Trade Hub "Information/Rules" Page

[laevsk]

I'm willing to help with rules clarification too.  I have 25 years of being online, moderating both on forums and Discord, and have a background in writing.  I think we could come up with a reasonable set of concise but clear rules that would easily fit on the trading teleport page.  

 

 

Edited January 4 by laevsk

[KageSora]

It's also useful because the mods have a clear, concise thing to point to rather than having users coming to the forums to ask angry questions about why they got banned for something they found totally unclear.  Especially if the mods then have to spend time checking what happened and explaining it to the user more clearly anyway.

 

I'm not saying the mods should be expected to preemptively guess every possible interpretation of the rules because that would be silly.  But I see no reason the rules can't be amended after the fact for increased clarity if users are showing they're having trouble finding or understanding how what they did violated the rules.

 

Anyways I'm always 100% for adding additional clarity and visibility to rules.

Edited January 4 by KageSora

[missy_]

On 4/22/2021 at 7:08 PM, missy_ said:

I am STILL CONFUSED about the forum. I consider it ON SITE; it is PART of DC. Yet none of these rules cover it. I believe it should be OK to make a GENERAL statement (not specific to one person) that traders can contact you on the forum or that they can check your corresponding post in the forum trading area for more details. I thought this was allowed anyway. I believe I have asked about it several times. But there are always vague and conflicting answers. WHY should this be allowed? ⬇️⬇️⬇️

 

1. Because we allow people to do that on the forum in the trading threads; (we allow people on the forum who create a post in the trading threads to invite people to PM them if they have questions, etc.) ; and

2. Because the forums are part of the site, dragcave.net; and
3. Because it makes no sense to have different rules for the Trading Hub than for the trading threads on the forum; and

4. Because the text box area for the Trading Hub is very small and we cannot possibly always put in all of our requests. It makes sense to be able to make a general statement such as “see my post on the trading forum for more details”—of course, this is ONLY in addition to the —specific requests— you make in a Trading Hub post. In other words, you would not make a Trading Hub post without posting specific wants. You obviously post specific wants in a Trading Hub post. But, in the event that ALL of your specific Wants do not fit in the Trading Hub post, you can then direct people to the forum in order that they may see ALL of your trade “want” requests.

5. If #4 is not possible, then add a button for us to check off stating that we have a forum post so that people will know that we have also posted on the forum if they want to see more about our trade. (“Forum post?” “YES” “Contact on forum?” “YES”)

 

In addition, change the language in the box above to “such as loss of ability to create public trades and permanent banning from the Trading Hub.” Because so many people have been permanently banned from the trading hub (which IMO is ***not right***, since the Trading Hub rules have been vague when compared to the many rules listed in great detail on the forum), if violating a trading rule is going to resort to such a drastic action, when people don’t have a clear idea of the vague rules, then they should definitely state that they are permanently banning people. 
 

But truly, I can see no need for a permanent ban unless someone is doing something absolutely awful. I cannot even think what this would be, except for outrageous spam with obscenities in it, or flagrantly and repeatedly violating clearly listed rules after multiple warnings. I can see banning repeat offenders for a month or some longer period of time, but I would hope that the bar for a true permanent ban would be very, very, very high. Currently, the rules are vague and many people have never even had a mentor in this game, and are not on the forum, so I wonder how much people grasp (earlier, someone wasn’t even familiar with the term “IOU.”).

 

It would help if the rules would have to be clicked on— “I agree” so that everyone definitely sees them before proceeding to the Trading Hub for the first time. It would also be helpful if there was a link to all of those rules very specifically laid out in great detail on the forum so that anyone from the Trading Hub could peruse all of the rules on the forum. So, the rules would appear in three places: 1. The first time someone enters the Trading Hub; 2. Each time before a trade is created; and 3. A link from the area before a trade is created to an area on the forum where all of the rules are laid out in great detail. Perhaps a statement such as, “If you do not understand these Trading Hub rules, please join the forum and ask a moderator to explain them to you.” 

