Breeding Questions & Suggestions

[Lilwolfpard]

i hate to be one to shove around my opinion but XD;


I can understand where you are coming from with the rating system. It would be something that some colorists would like, i personally do not.


I have no issues really rolling for things *shrug* It is a bit restricting but at the same time i find it makes it more challenging ^^; and i like challenges now and then. Also, if you cant tell from 100% of breedings ive done in the past, i do not pass on fullbody clothing traits to children. I will pass on jewlery, and accessories, hell even what ende did with the sleeves i would do. But i think if we do that rating system, and both are full on cosplays where all they had edits wise was fullbody clothing and custom hair... Ide be a little "uuh.... what do i do to edit besides custom hair?". If the rating system was in place and both pairs where fullbody clothing edited, then they would be hirer up on the scale ne, and i personally do not pass on fullbody clothing, its jsut something i dont think should be passed on. In the end people would "wut" when the babies wouldnt have fullbody clothing and theyd probably claim i was being unfair, if i went by the rating system.  

[Meeki]

Honestly, the only thing that matters are the colorists opinion when it comes to how the pets are determined. I've never been disappointed with a breeding I acquired on Gaia, be it through raffle or a bribe and I'm sure many were dice rolled.

A lot of the colorists don't edit foals. In fact, I thought that was a rule at some point but I could be wrong. Since the stage is such a short one, I really think it would be easier for the edits to appear on the adults and the racial traits on the foals, as they have been thus far.  

[EchoLimaFoxtrot]

So - I thought of this last night, slept on it, and still feel it is a concern.

I have two concerns with the "all co-owners should be be docked off in a breeding".

1) It sounds like a lot of the talks are around the idea that there would be 3 baskets, and the third one is 'gifted' to the co-owner. But there is never a guarantee for 3 baskets, so why should it count against a co-owner if they might not get one in the first place? So then you'd be punishing someone who doesn't have any say, and chances are wouldn't have any benefit either.

2) I also think that it's a bit too dictating on what people do with their baskets. If someone is given full breeding rights in their co-ownership agreement, shouldn't it in theory already be implied that they get no decide on any extra baskets - which they'd have to talk with the other soquili's owner anyways (again, in theory).

I know this isn't suppose to be a "debate" but wanted to add another view point to the suggestion ^^;  

[TheMadHatter]

Sabin, you meant Skye not me ^.^

Yes Skye and I breed a lot of our things together but if you notice we also don't co-own any of the things we're breeding now do we? Between us we only co-own three pets out of our, what 40? Nyx (who i have dont have rights two anyway and am taking my name off the tag of, Granatis who Skye won and gave me as a gift, and Discord who was a gift for the two of us from Cuter) None of our co-owned pets have ever been entered in raffles but since we're both in agreement of the idea of restricting it we wouldn't disagree with it were that to happen.

I do have co-owned pets i've bred before (Uhane) but there has never been a conflict with Gelfin entering two pairs herself AND me entering Uhane. Had there been she would not have gotten a basket if Uhane wasn't suppose to count for her since it would not be fair.  

[TheMadHatter]

EchoLimaFoxtrot

1) It sounds like a lot of the talks are around the idea that there would be 3 baskets, and the third one is 'gifted' to the co-owner. But there is never a guarantee for 3 baskets, so why should it count against a co-owner if they might not get one in the first place? So then you'd be punishing someone who doesn't have any say, and chances are wouldn't have any benefit either.

Because if you enter two pairs yourself and then have your name as a co-owner on a third you have to state that it -does not count- toward your breedings for the month. That should in theory mean that it does not count for you because you are not getting anything out of it. It is a loophole and a cheat for people to be able to enter soquili like that with the chance that they might get 'gifted' a basket.

Yes there are people who would genuinely gift a basket to their co-owner but there are also people who would do it that way JUST to raise their chances for baskets.  

