WHY PEOPLE ARE QUITTING CS- A Discussion

[lyney]

[quote=/"Angelicangel252"]

i mentioned this on another forum similar to this, but i’d love to hear everyone’s opinions!!

as a compromise for the folks that want rereleased store pets and the folks that don’t, i think store pet 2nd gens would be fantastic!! imagine a raven dog x liontail litter, or a punk dog x marionette litter. i’d give anything to see some store pet 2nd gens :3

As for those who DO want the re-release of store pets, I think a single paid for with c$ December 18th box could be a decent enough solution. Wouldn't dilute the rarities too much, just enough to encourage more collecting, if anything.

I like this idea but it would fall under the concept of a "loot box"/"gacha" and I think some countries don't allow those at all?

Hmm, then would a selector bypass the issue 🤔[/quote]

i think that allowing people to choose what store pet they want would simply break the economy. the current reason for the highest value store pets are because they cannot be obtained through re-releases, so i cannot fathom how many people would go for eat/drink me's, cerbs, the raven, etc. their values would drastically drop because of how many people would get them.

[ShadowKatto]

This was brought up like 60 pages ago, but it seems relevant: a chat box. This would allow players to have more 'real time' discussions without needing to and allow one-off thoughts to be said without players needing to hunt down or create a forum for it. It allows online members to say 'hi' to each other and talk about little things without having to shift between dozens of different forums.

The live chat would also help to generate excitement around rollover/during events in regards to seeing the new outcomes (I often see countdowns to rollovers on other sites and it's a great bonding experience where everyone is hyped). If staff members participated, it could also bridge the gap between them and players as typing something in a chatbox is much quicker than posting to a forum, and more people would see it.

If spam is a concern, posts could be limited to once every minute or 45 seconds or whatever to help negate that.

I've heard there was a chat box during CS's early days

[angst]

-snip-

Just wanted to add some info to this. There isn't a specific amount of warnings that will automatically equal a ban so its hard to tell users how 'close' they are to a ban, but just in a general sense you aren't going to be in danger of a ban unless we see you consistently ignoring the rules or refusing to follow rules. If you aren't doing those things than there isn't really a specific 'danger' of being banned in the sense you are talking, there is no strike system. And generally we will take other steps before an outright ban, like a temp ban or temp post approvals. There are a few cases were a ban may be immediate but thats generally only in extreme cases like posting something extremely inappropriate for CS or cheating ie multiple accounts or funneling pets to one account. Per our rules, one account existing only to benefit another is against our rules and if the only thing your friend's account did was trade with you and send you stuff it will be interpreted as cheating. Though I think our current rules are more clear on this than they were in the past.

i've tried asking about this on the thread a few times now, but what exactly is the point of having strikes on an account if CS as a whole does not have a strike system that utilizes these strikes on our accounts? if they fundamentally mean the exact same thing, why is there even a difference between verbal warnings and strikes? like, why do these two concepts exist if there is no fundamental difference, and they mean the same thing? what determines getting a numbered strike on your account versus a warning if they're the same thing? /gen

This is a very good question - they do seem to do the same thing and serve the same punitive purpose.

...Especially since I'm concerned that "just don't break the rules" doesn't seem to work when users are recalling times they misunderstood rules or felt they were following a rule but had little to no recourse against the warning and/or have had their concerns dismissed. There have many instances of this happening on this thread, suggestion it's a pattern. It's not personal towards any one or group of moderators but if enough people are struggling it's a problem.

[CHINARIZING]

Along with the bluntness and overall refusal of staff to really change or make any effort to change how they are perceived, I see the staff as... clinical.

On other things with active mods, such as subreddits, I see mods actively interacting and doing non-mod things. They joke around, they mess around with users in a lighthearted way, they host fun, silly competitions and threads, etc. But here, I feel absolutely zero connection to the staff. Everything including them feels sterile and clinical. Like a "NO FUN ALLOWED" zone. I am just saying how I perceive the staff, not necessarily how they are—I'm sure a lot or all of them are warm in other interactions. But on CS, most of the time I see them, I just see them popping on to defend their moderation style or explain behind the scenes things or give warnings.

