![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Soul Badge
![]() Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: in heaven
Posts: 1,116
|
no objections
__________________
FIZZY BUBBLES INFO IS NOW ON UPN HERE ![]() Thanks to my best friend Missingno Master for the banner óÓŇň furry, witch, and pansexual. Little (little age of 2-4) Hater of loss meme Little (space): someone who goes to a younger sense of mind to deal with stress and anxiety. crazy in love with my boyfriend AcendedDailga |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Insanity
![]() |
Sounds perfectly fine to me
__________________
![]() I fill my lungs with everything You want someone that I can't be You say it's insanity, but I say that's my life Fizzy Bubbles |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
An actual game I made!
![]() Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,218
|
Looks good to me. Only thing I'd change is add a little something to the rule about not trading starters, to make it clear that a temporary trade is permitted to evolve one's starter, so people who start with stuff like Abra or Karrablast know they're not screwed out of the final evolution.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
a quick fly cuppa
![]() |
You should mention the adopted mon trading rule too, so we don't have another Seedotgate.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Blades and Butterflies
![]() Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,776
|
Now that I think about it, I should also mention gifting is allowed...
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
Sayonara Bye Bye
![]() Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,003
|
Quote:
Gifting is allowed?! Yaaaas queen!
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Blades and Butterflies
![]() Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,776
|
Ok, made some edits.
Raves (and everyone else) - do we want to continue enforcing this rule? I personally don't see an issue with trainers adopting Pokemon and trading them as a "workaround" for the limit, since an adoption has to be used either way.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
![]() |
I personally think it was something that wasn't a problem that was made one.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
a quick fly cuppa
![]() |
Yeah, we should scrap what was an unwritten rule.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
An actual game I made!
![]() Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,218
|
I never actually saw it as a problem to begin with. I wouldn't object if we were to get rid of the rule altogether, personally
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Blades and Butterflies
![]() Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,776
|
My apologies for not returning to this sooner - there's a lot going on, which I see as a positive thing!
SO, with the Cable Club more or less operable, I would like to move on to the White Market and trade discussion etiquette. In particular, I want to return to the discussion that began here regarding interfering with the trades of others, as I feel this is a good jumping-off point for the types of discussion I feel we should be having at this point. What I'd like to know is how the community feels about White Market Culture, about what rules and restrictions should be in place with regards to trading behavior, and whether the infamous nature of "bid wars" needs to be addressed, or simply accepted as a part of FB. As always, your feedback is welcomed and appreciated! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Shake it!
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 522
|
I don't have much to add but I do want to say that I think some of that rule is important. More specifically, I think there should be a rule against trade sniping. Period. That is something that can definitely cause hurt feelings and drama.
As for not being able to interfere at all like if you see someone who is clearly being taken advantage of and isn't aware I don't like the idea of not being able to say anything. I feel like we should be able to speak up and at least make them aware through PM. But at the same time I understand why that rule was in place and don't know how I feel about it being taken away when I look at the whole picture. If everyone is allowed to speak up about whatever as long as there is no sniping involved I can still see that leading to drama in some circumstances. So I'm pretty torn about that aspect of the rule and I feel I could lean either way but I'm probably more for scrapping it.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Blades and Butterflies
![]() Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,776
|
The 5-candy maximum per trade rule in the Cable Club has been a source of frequent issues over the past month or so. The other mods and myself had noticed small violations (6 or 7 instead of 5), but we let these slide - unfortunately, violations have become more and more egregious, and while we have addressed this with members in the past privately, the rule continues to be broken. My sense from members is that they genuinely don't know that it exists - the first inclination would be to make an announcement so that it's abundantly clear that THIS IS A RULE - but there is a hesitation here, which is why I present this to you all.
At this point, the mods have two options: 1) Amend the rule so that the 5 candy maximum only applies to Pokemon trades, OR 2) Begin enforcing this rule more sternly after announcing it and drawing more attention to it in the Cable Club. In many of these cases, the spirit of the law is not necessarily being violated - these are not instances where people are throwing their weight around in candies to win bid wars, as was the concern that this rule was supposed to address. HOWEVER, it is still a violation of the rule - my question is - does this violation really negatively impact people? I am loathe to enforce a rule simply because it exists, which is why I am bringing this issue to the development thread rather than just straight up enforcing it (though I have no problem doing so). Feedback on this matter is greatly appreciated. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Rainbow Badge
![]() Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 963
|
I honestly keep forgetting that this rule exists, especially in currency exchanges. I find it strange that we cannot trade, say, $1000 for 10 Candies, but $500 for 5 Candies x2 is dandy - either this is an exploit that should be disallowed, or it's not that bad to begin with, and in that case the rule itself is a little baffling to interpret.
