I do really like the filtering option. I thought that was what was meant by the first solution but I might have misunderstood. I would love to filter out results, even without the spammy beggy trade problem! I don't have very much time to play anymore, so anything that streamlines my Lioden experience is a good thing!

You have liked this post!

While I'd LOVE to have these silly beggar-luke trades blocked.. it might be pretty inconvenient to those using keywords, I think a separate center/forum for these things is best, so I dont have to see them flooding the main TC when I'm looking for genuine trades

You have liked this post!

Ok guys i'm back with a better detailed argument this time haha.

So i just want to start off by saying i do genuinely think that the separate forum would be the most beneficial, with some additional qualities alongside it.

Soft blocking
Whilst soft blocking is a genius way to hide these 1sb to whatever trades and otherwise trades you dislike, it is not at all beneficial in many ways. This could be that the soft block hides all of the trades, which would mean you might miss out on a super cheap lion you've always wanted [e.g when hybrids go for 20gb when they're super young because the person feels generous]. This also means you can miss out on a great amount of deals, and trades won't show up in a category you're looking for [e.g you soft-blocked someone selling an interstellar lion, which you are looking for but cant find].

Alongside that, soft-blocking individual trades is more beneficial, but way more time-costly and irritating.

In the long run, soft-blocking is not the beneficial way to go, because, as i've mentioned before, most of these trades we have such an issue with are actually deleted within an hour of being made, and then re-posted. Most users even post up to 30 at once which is awful. No matter what, we will have these trades [atm they are extremely tame compared to january and i'm sure most of you know what i'm on about] and users will find a way past the rule of banning them one way or another [such as being able to advertise clans via a thread as long as it isn't the main subject].

Banning/Outlawing
This is by far the most unreasonable in my opinion for several reasons. We cannot outright ban something just because it simply annoys us. It is a childish resort. I understand completely if it was spamming, but it is on and off with that type of advertising with the trend [this was the main way to trade in games like AJ]. You also cannot differentiate between a joke and a serious trade in this instance, outlawing it would mean outlawing solely offer-specific trades and have it where users can always purchase the trade alongside offer for it. This does not work well with users who are inexperienced with the current up-to-date worth of items. Most users put 'what can i get for [xxx]' because they are genuinely interested.

If we are to have anything banned, it is the obvious begging that isn't directly begging e.g '1sb to hybrid] - this is begging and it not at all veiled, as they are clearly asking for something of higher worth; but at the same time they're not. All trades are begging in some form, and banning this would mean you'd logically may as well just ban the TC altogether and make it so it's private trades only and not public; this would also mean advertising would be banned as it is a form of begging [i doubt they would do this, but it might be what they lead to.]

We, not needing to say, can ban something simply because it annoys us or is spam when the entire trading centre is littered with spamming of the same repetitive trades. Banning is also not the solution unless absolutely necessary, and if we can avoid it, those options come first

Separate TC/Forum category
In addition to this, we should add an option to block specific forums that you don't want to see on the chatter list, or in general it doesn't show up.
While i think this is the best option, i know people will disagree, but in the long-run this would be more beneficial for eveyrone.
These 'joke' trades should be considered a forum game, and kept there [this would mean the trade would have to have a specific wording to it e.g '1sb to [xxx]' for it to be outlawed in the TC, but in general 'what can i get for [xxx]' would not. If it is hinting to at all getting a currency worth more than what they consider it to be, it would be considered as a part of a forum game, and would belong in the separate TC/forum category. These two could possibly come together, but the trades would not be exclusively private. If we do not include a separate TC, but a forum category, the 1sb trades are still allowed to be held publicly inside of the TC which is why i suggest having them together.

You can also altogether just avoid the forum games/separate TC without issues; it should NOT warrant any complaining this way.

In general, this idea is a lot more compatible with the community and overall has more benefits to it, which means you don't waste your time temporarily soft-blocking [soft-blocking would include private trades], and can just overall avoid the area of your irritation. The TC of this could would be for any type of otherwise not serious trades [a forum does not have to be included with it obviously].

Edit: Spelling

You have liked this post!

