Trade Hub "Information/Rules" Page

[Laugh]

3 minutes ago, Jazeki said:

[...] If you want to do this sort of thing, use the normal trade link and PM the user in question [...]

 

I wasn't aware that this was possible. How do you do that on site?

[Jazeki]

1 minute ago, CellyBean said:

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. 

I don't have the same username/forum name for this specific reason. This isn't a reason to address one person in the public trade section.

 

 

Eta: @GrimmyYA you find some other way to reach the person (discord, the thread here on forums for missed connections). No direct inter-user communication is permitted on the main site. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Jazeki

[Paradisiske]

2 minutes ago, Jazeki said:

I don't have the same username/forum name for this specific reason. This isn't a reason to address one person in the public trade section.

Yes I understand that. I'm just saying because of the reasons I stated its not as simple as just pm whoever you want to trade with. 

[Jazeki]

4 minutes ago, CellyBean said:

Yes I understand that. I'm just saying because of the reasons I stated its not as simple as just pm whoever you want to trade with. 

Regardless, it's against the rules to address a single person in the trade hub and you (general) can't just assume everyone will want to trade with you anyway. This is why the rules need to be even clearer than they apparently are (because right now they are open to interpretation). 

[Laugh]

3 minutes ago, VixenDra said:

I have more issues with people writing: "Free" and "Free for x" while they want something specific/valuable and reject the dummy offers the word "free" implies. This is blunt lyingfalse advertising.

 

I usually see this 9 out of 10 times when people are saying "Free for any hatchling". Sometimes I just think English isn't their primary language as DC has an international audience. It's definitely not my primary language either.

[Razalin]

DC has quite a few "laundry lists of unacceptable actions", the whole ToS is basically one. Oh there's even a bullet point list on cheating including the phrase "including, but not limited to:"! Or look at the trading subforum rules: lots of "Don't do this...", "No that..." and "Please don't...".

Why would it not be considered to do a simple, easy to understand list of trading rules on the hub. I really do not understand why a mod most of all would be against a clarifying, clear and constructive list of rules for people to follow. If an issue arises with said list of rules it can be added to or parts can be taken out as needed, until all bases are covered. But yeah, this is mind boggling to even try and comprehend why any game mod or admin (obviously TJ hasn't chimed into this yet) would not want clearer rules when people repeatedly report of being confused by the current phrases.

 

So.. what about 2G Thuweds and/or 2G Spriter's Alts? They're asked for frequently.

- Technically only a single person can breed/create them (Thuweds) or just a very limited group of people (spriters) and when people ask for specific Alts that certainly targets one person. So asking for them should be an offense against even the current phrase we have as 'rules'. But right now it's not against the rules? That is confusing.

- There could of course be multiple of them in the AP, but who knows how many there are at any given time? Fact is they can only be created by one specific person. 🤷‍♀️

[Jazeki]

I also have a problem with the implied "free" trades, but the issue here is with what is and is not specified as against the rules.

 

You can ask for a Thuwed swap. You can't ask for Thuwed with a specific code or on someone's scroll. 

 

You can ask for SA you don't have, not a 2nd gen from the blue rosebud specifically.

 

Asking for a returned code is not the same as offering a code in your possession because the egg is not yours anymore.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Jazeki
Omg phone typos

[Laugh]

I think it would be better off if we don't limit what users can ask for as long as it can be obtainable in game (even if it's just through one person). I see often that people ask for specific codes without any altercations or specific dragons (cave born or bred) on specific dates that sometimes only one person could have done. 

 

My suspicion is that the whole:

 

Quote

not just a specific person.

 

is meant to prevent you from talking to a person on the trading hub since it's a public area and not so much about 2g SA, Thuweds, Prizes, Specific Breedings, Specific Catch Dates, etc. 

 

 

EDIT: Is there a thread that has suggested allowing others to PM others on the trading hub? If not I'd love to get this started. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by GrimmyYA

[Jazeki]

3 minutes ago, GrimmyYA said:

EDIT: Is there a thread that has suggested allowing others to PM others on the trading hub? If not I'd love to get this started

TJ closed down the previous threads for this because his real-life job sees it as a conflict of interest. 

[schenanigans]

I think part of the confusion is people not understanding what is "targeted" behavior. 

