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

[Zeena]

agreed. deleting a pet is unnecessary, especially when it could go to others who would value said pet.

I agree too

No support. I don’t see a good reason to. I get a pet I should be able to do whatever I want with it. If that includes deleting it, than I should and will.

Yes but deleting a rare pet for example will make it even harder to find that petty it already is. Plus people can be disrespectful by deleting pets that could go to a better home then being deleted. I personally don’t think the delete pet option should have ever gotten created because it’s very unfair to future players. Especially those who have or currently working very hard to get pets that have been made rarer because of the delete pet option.

It aggravates me when I see people just delete all their pets when they quit cs instead of being generous and giving the pets to players who can give them good homes. Think about it, Would you throw your real pet or valuable item away? What if you had a very valuable item that could be sold for millions of dollars but instead you just trash it and then it’s worth nothing.

That’s all I have for this today if you wanna discuss this privately pm me

[Goostarion]

No support. I don’t see a good reason to. I get a pet I should be able to do whatever I want with it. If that includes deleting it, than I should and will.

Yes but deleting a rare pet for example will make it even harder to find that petty it already is. Plus people can be disrespectful by deleting pets that could go to a better home then being deleted. I personally don’t think the delete pet option should have ever gotten created because it’s very unfair to future players. Especially those who have or currently working very hard to get pets that have been made rarer because of the delete pet option.

It aggravates me when I see people just delete all their pets when they quit cs instead of being generous and giving the pets to players who can give them good homes. Think about it, Would you throw your real pet or valuable item away? What if you had a very valuable item that could be sold for millions of dollars but instead you just trash it and then it’s worth nothing.

That’s all I have for this today if you wanna discuss this privately pm me

I believe I will talk here. I don’t agree with a conversation shutdown like that, especially after replying to me directly.

I don’t believe other users have the right to dictate what you choose to do with a pet that you own.

It’s like saying that you aren’t allowed to delete a dragon off FR because it will make others envious of that dragon type.

It’s like saying you released a shiny Pokémon back into the wild is greedy because other Pokémon trainers will then never get the chance to trade for it.

If you own a product, as long as it goes with the terms and conditions of owning that product (aka all of Cs’s rules), you can do whatever you want to do with it.

And with this product here, a CS pet. The option to delete is there and is there for people to use.

And honestly, value of an item means nothing to me when it’s the experience that does. I don’t believe users should dictate what other users do with their own collections, so what gives any other user the pass to do it?

I do acknowledge that yes the feelings are valid and yes your POV is valid, I just don’t agree with those reasons at all. I still however also believe that if it is an option, it can and will be used and that there is no reason to change it otherwise imo.

For me personally, I think you may need to separate irl with this pet simulator too. This is just a game. The pets are fantastic pieces of art illustrated lovingly by hundreds of different artists over the years. People play this game for different reasons. To collect, to trade, to hoard, to adopt. And when they finish they can do whatever they want to do with them pets. Delete the account. Delete the pets. Donate to the pound. That is the individuals choice and it should not be taken away. Not because of:

when I see people just delete all their pets when they quit cs instead of being generous and giving the pets to players who can give them good homes.

This quote hurts the argument you present very much because it insinuates that if you don’t give away your pets that you worked hard for after you are finished with the game, you are greedy. That’s what this screams to me. I don’t believe that is right to judge someone by at all.

[Soarora]

I still support. The pets are not ours, they belong to CS. The only pets that could be considered our property are store pets if they’ve been bought by the same user deleting them. You could argue that CS is giving us a supply of pets but also notice that they can and sometimes will take pets from users (redone trades, not judging contests, being banned) ... because you don’t own the pets and so they can do that and you can’t complain when it happens. It’s like receiving an award but they have the right to take it back.

[Shian]

Yes but deleting a rare pet for example will make it even harder to find that petty it already is.

There will always be rare pets. There will always be common pets. Deleting one pet does not make that pet rarer in the larger scope of the game. The many projects that numerous people banded together and worked on so far has not shown any significant results that I'm aware of. there's also multiple ways a pet can be harder to find than another, so I don't see how removing an option that gives players a different way to play the game is a good idea.