 

None of this would be necessary if people had not been permanently banned from the Trading Hub in the past for there being no clear rules available. 

 

What I would rather see, MUCH rather see than all of this, is less strict rules and no permanent banning (except in cases of absolute last resort.) Make the rules simple, and spell them out clearly in bullet points: No IOUs, no trades meant for one specific person, no trades asking about a lost egg in the AP, no spam. (But people may not understand about an individual egg unless that is spelled out in detail in the more lengthy version of the rules on the forum.)

 

But even I do not understand what is meant by a link to a third-party website. What exactly are we talking about here? What links to a third-party website would there be? I am serious. Isn’t everyone only linking to dragon cave links? Either a link to a group (dragon groups) which is part of DC and is not third-party, or a link to the forum or at least mentioning the forum (in a general sense, not targeting a specific person), which again is not a third-party website. All of this game occurs on one website, and none of the website is third-party. It is all dragcave.net. So I have no idea how a trade could even be conducted unless it was on Dragon Cave. Once upon a time there was a third-party website that did have trading, but that is no more. That is the only thing I can think of that would be referenced, except that it doesn’t exist in the present state of the game, so I am not sure at all what third-party websites have to do with anything. Am I missing something here? Because if we are calling parts of dragcave.net “third party,” then I am utterly confused.

Edited April 22, 2021 by missy_

I wrote this in 2021, and I am still confused, because the rules have never been adequately explained. Meanwhile, who knows how many people have been permabanned for trading for relatively minor violations?

 

IMHO permabans are too harsh; they should only be applied in extreme circumstances, such as known cheating, obscene language, or abusive behavior toward other players.  Even people who understand English as a first language cannot comprehend the trading hub rules. A ban of a day, few days, week or a month, along with a clear and comprehensive set of guidelines, would bring 99% of players in line.  NO ONE wants to be banned, and that's great motivation to follow the rules. This site doesn't realize this, apparently.

 

I can clearly state what I am looking for in a trading request, such as "offer only one item," and I still get people who presumably don't speak English well who will offer two or three items. If people cannot understand a simple trading request, I fail to grasp how they will successfully navigate what is acceptable on the trading hub, when many of us hold differing theories on what we believe may be acceptable.  

Edited January 4 by missy_

[Fuzzbucket]

2 hours ago, missy_ said:

I can clearly state what I am looking for in a trading request, such as "offer only one item," and I still get people who presumably don't speak English well who will offer two or three items. If people cannot understand a simple trading request, I fail to grasp how they will successfully navigate what is acceptable on the trading hub, when many of us hold differing theories on what we believe may be acceptable.  

 

That has NOTHING to do with rules; I don't think you get a warning for offering more than is asked for. So that one has nothing to do with anything. People will - and should be able to - always offer more if they are mad keen to get what you have. OT, but I would love a decline message that says ""can't accept this many" - when someone isn't on forum, even if you want what they are offering and can't take the rest, there's nothing you can do.

 

I can't say I've had any issues with the rules there, but sure, clarify them prominently - I would be happy to help too; I also have a writing background. But I swear to god there is somewhere (admittedly here)  that says the only place it's OK to ask for an autoe'd egg back is in your sig, unless you are in a group project and others are in on it all. And I would always have read the "no naming a specific code" as addressing only one user; no-one can pass it to you if they don't have it - so you are asking only the one person who caught it.

3 hours ago, missy_ said:

But even I do not understand what is meant by a link to a third-party website. What exactly are we talking about here? What links to a third-party website would there be? I am serious. Isn’t everyone only linking to dragon cave links? Either a link to a group (dragon groups) which is part of DC and is not third-party, or a link to the forum or at least mentioning the forum (in a general sense, not targeting a specific person), which again is not a third-party website. All of this game occurs on one website, and none of the website is third-party. It is all dragcave.net. So I have no idea how a trade could even be conducted unless it was on Dragon Cave. Once upon a time there was a third-party website that did have trading, but that is no more. That is the only thing I can think of that would be referenced, except that it doesn’t exist in the present state of the game, so I am not sure at all what third-party websites have to do with anything. Am I missing something here? Because if we are calling parts of dragcave.net “third party,” then I am utterly confused.

