Rule Changes to Address Misleading Trades +Spam Guide Update

[Pallastronomy]

The first post in this thread needs to be updated. There are too many crucial details in staff replies here that nobody has time to weed through 40 pages for.

[skrapple]

Can we also get clarification as to why the community at large as individuals are, if I'm reading the response right here, allowed to use old rare/MA/non as personal values, but guides aren't? Because what this all seems to mean is:

If someone personally values a TD higher than the guide does, that’s still completely allowed. In that case, it just needs to be presented as a personal value or using MA/non rather than adjusting the guide’s unit.

- If anyone doesn't want to follow a forum guide's exact listed worth of a pet or wants more or less for a specific pet, they have to use a personal value (no standard for what this would look like if you're not using the old terms) or revert back to using the old terms

But also:

These terms have become too broadly adopted and are interpreted differently by different users, which makes it difficult to tell when values are being presented accurately versus misleadingly.

- The old terms will no longer have any real unified meaning because they are too vague and are thus not allowed to be used in guides as units

And yet simultaneously:

If you want a basis for what MA/Non mean in your own trading, many players already use the Successful Trades thread as a reference point for that, rather than tying it to a specific guide.

- The old terms DO have meaning and we can use the successful trades thread to gauge it?

I'm sorry, but this is all just incredibly confusing to me. We really could use an update to the first post after this has all been ironed out to clarify everything, because as of now this thread seems to be falling way too far into contradictions and complicated theorheticals that I struggle to make heads or tails of. This will probably be my last reply here because it's starting to all go over my head. I think we'd all just appreciate some clarifications.

(Edits for clarity)

[Lunarrmoth]

The first post in this thread needs to be updated. There are too many crucial details in staff replies here that nobody has time to weed through 40 pages for.

Yeah especially since you can't search posts in this thread either. Makes it very tedious for people to find additional information

[Birdy]

thank you for trying to explain, i do appreciate it. i want to be really clear that my issue isn't with that i dont understand Winx's explanation, is that they are not answering the question i am asking.

the question is this: how do we signify personal value of pets WITHOUT using MA/Non, and WITHOUT using a guide's value system?

i asked to be given a solution, but was not provided one. the reason i am asking this, is because i do not believe MA/Non can still be, or will still be, used after this change has been fully made. thus, we are left in a scenario where there is no personal valuing system we can use, and trying to convey personal value with Horror's value system, or any other guide, is bannable. so how do i tell you that i want more for my TD pet, if i'm not allowed to use Horror's terms, and MA/Non no longer means anything? MA may not be equal to Horror's value forever, and we shouldn't expect it to stay the same, either. the staff want the term to eventually stand on its own, so we cannot forever say that 1 H = 1 MA. that is the scenario that i am afraid of.

considering that noone else has thought of a solution for this, and i cant think of one either, i think this ultimately proves my point that the change was poorly thought through. i hope you can understand what my grievance actually is. i promise that i understand what's being said, i am arguing that MA/Non will not be suitable to use for valuing in the future.

I could be wrong here, but isn't there already a system of 1MA = x amount of "old rares"? If you replace "old rares" with 2010 or 2009 or whatever you want rares, wouldn't that be a sort of solution to the question you're asking? So instead of saying that you value a pet at 1MA, you could say that you value it at x amount of 2008-2010 rares? Which in theory is still going off of the MA/Non/etc. values, but is no longer using those terms.

So if 1 MA= 10 2008-2010 rares and you value Gleepglorps at a rough rate of 1 Gleepglorp = 1 MA, then 1 Gleepglorp = 10 2008-2010 rares

And you could in theory customize it however you want using species (i.e, 10 2009-2010 rare dogs) or rarity. Not sure if that's what you're looking for in terms of an answer but figured I'd throw it out there just in case it solves your problem.

-----

also quoting this because I'm afraid it will get buried:

If Horror lists a pet at 1H and you personally want more for it, you would present that as a personal value rather than modifying the guide unit. In that situation, you can still use MA/Non informally, since they are not banned for personal use.

If you want a basis for what MA/Non mean in your own trading, many players already use the Successful Trades thread as a reference point for that, rather than tying it to a specific guide.

Hi, there! Asking this in good faith, apologies if it in any way comes across as rude. Could you explain further what "present that as a personal value" refers to? Are we talking pet names? Or trade messages? Or what's in your trade rules? Or what's in your trade thread? Or all of the above?

As for the 2nd point, could you explain what the difference is between someone previously saying "I personally value a green toxic at 1.5n" and someone now saying "I personally value a green toxic at 1.5H"? I'm honestly still struggling to see how this in any way prevents people using the guise of their "own personal values" to their advantage?

[Pyca]

I swore I made a comment on here, and it was taken down with no notification or anything..... huh.
I don't really think I said anything that was much different than anyone else so that's a bit confusing.

Either way, like most people, pretty disappointed. This feels like a very odd change that did not need to happen.

[constantine]

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.

[angst]

I swore I made a comment on here, and it was taken down with no notification or anything..... huh.
I don't really think I said anything that was much different than anyone else so that's a bit confusing.

Either way, like most people, pretty disappointed. This feels like a very odd change that did not need to happen.

Oh my god so it isn't just me?! I feel like I'm going insane. I posted last night, woke up to check if anybody had responsed and... it's just gone.

The only point I made was that I find trading to be really fluid (species, demand, etc.) in a way that is difficult to capture within a traditional guide, which means saying you only stick to one guide or not to be nearly impossible, sort of nullifying this entire update and meaning I would need to stick to only personal values, I guess, allowing more room for scamming and not less.

I thought that was an incredibly normal point? And I was asking about what users are supposed to do in this situation?

I didn't receive mail or anything and can't find the page where it was posted because multiple replies seem to have been deleted.

What the actual heck?

[Simon]

Posts made on global announcements unfortunately aren't searchable and don't show up under your "my posts" section - we aren't deleting your posts.

[angst]

Posts made on global announcements unfortunately aren't searchable and don't show up under your "my posts" section - we aren't deleting your posts.

Oh my god phew. Thank you for explaining this.

...I think an update of the original post encapsulating everyone's comments is definitely warranted!

[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