I personally dont support the "buy or lion gets chased/killed" banned, because its not so much as guilt trip - nobody is forcing you to do anything, you can just pass that advertisment and move on - BUT names like that help people realise they need to make their decisions faster?

For example, I dont put that in the name.
Lioness doesnt sell, I cancel the trade and chase her.
In a few hours, I get a sad PM from another user stating they were going to buy her tomorrow and now she's gone and they're upset, and they'd have bought her sooner if there was a warning.

Sometimes somebody doesnt have a huge lot of time to sell a lion, and putting a warning about it I feel is a good thing and should be kept in place. Some people spend weeks selling one lion, the others will chase it in a few days to make room for other lions - and being warned about it, beforehand, is a good thing so a person interested to buy can plan their purchases.

I personally have encountered both sides of this, both people being upset I chased a lion because it wasnt bought soon enough, AND finding out people chased a lioness I was going to get, just waited to get an open space - had I known they would chase that lion, Id have chased one of mine to make space, but trade name did not contain the time limits.

Its not guilt-tripping to warn buyers the lion wont be available for a long time in a public trade - again, some traders leave their trades for the entire month, others cancel trades much sooner, and people planning to buy might be upset to see a lion they wanted to buy is suddenly gone from sale. After all, if you like the lion, you buy it, if you dont - nobody can force you to buy it, so there's no guilt-trip involved. I am absolutely certain nobody buys lions they dont want just because a trade name stated they'd be chased.

---"I can buy that item from someone else for much cheaper" however is an entirely different case, and can already be reported I believe! Nobody can tell you for how much to sell your items, and you CAN report them if they attempt to force you to lower your prices.

You have liked this post!

^^
This is a very good point, and I believe that the system should remain the way it is to allow people to warn others of limited time offers.

You have liked this post!

Gonna agree with Mad Hyena and say that adding a time limit such as "Chasing at RO". It's useful for buyers to know there is a limited time to buy this lion, and it's good for the seller since they know the lion won't be sitting in a trade for weeks.

However, phrases like "buy or else she dies!" definitely sounds like guilt-tripping. Yes these are pixel lions on an online game but it's still killing something, which doesn't (or, shouldn't) feel good to anyone. Plus, the "or else" implies that you, the buyer, need to "save" this lion from death, which guilt-trips you into wanting to buy or at least makes you feel guilty for not buying. We as buyers do not need to know the specifics of this time limit. A simple "Chasing at RO" or "ends in three days" is enough to let us know that the trade has a time limit.

edit: "Chasing at RO" , "Treeing at RO" , "Nat Reserving at RO" are fine to say imo since they don't have any negative connotation to them. The lion still lives, and with chasing/treeing there is a chance for the lion to be found again. "Killing at RO" has a negative connotation to it, which is why it can be used to guilt-trip a buyer.

I'm not sure if Lioden could ban guilt-tripping advertisements, but I think it's a good idea to spread the word that advertisements like them are unnecessary.

You have liked this post!

I agree with Bailysis (#71958) - simply stating "will (x) at RO" seems like a fair warning, but "killing" specifically has a negative connotation that might upset some people, and "or else" type language definitely comes off as more of a guilt trip because it implies a personal obligation to "save" the lion. And sure, they're not forcing anyone to do anything, but isn't that also true of most cases of begging (which is already prohibited)?

Personally I think this could be handled on a case-by-case basis under the current rules against begging, since trying to guilt trip people into buying is arguably a form of begging in and of itself, no?

You have liked this post!

I fail to see your examples being guilt tripping.

Informing a potentional buyer for how long a trade to be offered on will last isn't guilt tripping, nor the fact that the lion won't be up for grabs after a certain time. I would say you could compare it to limited edition flavours of certain brands, but then this here is even less shady because it isn't and can't be used as for one brand/Monopoly to get more sales during a period.
You also know exactly what you get, really there is no pressure at all.

The trades people put in “will chase" do so because they aren't really looking to largely capitalize on them (as in get big summs of currency), they don't want to keep them but don't get rid of them immiedietly because they think someone else may like or find use for them. But they aren't foing to bother wasting resources keeping the lion either, so if nobody is intrested after a certain time, they might ask in chat and give it away for free or just yeet them for good.

And then, there is just simply no gain to guilt trip someones over not buying a digital lion- like what I mean is that there is no way you can make someone feel guilty over not taking them, because they are just assets to a trading and rpg game, not actual living breathing blood and bone creatures that have their own will. Like this is a 16+ game, people here have the maturity level where they know that it just won't work.
And anywho, who the seller gonna pursue when their lion doesn't get bought? Complain in main chat and call everyone heartless for not buying an innanimate object?

Since the suggestion fixes no actual issue or provides extra comfort and quality to playstyle and I believe would actually rather be a detriment, I have to no support.

You have liked this post!