 

The forum is not actually part of the cave, even though it is on the same server (as far as I know). The cave is where we play; the forum is just where we chat and organise things.Trade links in the hub don't allow any links at all but naming a group is allowed, I believe. And forum trade threads do allow people in a project to ask for specific eggs - it's part of having a project. The hub is a free for all players market - projects here aren't..

 

You can link to the cave here; you can't link to anywhere from the cave. 

[KageSora]

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

That has NOTHING to do with rules; I don't think you get a warning for offering more than is asked for. So that one has nothing to do with anything. People will - and should be able to - always offer more if they are mad keen to get what you have. OT, but I would love a decline message that says ""can't accept this many" - when someone isn't on forum, even if you want what they are offering and can't take the rest, there's nothing you can do.

 

Pretty sure the point wasn't "punish people for offering more than asked" but was "if people are potentially failing to understand a direct 'only offer 1 thing' then they can far more easily fail to understand the more vague wording on the official rules"

 

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

And I would always have read the "no naming a specific code" as addressing only one user; no-one can pass it to you if they don't have it - so you are asking only the one person who caught it.

 

The point is, though, that people can interpret it as "I'm addressing every single player because they have the potential to grab this thing I want" in the same way that if you ask for a CB Stat or a 2nd gen ND of a specific lineage then you're addressing everybody who has the potential to catch, breed, or make whatever it is you want though in practice there might only be one single player who has what you want and sees your offer.

 

Especially if the egg hasn't yet shown up in the AP--at that point you're addressing all players who hunt the AP and giving them a chance to fish for that specific code to trade.

 

I personally read it the same way you did, but if multiple people are reading it differently then clearly there's more ways it can be taken.

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, KageSora said:

 

Pretty sure the point wasn't "punish people for offering more than asked" but was "if people are potentially failing to understand a direct 'only offer 1 thing' then they can far more easily fail to understand the more vague wording on the official rules"

 

 

The point is, though, that people can interpret it as "I'm addressing every single player because they have the potential to grab this thing I want" in the same way that if you ask for a CB Stat or a 2nd gen ND of a specific lineage then you're addressing everybody who has the potential to catch, breed, or make whatever it is you want though in practice there might only be one single player who has what you want and sees your offer.

 

Especially if the egg hasn't yet shown up in the AP--at that point you're addressing all players who hunt the AP and giving them a chance to fish for that specific code to trade.

 

I personally read it the same way you did, but if multiple people are reading it differently then clearly there's more ways it can be taken.

 

Fair enough on both counts, though I think putting a code in is fairly clearly not OK - but the people who don't get the first example, they aren't going to read rules, however carefully worded.

[MissK.]

6 hours ago, missy_ said:

I wrote this in 2021, and I am still confused, because the rules have never been adequately explained. Meanwhile, who knows how many people have been permabanned for trading for relatively minor violations? 

[snip]

 

I also remain confused about mentioning the forums in trades. Are we allowed to ask people to message us in the forums/discord and say our usernames there? Are we allowed to mention that our wishlists are on the forums? Last thing I heard, purpledragonclaw mentioned in this thread that there was confusion about it, and even they aren't sure what the conclusion was. 

 

10 hours ago, mishhelle said:

DC users need to have clear and concise rules in a conspicuous location on the trading hub page. 