 

Asking for "CB Codes on my list": okay! Anybody can keep an eye out for said codes. 

Asking for this one specific code that got auto'd: not okay, only one person caught said egg and is not obligated to return it. 

Asking for that one Black Capped Teimarr with this code caught on this date: not okay, only one person has this.

 

Asking for specific breeds or things bred on a specific date: this is fine because it could have been bred or caught and multiple people can provide; as long as you aren't asking for something so terribly specific that it is only targeting one person

 

Asking for any 2G SAlts/Thuweds: okay, multiple people have chances to obtain said items

Asking for a specific 2G Alt or Thuwed: not okay, as only one person caught/has or can breed it. 

 

Targeting one specific person, especially continuously, can be considered harassment. This is the key factor. 

 

NDs don't belong in this argument to be completely honest; anyone is able to make one. 

 

This being said, I do agree rules should be a little bit more laid out and clear. 

I think it's also necessary that it be annotated that asking for IOUs is not allowed. As someone who traded through the forums, I know this is a rule. But someone who is new to trading and not experienced in how forum trades used to work, they can provide a contact and say IOUs okay! But not know this isn't allowed.

 

It should NOT be required to read forum trading rules to know what can and can't be done on the hub or asked for. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by schenanigans

[HeatherMarie]

1 hour ago, GrimmyYA said:

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

 

 

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. 

 

I think others have addressed this, but: Yes, there is no way to contact another user on-site. That's intentional. The Hub should not be used to try to circumvent that. The Hub is a public space, not meant for direct user-to-user talk, and (unfortunately) that's pretty much non-negotiable. 

 

As I've said before, there is a *big* difference between 'only one specific person can possibly have this exact thing I'm asking for' and 'this is rare and limited so only a small amount of people might have it'.  I get why that might seem like splitting hairs, but there *is* a significant difference there.

 

Asking for 2g SAlts, for example, there are a fair amount of spriters that own different alts. Song lineages, as long as it doesn't specify 'this lineage from this specific song that I know a specific person is making', it's perfectly fine, there are *plenty* of people who make song lineages! Asking for codes is a little more murky I think, it's okay to ask for something like 'an all-number code' because there are plenty of those to be found and multiple people can have them. It's *not* okay to ask for 'specific code I missed in the cave', because only one person can possibly have that. 

 

edit to add: I'm not sure about the Jewel/Penk though, that does seem like it should be against the rules as not applying to more than one person...

 

 

35 minutes ago, Razalin said:

DC has quite a few "laundry lists of unacceptable actions", the whole ToS is basically one. Oh there's even a bullet point list on cheating including the phrase "including, but not limited to:"!

 

Good point. There already *are* specific lists of rules on DC, so defending the current non-rules in the Hub is really strange. If the TOS and Descriptions can have actual specific rules spelled out, why is it such an issue for the Hub to have the same thing? 

Edited April 15, 2021 by HeatherMarie

[Kaini]

4 hours ago, Keileon said:

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.

 

I'm not pushing back. I'm not in any way against it! And frankly there's some rude things being said about me in this thread - ever wonder why staff doesn't engage more often, and TJ doesn't engage hardly at all? I can't speak for everyone, but... 

 

I asked how the rules can be made more clear without becoming a 'laundry list' and was clearing up some misconceptions about enforcement. Because there are misconceptions here about enforcement of these rules being stated as if they're fact.

 

I love the idea of a linked help page. That would solve any page space concerns, and I like 'but not limited to' because that eliminates the skirting around the rules thing. 

 

(Aside: anyone who still has a perm ban from the before times kept it because the offensive was severe. If anyone who is still permabanned believes they kept theirs in error, please PM TJ.)

[HeatherMarie]

My only concern with a linked help page would be how many users might not read/see it. As it is the 'rules' are right there when you click on 'public trade', it's literally there in your face. Any linked rules would have to be Very Prominently linked, possibly with a 'Warning! Read this first!' or something. 

[Kaini]

1 minute ago, HeatherMarie said:

My only concern with a linked help page would be how many users might not read/see it. As it is the 'rules' are right there when you click on 'public trade', it's literally there in your face. Any linked rules would have to be Very Prominently linked, possibly with a 'Warning! Read this first!' or something. 

