Rule Changes to Address Misleading Trades +Spam Guide Update

[skinklegs]

People still arent focusing on the main problem with this and its that this will never get a single scammer banned. They aren't stupid, scammers know how to get around loopholes, sure they can't use this method of scamming anymore but they'll just use another. Personally I've had someone attempt to scam me by sending a trade with a message linking to another trade where they scammed someone else, and they used that trade link to "prove the pets worth."

The rules below may not cover every possible instance of behavior that would violate our community guidelines. You may be banned or have other penalties applied if the staff believe that your behavior has hurt or will hurt the website or its members. In the event that an account, topic, post, pet, or profile exists with an intent to cause harm, or it otherwise acts in a way that significantly disturbs the user experience of others, action may be taken against that account regardless of a specific rule prohibiting the content posted.

^ From the site rules. These people know how to get around the rules, you don't need to try to catch them by adding annoying new rules on the general player base. Just... ban them? Its genuinely only a handful of people, and they're very obviously acting in bad faith. It should only be done in extreme cases, but if they talk like a scammer, they walk like a scammer, they have dozens of reports like a scammer, and half the site knows them as a scammer, you can take action without imposing restrictions on the rest of us. These players are very obvious about it. I'm not talking about players wanting overpay for a pet they love, I'm talking about players even now, feigning ignorance to what the list even is when they've referenced the list several times in the past.

Bumping my comment because I have not seen a rebuttal to any of this. You are massively inconveniencing everyone else while not actually doing anything to ban scammers.

The more this gets explained, the more frustrating this gets to me. If you differ in personal values by even 0.5 units you're advised to just use MA values instead. Though, the guide isnt allowed to state 1 Unit = 1 MA, so how do you expect new traders to understand that. If people are just going to use MA values anyways if they have even a bit of personal values, what exactly does this do against scammers except cause more confusion.

The support thread for rolling back this decision has 300+ in just one day. Thats the most unity I've ever seen in all my years on CS. I do appreciate the effort to finally do something against scammers, but this was not very well thought out. I urge you to reconsider.

This is kind of where I'm at as well.

The new value thing seems very arbitrary. What will this accomplish, actually? If the goal is to punish scammers, respectfully either punish the people you know are scamming, or don't. Adding this extra step to "prove" someone is scamming feels very unnecessary.

[winx]

genuinely, was this even discussed between staff before being decided? i’ve seen so many conflicting responses from different staff members that i cannot wrap my head around how this could have possibly been properly communicated before being shared. i’m not even angry i’m just at a loss lol

Could you point out the different responses from staff that are conflicting? Perhaps I could assist in resolving any confusion. (:

[Se5nsucht]

i fail to see how this helps the player avoid misleading trades rather than continue to cause further confusion, it appears i am not the only one... i am perhaps not asking a question but just making a statement.

[barbwirebrat]

genuinely, was this even discussed between staff before being decided? i’ve seen so many conflicting responses from different staff members that i cannot wrap my head around how this could have possibly been properly communicated before being shared. i’m not even angry i’m just at a loss lol

Could you point out the different responses from staff that are conflicting? Perhaps I could assist in resolving any confusion. (:

i think skrapple’s post on the previous page sums it up for the most part

[lizardgod]

I was going to word vomit my opinion but everyone has said what I said. I don't fully support this for the sake it does not at all solve the issue staff is claiming it solves. My opinions have changed slightly after looking extensively into this since I rustled feathers the last suggestions thread on ninja-ing, I found better wording and learned more. Anyways. I have questions instead. I'm aware some of these issues exist regardless of this new change, but it really shines a light to them. I apologize if these questions have been answered, but it is 40+ pages already T_T

1 - Does this mean everyone has a clean slate?
What I mean by this: A player named Slug (fake name, not targeted) has been explicitly loopholing the previous rules to benefit them by ninja trading. They are known to staff and players to be taking advantage of hundreds of players across the site, especially targeting new players. They have had several reports, but because they loopholed the previous rules, staff could not do anything. With the new rules, let's say Slug stops ninja-ing. Does that mean despite gaining wealth from ninja-ing and affecting many users, because Slug stopped loopholing the previous rules and now abide by the new ones, Slug has a clean slate?
Why I ask this:

3) Will this apply retroactively?
As a general rule, policy updates are applied moving forward rather than retroactively. Actions taken are based on the rules and standards that were in place at the time. However, repeated patterns of behavior are always taken into account when reviewing reports, and continued misconduct under current rules can still lead to consequences.