 

Absolutely agree. The whole thing about "You can read more about Teleports in the help section" on the teleport page is absurd, honestly. It should be made much more clear that that's not optional, it's literally the rules that can get you banned. Even then, they're still barely explained. At least it is mentioned clearly that asking for a specific egg/hatchling is not allowed, but it also states: "targeting your message at a single person/few people is not allowed". What does that include...? If anything it only causes more confusion, how many people are few? 5, 10, 30? Supposedly we can ask for thuweds/salts as long as it's not a specific one. But only a handful of people can get them at any given time, so does that fall under few? Are we not allowed to ask at all then?

 

Rules need to be clarified, displayed extremely obviously, and frankly the significance of the offence should be considered more carefully. Permabanning someone for asking for a specific egg is needlessly harsh, unless it's a repeated offense after they were told clearly what the issue was. I can't see why anyone would be permabanned on the first offence for anything other than harrassment/profanities/obvious cheating etc. 

Edited January 4 by MissK.
Edited for typo.

[04uni]

Out of curiosity, has anyone been banned/warned for asking for a specific Thuwed? Because that would be targeted to only one person.

[KageSora]

5 minutes ago, MissK. said:

At least it is mentioned clearly that asking for a specific egg/hatchling is not allowed, but it also states: "targeting your message at a single person/few people is not allowed". What does that include...? If anything it only causes more confusion, how many people are few? 5, 10, 30? Supposedly we can ask for thuweds/salts as long as it's not a specific one. But only a handful of people can get them at any given time, so does that fall under few? Are we not allowed to ask at all then?

 

That's one of the issues I see when I double-checked the page--rather than clarifying the rules it actively serves to muddy it.

 

How many people, really, have the ability to have an egg/unfrozen hatchling with a 5-letter word code on hand at any given time, and yet you seem to be able to ask for that just fine even though it'd be applicable to a very small number of people--possibly just one or even zero at a given moment.  There a variety of extremely rare dragons or dragons that would have extremely specific lineages that relatively few people reading the trade hub would have the potential to either catch or breed at any given time.  What if somebody wants a 2nd gen ND from a specific lineage?  They can ask for that but what are the actual odds that more than a handful of people, if that, have one at the ready?  It's not like their trade can sit up there for the entire week it would take to make one unless they were offering a hatchling and had stunned it within a day of it hatching...

[Alwerien]

1 hour ago, 04uni said:

Out of curiosity, has anyone been banned/warned for asking for a specific Thuwed? Because that would be targeted to only one person.

 

Considering I see people do that over and over again, at least the ones I have seen did not (obviously no idea if they got warned, or if they will get retroactive ban for it). Probably depends what mod they ran into since even they don't interpret the rules the same way... yet somehow it's weird if users interpret unclear rules differently? 

Edited January 4 by Alwerien

[Fuzzbucket]

4 hours ago, KageSora said:

 

That's one of the issues I see when I double-checked the page--rather than clarifying the rules it actively serves to muddy it.

 

How many people, really, have the ability to have an egg/unfrozen hatchling with a 5-letter word code on hand at any given time, and yet you seem to be able to ask for that just fine even though it'd be applicable to a very small number of people--possibly just one or even zero at a given moment.  

 

That isn't quite the same as asking for - say - a 2gen SA from M e t e o r - at any given moment there can only be one available (well, unless he were bread with a Celestial, I suppose.). Codes - it is far from impossible;e to see more than one flying around. When I've been trawling the AP, I have quite often seen multiple word codes - as I don't collect them, I didn't pay FULL attention, but I certainly would if there were a trade up there I wanted !

[MissK.]

36 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

That isn't quite the same as asking for - say - a 2gen SA from M e t e o r - at any given moment there can only be one available (well, unless he were bread with a Celestial, I suppose.). Codes - it is far from impossible;e to see more than one flying around. When I've been trawling the AP, I have quite often seen multiple word codes - as I don't collect them, I didn't pay FULL attention, but I certainly would if there were a trade up there I wanted !

