Pardon C$ Debt

[beemo]

I know the copy paste message they’ve all been giving us about how you’re not actually in debt because you get your pets back? But the more I think about it the more confused I am?

You are PERSON 1.
1. You start with 0 C$ and pet 1
2. You trade pet 1 for pet 2 (person 2, hacked account)
3. You trade pet 2 for 100 C$ (person 3, non-hacked account)
4. You trade 100 C$ for pet 4 (person 4, non-hacked account)

Then it all gets reversed, everyone gets their pets back, you included, but YOU still end up in 100 C$ debt? Why wouldn't it be at 0?

I’m kind of dumb and just woke up, so if someone could explain to me what I’m missing?

[Lacuna]

I know the copy paste message they’ve all been giving us about how you’re not actually in debt because you get your pets back? But the more I think about it the more confused I am?

You are PERSON 1.
1. You start with 0 C$ and pet 1
2. You trade pet 1 for pet 2 (person 2, hacked account)
3. You trade pet 2 for 100 C$ (person 3, non-hacked account)
4. You trade 100 C$ for pet 4 (person 4, non-hacked account)

Then it all gets reversed, everyone gets their pets back, you included, but YOU still end up in 100 C$ debt? Why wouldn't it be at 0?

I’m kind of dumb and just woke up, so if someone could explain to me what I’m missing?

In your example you started with just pet 1, but you would have pet 1 and pet 4 at the end. An unrelated trade (4) would not have been reversed. So you have pet 4 which you felt was valued at 100C$ and therefore spend that much on it, but you had give 100C$ to get back to having pet 1, so you are negative 100C$. The C$ trade that included no unique/affected pets kind of breaks the reversal chain so you keep the pet you traded for instead since the site can’t know it’s exactly those 100C$ you traded.

In this example case you could choose to ask the person you traded with in trade for for a trade back and if you explain it seems like users are pretty sympathetic, though it’s possible the poll here is skewed by only asking people affected/already knowledgeable. You could also sell pet 4 for 100 C$ again, or sell other pets or items to make more C$. If you got your balance zeroed by CS you would have gained 100C$ in value because you still own pet 4. C$ is real money currency but also unique because many people have tons of it without ever spending money and you can mitigate the “debt” without spending money as well. If you started with 0 C$ (as in the example) and never buy any you would not have been able to purchase store items or pets without trading regardless.

Also just wanted to say as this was clarified in another thread; CS’s security was not compromised. Security updates are being done to help protect CS users from other sites having poor security (and therefore data breaches where passwords are leaked) and help users who are not as educated or aware of good password practice. If your password is the same on multiple sites and one of those sites has a data breach, your CS account is vulnerable if it uses that password. Please make sure you update your password if it is not already unique, and also make sure your email is up to date and ALSO has a unique password.

[Lex.]

Why not just reverse the pet 4 trade so that debt isn't even needed?
Why not restore everything to what it was originally instead of introducing the debt issue?
I don't understand how debt is needed when the person with pet 1 can just have everything reversed, and go back to just owning pet 1. I'd rather be at that stage than in c$ debt.
No one asked to be in debt??
I'm sorry, I just don't understand why it's "solved" this way? Esp when it can be avoided? [all /genq]

[Lacuna]

Why not just reverse the pet 4 trade so that debt isn't even needed?
Why not restore everything to what it was originally instead of introducing the debt issue?
I don't understand how debt is needed when the person with pet 1 can just have everything reversed, and go back to just owning pet 1. I'd rather be at that stage than in c$ debt.
No one asked to be in debt??
I'm sorry, I just don't understand why it's "solved" this way? Esp when it can be avoided? [all /genq]

The system will not be able to identify how trade 4 is related to the original problem. It is not connected so it doesn’t get reversed when the goal is to return pet 2 to its original owner. If it was as simple as also reversing trade 4 I could see how that solution would be considered, but then pet 4 (in any situation) might also set off its own chain of reversals. It’s kind of like how sometimes item trades get squirrely because items (unlike pets) not not have unique IDs that can be tracked. C$ does not have unique IDs either, it’s just currency. Obviously no one asked to be in debt, but honestly I don’t think there is a solution that is a complete win-win for all players, both affected and not. There is no way to completely avoid every negative outcome. It is not fair for people to be in debt, or for people to get to keep extra pets (especially if they were very valuable, which would be necessary to go into a significant amount of debt), or for duplicate pets to be created in a high quantity.

