Breeding Questions & Suggestions

[Meeki]

If it was required for contact, I'd totally support that and retract my suggestion. All I worry about is going into a raffle and finding two pairs I was not ready for but really could not dispute because of the open permission thing. surprised

The only thing I'd worry about after that was making sure both owners were contacted. How would a colorist know?  

[Sayuri_Nitta]

I always think it's polite to PM someone and mention that you're using their Soq for a breeding, regardless of it being open permission XD;

Funnily enough that was how Marius + Neve's relationship started, we decided to develop them with rp =)  

[Sabin Duvert]

Two suggestions, then, going off of that:

A) Open Permission could be replaced with the Lover's Rock - esentially be a listing for Soquili who the owner doesn't yet have plans for - and make the person contact the other to post permission if they decide to go for that breeding. Especially since Lover's Rock is already set up to say whether or not the owner is looking for a RP or Non-RP'd setup.

or

B) Not require any kind of additional posting, but DO require them to PM the other owner. That way, if the other owner had been planning on entering another couple, presumably they'll be popping into the raffle thread, and can say then that they didn't give permission? Instead of requiring an additional post?  

[EchoLimaFoxtrot]

For the Open Permission - it is the person that submits their soquili for "Open" that decides the stipulations and requirements that must be met to enter their soquili. Quite a few of them require that they must be PMed before their soquili can be entered.

So if you wanted to put a soquili up for Open Permission and were worried about that kind of stuff, then it it woould be your responsibility to define the limitations of your soquili smile

And - I thought you always had the right to say "I am sorry, but I would like So-and-So-Soquili of mine not entered and this one entered instead".... but could be wrong? (and as mentioned, should talk with your 'partner' in the breeding if you wanted to do that so they don't get upset, etc. For example, I have spoken with people that I enter my soquili with, just so they understand what breedings are "priority", etc...which is usually RP and/or time dictated. ) ninja  

[endejester]

True I think, some people back off graciously but I'm sure others may be upset. Depends entirely I suspect on whom your dealing with <3

*leans on Elf and noms some lovely little green apple candies from Japan* X-3


But perhaps it would not be a bad suggestion for people to move some of their open permisions out of open and into Lover's rock? I guess that would almost fit what an "open for asking" Thread would do?  

[Meeki]

Ok, looking at the lists, I'm mistaking open permission with selective permission, but my same worry applies. With selective permission, you're still giving those pets the right to breed. So you could still end up with six couples with the right to try in raffles until a basket is acquired, even though only two can actually be entered. So you could still lose your personal choice or chance to enter your dream couple because of selective permissions, if the rule was added to allow both your slots to be attained by others.

It's hard to keep track of them when there's so many saying until a basket is acquired and you're allowed to have selective permissions with the same horse multiple times with different horses owned by others at the same time. It's just so chaotic from my standpoint.

Not to mention it says this:

~Are valid, open permissions during their term. If a Soquili has permission to breed with another until they get baskets, either owner may enter them in every raffle until they get baskets withOUT necessarily asking the other owner before each event.  

[EchoLimaFoxtrot]

*nods* I agree. Have to be careful who it is redface

That might be a good idea for the open permissions vs. Lover's Rock. Sounds almost like a personal choice than a rule enactment?

For the rules....

We had been working on enforcing the "can only enter one "par" yourself each month", since that was a rule. We went back through the raffles and kept track who entered a winning pair. So, that is not new. Some soquili probably fell through the cracks (we're only human), but that has been done for awhile now and is not new. If it matters or not, I do not know. I do know that if it was caught for one month it was really kept track of the entire one since people had been told they could not enter another soquili to even "attempt" to win another, just to keep it fair to the rules *shrugs*

As for if it's fair for a person.... I honestly don't know. I can see both sides of the issue. I always interpeted the previous rule that you cannot enter two pairs yourself; not one has to be entered by you. I don't think I like the new wording that you have to enter one pair if you have two involved in the raffle. Just because some soquili might have more than one co-owner involved where both are involved in the raffle - so how do you determine who might be "breaking" the rule or not? Went around full circle there, I am sorry I have no definate opinion on that subject, but I can see where there could be some issues, etc ^^;  

[Harperking]

I think we are all talking circles at this point xd

Either way this goes we can simplify it I think. A lot of it comes down to permissions and how they are given. If it the way it is now, then I would absolutely want to be able to give blanket permission to some people to enter on my behalf at any time since my schedule causes me to miss a lot of the raffles. (I would let Foalen enter for me, for example since we have several pairings together).

If we change it so that any two people can enter the raffle with the pairings, the folks will HAVE to take the responsibility to set their own permissions solid. Using my earlier-in-the-thread hypothetical example: "Bob can breed his mare Aercher to my stallion Maush at any time unless there is already a pair with one of my soq entered into the raffle by someone other than myself." There are lots of possible ways to set permissions up to limit what can & can't be done.