 

But the problem is with where the line is drawn. What if, during a holiday, people ask for 2g SA from red Radiant Angel instead of  M e t e o r  specifically? If they were both bred in season, there could be up to 8 eggs out there. What about asking from 2g SA from a green Desipis, from which there could be a great many...? Saying don't ask for an existing egg by code is a clear rule at least (even if it should be more prominently displayed). The rest is where it starts to get confusing. 

And for the record, you might have seen a lot of codes in the AP but CB 5 letter english word codes? Hahaaa, almost none of those and people ask for them all the time. 

[Fuzzbucket]

There's actually more than one RA SA, so that's 16 in season. I do think that's different from asking for an SA from M e t e o r out of season. "An SA from RA" at least means 4 possibles. Though I'd be fine if people were only allowed to say "2g SA" and not specify. Or do as someone does and ask for a 2g SA "not in group xxxxx" - you can name a group, but not LINK one. I think TJ even said that his own self once.

[MissK.]

4 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

There's actually more than one RA SA, so that's 16 in season. I do think that's different from asking for an SA from M e t e o r out of season. "An SA from RA" at least means 4 possibles. Though I'd be fine if people were only allowed to say "2g SA" and not specify. Or do as someone does and ask for a 2g SA "not in group xxxxx" - you can name a group, but not LINK one. I think TJ even said that his own self once.

 

I did say specifically red RA, the other ones are pastel. But yes, the problem is that we don't actually know for certain what applies to any of this. What is too specific, what falls under "few" people? 8 is few but 16 is many? Are the rules actually different in season and out of season? What about asking for a 2g pb gold shimmer or something, which is probably obtainable only by a small handful of users, but we don't know exactly how many? None of us can answer how mods would handle these situations because the rules are too vague. 

[Fuzzbucket]

2g gold shimmer is possible for a LOT of people - there are 5 new gold shims given out every month and that's been going on for a long while now; I am told that quite a few people have two, but I have no way to know. I do take your points - but I don't think it's all that hard to see what counts as "a lot of people " and what doesn't. (I'm not even sure where it says a few people isn't OK, only where it says a single person isn't - and clearly asking for a specific code isn't OK.)

[MissK.]

29 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

2g gold shimmer is possible for a LOT of people - there are 5 new gold shims given out every month and that's been going on for a long while now; I am told that quite a few people have two, but I have no way to know. I do take your points - but I don't think it's all that hard to see what counts as "a lot of people " and what doesn't. (I'm not even sure where it says a few people isn't OK, only where it says a single person isn't - and clearly asking for a specific code isn't OK.)

 

Yes, I also have no idea, which is kind of the problem. I don't know if I'd say it's lots of people. Of all those who have won a CB gold shimmer in the past, only some are still active to claim a potential second one, and of course the chances that it's the exact same type are smaller. But I'm getting a bit off track, it was an example of something that isn't even measurable for the general DC population. 

 

Just so you know it's mentioned in the help section (linked on the teleport screen) at the very bottom that "targeting your message at a single person/few people is not allowed." 

[Sketch]

The fact that players have to argue over rule interpretations shows how much this needs to be sat down and discussed.
 "Targeting your message at a single person/few people is not allowed" is not a good rule, and I very much agree the punishments for these minor offenses are very harsh and are often swayed by mods' personal bias and their own interpretation of the rules. If they weren't written so vaguely and hidden, we wouldn't have so many issues. Switching it up to something along the lines of "no harassment of users or begging for a specific egg" would likely immediately fix the confusion and give mods an actual reason to warn people. I also find it odd that the rules don't outwardly mention harassment or offensive language of any kind, when personally, I see that as a much more worthy offense than asking for an auto-AP'd egg, regardless of the true site rules.

Seeing players post trades asking for specific Thuweds, SAltkin, and codes is exactly how I got banned from the hub; I thought they weren't getting banned either and I figured it was fair game. Just because you yourself aren't having issues with public trading rules doesn't mean that there aren't users getting screwed over for harmless mistakes.