PT.2

The only issue, as stated, with the threads is what is or isn't a challenge trade and whether or not they can be public trades and how they would go about moderating it.

Filtering
Filtering is a great option as well, but not all of the trades follow the same wording!

You have liked this post!

“ I think that either having a challenge trade subforum category OR trading center category (kind of like how raffles work, they don't show up in the main sales page and instead have their own specific section) would be best and appease both sides of the player base. “

I agree 100% with this idea. It could have its own tab in trading center. I don’t mind seeing them occasionally but they definitely have been filtering out a lot of legitimate trades. Maybe there could be a box they check when creating a trade (kind of like the buyout only box) that would automatically filter them into said section. I’m sure anyone not adhering to it would quickly be brought to the attention of any moderators considering how many people dislike them.

You have liked this post!

totally agree! Even a tagging system [e.g serious or joke tags] could work just as well, that way you can block trades labelled 'joke' or 'serious' haha

You have liked this post!

a simple "joke"/"challenge"/"serious" tag system would be amazing. just have a set of buttons on the trade screen & pick whichever it is when you post it, and allow users to filter for specific categories

You have liked this post!

I like the subforum idea and creating the challenges as private trades because from what I have seen a lot of players have issues with it being seen as begging, and the MAIN REASON, is that these challenges clog up the Trading Center especially on the initial page when you enter the TC.

In my eyes, I see these trades as a form of begging, because the ultimate goal is to rely off of SOMEONE ELSE'S KINDNESS to want to give you something over the value of the initial offered product so that you may profit in the long term. I know that it makes it hard to moderator because there are some new players that are just trying to learn the worth of currency, but in the TC it does become an issue of clogging up and making it difficult to find some trades, for example, Ill search up "shiny red rocks" in the TC and my search page is CLOGGED with paperclip challenges. Its become difficult to search for items in the TC, so I've exclusively gone to the branches to avoid that mess.

A big part of me wants you guys to just remove item sales from the TC in general and expand on branch sales more so. I would love to see bundles being made with items, and items within the bundle being visible to all players and you can sell them on branches. Forums can be used to trade items within players in private trades but I just wish that buying/selling items was localized to one location and refined a bit more. Forums can also be used to propose item trades as well, until a consensus is agreed upon and the trade is made in private. I feel as though this change combined with creating a "Trading game" subforum might help counteract some of this paperclip game that has been plaguing the TC for a hot minute.

In short, I think just removing the item part of the TC and refining branches a bit more might help the situation- but it would be a very big change and adjustment that I'm not sure anyone is up for. It is a suggestion though! Definitely would need to be workshopped and thought through some more.

You have liked this post!

Personally I don't think it's that big a deal.
If people are offering on these trades then there's a market for it. If people aren't making offers then there wouldn't be any to begin with. Something's are literally worth 1SB and offering something for the exact amount it's worth isn't a crime. So what if someone offers something worth more that's their choice.

Let them continue, don't moderate it.
Is anyone being hurt by these trades? No.
Is anyone not getting what they are being told they will? No.
Leave it be. Let people play however they want.

You have liked this post!

@eskel agreed! The only harm being done is users getting annoyed, which is down to them. I understand it's frustrating not being able to see the first few trades, but if you're looking for something specific, a system is there for it.

You have liked this post!

We could just make it flag based. If it gets flagged by other users for being a "challenge or joke" trade, a moderator can then review it and warnings/account standing after so many get reposted then get issued.

I know that might make more work for mods, but all these options do unfortunately. People overwhelmingly do NOT like these trades. It's just begging with extra steps. I feel like it's somewhat obvious what is and isn't one of these challenge trades or just a straight up rip off. If someone is offering two or three apps for one, fine. If someone is offering GB or a fair market value amount just to see what people would offer, fine. But the "1sb to tigon" or "1sb to golden riches" trades are just begging. If enough users flag them as such, they just get removed all together.

If there is a seperate forum place, that'd be fine. Personally, my main concern is getting it off tc. But I think we all know the ones doing these trades aren't going to be happy nor satisfied with the forum option, bc let's be real, it'd be dead on arrival. Tons of begging with very little- to no return... But if that happens it's just a natural consequence I suppose. At least it's there so they have no excuse to post on tc?

