|
|
Thoughts? |
Agree |
|
40% |
[ 19 ] |
Disagree |
|
53% |
[ 25 ] |
No opinion |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
|
Total Votes : 47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:09 am
|
|
|
|
I do have high hopes for the MCCL and hope that it gets used more, as you seem to think it will be. That'd be awesome. And I agree that the colorists have been really great with their criteria for that and helping unlucky people, I just think that, given how often this issue came up in the breeding suggestions threads and how much people murmur about it... as a possibility, I feel it's a good one.
Since it's just a discussion looking at all sides of it definitely helps and I'm glad to be getting feedback, as it helps me sort out what I was originally trying to say a little better. Yes, I do understand that it's going to suck for the individual sometimes... in the event that they have won two breedings already, the unlikely event, but yes. It will suck if it affects me. Personally? I will sit back and go "Dang it, only one couple from now on." But it will be a half-hearted dang it as I console myself with the two new Soquili I've gotten from breedings that year and congratulate my friends and fellow threadgoers as they win. I'm not saying that this wouldn't bite me on the butt too, that I wouldn't look at it and cringe if I was reduced to a monthly quota of one couple, but I would deal with it because I'd already been lucky.
In all honestly, this wouldn't even be implemented unless conditions were met, so the likelihood if it impacting a great percentage of the store isn't high. And if it does impact a lot of owners? I honestly see that as a good thing because it means there is a higher chance for a wider variety of people to be getting baskets. Maybe it's just a small chance, but every little foot up helps, and once in a while, sacrificing a portion of one person's opportunities to increase everyone else's is appropriate. I think that in the case of a shop this big, in the instance where that particular person has already won two breedings a year, it would be appropriate to reduce their chances a bit in order to give others a better chance.
For any business, pleasing the largest amount of customers you can is a good idea. Making people feel better about their chances, giving a wider variety of people increased chances to be as lucky as their peers who have already won breedings? Good things, in my opinion, even if for the duration of the year (and how many of us even win 3+ breedings a year?) as an individual I am limited.
Sometimes a little limiting is okay if it makes things a little better all around for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:12 am
|
|
|
|
^_^ Personally, what I'd like to see more of dent wise is some slots like Ririka did, that involve year long low luck or low luck or newbie. I just really seeing something like that making a bigger dent, not to mention there are more colourists now. So that should make chances a bit better after everyone is in the swing of things and holidays over. ^_^
Limits are a good thing. I don't want to be thought of as greedy or whatever, but I just really have a bad feeling about revising "cool down" peroids etc.
Just in the past few days, there's been discussion for it on breedings, auctions, and flaffles which all, already have limits-but I don't think any of them are good ideas.
This is the last thing I'm going to say on it.
Say, all of those things become more limited than they were. People are NOT going to be happy with that. Someone new is going to come in and thinks the new system is still biased. Before long, there are just so many rules and limits to make things more fair that you have to make a conscious decision 6 months in advance which flaffle, breeding, auction you're going to enter without knowing who/what/when/where
That's over exaggerated, but still you don't come to Soq to do mathematics one which thing you can or cannot enter, you come to have fun.
So last thing I'm saying about it in this thread since I probably sound like a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Which maybe I am right now, I been up 21 hours straight.
I don't mind sharing my opinions more on the subject, but I dont' think I'm going to post much more about this particular topic in the threads.
I feel like that weird looney running around going the END IS NIGH!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nyx Queen of Darkness Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:11 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:47 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:17 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:18 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:08 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:53 pm
|
|
|
|
Co-ownership was something I had admittedly not thought of, and I can see how that might put a kink in things! And that's why the forum is here, for us to suggest ideas and bounce around off each other, realize what could benefit the shop and what couldn't.
I still feel that people are getting a bit jumpy and antsy about this and thinking "Oh my gosh, it's going to directly affect me right away!" which it wouldn't, but I can understand people's apprehension. No one likes to think that their own chances are going to be slimmed, and if my other posts are read, I'm the first to admit that over and over again. I have just been trying to think in the mindset of having a wider variety of people win, but again, co-ownership didn't quite come to mind with that, which would change things a bit.
Kamiki, thanks for your input. =) I've answered a lot what you said already in other posts, but there's one part in particular I wanted to address, as it offends me a bit -- this idea wasn't me trying to "bring myself up to their level" in any way. I've stated a couple of times that if this rule were in place I would be one of the people only entering one couple, and I would be fine with that because I have been exceptionally lucky this year in breedings. In all honesty, I never looked at this method as punishment because the person would have already won two breedings, just more of an "Oh hey, let me step back a little, I've already won a lot." but that seems to be the general consensus/attitude of shopgoers.
And yes, as I stated before, I am aware there are two people involved in most breeding pairs. o nob As well as the implications of that toward limiting pairs, and I commented on that in another post. I would quote myself but I'm lazy right now, as I just got up, asdhkfa.
In all honesty, guys, I didn't mean to offend anyone with the suggestion nor did I mean to make it look like I was attacking people who have been lucky, out of jealousy or spite or anything -- I just have seen, over and over again, people are discontent with the odds for breeding wins, and this forum seemed like the perfect place to try to offer a possible solution. I know it'll never be a case where everyone is 100% happy, though. I have been very lucky myself, so it's not like I'm sitting back seething because I never have luck; I've been really lucky, and I just thought this might be a good way to help spread the wealth/breeding love a little once people start getting really lucky like I have.
I can't emphasize enough that, as a lot of the people who disagree point out, it is very hard to get two breedings so this proposed amendment wouldn't even take effect except in rare cases, but people seem to be very leery of giving up one of their chances after already winning significantly, so I don't think it would go over well after all. It was a nice thought, though. =)a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:03 pm
|
Nyx Queen of Darkness Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:18 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|