Someone I know just recently won a Gold Shimmer over the New Year, and had public trades taken away entirely because she didn't know that she couldn't ask for a Pryanost she bred to be offered on her trade if someone caught it. The other warnings were silent and hardly with reason at all. So now, she's in a pretty tight spot for ever trading offspring from that shiny Shimmer.
It's absurd that a core social aspect of this game should be taken away for something as simple as that, and I'd very much like for moderation to consider temporary bans rather than dropping the full hammer on an oblivious player.

Edit: Another thing.
Just because a rule is fleshed out and well-known on the forums doesn't mean on-site players know them. They are separate sites, and some users might never even join the forums.

Edited January 5 by Sketch

[KageSora]

I also think that it needs to be spelled out what constitutes "few" vs "many" because of how things change with seasons.  A SAltkin out of season is, yes, "few" because there's likely only one possible person who could have it (unless the spriter breeds and drops them to the AP--then anybody who is hunting the AP has the potential to pick it up even if there's only one egg, so, again, that should be clarified).  But during the correct season there could be up to 4 eggs from a specific dragon, and a single spriter could be dropping quite a few eggs to the AP.  But then you also get into "well, what makes up a few?"  Is it total number?  Is it number vs active players in the game?  16 may seem like a "lot" of eggs but when you consider the total volume of eggs that pass through the AP it seems more like a drop in the bucket to me, therefore I'd consider 16 to be "few".  So, by that reasoning, I think asking for any 2nd gen SAltkin should, in fact, be against the rules of the hub year-round.

 

I also think, perhaps, frequency of rule-breaking should be taken into account.  Is this a first offense?  Maybe don't bring the ban hammer down unless they're doing stuff like, IDK, spouting slurs or directly harassing another user in their message field.  Somebody who's mimicking plenty of other requests without a realization that they're all against the rules doesn't deserve a severe punishment.  Honestly a simple taking their trade down and giving them a warning clearly explaining what they did wrong should be enough in most cases--then start in with suspension or banning from trading if they persist.

 

Quite frankly at this point I don't even want to report a trade I see violating the rules in such a minor way because I wouldn't want to be the one responsible for them being punished in such a harsh way which feels all out of proportion with their "crime".

[Fuzzbucket]

8 hours ago, Sketch said:

The fact that players have to argue over rule interpretations shows how much this needs to be sat down and discussed.
 "Targeting your message at a single person/few people is not allowed" is not a good rule, and I very much agree the punishments for these minor offenses are very harsh and are often swayed by mods' personal bias and their own interpretation of the rules. If they weren't written so vaguely and hidden, we wouldn't have so many issues. Switching it up to something along the lines of "no harassment of users or begging for a specific egg" would likely immediately fix the confusion and give mods an actual reason to warn people.

 Would a more prominent rule "no asking for a specific egg or code" cover it ?

 

8 hours ago, Sketch said:

I also find it odd that the rules don't outwardly mention harassment or offensive language of any kind, when personally, I see that as a much more worthy offense than asking for an auto-AP'd egg, regardless of the true site rules.

On the other hand I'd say it was absolutely self-evident that abuse, offensive language and harassment are not permitted. If anyone doesn't understand that, I'd rather they were banned. That's basic common sense. You can't seriously suggest that being offensive and harassing people isn't very very obviously not OK.

 

8 hours ago, Sketch said:

Seeing players post trades asking for specific Thuweds, SAltkin, and codes is exactly how I got banned from the hub; I thought they weren't getting banned either and I figured it was fair game. Just because you yourself aren't having issues with public trading rules doesn't mean that there aren't users getting screwed over for harmless mistakes.

Someone I know just recently won a Gold Shimmer over the New Year, and had public trades taken away entirely because she didn't know that she couldn't ask for a Pryanost she bred to be offered on her trade if someone caught it.