[beemo]

Why not just reverse the pet 4 trade so that debt isn't even needed?
Why not restore everything to what it was originally instead of introducing the debt issue?
I don't understand how debt is needed when the person with pet 1 can just have everything reversed, and go back to just owning pet 1. I'd rather be at that stage than in c$ debt.
No one asked to be in debt??
I'm sorry, I just don't understand why it's "solved" this way? Esp when it can be avoided? [all /genq]

The system will not be able to identify how trade 4 is related to the original problem. It is not connected so it doesn’t get reversed when the goal is to return pet 2 to its original owner. If it was as simple as also reversing trade 4 I could see how that solution would be considered, but then pet 4 (in any situation) might also set off its own chain of reversals. It’s kind of like how sometimes item trades get squirrely because items (unlike pets) not not have unique IDs that can be tracked. C$ does not have unique IDs either, it’s just currency. Obviously no one asked to be in debt, but honestly I don’t think there is a solution that is a complete win-win for all players, both affected and not. There is no way to completely avoid every negative outcome. It is not fair for people to be in debt, or for people to get to keep extra pets (especially if they were very valuable, which would be necessary to go into a significant amount of debt), or for duplicate pets to be created in a high quantity.

Gotcha. I guess I could understand in extreme cases. Like you pay 5k C$ for a pet and get to keep the pet. It would be unfair if the balance was made 0, that's 10k CS, basically. It still does suck to be in debt to a pixel pet website. I wish there was more of a middle ground. Could those specific trades not just be MANUALLY reversed? If it were easy enough?

[bubblegumjello]

I understand the reasoning behind your point, but that is completely bologna and thus a reason why c$ needs to be better regulated. Trade 4 in that situation is still related and should be reversed. If staff cannot, or are not willing to fully restore accounts to their state prior to this hacking, then what is the point of even reversing trades in the first place? You simply can’t pick the primary and secondary trades affected, you are better off reversing EVERY trade that occurred from 6/15 to 6/24 (or whatever date bracket it is). This situation is completely unfair to almost everyone, I’m well aware but having c$ debt is completely ridiculous and unnecessary. No one is going to put another $5,$10,$20 USD into a system just to break even. Can you imagine if another site or game did this? It would be all over the news. The rioting and backlash would be a lot worse than this. Complete honesty here, CS Staff is very lucky the community are kind and patient.

I was not directly affected by this debt, but I am more than willing to having all my trades (over 200+ pets) reversed if it means EVERYONE gets their c$ and pets back. In a situation like this it should be all or nothing and picking/choosing trades to reverse over the span of weeks is just making the situation so much worse than it needs to be. Backdate the server prior to the hacking, that should have been done in the first place. Its been done before (even though it was accidental) and should be done again. Or if thats too much forgive c$ debt or again reverse tertiary trades.

Please do not get my tone wrong here, I am trying to come across with genuine concern, nothing cynical nor angry. I know this situation is just a nightmare for staff and I do feel horrible for all of you, I can’t imagine how much time you all have had to put aside for this plus the summer event coming up shortly. The player base also feels this and it sucks for everyone involved, whether it be directly or indirectly.

[Lacuna]

I’m honestly not sure what is meant by CS being better regulated. I do want to make it clear that I’m just providing an explanation based on following the logic of what is publicly known about what happened and the way CS works in general (like the unique ID thing). I don’t actually know how trade reversals look from the back end or anything. It also does appear that—and I don’t want to dismiss how anyone felt if they were impacted—the number of people and trades affected is small enough that a site wipe, rewind, or anything that impacted every single user on site, especially if it took away a large chunk of time, is not a fair or proportional response to this situation. I know me saying this elsewhere was misunderstood, but it is a fact and not a judgement on people who are involved: this did not affect that many people or trades in the grand scheme of things, and it affected even fewer people in regards to going into significant C$ debt, or C$ debt at all. Those people matter. Even still, any solution, response, or change has to consider how everyone will be impacted, not just those people. Your sentiment is noble, but I don’t think most people would agree to similarly drastic measures.

[Lex.]

Thank you Lacuna for the clarification! [Referring to your response to my post] I understand how the system cannot detect it, but I feel like staff should make the extra effort to ask users if they are in debt after the reversals to factor in the other trades that might have left them in debt, instead of leaving the players to fend for themselves.