 

Yeah, definitely. This is my concern, which brings us back to them needing to be short and sweet to fit under the magi... 

[Starscream]

From years of Experience, I have found that trying to get a list of what to avoid invariably gets someone pointing out something that has been warned against was not listed and should be therefore allowed. Also, on the flip side,a list of rules will often get the TL;DR response (Too Long; Didn't Read)

 

I am all for more concise wording, but as it stands, it reads fine to me. Maybe should could be reworded to have. I am all for spelling it out, each and every don't do it scenario, but as I said, people will complain the rules are too big to follow.

[Laugh]

1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

As I've said before, there is a *big* difference between 'only one specific person can possibly have this exact thing I'm asking for' and 'this is rare and limited so only a small amount of people might have it'.  I get why that might seem like splitting hairs, but there *is* a significant difference there.

 

Asking for 2g SAlts, for example, there are a fair amount of spriters that own different alts. Song lineages, as long as it doesn't specify 'this lineage from this specific song that I know a specific person is making', it's perfectly fine, there are *plenty* of people who make song lineages! Asking for codes is a little more murky I think, it's okay to ask for something like 'an all-number code' because there are plenty of those to be found and multiple people can have them. It's *not* okay to ask for 'specific code I missed in the cave', because only one person can possibly have that. 

 

Maybe I should have been a bit more precise. What I meant in regards to that is when someone is specifically asking for something like a 2g from Rosebud Alt/ Snow Angle Alt. I see nothing wrong with someone asking for this yet the only way to get around this would be to ask for a 2g SA and only accept something what you're looking for. This only causes frustration on both ends. 

[Shadowdrake]

1 hour ago, Kaini said:

ever wonder why staff doesn't engage more often, and TJ doesn't engage hardly at all?

That's not a good thing to note when this thread is literally about site enforcement needing to be more communicative.

 

 

Why not just link detailed rules on the main trading hub page? You see it before and after you make any trade, since the current way of having the blurb pop up once you select a trade isn't great either. If TJ really must have the first-read version of the rules be short, at least put a list like we've proposed on the ban page since at that point it's obvious the user did not understand the rules clearly enough. In fact, why not link said ban page somewhere anyway so people can still access it once it falls off their notifications, instead of being a hidden page? Just add that link to the lovely little paragraph where it says "loss of ability to create public trades".

 

tl;dr

1) link ban page to blurb

2) add more detailed rules to ban page

3) add rule or ban page link to main trading page as a semi-TOS

Edited April 16, 2021 by Shadowdrake

[Sextonator]

I'd just like to point out, as someone who doesn't often trade, that the fact the "rules" only pop up once you have chosen to start a trade and can't be viewed beforehand is really weird?? I thought they were supposed to be upfront and obvious, so it took me awhile to find the little blurb about what's acceptable because I didn't know where to look, because I was under the impression they'd be somewhere where I'd be able to see them. I managed to completely overlook them.

 

I really think moving the blurb to the main page, or having a listed rules page that's linked from the main page would really work and help, as where they are now, they're easily overlooked/ignored.

[KrazyKarp]

1 hour ago, Starscream said:

From years of Experience, I have found that trying to get a list of what to avoid invariably gets someone pointing out something that has been warned against was not listed and should be therefore allowed. Also, on the flip side,a list of rules will often get the TL;DR response (Too Long; Didn't Read)

There's a list of inappropriate behavior in the forum rules, so we've already got precedent for a list. In fact, the forum rules manage to be rather short, yet detailed at the same time, which is what needs to be done to hub rules. Despite this, there's an amount of length that's unavoidable when it comes to transparency and communication with rules; it's just how it is, as seen by the length of the forum rules compared to hub rules.

 

2 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

My only concern with a linked help page would be how many users might not read/see it. As it is the 'rules' are right there when you click on 'public trade', it's literally there in your face. Any linked rules would have to be Very Prominently linked, possibly with a 'Warning! Read this first!' or something. 

I forget how forum rules work, if you need to check a box or something to verify you've read them, but whatever is done with them can be applied to the hub. Regardless, people can do this with forum rules already; avoid reading them.