It DOES say under teleport that you can't ask for a specific egg... I didn't actually know that, and I don't think you should have to go to teleport to see that message. The actual page yu get when you set up a public trade - the only way your trade wiull show up on the hub -  does say:

 

Describe what you’re offering and/or help others understand what types of offers you are looking for. If creating a public trade, your message should be applicable to many people using the trading hub, not just a specific person.

 

8 hours ago, Sketch said:

Edit: Another thing.
Just because a rule is fleshed out and well-known on the forums doesn't mean on-site players know them. They are separate sites, and some users might never even join the forums.

 

This is true - but there isn't that much one can do about it. Most people I know who play and aren't on forum have never looked at any of the rules (I did manage to head someone off from setting up a second scroll....) - one, not even at the help pages. They just press buttons because "it's just a game and I'm having fun"..

[Diggie]

41 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 It DOES say under teleport that you can't ask for a specific egg... I didn't actually know that, and I don't think you should have to go to teleport to see that message. The actual page yu get when you set up a public trade - the only way your trade wiull show up on the hub -  does say:

 

Describe what you’re offering and/or help others understand what types of offers you are looking for. If creating a public trade, your message should be applicable to many people using the trading hub, not just a specific person.

This rule is vague enough that someone could easily misunderstand it. Anyone who sees the trade could read it and then go searching for it in the AP--there is no telling how many people would do so. Vague rules that are up for interpretation, when interpreted differently by different people, are then punished incredibly harshly.

Permanently banning someone from the trade hub for a simple misunderstanding of the rules that are highly open to interpretation is, in my opinion, too harsh of a punishment. Clarify the rules, or this exact situation will continue to happen. Every person is different and the potential for different interpretations is incredibly vast. 

If the rules were stated openly and specifically and someone didn't read them? Go right ahead with the punishment. But I think this thread has shown multiple times over that the rules are inconsistently interpreted and people have lost trade access as a result.

[KageSora]

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

On the other hand I'd say it was absolutely self-evident that abuse, offensive language and harassment are not permitted. If anyone doesn't understand that, I'd rather they were banned. That's basic common sense. You can't seriously suggest that being offensive and harassing people isn't very very obviously not OK.

 

See, I read this not as "well this isn't self-evident" more as "it's very odd that we don't even have this listed yet we have ill-defined, vague other restrictions listed"

 

Most social games I play actually do, very specifically, list out "harassing other players is against the rules".  Yes that should he common sense BUT if it isn't actually stated that it's against the rules then you can't fairly be said to have broken a rule for being a jerk.  And while that may seem fairly self-evident, it sets precedent for "mods banning users for behavior that isn't a violation of the stated rules" which doesn't make for a playerbase that has confidence in moderation to not just hand out penalties to players they have personal beef with.  (I'm not saying any mods here would do that, or that it would be allowed to stand if a mod did go rogue--but there are reasons why many games and social groups online list out very clearly things that are against the rules including things that would otherwise be common sense.  It's a "cover your butt" kind of thing)

 

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

This is true - but there isn't that much one can do about it.

 

There is one incredibly simple thing one can actually do to at least partially remedy this.

 

It's flesh out and clarify the rules on-site, not only on the "optional to join at all, much less actually use or read" forums.  Sure it won't stop people who never read rules anyway but it will help clarify for anybody who does read the rules, and I think there are more of those than you'd expect.  Especially if, should the actual on-site rules be updated, there were some kind of hard to ignore on-site alert when trying to trade that the rules page has been significantly updated and it's advised to check it over to make sure you don't get banned from trading for violating rules.

 

Personally, though, I really feel like bans should generally only be handed out as a last resort, and suspensions as a second to last resort.  Warns should go out for most minor violations, especially since many are probably honest mistakes.  A simple "hey, your trade was removed because it violated this rule" would probably be more than enough in many cases (especially if the rules were clarified more on-site).  Suspensions of varying length potentially accompanying more severe breaches such as being rude or repeated minor violations, with permanent bans being handed out specifically in cases of things like genuine harassment of a specific player or hate speech, or too many repeated minor violations in too short a span of time.

