The Rules and Help pages have been updated!

[Tess]

We first made our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and Rules pages many years ago. It hadn't been updated very often, so there were many items that weren't covered, and some of the information was out of date

We've done a big overhaul of that information now, so you should be able to find most help topics covered in the FAQ now

Just go to the "Help" tab on the menu to visit the Frequently Asked Questions page, or use these links...

Click here for answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Click here to jump straight to the section on Rules

If you've looked through all the FAQ and can't find an answer to your question, post it in the CS Help, Suggestions, and Problems board, or Get Help from staff.

[Simon]

So glad to see the FAQs updated, it looks great! c:

[DaDwarf]

Nice updates! Havent read all yet but skipped to the rarity ones :P i hope its oke i add some pointers?

For example, "very rare" store pets are often considered to be worth less in trades than "very rare" free pets. And "common" pets which were adopted 6 months ago are often considered to be worth more than "common" pets adopted this month.

Popular species (such as dogs) tend to be worth more in trades than less popular species (such as rats).

Look a little off to me. Store pets are considered to be worth more then anything very rare release around their release date but that sentence suggests they are not? They typically go for rares but from older years, those being close to the 'very rare tag' Maybe that sentence can be tweaked somehow?

As for the popular sentence, i feel like cs as a site should not play into demand and label pets as worth less like this, because now new people will automatically value rats less 'because the FAQ says so'. Not all rats have that horrible demand and there has been a steady uprise in people who prefer, hoard and collect the rats ever year. Its never been hard to trade rats for their full value for me. I hope rewording that sentence will be reconsidered c:

The most common pets on the site are usually the least valuable and it is hard to find someone to accept them in trades, because most people already have the same common pets. But the rarest pets on the site are extremely valuable and people may trade dozens or hundreds of pets to get just one OMG so rare pet.

If a pet is common, its usually not hard to trade it, especially not to hoarders. So that might also need to be tweaked a bit as to me it suggests that these pets are 'dirt' common and you cant trade em cause nobosy wants em. Which usually is the opposite imo?


Edit: thats all ive got, the rest looks superb! Thanks to every staff member who put the effort in, im assuming it was a team effort :D it looks fab and im sure itll help out lots of members, old and new alike!

[nickjr]

Nice update! It was much needed :3

[arabella !!]

Wow, this will definitely help some confused users out! Nicely done. ^^

[Tess]

Nice updates! Havent read all yet but skipped to the rarity ones i hope its oke i add some pointers?

For example, "very rare" store pets are often considered to be worth less in trades than "very rare" free pets. And "common" pets which were adopted 6 months ago are often considered to be worth more than "common" pets adopted this month.

Popular species (such as dogs) tend to be worth more in trades than less popular species (such as rats).

Look a little off to me. Store pets are considered to be worth more then anything very rare release around their release date but that sentence suggests they are not? They typically go for rares but from older years, those being close to the 'very rare tag' Maybe that sentence can be tweaked somehow?

I'm not much of a trader but I had the impression that people valued them less because they were more readily obtainable for people with C$, so the rarity was sort of inflated by the fact that only dedicated/active players would end up with them (unlike the free randomly distributed rares)

are they valued more than free VRs from the same month, you're saying?

[DaDwarf]

Most active members value store pets by their C$ worth regardless of their rarity. So even a rare store pet from this month would still be worth the 20C$ Or a mid-late 2010 rare, like a very rare would be. The longer they are retired, the higher up their C$ worth goes and the higher up their 'in pets' worth goes c:

So for example the dino store pets are now worth a mid-late 2010 and the month after they are retired they will rise to be worth 21/22/23C$ until they eventually reach the worth of a early-mid 2010 rare.

So that usually does mean that a rare released this month is considered less rare then a store pet because the store pet gets the value 2010 rare assigned to it and then you go into the whole 'older is worth more' thing. A very rare would be tough to say because we havent had a very rare monthly in a bit - but in theory thats how it works usually.

[Tess]

Okay I'll just re-word that section a little, thanks

I don't want to encourage people to copy trends already active in the community (for pet valueing and so forth) since that is all fluid based on whatever the community does. but I think it's good to provide some examples so that newbies don't fall into the same old trap of assuming the rarity labels tell them everything a trader needs to know

[DaDwarf]

That is very understandable and more then fine. It just suggested to me that store pets are considered so less while they usually arent xD lots of members still seem to struggle with C$ and if you arent an avid trader and cant pay yourself getting enough can be quite hard haha

Thanks for tweaking tess!

[Tess]

yeah I wrote that section but I don't know squat about trading so it was pretty hard lol. Haven't traded in about 6 years