2 - What happens if a player is visibly scamming/ninja-ing, but the trade partner never reports them?
What I mean by this: Some players can be visibly tracked to scamming/ninja especially when it comes to D18 pets and newer players. I'm talking established players, actively following some type of value guide, with multiple high rarity pets and connected trade accounts with *clearly* lower rarity/value pets in return. If the newer/inexperienced players never report them, because they never realize they got scammed/ninja, what happens then? Are experienced players allowed to report them? Will mods actually look into these reports? What happens if there's only one report, will that one report against a player be looked into at the same depth as someone with twenty reports?

3 - If everyone is going to be able to use the excuse 'I used the value in *my* guide', how are you actually going to moderate that a trade is fair?
Why I ask: Most everyone has discussed the problems being this, but the question isn't being answered. Staff is actively understanding that it's an issue when users reflect personal value for personal gain but claim to be trading 'fair' because they name drop a guide they allegedly follow.

Example 3a: Player Slug creates a personal guide using the site's rarity system. "I value {1} 2022 Rare at the same cost as {1} 2009 VR"
Slug decides to trade with new player Snail. Slug sends Snail a trade: Slug offers their 2022 Rare for Snail's 2009 VR. Let's even say Snail says "Is a rare the same as a VR? They have different rarities". Slug says "Well, I'm using my guide linked here, in which this is fair". What is the outcome for this? If Snail accepts and later tries to report Slug, what happens? What if Snail reports them, what happens? According to the new rules, even though this would be a unanimously horrible trade, this would be considered fair simply because Slug trade fairly according to their guide. If mods were to claim this was unfair, how is that following your own rules? You have to pick sides, yes that is part of moderating, but are you going to rule in favor of the person arguably being scammed according to the site's system or the person arguably scamming a player using the excuse it's fair to their guide?

Example 3b: Player Slug creates a personal guide "I value {1} 2009 VR D18 RR at the same cost as {1} 2009 VR D18 RR". Slug decides to change their guide December 17th, "I value {1} 2009 VR D18 RR at the same cost as {1} 2020 VR". Slug then proceeds to target new/inexp players using this new, then change their guide back to the 1:1 value they had before on December 19th. Is this still fair? What if they change their values for personal gain a week or even a month before D18, does the fairness change? What if they change it back a week or even a month after D18? Is it only reportable if they do it continuously year after year? What if Slug changes their guide every other day, not just around D18?

3a - If a general player consensus is that a certain value guide is exploiting players, will the guide still be considered fair if the player claims it's their personal values?

Our role is not to judge subjective fairness, but to act when there is clear, demonstrable rule-breaking. The goal of this change is to make that line clearer so that when exploitation is occurring, we have stronger grounds to intervene.

When a player uses a guide’s unique units in a trade, it is generally expected that they are following that guide’s values.

4 - How long is the 'transition period' going to be allowed to be used as an excuse? What about inactive players that become active in 6 months, a year, or longer?

5 - Will there be a limit to changes a player can make to their value guide?
What counts as changes versus edits? What if the player is new, inexp, or returning?
5a - How often can players choose a guide they follow, regardless of whether it's theirs or not?

6 - Are you, as staff, going to be able to keep up with every guide, review changes to said guides, and be able to read through every guide without being swamped in work?
I am aware the chance every player has their own guide will be low, but there will still be a good amount more than before the new rules.

However, the key requirement is that terminology must be clear and not used to create confusion or imply adherence to a guide that is not actually being followed.

7 - What are COPPA users supposed to do if they have their own values?
How are you going to determine fairness without directly asking them as a mod/admin? How much time and energy is that going to take up for mods/admins, if you guys do reach out? What if they don't respond and it's between two COPPA players?

8 - What happens if users accidentally use the same/similar value names but have different values?
i.e. Slug says flowers = 10 2009 rares. Snail does not see Slug's thread and says flowers = 10 OMGSRs.

9 - How are staff going to effectively determine fairness on item x item trades, let alone item x pet trades?
It's already an issue, but again, Slug could say Snail's UR Raindrop item is the same value as a R pet from the last year because of their guide.