 

But from what other players seem to be reporting, suspensions and entire bans seem to be handed out for violations that I don't personally think merit quite such serious punishment as a first resort.

[Fuzzbucket]

6 minutes ago, KageSora said:

But from what other players seem to be reporting, suspensions and entire bans seem to be handed out for violations that I don't personally think merit quite such serious punishment as a first resort.

 

From what I'm reading here, I don't disagree, actually. I did say "not that much one can do." It is, for instance, totally clear in the T&C that you can only have one scroll - and people are still shocked to be burned for having two or more. I can remember, on another forum I'm on, being modded by a stellar mod who said "come on, you know the rules.... you've been here long enough." Well, I had indeed been there for four years - and never read them. I wish there were a way to MAKE people read them before they can actually sign up. "tick this box to say you accent them" isn't even enough. I know this ; I accept this - but....

 

If you specify a particular egg/code, only one person can OFFER - you have to HAVE it to offer it. But as I said - it could say: "no asking for a specific egg or code".

[Platykwak]

I am, quite honestly, appalled by what I've been reading from this thread. 

 

These anecdotes about permanent bans from stuff that seem like incredibly minor violations, caused by misunderstandings or unawareness. No warnings or temporary measures for clear communication at first?

Hekk, I've made some questionable trade messages myself now that I think about it. They were made with good intentions, but I admit I should've maybe freshened up my memory about the rules. I guess it flew under the radar. Ooooorrrrr.... maybe I would've avoided the situation if the rules were clearly fleshed out in the first place, as clearly written rules would've been easier to remember too!

 

I find it unacceptable that people are expected to go not just on another page, but on a separate forum, to find these rules that can ban you, that are barely even concisely written there either. Buried under some ages old thread?! Stuff still needing interpretation and further questions and basically "here's how you should understand what's written" sorta things? Isn't this outrageous?!

 

This needs to be implemented better. I think many people here earlier have explained the whys and hows very well. Currently, way too vague, way too many hoops to jump through to even find them. Way too aggressive banhammer. Good grief...

[Mewtie]

11 hours ago, Sketch said:

Switching it up to something along the lines of "no harassment of users or begging for a specific egg" would likely immediately fix the confusion and give mods an actual reason to warn people.

To be fair, this is kind of already in the Terms and Conditions of the site:

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.

[KageSora]

55 minutes ago, Mewtie said:

To be fair, this is kind of already in the Terms and Conditions of the site:

See, the thing is...

 

That says "bothering" other players.  If somebody does not think "hey I'll offer X really nice thing if anybody finds Y auto'd egg and offers it" to be bothering then it would feel very disproportionate to be in trouble for harassing another player.

 

And that sort of thing is the issue--that is incredibly subjective.  Especially as it's allowed to politely rename the parents asking for an auto'd egg to be returned.  How is that allowed but politely offering a trade for it to be returned something that can get you trouble?

 

That seems very inconsistent.  To me, if "hey I'm offering X nice thing if you can return Y auto'd egg" is considering "bothering" another player then renaming the parents to ask for it back should also be considered "bothering" another player.  More so, in fact--if they never look at the trade hub they'll never even see the message, and they may not even if they check the hub.  But if you rename the parents then there's no way for them to NOT see that unless they just never look at the dragon's page at all.  Plus, then if they try and share that egg OTHER players can see that the original breeder is asking for it back and they're not returning it.  Which, no, they don't have to because once it's off your scroll it isn't yours to claim anymore--but they may still be judged for refusing to return it anyway.

 

So it seems odd to me that you can rename parents which is a much more direct way of asking for it back that can't be as easily missed but you can't offer a neutrally-worded trade to request it back.