 

I pointed it out before, but I'm rather confused because we're trying to get the hub rules structured more like the forum rules, yet this structure apparently doesn't work for rules, yet it's how our forum rules are structured, therefore our forum rules need to be rewritten shorter in a couple sentences like hub "rules"? That's what I'm interpreting things as so far.

 

There's a lot of clashing information; does DC want rules to be structured and longer, yet more detailed like the forum rules? Or does DC want some short, brief few sentences as rules? Either way, one of them stands to change, because these are very contradictory ways to format rules.

[purpledragonclaw]

12 hours ago, Commander Wymsy said:

By making a clear and concise list of rules instead of a vaguely worded couple of sentences. So, the very thing this thread is suggesting. There is such a huge demand for trade rules to be more clear, similar to how the rules for descriptions are laid out (and, mind you, trade rules wouldn't need to be anywhere nearly as long, it wouldn't be difficult to make a simple bullet point list of the rules), instead of leaving it up to interpretation.

There's no need to make a large laundry list, just a simple few types of disallowed trades and examples of such, it wouldn't be that hard to do.

 

I agree with this, I had to dig to find the rules on trading, and only having it appear when I initiate the trade is... not good. Also, approaching this as a new user those rules aren't nearly clear enough. I understand them because I've been here for years, but someone a day or even month or two in could encounter some issues. The rules don't even mention "no spam", oh dear...

 

I like the idea of a bulleted list just like we have for Guidelines on the forum.

 

12 hours ago, Murkydepths said:

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?

 

Specifically targeting another user is not okay, but saying "I want X egg" when it's only available on one scroll (or not available at all in the imaginary egg case) I would be fine with, as long as it doesn't descend into harassment by naming the user. It gets murkier, though, if you have ten trades and want the same egg, like throwing a large net and hoping to grab the fish you want. When does it become spam? I honestly don't know.

 

11 hours 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 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).

 

If players are allowed (or not allowed) to include forum info in trades we need to explicitly state that. That could definitely be more clearer since there was confusion in the past on whether or not forum links count as off-site or not. Heck, I don't remember the end result of that discussion, so I'll have to check! Including it in the bullet list of rules gets an eager support from me.

 

10 hours 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. 

 

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? 

 

This ties back into my first response, I would love a bulleted list with "Trading Hub Rules" smack dab at the top center. It should also appear maybe as permanent text at the top of each trade page in the Hub or something, something that can't be missed easily. Just treat them like our scroll badges that appear on each scroll page. Maybe it only appears on the Hub homepage, and the first page in search results? I'm spitballing here, but I agree that we could be more clear with these rules and I'm throwing out ideas. If the rules list become longer, how would we display it when users create trades for the Hub?

 

We've clarified the rules before because they were too vague, we can clarify them again, and make them more visible for everyone. 

[MissK.]

5 hours ago, schenanigans said:

I think it's also necessary that it be annotated that asking for IOUs is not allowed. As someone who traded through the forums, I know this is a rule. But someone who is new to trading and not experienced in how forum trades used to work, they can provide a contact and say IOUs okay! But not know this isn't allowed.

 

It should NOT be required to read forum trading rules to know what can and can't be done on the hub or asked for. 

 

Completely forgot about this, if the IOU rule is indeed enforced on the hub (mods please correct me if this is not the case) then that absolutely needs to be clearly stated. Even if someone is on the forums, if they never use the threads to trade but only the hub they would have 0 reason to read those rules or to think that some might apply to their case, and therefore would have no idea. 

 

4 hours ago, Starscream said:

From years of Experience, I have found that trying to get a list of what to avoid invariably gets someone pointing out something that has been warned against was not listed and should be therefore allowed. Also, on the flip side,a list of rules will often get the TL;DR response (Too Long; Didn't Read)

 

I am all for more concise wording, but as it stands, it reads fine to me. Maybe should could be reworded to have. I am all for spelling it out, each and every don't do it scenario, but as I said, people will complain the rules are too big to follow.

 

While I can agree with you in theory, especially about people skipping longer texts, it is already clear that the current method has issues. As people have pointed out, the alternative you mention as problematic is already in use in the forums and has been for years, so does it not seem reasonable to attempt that and see if it helps with the problem instead of dismissing it ahead of time? 