10 - CS is very low on staff. Is CS going to even be able to keep up with this level of moderation and decision making without backlogging the reports at the very least? And how much is going to fall through the cracks or overlooked because everyone now has their own value guide?

11 - When it comes to personal demand/aesthetics, how are you going to judge fairness?
While each player be required to catalogue the value of the 15 trillion(jk) pets on CS? If not, what if a user values certain pets higher because they like the look of them, but as a whole value their rarities at a different value? How is fairness determined? What about players that underpay for certain designs?
11a - If players use one specific guide as their value determination, will they have to still make their own if they have different values for personal demands/aesthetics?
11c - In wraps, what point does a player have to create their own guide when it comes to personal aesthetics/demands?

12 - How will new players know whether or not trades are fair, if (potentially) most players have their own values guide? How can they be sure staff will help them if they use a value system set up by a scammer/ninja and realize they were scammed/ninja later on? How can they be sure all of the players themselves will be giving fair advice?
12a - So will the fallback be pet rarities? Or will the fairness be subjective to the mod/admin handling it?

13 - What stops users from using one guide, changing what guide they use, then reporting their old trades for what they now consider as scam/ninja? Again, how will staff determine if they are exploiting the system or were exploited by a bad value guide/advice?

14 - What does CS consider 'clear, demonstrable rule-breaking'?

Our role is not to judge subjective fairness, but to act when there is clear, demonstrable rule-breaking. The goal of this change is to make that line clearer so that when exploitation is occurring, we have stronger grounds to intervene.

15 - This is targeted to spam, but how does the adoption rules that 'require' bumps, not explicitly encouraging spam?

Sorry if any of this is repeated, but yeah I hope staff realizes this doesn't actually help the situation. I'm impartial to the non/MA/etc, but you can't be oblivious the glaring issues elsewhere while saying staff is doing this for the better of new/inexp players. I'm also not even going to touch the noncommunication issue between staff and players since I feel I'll get too passionate on it, however, I agree that players should have been allowed to discuss this before it rolled out is and the fact staff made this decision without doing so, is incredibly distasteful considering the already growing gap in communication is all I'll say.

[angst]

I was going to word vomit my opinion but everyone has said what I said. I don't fully support this for the sake it does not at all solve the issue staff is claiming it solves. My opinions have changed slightly after looking extensively into this since I rustled feathers the last suggestions thread on ninja-ing, I found better wording and learned more. Anyways. I have questions instead. I'm aware some of these issues exist regardless of this new change, but it really shines a light to them. I apologize if these questions have been answered, but it is 40+ pages already T_T

1 - Does this mean everyone has a clean slate?
What I mean by this: A player named Slug (fake name, not targeted) has been explicitly loopholing the previous rules to benefit them by ninja trading. They are known to staff and players to be taking advantage of hundreds of players across the site, especially targeting new players. They have had several reports, but because they loopholed the previous rules, staff could not do anything. With the new rules, let's say Slug stops ninja-ing. Does that mean despite gaining wealth from ninja-ing and affecting many users, because Slug stopped loopholing the previous rules and now abide by the new ones, Slug has a clean slate?
Why I ask this:

3) Will this apply retroactively?
As a general rule, policy updates are applied moving forward rather than retroactively. Actions taken are based on the rules and standards that were in place at the time. However, repeated patterns of behavior are always taken into account when reviewing reports, and continued misconduct under current rules can still lead to consequences.

2 - What happens if a player is visibly scamming/ninja-ing, but the trade partner never reports them?
What I mean by this: Some players can be visibly tracked to scamming/ninja especially when it comes to D18 pets and newer players. I'm talking established players, actively following some type of value guide, with multiple high rarity pets and connected trade accounts with *clearly* lower rarity/value pets in return. If the newer/inexperienced players never report them, because they never realize they got scammed/ninja, what happens then? Are experienced players allowed to report them? Will mods actually look into these reports? What happens if there's only one report, will that one report against a player be looked into at the same depth as someone with twenty reports?

3 - If everyone is going to be able to use the excuse 'I used the value in *my* guide', how are you actually going to moderate that a trade is fair?
Why I ask: Most everyone has discussed the problems being this, but the question isn't being answered. Staff is actively understanding that it's an issue when users reflect personal value for personal gain but claim to be trading 'fair' because they name drop a guide they allegedly follow.