@bubblegumjello ;; I also agree with you! While it is drastic to reverse ALL trades within the dates, I feel like the admins have a responsibility to give reasonings/explanations/follow-ups for the reversed trades. Communication is so important! The reason why people ran to the forums was because staff didn't give hardly ANY accompanying messages with the reversed trades. At the time when we got no notifs [I'm unsure if we still don't] no one would've known unless they actively looked their pets/traded. I feel like the admins that reversed the trades should've asked relevant questions, mostly "Are you in the negatives with c$?"
That can then open the door for a trade reversal to get the c$ back by reversing the respective trade that had the c$. Even if it is a lengthy process, I'd rather work with staff to get my c$ back than be forced to sell my other hard earned pets/items for c$ that shouldn't even be taken from my account.

[ActualWoodelf]

I’m honestly not sure what is meant by CS being better regulated. I do want to make it clear that I’m just providing an explanation based on following the logic of what is publicly known about what happened and the way CS works in general (like the unique ID thing). I don’t actually know how trade reversals look from the back end or anything. It also does appear that—and I don’t want to dismiss how anyone felt if they were impacted—the number of people and trades affected is small enough that a site wipe, rewind, or anything that impacted every single user on site, especially if it took away a large chunk of time, is not a fair or proportional response to this situation. I know me saying this elsewhere was misunderstood, but it is a fact and not a judgement on people who are involved: this did not affect that many people or trades in the grand scheme of things, and it affected even fewer people in regards to going into significant C$ debt, or C$ debt at all. Those people matter. Even still, any solution, response, or change has to consider how everyone will be impacted, not just those people. Your sentiment is noble, but I don’t think most people would agree to similarly drastic measures.

Thanks for explaining your thoughts Lacuna, I know I appreciate the dialogue about things as we all try to better understand the situation. One question I have though is that it seems to keep coming up that not that many people were affected, but it's also being said that copies of the involved pets can't be done because it would be large amounts of pets and would negatively impact the economy. I don't get how both can be true? Even if 'only' about 40-50 players were affected directly, it seems like if there's too many pets involved to feel good making copies, then enough pets are involved to negatively affect the economy already...

[PinkAngel]

Players who received the “free” C$/Pets/Items were under the assumption that they could profit off those/spend. In a way seen as expendable without consequence.

If a player (M2) gets 500C$ from a hacked account (M1).

M2 now has 500C$ of expendable income.
M2 decides to purchase a 500C$ pet from M3.

This leaves M1 at 0C$
This leaves M2 at 0C$ + pet.
This leaves M3 at 500C$

The trade is reversed between M1 and M2.
M2 does not have 500C$, so ChickenSmoothie pays M1 the 500C$ on M2’s behalf.

This leaves M1 at 500C$
This leaves M2 at 0C$ + Pet
This leaves M3 at 500C$
This leaves ChickenSmoothie at -500C$


Because ChickenSmoothie generated 500C$, someone has to eat the cost, therefore puts the debt onto M2.

This leaves M1 at 500C$
This leaves M2 at -500C$ + Pet
This leaves M3 at 500C$
This leaves ChickenSmoothie at 0C$

This is more of a simplistic example of what I am understanding from this. There is obviously M3+ people involved in the trades, but I gave M1-M3 as a more condensed idea.

I understand that it is not fair that players would essentially get free pets, and be unfair to the players who did not. But regardless, it is a debt that players were unaware they would fall into.

And there is no guarantee that M2 would even be able to get M3-M∞ to agree to re-trade the C$ for the pet. Could players then report M3-M∞ to ChickenSmoothie staff, requesting the trades be reversed and so on?

What are the recommendations for players to even work off the debt? Why can it not be shared publicly instead of requiring players to send in tickets. The “how to work off C$ debt” topic can be locked to maintain player transparency. (Unless there is a public post? It isn’t easy to find unless it’s on the official announcement page)

What if players were sent C$ without context and they spent it? Are they in debt even though they did not participate/post in the free pet section?

Are COPPA players also in debt? How do they explain to their parents that they are in debt to a game site?

(This post is not meant to sound aggressive/mean. It is hard to understand emotion/tone through text. I am just seeing if I still have the correct idea)

Edit: fixed word error