 

1 hour ago, purpledragonclaw said:

This ties back into my first response, I would love a bulleted list with "Trading Hub Rules" smack dab at the top center. It should also appear maybe as permanent text at the top of each trade page in the Hub or something, something that can't be missed easily. Just treat them like our scroll badges that appear on each scroll page. Maybe it only appears on the Hub homepage, and the first page in search results? I'm spitballing here, but I agree that we could be more clear with these rules and I'm throwing out ideas. If the rules list become longer, how would we display it when users create trades for the Hub?

 

First of all I fully agree with your whole post, very well said. 

For this part, perhaps it could be some form of collapsible text? So sort of like how you click public trade to have the message show, but displaying more to begin with. For example, keep the bold warning with something along the lines of "trades not complying by the following rules can lead to etc etc", then have a clear Rules like you said, that opens collapsible text. If possible, perhaps a bit of the text could already be displayed but fading/some other indication that it is collapsible and clickable to expand it. (edit: I just realised I was probably thinking of this because of how long quotes currently display here, faded text with an expand option.) It might be at least a little bit more tempting than clicking a link to read the rules; at least for myself I can say I would be more likely to read something if I didn't have to go to a different page altogether, especially on mobile. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by MissK.

[Confused Cat]

I think a list would be more easily recognizable as "something you have to read". The text that is there right now looks like "helpful information about this page" that users migh feel like they don't have to read if they can get the trade to work without it.
It should be a short as possible to make it easily understandable even for users who don't understand English very well.

(If you're not very familiar with the language, you can't just "skim through" to find out if you really need to read something. You may have to decipher and translate every single word to make sense of a text.)

Icons could help make it clear that it's a "do / don't" type of information.

 

I would like something like this:

 

Allowed:

✅ Information about what you are offering

✅ Information about what you want

Not allowed:

❌ Messages for one user

❌ Asking for a specific egg or hatchling that only one user owns*

❌ Spam (anything not related to the trade)

❌ Links to other websites

 

In case it doesn't show up on some browsers: there are green checkmarks / red Xs before each line.

 

(* I'm not happy with the phrasing here. It should explain more, but still be short and only use simple words...)

[HeatherMarie]

I *love* the idea of check and x icons! Actually, everything about @Confused Cat's list is pretty darn perfect. Wording can be tweaked of course, but it seems like it would address the general concern of 'laundry lists' and 'tldr' while still actually making the rules clear. An actual list like that, especially with specific do/don't icons, makes it perfectly clear it is something that needs to be read and followed, rather than just a little blurb about the feature itself as the current text seems to convey to some people. 

 

And sure, it will of course take up more space than the current 'rules', but to be completely honest I don't understand why that would actually be an issue? If rules take up more space, they are less likely to be skimmed over or missed in a 'oh this is just an explanation of what this feature is' sort of deal. DC is fairly space-heavy in general (look at our scrolls!), the page already has plenty of space allocated for listing every growing thing we own (images, as well as codes, *and* time left!). I would *think* making sure the rules are clear and understandable would be more important than worrying about a little more space? 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by HeatherMarie

[Varasse]

On 4/14/2021 at 11:30 AM, Fuzzbucket said:

You may be suspended or banned from trading if you post:

 

• spam - e.g. song lyrics or "hahahaha" or so on
• trades aimed at an individual player
• trades asking for a specific egg (as in "the egg with code 12345")
• off-site links, links to the forum or links to groups (mentioning a group by its number is OK)
• If you bump your trades too often

 

Ask for an IOU.

Ask to be contacted via forum or Discord or whatever.

 

were good points on the past pages that imho should be added to @Fuzzbucket s list. Thank you!

 

I'm very glad they started this thread as it shows how many of us are insecure about what is ok and what is not ok. So let's stay civil and work together to present our case to the bossman.

 

 

[Starscream]

4 hours ago, MissK. said:

 

While I can agree with you in theory, especially about people skipping longer texts, it is already clear that the current method has issues. As people have pointed out, the alternative you mention as problematic is already in use in the forums and has been for years, so does it not seem reasonable to attempt that and see if it helps with the problem instead of dismissing it ahead of time? 

Oh I am not dismissing it. I am just stating, that is what could very well end up happening.as I have seen that happening before. I'm all for writing it out in detail But I am also the sort of person who would pop on my glasses and read the EUL before using something - drives my spouse nuts.