Example 3a: Player Slug creates a personal guide using the site's rarity system. "I value {1} 2022 Rare at the same cost as {1} 2009 VR"
Slug decides to trade with new player Snail. Slug sends Snail a trade: Slug offers their 2022 Rare for Snail's 2009 VR. Let's even say Snail says "Is a rare the same as a VR? They have different rarities". Slug says "Well, I'm using my guide linked here, in which this is fair". What is the outcome for this? If Snail accepts and later tries to report Slug, what happens? What if Snail reports them, what happens? According to the new rules, even though this would be a unanimously horrible trade, this would be considered fair simply because Slug trade fairly according to their guide. If mods were to claim this was unfair, how is that following your own rules? You have to pick sides, yes that is part of moderating, but are you going to rule in favor of the person arguably being scammed according to the site's system or the person arguably scamming a player using the excuse it's fair to their guide?

Example 3b: Player Slug creates a personal guide "I value {1} 2009 VR D18 RR at the same cost as {1} 2009 VR D18 RR". Slug decides to change their guide December 17th, "I value {1} 2009 VR D18 RR at the same cost as {1} 2020 VR". Slug then proceeds to target new/inexp players using this new, then change their guide back to the 1:1 value they had before on December 19th. Is this still fair? What if they change their values for personal gain a week or even a month before D18, does the fairness change? What if they change it back a week or even a month after D18? Is it only reportable if they do it continuously year after year? What if Slug changes their guide every other day, not just around D18?

3a - If a general player consensus is that a certain value guide is exploiting players, will the guide still be considered fair if the player claims it's their personal values?

Our role is not to judge subjective fairness, but to act when there is clear, demonstrable rule-breaking. The goal of this change is to make that line clearer so that when exploitation is occurring, we have stronger grounds to intervene.

When a player uses a guide’s unique units in a trade, it is generally expected that they are following that guide’s values.

4 - How long is the 'transition period' going to be allowed to be used as an excuse? What about inactive players that become active in 6 months, a year, or longer?

5 - Will there be a limit to changes a player can make to their value guide?
What counts as changes versus edits? What if the player is new, inexp, or returning?
5a - How often can players choose a guide they follow, regardless of whether it's theirs or not?

6 - Are you, as staff, going to be able to keep up with every guide, review changes to said guides, and be able to read through every guide without being swamped in work?
I am aware the chance every player

However, the key requirement is that terminology must be clear and not used to create confusion or imply adherence to a guide that is not actually being followed.

7 - What are COPPA users supposed to do if they have their own values?
How are you going to determine fairness without directly asking them as a mod/admin? How much time and energy is that going to take up for mods/admins, if you guys do reach out? What if they don't respond and it's between two COPPA players?

8 - What happens if users accidentally use the same/similar value names but have different values?
i.e. Slug says flowers = 10 2009 rares. Snail does not see Slug's thread and says flowers = 10 OMGSRs.

9 - How are staff going to effectively determine fairness on item x item trades, let alone item x pet trades?
It's already an issue, but again, Slug could say Snail's UR Raindrop item is the same value as a R pet from the last year because of their guide.

10 - CS is very low on staff. Is CS going to even be able to keep up with this level of moderation and decision making without backlogging the reports at the very least? And how much is going to fall through the cracks or overlooked because everyone now has their own value guide?

11 - When it comes to personal demand/aesthetics, how are you going to judge fairness?
While each player be required to catalogue the value of the 15 trillion(jk) pets on CS? If not, what if a user values certain pets higher because they like the look of them, but as a whole value their rarities at a different value? How is fairness determined? What about players that underpay for certain designs?
11a - If players use one specific guide as their value determination, will they have to still make their own if they have different values for personal demands/aesthetics?
11c - In wraps, what point does a player have to create their own guide when it comes to personal aesthetics/demands?

12 - How will new players know whether or not trades are fair, if (potentially) most players have their own values guide? How can they be sure staff will help them if they use a value system set up by a scammer/ninja and realize they were scammed/ninja later on? How can they be sure all of the players themselves will be giving fair advice?
12a - So will the fallback be pet rarities? Or will the fairness be subjective to the mod/admin handling it?