[Lilwolfpard]

Meeki

Honestly, the only thing that matters are the colorists opinion when it comes to how the pets are determined. I've never been disappointed with a breeding I acquired on Gaia, be it through raffle or a bribe and I'm sure many were dice rolled.

A lot of the colorists don't edit foals. In fact, I thought that was a rule at some point but I could be wrong. Since the stage is such a short one, I really think it would be easier for the edits to appear on the adults and the racial traits on the foals, as they have been thus far.

Sirenz has told us it is our choice. She says, edit the foals if the breedings are long overdue usually XD;  

[EchoLimaFoxtrot]

But to say that is the only loophole would be burying one's head in the sand. Yes, it might solve /one/ thing, but there are ways around it. I can easily think of a few just off the top of my head, and while I don't agree with just trying to find loopholes I also don't think it is ethically right for the shop to dictate what you cannot do with your baskets.

But again, just as it might be seen as a way to raise chances for a basket, there is still no way to know that they'd get one at all.  

[Roniel REVOLUTION]

Was there ever an official ruling on the whole basket exchange thing?  

[Meeki]

Elf, not all co-owners should be docked off.

My suggestion is for those that are entered SPECIFICALLY in that raffle because the co-owner doesn't have rights.

For example:

Say I entered Angelique and Soth in the raffle. Then Cherie entered Anarchy and Antichrist. That's my two couple limit right there.

Say Hungry Ghost comes along and wants to breed Rigor Mortis and Tshibala. I co-own Rigor Mortis, so clearly the only way he can enter the raffle is if I have no rights to that breeding.

As such, if she wins, I should not receive co-ownership rights to be gifted a basket from that breeding, even if a third basket is acquired.

Even if they don't have any baskets, if a couple is entered under the specifications that that co-owner is not receiving rights to it for it to be qualified, it should be honored in the event of a win.  

[EchoLimaFoxtrot]

Meeki

Even if they don't have any baskets, if a couple is entered under the specifications that that co-owner is not receiving rights to it for it to be qualified, it should be honored in the event of a win.

Honored, okay... I agree with that, I just don't think it's right to have the shop rule over it. And even if there was a ruling, I don't think it would stop those that are so inclined to raise their chances.  

[TheMadHatter]

The shop already tells you what you can and cant do with your baskets XD There's a rule that says you can only own one basket from any given breeding. That right there is telling you what you can and cant do with them since that would prevent someone from taking/being gifted a basket and then co-owning another/two with the rights to that pet.

Like bulls said. It's just a way to enforce the two couple per owner rule. If you're going to make a rule that says you can only have two couples entered then you should only be able to get benifits from the two you want.

If people are worried/upset about it not being fair to not be gifted a basket from one of those breedings then they can just not enter other pairs and let that one count for them. Then they'd be able to get a basket in the event of three or be able to co-own one.

It would be the owners choice entirely if they gave up the rights to a breeding or not as they have the choice of who they enter in the raffle  

[Meeki]

xx_Bullseye_xx

I just see it was a way to enforce the two couple per owner rule? It's not so much a new rule entirely but a side rule to make one that's already in place more effective.

People may look for more loopholes, but if one has been established it should be stopped. Saying people will just find another way around it isn't much of an excuse to stop a problem. oo;

Exactly. 3nodding

No one should have an increased chance. That's not how it works. I found that out recently myself, the hard way. The rules are there for a reason. If we are just going to allow loopholes like that, we might as well allow everyone to have unlimited couples in raffles, instead of two.

If a couple is only qualified in a raffle because a co-owner is specifically saying they do not have any rights in that specific breeding, that person should not end up with a basket under any circumstance, if that couple happens to win. No rights should equal no rights.

If someone wants total free reign with a breeding that doesn't have to follow breeding raffle stipulations, they should bribe for it.  

[Lunadriel]

Breeding Limits:

Every soquili out there is entitled to three breedings, and three breedings only.

I think it would be super spiffy, if some had blanketed breedings, or even a fourth extra. Perhaps elders. Would give those who put forth the effort and rp to become an elder, something else to look forward too.