Suggestion: Remove "Delete this pet" option. POLL ADDED

[Obius]

Yea and plus Tess can just release more on Christmas. She wants to keep all pets accessible (except store pets and store items for obius reasons). Thats why I said deleting rare+ is useless unless Tess wants to allow the pet to get rarer.

@Scarlet. Sometimes I get so frustrated with trying to trade a pet, that I rather delete than to give it away. Cause if I can't get a fair offer, there are too many around. Just my take on the subject. I think I deleted a rat once over my anger. But I donated another mainslist rat to a giveaway board later on. I am weird sometimes.

[Shenzai]

for obius reasons

I see what you did there

As for the topic itself, one could simply donate to the pound if they don't wanna go through the hassle of donating to someone specific, but at the same time, who even deletes anyway? Definitely not many people, as far as I'm aware. I really cringe at the thought of any pet being deleted though because everything's worth something in the future (I hail from 2010 and I've seen so many commons becoming rares.)

[nickjr]

I don't really understand the argument that these are CS's pets and not our pets. By that argument can we even dress them up? Name them? What makes the delete button different for that particular argument? If they're not our pets then we shouldn't be doing ANYTHING to them (you don't just walk up to someone's dog and start dressing them up or declaring the dog's name). Can someone explain that argument a little more

Edit: hit submit too early; there's more I want to say, gimme a sec?

Edit2: Kitchen sink list up ahead, sorry
I feel like realistically, any issue with supply/the CS economy can be fixed with rereleases.

If someone uses a bot to seriously mess with rarities then they'll face consequences because no botting on CS! Then the admins will probably set things right again.

Store pets weren't meant to be part of a full collection on CS anyway, according to Tess in 2009; they were meant to be like tokens of appreciation or something? I can put a link here later (on mobile right now). That makes me think that even the suggestion to at least prevent store pets from being deleted isn't likely to happen. If they're more of tokens for supporting the site then who cares what you do? Because you already gave the money. Now you get sth you can do with as you please

Scammers trying to hide evidence: somehow I doubt it "works" and Nick recreates the pets anyway (although I guess removing the delete button would at least lessen his recreation workload)

Bullying issue: just so we're clear, because it took me this long to figure it out: it's the bullying thing PLUS the lack of good interpersonal things from the delete button that makes this actually something to consider. Because the bullying argument alone can be applied to literally everything else: PMs, dressups, pet names, etc. But the difference is that all that other stuff can also be used in a good way and is usually used in a good way even when involving other players. But if the delete button is used for a reason that involves another player, it's often not good.

Sorry for the mess. On mobile and it's past midnight lol

[Obius]

@Shenzai. It was much more likely to see commons go rare the older you were. But as I joined late, and because I had the wrong ideas (I was hoping that by now, many of my 2009's 2010's and 2011's would be rare to very rare. But it never happened)
I joined after "the big surge" of the sites popularity. And seeing uncommons never go rare after 5 to 6 years of gameplay is pretty depressing.

Worse still is that Christmas pretty much guarantees thar regular rares or very rares will never be list pets ever... I stockpiled 2011 uncommons from Christmas and just gave them up for popular recent outcomes due to their terrible demand. Bad timing and worse strategy as I brought the wrong pets when I joined. I should have been aiming for list store pets. I still regret not trading that Yellow Toxic for a bunch of ravens and lolitas when I got him. (but then again I had no idea what the heck was fair to ask and the trade turned to dust)

One of the few things I ever did right was hoard shima longtails. It helped me get a UR holly that I swapped for an Orange Cerb. I do miss those longtails though..

Anyways sometimes you just want to forget of all the bad in your (virtual) life ya know? Sometimes you just want that delete button. I know I still do. Even if I only ever used it like 2 or 3 times.

@Maximum. No offense taken I am in a fair mood and wasn't bothered by your post.

[chunkypeanutbutter]

I believe it's a feature that can only help others, especially others that already have that pet because it helps boost their rarities.