It aggravates me when I see people just delete all their pets when they quit cs instead of being generous and giving the pets to players who can give them good homes.

I'm curious. When has this happened? You make it sound like it's a really common occurrence. Keep in mind that deleting and just not logging in forever ends up with the same results in regards to rarity and trade availability so why does it matter whether it's a dead account or someone who wanted to delete the pets in a cathartic manner?

Think about it, Would you throw your real pet or valuable item away? What if you had a very valuable item that could be sold for millions of dollars but instead you just trash it and then it’s worth nothing.

It's mine. It could be something that is very personal to me and I don't want it sold, traded or given away for anything regardless of what its value is.

[Gloo Soda]

I still support. The pets are not ours, they belong to CS. The only pets that could be considered our property are store pets if they’ve been bought by the same user deleting them. You could argue that CS is giving us a supply of pets but also notice that they can and sometimes will take pets from users (redone trades, not judging contests, being banned) ... because you don’t own the pets and so they can do that and you can’t complain when it happens. It’s like receiving an award but they have the right to take it back.

The reason why those things are done is as a result of breaking CS rules. Trades are redone as a result of scamming, contests are required to give out the prize that they stated will be handed out as per forum rules, and pets being sent to the pound as a result of them being banned isn't really relevant because if the owner doesn't own their account anymore (since it's banned), then they no longer own the pets contained within the account either.

If we are still following CS rules and obtain your pets fairly and within CS guidelines (i.e. without scamming or multiaccounting), and not running a contest that CS explicitly states is required to award a prize, the pets are ours. CS does not haphazardly give or take away pets from users for no reason, only as a result of rulebreaking, being hacked, or similar events that are not actually part of the gameplay. If CS staff was ever at all truly concerned or upset that "the pets don't belong to the users" and the idea of them being deleted bothered them, after many years of having an adopt limit we surely would have seen the option removed by now.

And Shian also gave the example of Pokemon in another post when responding to someone else. Wouldn't the same rules apply? Say I have a Pokemon that's particularly rare, maybe even a shiny, that I don't want but someone else may. If we're going by "the pets on CS are made by CS and are not ours", then we could say that the Pokemon we catch in a Pokemon game belong to Nintendo, and not us. Should we then, not be allowed to release a rare and/or shiny Pokemon instead of trade it away? I don't think that makes sense, nor is it very fair to the person who worked to find it who should be able to decide what they want to do with it.

I think the best summary and counter I can give to "the pets aren't ours" is this: The pet design, as a whole, is not ours. The individual instances of a pet, however, are ours. I think that's an important distinction to make here.

[Soarora]

And Shian also gave the example of Pokemon in another post when responding to someone else. Wouldn't the same rules apply? Say I have a Pokemon that's particularly rare, maybe even a shiny, that I don't want but someone else may. If we're going by "the pets on CS are made by CS and are not ours", then we could say that the Pokemon we catch in a Pokemon game belong to Nintendo, and not us. Should we then, not be allowed to release a rare and/or shiny Pokemon instead of trade it away? I don't think that makes sense, nor is it very fair to the person who worked to find it who should be able to decide what they want to do with it.

I think the best summary and counter I can give to "the pets aren't ours" is this: The pet design, as a whole, is not ours. The individual instances of a pet, however, are ours. I think that's an important distinction to make here.

All I have to say to this is that pokémon are infinate and available to anyone with the game at all times. You cannot compare that type of game to this, as on CS the pets are limited unless re-released. Even then, it isnt that its re-released to go and grab, its complete random chance and theres many one could get.

As for the part I snipped out on breaking the rules... species owners cant do that. They gave someone a character, even for free, and its considered terrible when the species owner takes it back. Same exact thing for adopts, the creator is shunned for taking it back.
But, if CS takes pets back its not considered wrong. I say that is because the pets are not really ours in thr first place.
If anyone disagrees with my example, just know that I only stated it as a fact and I am not trying to create another arguement. Its how a lot of people feel about the topic.

However, countering my own point, if someone gets a print, for free or not, they can do whatever they want.
However! Going back, the artist still cannot take the art back as it is then considered theft.

