Breeding Questions & Suggestions

[Talencia]

I don't give up rights to individual raffles for Bella. I gave up rights fully. This was meant to give Uta full freedom. Apparently that won't be the case. Under these rules, gifting anyone with co-ownership could be consideed an unkindness.

Regardless, it DOES still come down to them having a 'chance at a basket', which would happen whether they co-owned that third couple or not. Where the baskets go doesn't affect the fair odds of winning a breeding SLOT.  

[TheMadHatter]

No, a gift is not a right. But you gave up the right, but your own choice, to receive those gifts

@Tal: No but you do have to say that if Uta enters Bella that you are not claiming that as yours and you hold no rights to the breeding. Which means that you -do not get anything from it-. If she wants to gift you with a basket she can bribe for a breeding or she can ask you ahead of time to not enter a second couple so that she may give you a basket.

If you dont like it then it is very simple to take your name off Bella's tag. Same goes for anyone who co-owns and doesn't like the idea. XD if you co-owned to be nice and give someone their first soq then go all the way and -give them- the soq, don't hold onto it partially for yourself.  

[Talencia]

Celeanor

edit: Meh, if folks are wonky enough to circumvent the pretty water tight system... leave'em too it. It's on their conscience, not mine.

ROFL, EXACTLY! ::hugs Celeanor::

EDIT: I just find it a shame that rather than being a friendly, companionable shop with folks that respect each other, we need to be a restrictive, policed, and finger-pointing shop. This sort of issue points to a completely different (and rather larger) problem than the fairness of breeding raffle results.

I'm still rather foggy on whose rights exactly are being protected here.  

[TheMadHatter]

It's not about protecting people to me. It's about the fact that the rule states one thing and was put in place to prevent people from having 'access' in any way shape or form to more than two breedings a month that have their name on the tag as owner and the enforcement of that rule.

i dont care about how many baskets you get, how you get them, or anything like that. I feel that if you are going to have rules then they need to be enforced -as- rules. Otherwise what's the point in having the rule in the first place?  

[Talencia]

Alright then, what IS the point to the rule? Usually rules are made to protect folks... in one form or another. I know there is good reason for the original rule, but logically they are breeding RAFFLE rules. Not basket rules, not gifting rules. If you want to make rules for those, go for it. But the breeding raffle rules should apply to the slots themselves, rather than where baskets go after the fact.  

[TheMadHatter]

i told you what the point of the rule was.

"the rule was put in place to prevent people from having 'access' in any way shape or form to more than two breedings a month that have their name on the tag as owner"

It goes back to the rule that you may only have two Soq pairs that you own entered in a raffle. Even if you dont have breeding rights you still own that soq. You have to give up your 'rights' as owner for that third/fourth/whatever pair that has your name on it to be entered. You choose to give up those rights, so it's your choice that you are not allowed to have any baskets from that breeding.  

[TheMadHatter]

I completely understand where you're coming from in the case of having nothing more than sig rights to a pet. Don't get me wrong. I understand how it looks ******** up from that angel. But it's the rule and i'd like to see the rule enforced.

I'm not saying everyone would try to use the loophole but people have greedy moments and someone might. So it would be easier to just kill that loophole and make it understood that this is what the rule means and that it will be enforced.  

[Meeki]

Skye Starrfyre

Meeki, how would waiting a year be any more fair to the people who have fewer Soqs? Person A has two Soqs, and two pairs, thustly... Person B, on the other hand, has 10 Soqs and 10 pairs... Person A would then only get to have two breedings, if they were lucky, and Person B could keep trying?



Aaaand.... Back on the subject co-owning...

If you don't like the rules as they stand don't co-own so much. Solves lots of those pesky co-owning problems when it comes to raffles. The rules are there to keep people from abusing the system and there really hasn't been a problem with them that I've seen until the fuss raised just now.

I think the average person waits a year anyway so I don't see much of a difference. Honestly, some of you have had a lot of luck. But the average person? We don't see a lot of breedings period. In the past YEAR, I only landed ONE breeding via raffle. So no matter if you have 40 couples or 2 couples, if you see ONE raffle win, you're going to be pretty damn lucky.

Edit: Like I said, I understand why that suggestion wouldn't be liked, but if you look at the average person and ask them how many times they landed a breeding from a raffle in the past 12 months, you're going to be lucky if half of them can even say once.  

[`Swirly]

I've a quick question in this whole process~

If you've given up rights/blahblahblah and a co-own breeding -does- happen to get a third basket... is it permissable to be gifted a basket so long as for the rest of the month you -only- enter one pair.?  

[Silent Spy]

I disagree with the proposal to limit a pair to one breeding raffle win per year. I think that's far too extreme. A few months? Sure. But a year sounds crazy.  

[Kimie Kitty]

`Swirly

I've a quick question in this whole process~

If you've given up rights/blahblahblah and a co-own breeding -does- happen to get a third basket... is it permissable to be gifted a basket so long as for the rest of the month you -only- enter one pair.?

That sounds fair to me, but goodness knows I'm no expert. XD  

[Meeki]

Silent Spy

I disagree with the proposal to limit a pair to one breeding raffle win per year. I think that's far too extreme. A few months? Sure. But a year sounds crazy.

Well, that was my opinion. Like I said, I understand that a LOT of people would be against it. XD If not a year, I'd definitely hope for what was suggested by another, with the 5-6 month thing. Two months isn't cutting it and one more won't either. It would need to be closer to half a year at least, I'd think.

@Swirly, you know, that sounds really reasonable and fair to me too. I think that's a good question. surprised  

[nessy]

What's amusing is that there are more lifemate raffles than there are low-luck raffles. So basically it's being encouraged that people lifemate their Soquili, because then they have a statistically higher chance. If you RP your Soquili, and they are lifemated, you get on average, two/three entries in a raffle. Usually.

But if you RP, are not lifemated, and are low luck, you only get maybe one or two? That would indicate that lifematings are PREFERRED.

Just a thought.

I am a heavy crusader for low luck couples, and think they need more slices of the pie. The idea of it taking over a year for one couple is just...staggering. Especially since MOST of us cannot afford bribes.  

[Kamiki]

`Swirly

I've a quick question in this whole process~

If you've given up rights/blahblahblah and a co-own breeding -does- happen to get a third basket... is it permissable to be gifted a basket so long as for the rest of the month you -only- enter one pair.?

That seems like a fair compromise to me, personally <3  

[Sabin Duvert]

@ Swirly - Yeah, I think that's a very fair suggestion, too. It still lets people surprise a co-owner with a basket, and after that, that would count as one of their breedings per the month. And then off of that, they could only not give it to them if they've already been lucky enough to win two other breedings that month.