I understand it was first put in place to prevent veterans from steamrolling newbies in trades, absolutely. It was a necessity. But when it comes to fun and games, I don't really like to err on the side of caution - I'd prefer to loosen up a bit and see how it goes, irresponsible as it may be. I think we have a solid enough community where disputes can be settled without dumping 25 Candies on the competition, and with that hope in mind, I'd like to see this rule revised. Perhaps the best case scenario would be to limit which kind of trades this rule applies for - maybe not for currency exchanges, but for Pokémon and Mega Stones/Z-Crystals only? I don't know, excessive freedom is always tempting after prolonged periods of restriction, and maybe I'm making that very mistake, but I'd much prefer a more relaxed approach to several old rules ![]()
__________________
Last edited by Maskerade; 07-10-2017 at 05:14 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Fog Badge
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
People are desperate for levels. Sitting around watching your mass of level 1s not getting any gains over a long period is really tough, especially if you're a newer player to FB with no candy stockpile. No one should have to rely on Daycare and once a week candies to fix the level drought (which it doesn't).
This has been an ongoing discussion but it seems clear that this is a widespread issue that is hurting a lot of people to the point of them flagrantly breaking the rules. The best way to fix this would be to implement a short-term solution to, figuratively speaking, bring rain to end the drought. Like I said, there were several good suggestions in the level up thread about this (even the 'sparring gym' was a good idea). It seems to me like this issue is the next one that needs to be tackled once IQ is taken care of. Punishing people because they are level starved is the wrong way to go about this. I also firmly stand by the opinion that we need to be extremely encouraging updaters to start distributing levels (and common items) more freely and be more relaxed with this. This isn't TessB anymore - there should be nothing wrong with giving levels to Pokemon who had a part to play in an update, even if it wasn't a battle - especially if they are lower leveled. I have been lurking around and I still have yet to see updaters relax themselves on this. Guys, seriously - let's loosen up, yeah? If a Pokemon had a role to play in an update, feel free to give it a level. No one is going to be mad at you about it, in fact, I bet it would be strongly encouraged. People are used to FB moving at a snail's pace - well, it certainly doesn't need to move at the speed of light, sure, but there's really no reason for it to ever have moved as slowly as it did during the Tess era, and right now we still have a lot of that overall mindset that we need to outgrow. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 |
a quick fly cuppa
![]() |
My thoughts are that the 5 candies per trade rule should be made clearer, but that if candies for pokedollars are the only transfer done, then the rule should be lifted.
Basically, you can only offer a maximum of 5 candies for a non-currency trade, such as items or pokemon, but for a straight candy-to-pokedollar trade, the limit is lifted. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
Sayonara Bye Bye
![]() Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,003
|
Oh my God, this rule entirely slipped my mind, I'm so sorry!
But yeah, what it boils down to is people are desperate for levels. Pretty much the only time this rule is being broken is in the "buying" of candies. The problem with levels needs to be addressed in a meaningful way. Dealing with this is treating the symptom without treating the cause. I don't see why we can't just buy Rare Candies from the Pokemart.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
An actual game I made!
![]() Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,218
|
I'm gonna echo the general sentiment here that the spirit of the rule should be emphasized here. The 5-candy limit was to prevent bidding wars from getting completely insane. In instances where people are merely using their Pokédollars to buy Candies off of other people, on the other hand, I see no reason why that should be limited to 5 Candies, especially when this could be easily circumvented.
Should the rule continue to exist? In my opinion, yes and no. Yes in that we need to be able to keep bidding wars from getting out of hand, and no in that the restriction doesn't seem right for things like outright buying Rare Candies from someone. At least, that's how I see it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Savior of Pokemon-kind
![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,080
|
Yeah, I honestly forgot that this limit existed outside of trades involving Pokemon. Mostly because the purpose was to limit bidding wars and have more of an equal playing field between new and older players going for the same Pokemon.
I'd much rather see it applied in the way I thought it was. Only on trades containing Pokemon and perhaps on ones containing certain items. "Trades containing X can have a maximum of Y candies and Z Pokedollars on one side" with X being whatever we want to limit bidding wars on (Pokemon, rare items, etc), and Y and Z being said limits. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
Sayonara Bye Bye
![]() Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,003
|
Or we could make it simple and keep a hard trade limit in the CC, and simply allow people to buy candies in the PokeMart.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Volcano Badge
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,464
|
I second Tate's suggestion. Let's keep it simple.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
Shake it!
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 522
|
I completely agree, I'm also someone that feels that candies should be able to be bought.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Dragon's Tears
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Searching for light
Posts: 6,471
|
![]()
I was not aware of the rule as I had thought it was one of those that had been done away with the advent of "gifting" and such. I saw others had been trading Candies in bulk so I did the same.
That being said, I have felt some of the recent terms of trades have been approaching the "iffy" borderline of what should be acceptable, but that's just me personally. At any rate, I'd be all for buyable Candies, as well as lifting the regulations on direct Candies for Cash exchanges.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Weavile Pillow
![]() |
I'm all for the ability to purchase candies with Pokedollars as well, because MORE PURCHASE OPTIONS and MORE LEVELS. Maybe at $100 per candy? Two RP posts would then be 5 Rare Candies if that's what we wanted out of our money.
__________________
![]() ![]() Avatar made by din-of-hyrule Battlecut made by the crazy Daisy! *happy snek sounds* Twitch | YouTube | Twitter | Wild Future |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
Fog Badge
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
I'm one of the biggest advocates for making Candies far more accessible, but $100 per candy is way too cheap. IF we go that route, and I'm not entirely convinced we should (nor am I entirely against it), Candies should be at least $300/ea.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|