Add this to the opaqueness of CS and the disconnection between users and staff becomes 100x worse.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Along with the bluntness and overall refusal of staff to really change or make any effort to change how they are perceived, I see the staff as... clinical.

On other things with active mods, such as subreddits, I see mods actively interacting and doing non-mod things. They joke around, they mess around with users in a lighthearted way, they host fun, silly competitions and threads, etc. But here, I feel absolutely zero connection to the staff. Everything including them feels sterile and clinical. Like a "NO FUN ALLOWED" zone. I am just saying how I perceive the staff, not necessarily how they are—I'm sure a lot or all of them are warm in other interactions. But on CS, most of the time I see them, I just see them popping on to defend their moderation style or explain behind the scenes things or give warnings.

There are a lot of places were mods are interactive with users as regular players. I see it a lot in the UMAs and Oekaki boards. And you see them time to time on forum games. It is not all mods, but it is true that most of them don't often participate in the general discussion forums

[Angelicangel252]

Hmm, then would a selector bypass the issue 🤔

A selector would, however now it would be unfair to those who had to give blood sweat and tears for those old pets

By that logic any change for ease of access of any kind is unfair to those who struggled before. Would it not make their life easier too?

(An issue with a selector I can see happening is people enmasse targeting the rarer pets and thus lowering their rarity as a consequence, so... Probably unlikely to happen ever. The inevitable inaccessibility and scarcity of older store pets is a bit detrimental to collecting on a general scale, tho, and I think it's an issue that will have to be addressed someday somehow.)

[ShadowKatto]

Along with the bluntness and overall refusal of staff to really change or make any effort to change how they are perceived, I see the staff as... clinical.

On other things with active mods, such as subreddits, I see mods actively interacting and doing non-mod things. They joke around, they mess around with users in a lighthearted way, they host fun, silly competitions and threads, etc. But here, I feel absolutely zero connection to the staff. Everything including them feels sterile and clinical. Like a "NO FUN ALLOWED" zone. I am just saying how I perceive the staff, not necessarily how they are—I'm sure a lot or all of them are warm in other interactions. But on CS, most of the time I see them, I just see them popping on to defend their moderation style or explain behind the scenes things or give warnings.

Add this to the opaqueness of CS and the disconnection between users and staff becomes 100x worse.

I've never heard a truer statement in my life

[beemo]

i think it's already been stated many times, that store pets/limited store items won't be coming back. and to go back on that because some community members want them to be re-released, would be against what they said before.

making store pets not part of a complete collection was a step in a good direction. i think that making 2nd gen pets is also a really good suggestion.

[keayi]

Along with the bluntness and overall refusal of staff to really change or make any effort to change how they are perceived, I see the staff as... clinical.

On other things with active mods, such as subreddits, I see mods actively interacting and doing non-mod things. They joke around, they mess around with users in a lighthearted way, they host fun, silly competitions and threads, etc. But here, I feel absolutely zero connection to the staff. Everything including them feels sterile and clinical. Like a "NO FUN ALLOWED" zone. I am just saying how I perceive the staff, not necessarily how they are—I'm sure a lot or all of them are warm in other interactions. But on CS, most of the time I see them, I just see them popping on to defend their moderation style or explain behind the scenes things or give warnings.

Add this to the opaqueness of CS and the disconnection between users and staff becomes 100x worse.

I see staff playing forum games all the time, and they have a high presence in the event-related threads at the moment! ^^" This is a little extreme...

[Infailia]

-snip-

This is a very good question - they do seem to do the same thing and serve the same punitive purpose.

...Especially since I'm concerned that "just don't break the rules" doesn't seem to work when users are recalling times they misunderstood rules or felt they were following a rule but had little to no recourse against the warning and/or have had their concerns dismissed. There have many instances of this happening on this thread, suggestion it's a pattern. It's not personal towards any one or group of moderators but if enough people are struggling it's a problem.

While I don't claim to know exactly why, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the strike system is in place so that staff is able to keep track of how many times a player has broken a rule. While there's no set amount to get a ban, seeing a user with, let's say, 15 strikes does lend into to staff paying closer attention to them and that player getting greater repercussions than a simple verbal warning.

Warnings are much harder to track, and someone could slide by with dozens upon dozens of them while a strike system helps keep things organized and lets other staff members know something happened.