13 - What stops users from using one guide, changing what guide they use, then reporting their old trades for what they now consider as scam/ninja? Again, how will staff determine if they are exploiting the system or were exploited by a bad value guide/advice?

14 - What does CS consider 'clear, demonstrable rule-breaking'?

Our role is not to judge subjective fairness, but to act when there is clear, demonstrable rule-breaking. The goal of this change is to make that line clearer so that when exploitation is occurring, we have stronger grounds to intervene.

15 - This is targeted to spam, but how does the adoption rules that 'require' bumps, not explicitly encouraging spam?

Sorry if any of this is repeated, but yeah I hope staff realizes this doesn't actually help the situation. I'm impartial to the non/MA/etc, but you can't be oblivious the glaring issues elsewhere while saying staff is doing this for the better of new/inexp players. I'm also not even going to touch the noncommunication issue between staff and players since I feel I'll get too passionate on it, however, I agree that players should have been allowed to discuss this before it rolled out is and the fact staff made this decision without doing so, is incredibly distasteful considering the already growing gap in communication is all I'll say.

11 - When it comes to personal demand/aesthetics, how are you going to judge fairness?

Is my favorite question here, but I love them all. This is my biggest question as a player. I find trading to be extremely fluid and hard to capture within any one guide, and find it unreasonable to put expectations on a few unpaid random users to try and keep the pulse on the trading scene at all times.

I 95% follow Horror's guide, but there is that 5%ish that makes me nervous, and I know I am not the only one. I am not worried about being reported for scamming, because I only act in good faith, but I worry about implications for trading and user relations and if actual scammers will take advantage of these awkward subjectivities by only using personal rules and not following a guide at all.

[barbwirebrat]

snip

what a reasonable take with so many wonderful questions. i sincerely hope they get answered because i had many similar questions and concerns pop up in my mind but didn’t know how to word them!

i think a huge issue between the playerbase and staff is just communication. tess promised more communication and yet here we are. it only creates more divisiveness and defensiveness as a result. i hope the staff sees our response and understands that we’re coming from a place of concern. CS is a small community as is, and there’s absolutely no reason to keep driving this wedge between us and staff. it’s very disheartening as someone as a CS veteran(?). we want to see CS flourish. we want to have our concerns heard and recognized. i hope that this is a learning experience for everyone involved.

[Kaliyana]

I'm still blown away by the crack down on this.
No other pet site/sim I've encountered cracks down on player based economy like this, not even the "ninja trading".

Player based economy is exactly that, player based, its not an official rule or policy, so banning certain things without having an official rule or policy in place to replace it doesn't make a lick of sense.

And then you have the whole ninja trading issue, which, while I understand the premise for why everyone is so upset about it, doesn't make sense from an official standpoint because its not the same as outright scamming someone. Now before you all come for my throat let me explain. Outright scamming someone would be if I said that your pet is worth 1MA and offer you 1MA value when in reality its worth 5MA, that is a flat out scam. If I just make an offer to you, no words exchanged, no discussions on values and you accept that offer point blank, that is not a scam. It sucks, yes, but that is not a scam.

Every other pet site/sim that I play has some form of "ninja-trading" in the sense that if you screw up and don't check the values of your own pets/items before you trade them away you're just SOL because all values are player based and not official. You just have to accept the loss and deal with it. This happens on Lioden, Wolvden, Aways, Wajas, Flight Rising, FelisFire, Alacrity, Dappervolk etc etc. This even happens in real life when you consider collectibles such as Pokemon cards, Magic the Gathering cards etc - If you don't do your own do-diligence and make sure you know the value of your item you're gunna get ripped off.

To put it bluntly, Chickensmoothie has a weird 'half ass' approach to ninjaing. Either its exactly the same as scamming (even though, technically its not) and you ban the people doing it, or its not scamming and you allow the player base to have their player made economy and values where its the responsibility of each player trading to make sure they know the values of the pets/items they are trading. Removing the player based economy/values without implementing an official alternative while also not banning legitimate scammers doesn't make sense. You can't have it both ways.

[Simon]

This thread is moving too fast for us to be able to properly address concerns so we are going to temporarily lock this thread to give us time to review all the replies and work on clarifications for everyone.

[Simon]

Q&A on next page