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

[Serial designation N]

While I’m not sure if I really support the removal of the button, I feel like an option to immediately send sometimes the pound would be better than just removing the button as was already explained above. I personally don’t send pets to the pound and prefer to just gift pets away I don’t want, but I feel like the pound would have more pets if you didn’t have to search through a bunch of pages and add pets to trade them to the pound. If the delete button was replaced with a pound button, it would make more sense and probably make the pound more profitable to users and likely larger as well.

I personally don’t delete pets as I don’t mind having large groups, but I feel like people who feel like their groups are cluttered and want less pages of pets are more likely to delete pets/gift them away than to send them to the pound at all. If there was a “send to the pound” option, more people would send pets to the pound since they don’t have to orchestrate a trade with the pound just to donate pets.

I don’t really support removing the button, replacing it would be more effective.(When I originally saw this thread I originally felt like I would be on board for removing the button,but after seeing the name calling and overall aggression on this thread, it became hard to support so I originally didn’t support it since there wasn’t much of a civil discussion at the time) seeing that the thread is now much more civil and continues in meaningful discussion, I think that the button should just be replaced with an option that only removes the pet from the user. I agree with posts above that suggest merely replacing the button.

I feel like a “gift to *insert username here* button would be fun if you knew someone who wanted a pet you didn’t want, might be difficult to code though so it’s just a thought.

[Zienna666]

i prefer the option but not removal. easier to delete unwanted pets like my chickens and ponies no one wants to trade for than put them in the pound to slowly rot there.

[Guest]

I can't decide whether or not I'd want to support it.

On one hand I agree, people should be able to do what they want with their pets, of course. No one should be told what they can and can't do with them. But on the other hand, it makes me cringe inside when people want to delete pets, especially on impulse, especially for reasons like "I can't get a fair trade". While yeah I've been there, it's frustrating to not be able to get a trade that's fair, but at least you can get something.

I've also seen users all the time who "brag" about deleting their pets because they're so upset, dragging other people in to be upset with them (unintentionally or not) because they're deleting something that others try so hard but still can't get. It's kind of weird how often I see this happen. They don't just go, "oh, I can't get a fair trade, I'm going to delete it" - they go to the public and announce that they're going to do it. Which I assume is to make people go "don't delete it! I'll give you a fair trade!" because I've been there too, I've told people I'm going to delete a pet in hopes that someone eventually gives me a fair trade too. But I guess I've become a little more self aware (?) and I really don't like upsetting people so I wouldn't want people to have to see me take for granted a pet I own that they've tried so hard to get even close to in worth and watch me just delete it because I "can't get a fair trade" when they just wish they had something even worth half of it, you know?

But that's my own selfish heart.

And yeah, it's pixels, but some people really care about those pixels. It's like calling the OCs you own "just pixels". It's like calling the drawing you made "just pixels", or the items you farmed for hours in Minecraft "just pixels", you still get upset when you lose it or when someone steals it.

[Anteat.er]

I agree we should remove it.

My take has to do with experiences on another game called Animal Jam. It also has an economy system and often people would hoard their favorite item and delete the mass amount of the item so the item increases in value.
So for those with pet hoards, they could collect a mass amount of the pet at a "uncommon" level and delete them to the point where it'd be counted as a very rare.
A loop hole indeed.

[RedtailTheWarrior]

It doesn't make much since, tho, without it the pet rarities will always stay the same after some time, but I still agree, pounds adoption centers and newbies can all be gifted,plus its much easier and nicer.

[Lanayru]

People worried about users mass deleting pets to artificially inflate rarity: this was a sitewide project and ended up not really impacting rarity at all some years back so it's kind of a moot point - not to mention all (non-store) pets enter the Dec 18 pool once they pass a certain point in rarity! Still no support to this suggestion but wanted to clear this up since it's been a recurring concern c:

[Zienna666]

pets rot in the pound in my opinion and there is plenty of players who give away enough pets. with the things that are happening today its taking away rights and options. these are pixels and if someone deletes it so be it. if your feelings are hurt from it dont give away your pets. if i want to delete a pet i should be able to do so with out harassment and people going i want it just give it to me.

[viles]

• no support.
  
  economically speaking, i see no reason to remove this feature. deleting, even when done by a group of people, is seen to have little to no effect on rarity, as proven by the artificial rarity change project talked about previously on this thread. the only way i can see that it might is if someone deleted a significant amount of a specific vr to try to turn it omgsr, but i doubt many users would have the means to actually make a difference on the rarity and value. even if they were successful in their efforts, the pet would get rereleased on december eighteenth, so it isn't as if the pet would become completely unobtainable.
  
  there are users who delete valuable stores, like the skelebun and the raven. however, that is their choice, and regardless of their reasoning, they should be allowed to make it. if a person wants to use their time, effort, and valuables to obtain and subsequently delete a skelebun, why shouldn't they? i see very little difference, from a trading standpoint, between someone deleting a store pet or keeping it forever; either way, there is one less of that pet available to trade. sure, deletion is more permanent, but the effect on the average trader trying to get that pet is still little to none. similarly, if someone were to delete multiple skelebuns, how is that any different from another user hoarding that same pet? they both got their pets through assumedly fair means, and the effects of their actions are the same on anyone trying to get that pet. it can be beyond upsetting to know that a pet you want is ridiculously overpriced and that it will most likely never be a part of your collection. however, that's just how older store pets are..? whether pet deletion remains or not, there will come a time when skelebuns are no longer something you can reasonably obtain, and for the average player, i'd say that might already be the case. i just find it hard to believe that the few people who do delete their store pets are having a significant effect on the availability and value of those pets. in fact, i'd argue they are probably the ones most affected by their actions.
  
  i can understand the frustration with pet deletion, particularly now, when trading seems to be more difficult than ever. however, one player's inability to get a certain pet is not a valid reason to restrict another player from doing what they want with theirs.
  
  the best argument i've seen for the button being removed is that it has been used to hurt other people. for example, suppose two friends get in an argument and one of them says, 'i'm going to delete this pet you gave me!' or something of that nature. while this is certainly a valid point, i don't see how removing pet deletion could solve the issue. that person could just as easily threaten to send the pet to pound and likely illicit much the same reaction. if this was the only reason people delete pets i might feel differently, but based on my own experiences and the pro-deletion posts on this thread, i simply don't believe that's the case.
  
  overall, i just don't see a good reason for removing the option. sure, maybe it doesn't make the most sense without unlimited adopts, but it doesn't seem to be hurting anyone by staying. why remove pet deletion when many people, including myself, still use it?
  
  that being said, if the delete button were to be removed, i strongly suggest that a feature should be added to help users block out specific pets and species before deletion is taken out of the site. personally, i feel that that feature should be added even if pet deletion stays, but since a number of users delete pets as a way of avoiding seeing triggers, i feel it is important to keep this in mind. that being said, there is a suggestion already for this, so anyone wanting to learn more about that can read the thread here.
  
  just a quick add-on: i saw someone mention scammers deleting pets to get rid of evidence, so i will just say that this seems unlikely to work..? why would someone, if not a scammer, delete a pet they just traded for? it seems like any pet deletion would only draw more suspicion to them. i have seen multiple people use this argument. it appears to be purely hypothetical, though, and i'm wondering if anyone has ever been able to get away with a scam directly because of pet deletion? also, it should be noted that admins can bring back any deleted pets from a scam, although the dates and ids are changed.

[useless witch]

well, the majority vote is there.

[Dawn.]

yea i commonly see this option used only out of spite for not being able to trade a pet, which just makes the pet harder to find, which is all well and good but there are other variables that determine a pets rarity. I strongly support this!