And I think open permissions are causing to much hassle at this point. Scrap them and just have an "available - contact owner" list.  

[Katjive]

I have a question regarding the co-owned Soquili and the breeding raffles. I have a stipulation in my co-ownership agreement that if there is a third basket, the other owner would like to be considered for it. (I have breeding rights) Not only that, but I want to give her one, because the Soquili she co-owned with me was my very first one. If this new rule was put in place, I wouldn't be able to give her a basket if there were ever three, because she's busy trying for a breeding with two pairs already, and that's downright depressing. I suppose I could give her one still, if she didn't have two pairs in the raffle. So, if this became a rule, I'd have to wait until one of her pairs win before I could start trying for a breeding, even though neither of us are trying to "cheat" the system? D'you think that maybe, if I PMed the colorist and let them know what it was that I wanted, that it could be an exception to this rule?

I'm sooo confuzzzled right now. whee  

[Kamiki]

Katjive

So, if this became a rule, I'd have to wait until one of her pairs win before I could start trying for a breeding, even though neither of us are trying to "cheat" the system? D'you think that maybe, if I PMed the colorist and let them know what it was that I wanted, that it could be an exception to this rule?

But according to the people who want this rule, what you're doing IS "cheating the system" :/

But its situations like this why I'm not a supporter, unless its in conjunction with the rule swirly and Silent suggested. (basically you could still give her the 3rd basket, but if she accepted, she could only enter 1 pair for the rest of the month, which I think is plenty fair).  

[Ivory_Feld]

It may just be me, but isn't this all something people should be doing themselves? Lack of communication between owners and who's entering whom can be solved. Ask the other owner.

Open Permission? Ask the other owner if you can enter w/ theirs.
Selective Permission? Ask about the other owners current plans.

I haven't ever run across too many of my (or others) pairs being entered because I talk to everyone. If I want an Open Permission soquili involved with mine, I check in with the owner asking if they have previous plans and if they don't I make sure I'm clear to enter w/ theirs.


Sorry if I'm repeating anyone here.
sweatdrop

I'm more concerned about the other rules. Communication is communication. You forfeit your chance at pairs you want when you don't talk to others. Therefor, "ask others 1st" is a given rule.  

[Valdmir Talamore]

I've noticed that recently there have not been any low luck raffles at all and I know its up to the colorist and all, but 4 moths of trying to get on to the low luck then some colorist don't even have them some months? I think that is making the low luck problem worse and not better. And while I understand colorist choice and I understand that its great that the colorist get to do what they want to do, but you have to admit it can be rather bias( be it to friends or fancy pairs etc etc ) . I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but if colorist are only going to do a limited amount of slots shouldn't low luck have priority over colorist choice?  

[Thamin]

Ameh

on an earlier note, Thamin, you can always check the list of pairs on the front page, which doesn't require image loading at all! (providing use of the "find" option available on all compatible browsers)

The list on the front page does not say who posted each pair, thus everyone would still have to go through and find the posts and see.  

[Ameh]

Thamin

Ameh

on an earlier note, Thamin, you can always check the list of pairs on the front page, which doesn't require image loading at all! (providing use of the "find" option available on all compatible browsers)

The list on the front page does not say who posted each pair, thus everyone would still have to go through and find the posts and see.

Ameh

The pairs list doesn't state who entered them, but I would hope that if I saw my own couple on the list with another person and didn't enter them myself... that I wouldn't conclude that I entered while I was sleeping or someone mysteriously entered while logged onto my name or something. I think or hope it's common sense to know whether or not you or your partner entered a soquili pair? @_@

 

[Thamin]

Ameh

Thamin

Ameh

on an earlier note, Thamin, you can always check the list of pairs on the front page, which doesn't require image loading at all! (providing use of the "find" option available on all compatible browsers)

The list on the front page does not say who posted each pair, thus everyone would still have to go through and find the posts and see.

Ameh

The pairs list doesn't state who entered them, but I would hope that if I saw my own couple on the list with another person and didn't enter them myself... that I wouldn't conclude that I entered while I was sleeping or someone mysteriously entered while logged onto my name or something. I think or hope it's common sense to know whether or not you or your partner entered a soquili pair? @_@

That only helps when you are trying to post the pair for yourself. Your own name would be on the list only once anyway since only one person can post a couple for you, so why would you look for your own name? It will only be on there once, you will always be able to post one of your soquili couples and someone else will be able to post a couple with one of your soquili according to the rules.

I am speaking for those that are trying to post a couple for another person. For example, I am to be posting a pair with Antigra soon. If I see her name on the list I have no clue if she posted the pair or if someone else posted the pair, thus I would still have to go through each page and see. If she posted the pair, I'd be able to. If not, I'd have to get her to or wait. I would still have to go through each and every page.