I think having the option to delete pets is a right not a feature, and people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their pets. It won't hurt you if someone decides to delete their UR tiger dog, because at the end of the day more are going to be released every 18th and in the end, if they were quitting you probably wouldn't be able to get that pet from them anyways. It's kind of like saying people shouldn't be able to hoard pets because you wanted those pets. It should be their right to do whatever they want with their own pet and we shouldn't interfere with that

[Soarora]

I don't really understand the argument that these are CS's pets and not our pets. By that argument can we even dress them up? Name them? What makes the delete button different for that particular argument? If they're not our pets then we shouldn't be doing ANYTHING to them (you don't just walk up to someone's dog and start dressing them up or declaring the dog's name). Can someone explain that argument a little more

Edit: hit submit too early; there's more I want to say, gimme a sec?

Been trying to remember my response so I’m going to post this and edit it when you finish lol

My argument with that is, if someone lets you borrow your pet, they can give you permission to nickname it, dress it up, and care for it, but they can’t say “yes you can delete my dog”

With trading, we could pretend you’re a pet hotel who has connections to other pet hotels

The person, giving you permission to do so, allows you to trade pets with those hotels

Though again, one cannot say “you can kill my dog”

—
Part 2 lol


Rereleases: If everyone’s saying rereleases will fix all, why can we only adopt 3 pets and why does it only happen once a year? Yes, there’s tones of people, but the chances of getting such rare pets can be slim. Especially with the want for new rares

Store Pets: Yes, but a rich person could buy other people’s “tokens” and delete them, making the numbers dwindle, demand rise, and people who have them may give them away for more rares, then they could end up in the wrong hands again, and the evil humans (who do exist) can delete even more of them, causing the economy to collapse. Not likely, but possible. One could gather monopoly by buying tons of a wanted store pet (I.e right now), saving them for a while, trade them for other store pets that are by then out of stores, delete those pets, cause those numbers to go down, the unwanted becomes rarer, and by then they’d have most of them..

Bullying: Yes, exactly. Deleting pets in terms of other players is always bad

[steampoweredfan]

I support removing the delete feature! Even when I joined a little over a year ago I thought it was so odd to even have it!
I think it’s a little selfish honestly to just delete a pet, because surely someone out there would love to have it, regardless of species, rarity, etc. !

[Sixx O'Clock]

I honestly am not sure if I support or not.
If it's an easy fix, sure, go right on ahead and remove that feature.
But if it would take a while to make the change, I honestly can't say I support it simply because it doesn't have a big enough bearing on the game to be important, and there are other things that should be focused on.
I understand the whole "deleting gifts hurts people" argument, but it happens so rarely that I couldn't really justify supporting unless, like I said, it was an easy fix.
I'm making no claims to know anything about coding, so I can't say if this is a simple thing or not.

[lil rascal]

I've never used the delete option, personally if I don't want I pet I give it away, so have no strong opinion ether way but the argument that it should be removed as it hurts the CS economy could be used for multiple things on cs and I can't see things like hoarding, keeping pets on inactive accounts or even the pound itself being banned because of it.

Personally I don't really see how sending pets to the pound is much better than deleting them as far as affecting the CS economy. Yes pound pets might eventually be adopted but with the well over a million pets the pound has & the slow method of adopting them out (the pound never goes below that over a million stockpile) it could take years before those valuable pets are allowed to be adopted again, if they ever are. In the meantime those pets are sitting in the pound completely removed from the CS economy. So really, as far as the economy is concerned, how is sending to the pound much better than deleting?

As far as being used to hurt & bully people (which I find really awful that someone would do), if someone was going to get upset about a pet they gave or traded away being deleted wouldn't they also get upset about being threatened with them being sent to the pound?

Just some food for thought

[arabella !!]

I believe it's a feature that can only help others, especially others that already have that pet because it helps boost their rarities.

I think having the option to delete pets is a right not a feature, and people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their pets. It won't hurt you if someone decides to delete their UR tiger dog, because at the end of the day more are going to be released every 18th and in the end, if they were quitting you probably wouldn't be able to get that pet from them anyways. It's kind of like saying people shouldn't be able to hoard pets because you wanted those pets. It should be their right to do whatever they want with their own pet and we shouldn't interfere with that

This is exactly how I feel about it, now that it has been mentioned.