You have liked this post!

(I would like to mention, my opinions were rapidly changing during this, so some of this might contradict itself! However, sometimes when I mentioned these trades in this post, I was mainly referring to how I believed they were. How I believed they were is; 'Seeing how much I can get for 1 SB!', not them having a set goal. So, please keep that in mind when reading this. I would also like to mention the fact I only talk about the subcategory idea in this post, but I see this is the only option fit to keep users who like these trades from being upset over their ban, and because I generally think this is the best idea overall, compared to banning them.)

First off, I saw one user suggest that a user can only have one paperclip/challenge trade at a time. Which, I completely agree with (The user I saw this from was 'TheDenQueen|G4 Symmetrical' ). However, there is something I'd like to mention there which disproves why I think this would be a good idea; These trades are considered challenges, there really is nothing wrong with having multiple up at a time as long as you follow the rules. However, for the sake of not being flooded all by a few users trades, or not being able to keep track. I do feel there should be a limit to how many can be up at once.

If you were to look up the definitions of 'challenge', there's a good start for determining rules on these kinds of trades. The entire thing about these trades seem to be users competing to see who has a higher offer. Therefore, a good rule I think for that would of course be; No begging/requesting items. If you're putting in the description of your trade that's meant to be a 'challenge' that you want x and x, is it really a 'challenge'? The entire point of these trades would be to see what you can get, not what you can request from a user for x and x price.

Another good rule I see would be obvious, such as; No scamming. What I consider scamming in this situation would not be offering something higher than one GB (<- For example purposes), or something to start the trade off, lowballing in a sense. Let's say that a user put a paperclip/challenge trade up, and another user offered something higher than one SB, or higher than the original price. That's not considered scamming in this case. However, 'lowballing' that offer later by offering something that's worse in value would be. As well as; We'd most likely need a specific option for reporting scamming on these trades. Example; A user puts a paperclip/challenge trade up, another sends something, the user accepts the trade, and then never offers back. There is, however. A way to bypass this. If you were to create an entire subcategory in the Trade Center for these trades, you could also 'modify' how the trades work in that subcategory. By that, I mean make it so that the trades do not "end" whether they offer and that offer is accepted. Instead, I'd recommend a message asking for both users to accept the trade, but also requesting that the user makes sure to look through the trade, and recognize that they might be lowballed. By doing that, the user has been warned for this, and it's of their own foolishness that they get scammed. The reason I also say this is, at some point, I did think of the fact that a user might want a specific item that's lowering than their offer, that they might actually receive by pure chance. Or, an item that they did not expect to want, but when it was offered to them, did want, but was lower than their offer. It would also make it easier to moderate these, as you can just mark this as an incident on the users part.

What defines these trades from the others in the Trading Center is, mainly simple. But, can also be seen as complex; They are not the "usual" trades. By that, I mean that the trades in the Trading Center you may see, are set to a value. A value a user wishes to receive for something like a lion, an item, or decor. With these trades, you can have an expectation, but that expectation may not be met. All that really is expected with these trades, would be a higher value than what was listed in the trade. These trades are challenges, a competition. However, with that sense. Wouldn't trades that only allow offers fall under the same category? No, actually. Whilst offering for something like a lion that normally happens in what would be considered the 'Main Category' of the Trading Center currently, is like a competition. Since, a user is competing with other users to get their offer chosen. But, this is basically based off a game in real life (I saw in this the mentioned thread); 'A Paperclip for a House', if I am not mistaken. This game is, as the title mentions; You try to trade a paperclip for something higher in value, and keep repeating that process, until you have something that's valuable enough for a house. The thing about the trades that would not be in this subcategory by that logic, would be those that does have an ending price. The ending price is that lion, it does not continue further than that lion and whatever is offered for it.

