want.

Trading has always been meant to apply to all people unless it's conducted in a private/mutual space, like a PM. If you want to do this sort of thing, use the normal trade link and PM the user in question. Many people don't want to be bothered about what is now rightfully theirs because they found it in the AP.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Jazeki said:

Trading has always been meant to apply to all people unless it's conducted in a private/mutual space, like a PM. If you want to do this sort of thing, use the normal trade link and PM the user in question. Many people don't want to be bothered about what is now rightfully theirs because they found it in the AP.

thats true that people may not want to be bothered but not everyone has a forum account and not everyone has the same username across forums and site. 

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.