Breeding Questions & Suggestions

[Sabin Duvert]

I still maintain that I don't see a difference between receiving a basket from someone who's using their breeding rights on a co-owned soquili, and someone giving you a basket from a pair that you don't co-own one of the parents.

Either way, your "Chances are increasing" whether or not the other couple is planning on surprising you with a basket.

So either you should limit it to receiving 2 baskets a month (from breeding raffles - not counting bribe baskets), or nothing at all :/  

[Lunadriel]

I can see where limiting how many baskets one gets a month, would be preferable. I can remember someone having six or seven in their sig at one time.

The whole basket exchange thing, where person A gives person B a basket, and in turn person B gives person A one of theirs seems a way to beat the system in my opinion. Cause then, it's just a way for you to get more than one basket. The fact that your trading it doesn't justify the fact that your still getting two baskets at once.  

[TheMadHatter]

xx_Bullseye_xx

I'd rather be told I can't give a basket to a co-owner because they gave up their rights for that particular raffle than be told I can only get two baskets in a month.

What if someone had been trying for months to get a breeding with the specific idea of giving a basket to someone, but that person has either won their own breedings for the month or was gifted by someone else? Months of trying only to finally succeed and then not be able to go through with the plan because of that would be a -huge- problem to me.

A two basket rule is like creating a new rule, while the other is enforcing what is already there. I'd prefer that any day.

QFE

To enter those co-owned pairs you are giving up your rights to the breeding. It's really simple. You've already agreed to give up rights to it so you shouldn't have grounds to complain about it, the rule has just not been stricktly enforced before.

If you dont like the idea of giving up rights like that. Do not enter co-owned pairs and say you're giving up rights. You still get your two pairs and you loose no chance at being gifted a basket from a co-owned breeding  

[Lunadriel]

I'd say no more than one from the same set of breedings? Say lil does five breedings at once. You can only have one basket from any of those pairs.

However, if a few days later, someone else has a breeding, and wants to gift one to you, then it's fair game.  

[TheMadHatter]

Lunadriel

I'd say no more than one from the same set of breedings? Say lil does five breedings at once. You can only have one basket from any of those pairs.

However, if a few days later, someone else has a breeding, and wants to gift one to you, then it's fair game.

That's unfair if you happen to win both your pairs in one raffle. If you've been trying for months and months to land a pair and happen to land it and something else you should not have to give up a basket that should rightfuly be yours.

It's completely different if you've already stated you're entering a pair and giving up rights to that pair and -then- still end up getting something from it.  

[Lunadriel]

That makes perfect sense Hatter. So perhaps no more than two at one time then?  

[TheMadHatter]

I dont think there needs to be any sort of enforcement on how many baskets you can have at one time. Yes it may be disheartening to some people to see others with lots of baskets but they won them fair and square and should get to keep their baskets.

I just think the rule of being able to enter co-owned soquili under the restriction that you are giving up rights should mean that you are -giving up rights-. No new rules involved, no restrictions that aren't already there, just the enforcement of a rule that is already in place.  

[Sabin Duvert]

But Bullseye's situation the same possible scenario as a co-ownership basket where the owner who has been trying with a pair has been trying to get a basket to thank the person who gave it to them.

For example: HorsieGirl's soquili has baskets, and she decides to co-own the one she's keeping with a soquili newbie, BillieJoeBob. She gives him full RP and breeding rights, just maintaining siggy rights for herself.

BillieJoeBob then, after RPng, starts entering breeding raffles, as does HorsieGirl with other pairs.

Say BillieJoeBob wins - and wants to give a basket back to HorsieGirl, seeing as she was responsible for getting him his first soquili. These proposed rules say that he can't if she's also entered the breeding raffles - even if it is a surprise gift.

On the other hand, If HorsieGirl gave BillieJoeBob the soquili without co-owning it, then he COULD give her the basket.

I don't see the difference.  