I would like to mention though, this would be really hard to pull off in my opinion. The amount of users who may be scammed is.. almost scary, in a sense. But it reminds you to always be careful about what you trade. But, as well as. I also feel that the entire subcategory would need a different trading system entirely to pull this off correctly. The Trading Center right now is not made for those trades. The best way I can describe that is; Paperclip/challenge trades are almost never ending, they can go on forever, until an end goal is reached, or both users agree to stop. How they work currently is almost a trust trade, which I always associate trust trades with scamming, as I used to play Animal Jam (Anyone who played that game, or still does, will understand what I mean). I can almost grantee the amount of users being scammed will go up if the system isn't changed correctly. How I think you can change the system correctly is well, up for debate. The most proper way I can think of it would be, as stated. Once bought out or something, a private trade can be opened up where both users can offer, and the trade can only be accepted when both users are being given something. That way, the users both receive something that they probably want, and they can end it right then and there if they so wish.

There is also, another topic of trade I'd like to bring up. Would the trades that are titled; 'Trading 1 SB up to a Leopon' or something along those lines, fall under this subcategory? In my opinion, yes! Oh hell to the yes they would! That's the entire point of a paperclip trade. That kind of trade has an end goal in mind, which. I think a subcategory would be amazing for this reason. The entire point of the real life game this would be based off of is with an end goal. Therefore, another rule you can bring up for these trades would be 'having to have an end goal.' It would also help with the fact these trades could go on forever.

So, in the end. What separates these trades from others, would be the fact they continue on. The fact the trade is supposed to keep going, rather than end right then and there.

With what has been mentioned in my post, I would like to make it clear that; I do not believe that open-end trade offers belong in the same category as these. This entire time I've talked about these trades being only two players, which is slightly incorrect. However, it would be a lot easier if they only were between two, for the sake of open-end trade offers being different. Open-end trade offers in a sense, still have a quick end to them. At least, with the ones Katze mentioned (Those ones being "What can I get for _____?"). With the ones mentioned by Katze, those ones are supposed to be upped in value, but only once. Let me try and make sense of this here, so I don't confuse every user and myself who is reading this; Open-end trade offers have a set goal, are meant to be upped in value with an offer by another user, and end after that normally. Paperclip/challenge trades, are meant to be upped in value with an offer by another user, but are supposed to continue. The term that Katze mentioned is slightly confusing in this case though. As, it can be taken in two ways; 'Who has the best offer for my item?' or, in the literal sense of paperclip/challenge trades (Do not ask me how, but I know some people would think of that. Hell, I clearly did). However, does that small difference really separate them? That depends on who you ask, obviously. When looking at it the way I talked about it, it's really up to Lioden's team to decide that one in the end (Not only because they're the ones that would be making the entire subcategory, but because it depends on how they feel about that tiny difference).


As for what Katze wanted clarification on, that's difficult. On one hand (Or paw, if you will ), it depends on who you ask. On another, it's just really difficult questions. However, I will talk about how I view them. That is, the ones I can actually think of an answer on.

"Why would it be considered begging or a challenge/paperclip trade?" Is isn't considered begging, that's the thing. You are technically not begging if you put up a trade or something, even as little as one SB. Why? Because you are not asking for a user to offer you something. It's their choice still, and they can't be pure pressured by it since you are not begging them, and it's not calling their name. What makes it a challenge/paperclip trade though? Well, bit more complex than my last answer I'd say. The reason it's a paperclip trade in the first place would mainly be if it has a set goal it wants to reach (Like in the actual game that's called 'A Paperclip for a House', that has an end goal), and it starts from something low and has to work up to that. And it's almost a challenge of sorts because of the fact you have to work up to it. Whilst with other trades you don't have to work up to that, you just put something up for trade and wait for someone to buy it. However, that traces back to a few more points. "If you technically state you are trying to reach a certain goal, is that begging?" Nope, I don't consider that begging still. As long as you work up to what you are trying to get, I don't consider it begging. However, by this same logic. Yes, a trade listed as "Trading up 1 SB for a Leopon" (Forgot how they are named, but it's something along those lines) would be a paperclip trade. But, that also brings up the point of; You do have to work up to buy a trade if you want it, but it's different in these two cases still. It's hard to explain.