So, though you could use that as you can destroy it, as CS can move around pets I personally believe that it implies that pets truly belong to CS and it would be wrong to destroy it’s property.
Of course, anyone is free to disagree, but this is my own opinion and points about the subject.

[Gloo Soda]

As for the part I snipped out on breaking the rules... species owners cant do that. They gave someone a character, even for free, and its considered terrible when the species owner takes it back. Same exact thing for adopts, the creator is shunned for taking it back.
But, if CS takes pets back its not considered wrong. I say that is because the pets are not really ours in thr first place.

However, countering my own point, if someone gets a print, for free or not, they can do whatever they want.
However! Going back, the artist still cannot take the art back as it is then considered theft.

So, though you could use that as you can destroy it, as CS can move around pets I personally believe that it implies that pets truly belong to CS and it would be wrong to destroy it’s property.
Of course, anyone is free to disagree, but this is my own opinion and points about the subject.

The difference between the two though, is that characters/species are not entities built into a coded game/website. CS pets are.

Artists attempting to take back designs they've already sold/given away is frowned upon because there is no actual, legal way to do that. Once you sign off ownership of it, it's no longer yours, you cannot force someone to give it back.

CS moving pets back isn't considered wrong because they don't just do it because they want the pet back, they do it to fix issues that occurred in the game that were not supposed to happen. I don't think I've ever seen somebody have their pets taken away out of the blue for no reason; it's always either because they cheated to obtain them, or because they are banned and no longer own the account. If CS started taking pets away from people for no reason, just because "it's mine and I say so", that would be considered wrong, and there'd be outrage, because people work hard to trade for and earn these pets, sometimes even with real money (not just store pets, ANY pet can be bought from other players with the premium currency that costs real money).

I also think we're miswording "taking pets back" here. CS doesn't take pets "back"; they don't do that, because that would imply that CS staff themselves just take the pets away and...that's it. Pets are redistributed based on where they're supposed to be, not by who CS subjectively thinks should have them. If somebody receives pets by hacking, CS doesn't just take the pets away; that person was not supposed to have them in the first place, so they were simply moved back to their original owner before the event took place (hence, original owner --- the person who was scammed/hacked owned the pets, and they were theirs to have, but they were stolen so CS stepped in and returned the stolen pets). You could essentially think of this as a sort of "rollback" to repair damage. In the event of banning, they still aren't "taken", they are placed in the pound to be redistributed to other players; they don't return to CS itself to never be seen again.

I guess what I'm saying here is that CS's ability to move pets around doesn't mean they have direct ownership of every single individual pet (as in, they can't tell you what you're allowed or not allowed to do with the individual), but rather it's used as a safety net to protect the pets that people do own, so that they don't lose their pets forever if something goes wrong.

[‍‍⠀]

No support

All I have to say to this is that pokémon are infinate and available to anyone with the game at all times. You cannot compare that type of game to this, as on CS the pets are limited unless re-released. Even then, it isnt that its re-released to go and grab, its complete random chance and theres many one could get.

There are actually Pokemon that are released only at events, so I guess there are Pokemon that aren't available at all times, for example Pokemon that are only given if you ask your local GameStop within a specific amount of time. It's not very fair to the people who spent their time going to the GameStop, they should be able to do whatever they want with the Pokemon.
So like CS, people spent their time to go on CS and adopt the pets, so therefore they should be able to do whatever they want with them.

[BabbyLou]

I disagree. If pets are mine, I should be able to determine what I want to be done with them. We are not allowed to delete items because there is no possibility of them being rereleased, but if the number of a certain pet gets low enough they will be rereleased. I personally delete pets when I have 4 or more of the same outcome. I keep one for my personal collection, put two in my trade group, and delete any others. Especially with OMGSC and VC pets, they are not worth enough for it to have a significant impact on the value of my collection.

Also everyone is talking about moving where the button is to prevent people from accidentally deleting their pets. I don’t think the people saying this realize how much effort has to be put in to delete a pet. After pressing the first button, you have to check two boxes to confirm you really want to delete your pet. It’s practically impossible to delete a pet accidentally.

[skyline]

support! (despite this being a bit dated,) it's useless now, even though it's unlikely due to the extra step, it's still possible for accidents to happen.