[TheMadHatter]

The difference is that in the first example horsiegirl -gave up the rights to breedings so she could enter her own breedings-. This was done by her own choice. She made the decision to give up rights to those baskets so she could try for her own pairs.

If she wanted to be able to have the chance to get gifted a basket then she could just choose not to enter a second pair in the raffle.

The second example. It's not her horse. She gave up no rights to the breedings so she could enter her own as she has no claim to the horse in the first place.  

[Sabin Duvert]

I still think it's splitting hairs, especially if HorsieGirl isn't aware that BillieJoeBob has any intentions on giving her a present.  

[Lunadriel]

I can see where that might get difficult.

Reading back, I think everyones made a pretty valid point.

Either way though, someones not going to be happy it seems.  

[TheMadHatter]

I suppose i get what you're saying in that if she only has sig rights then she technally doesn't have any say over breeding anyway BUT the rules are set up so you have to state that you are not claiming rights to a breeding to be able to enter your own. And if you are going to have rules like that then they need to be enforced.

It is an unfortunate disadvantage to said person BUT it was their own choice to co-own and leave their name on the tag. If you don't want to have to give up the chance at being able to get gifted a baby from a soq you previsiouly gifted, don't leave your name on the tag.  

[endejester]

TheMadHatter

The difference is that in the first example horsiegirl -gave up the rights to breedings so she could enter her own breedings-. This was done by her own choice. She made the decision to give up rights to those baskets so she could try for her own pairs.

If she wanted to be able to have the chance to get gifted a basket then she could just choose not to enter a second pair in the raffle.

The second example. It's not her horse. She gave up no rights to the breedings so she could enter her own as she has no claim to the horse in the first place.

I'm afraid I still agree with this. almost all my horses are co-owned and I still don't see it as unfair. I think I'd have an unfair advantage if I did receive a basket from a pair I had no rights to if I'd already directly been involved in 2 pairs entered that I -do- have rights to.  

[Meeki]

To me, it seems like you keep missing the simplest and most important detail, Sabin.

The TWO couple LIMIT.

Scenerio One
If HorsieGirl has two couples in the raffle and BillieJoeBob wants to enter one he co-owns with her, then she clearly could not have any rights to that breeding. If she did, it would strike against her two couple limit and BillieJoeBob would flat out get denied entry. He would literally be turned away.

Since his only chance to enter is by saying HorsieGirl has no rights, that means she has no rights. If he manages to win, he can't go "Lol, well, I decide to just give her this basket or co-own it with her". Even if it was a genuine gift, it still could not take place because she had no rights to it and that was UNDERSTOOD for the co-owned pet to be allowed entry.


Scenerio Two
Now say HorsieGirl has only one couple entered. Alright, that means BillieJoeBob can come in and put the co-owned pet in no problem. It remains no problem unless Horsiegirl has another couple tossed in on her behalf. Then it becomes a problem, because look, there's three pets now with her name on them, in three different couples. Clearly she has to drop rights to one of them. She chooses the one she co-owns with BillieJoeBob.

Again, if BillieJoeBob won, he could not give her or co-own with her a basket. If he had intentions of a gift in his mind, he could pm her and ask her if she'd like to pull out one of her couples. If she does not, he would have to respect the rules and either keep the basket for himself or find a new owner for it since Horsiegirl dropped any rights she could have had to that breeding.

---

It is by this fact that I think if someone wants to gift, they should do so with a bribed breeding. With co-owned pets, however, I think they should decide upon co-ownership who the basket goes to. Basket One goes to Co-Owner A. Basket Two goes to Co-Owner B and so forth. Otherwise, the person is going to have no choice BUT to respect the limitations and if they know that a pet is only entered because so and so has no rights, they really shouldn't complain when so and so gets no rights, even as a 'gift'. I think Hatter pointed that out and really, it can't be said any better.

Either way, the two limit is what would be enforced and if a third pet is entered because one of the co-owners is not receiving rights, all that's being done is seeing that said co-owner really doesn't receive any rights.

It's already the rules. All it needs is to be enforced.