"Where is the line?" Hard question once more, but I can deliver an answer to an extent. There's two ways to perceive this question, and I'll give answers to both ways. The two ways are; "Where is the line to defining these trades?" and "Where do we draw the line on these types of trades?" The first question is quite simple, I've kind of answered this already. These do not have a quick end to them, it's supposed to continue on and on until a goal is met by either one or both users, it is not like a standard trade if that makes sense. However, where to draw the line on these trades is a bit more of a complex question. Where do you draw the line with a paperclip/challenge trade? As I've already mentioned, in the game this seems to be based off of, it has an ending goal. A house. But, what if a goal isn't set? Where is the line then? I actually.. have confused myself here, I don't know.

"What if it was 5 SB instead of 1? 10 instead of 5?" Technically, that doesn't matter. As long as it follows the basis of the "game", it's still a paperclip/challenge trade. No matter what the starting price is.

"Who determines whether I'm asking to trade up by offering 1 SB for a Large Leaf?" Oh my god I love these simple questions- Anyways. Simple; You aren't. Unless, that was your intentions. Even then, that's not quite how it works (In my opinion, like all of this is). You could just be offering something really bad in return for an item worth more. What truly is the determining factor is really yourself. What was your intentions behind that offer is what I mean. In the end, if you do this, I don't truly think it matters. It's up to the user with the trade if they decide to offer you up or anything.

"Why isn't my 1 SB trade open for any offers allowed? It's a legitimate trade, I am offering something in exchange for an offer." This is the hardest question by far to me. Just in terms of trying to understand it. Yes, it is a trade. However, it's a paperclip/challenge trade. They have different rule sets in a sense. I'm not going to speak further on this question, only because I can't think of anything else.

As for this entire thing, I think an entire separate section/subcategory of the Trade Center being added for these kinds of trades is a good idea. It helps removes those kinds of trades from the area that some people might want to browse, without being flooded by those kinds of trades.
And of course, along with this. I feel that misplaced trades should be reportable, but the user who created the trades would not get in any trouble, and just have their trade taken down and be sent a message about such. However, that is also up to the Lioden team to decide further more on punishments for that.

(Also, sorry that I typed so much, I just have a ton of views I wanted to share! )


Edit: I've seen some people talking about soft blocks, filters, tagging, etc. And I'd like to comment on those; What you could do is make it able to filter out any 1 SB trades (Which is technically, already possible), but that doesn't stop the trades that might offer higher things. Using the keyword system already set in place is flawed, as they can just change the title of their trade and it'd still appear. Tagging in the sense I'm thinking of (Adding tags to be able to find a trade, and filtering out certain tags) is still very flawed. People could easily put the wrong tags, or it can still fall under another tag that they will put. As well as, it would be a struggle to add these into the system. I doubt that some people will even use them, and it'll just prove useless in the long run, in my opinion. I've also seen people talking about the banning of them, and how it won't prove good. I completely agree with that. It is unreasonable, and not necessary.

You have liked this post!

I don't see how a tagging system would work, as in I don't feel like the type of people who do those trades would use the tagging system. Or they would, get annoyed with no traction, and then list it un tagged or using the wrong tags.

I see abuse potential with the tagging system, vs just a "hide this trade" button but honestly I just scroll past them. I've never had the situation of browsing trades and having to flip through multiple pages of paperclip challenge trades.
I definitely think banning those trades is 1) not feasible and 2) excessive

I don't see it as begging, I get most things are not worth 1sb but I see plenty of meat chunks or patrol/explore decor being tossed into the tree, I'm sure there are people out there who would take 1sb for it just to have it out of their hoard.

I think I'm honestly more tired of people complaining about them than I am seeing them, so I think this thread definitely is a good idea for workshopping some sort of solution.

I just don't see an easily moderated way of doing so.

Forum trade challenge might work well but then you'd have to use discretion on which trades actually count and which ones are "legitimate".

You have liked this post!

The issue with flagging is people you are just so bugged by this trade are going to flag just about everything the decide not to agree with.

1sb for junk trades should still be allowed.
5sb for this item.

The higher value is the issue. But some people have mentioned they don't like the low sb trades in general. The flagging would be a nightmare to mods because people having a bad day just going to have a hay day flagging being salty 🤷‍♀️

You have liked this post!

if the thread option is picked, the mods will have to spend a bit just going through the right rules and likely posting a locked forum explaining the rules in detail.

You have liked this post!