[S] Life Mating Agreements

[Uta]

This isn't a response to the idea, this is in response to people's feathers getting fluffled and is more of an Uta answer than anything. Just so everyone knows, nothing changed in the old agreements and the new ones.

The wording changed purely so I could rewrite things to flow a little nicer, and I clarified things a little, but honest to God, none of these rules are new and none of them differentiate from how I've been handling the lifemates thread for over two years now. And I learned how Nissy did it. And she learned from I don't know even know who, but someone. . .

It had been stressed in the old thread multiple times that all co-owners, and I do mean all needed to post permission to break a lifemating. The exceptions were when an owner was seemingly missing for over 3 consecutive months.

See:
August 02, 2011 Announcement in the old Mates & Permission Thread
February 02, 2011 from Nissy in the old Mates & Permission Thread
Plus simply being the standard rule of lifemating in that same thread.

Even the 3 month MIA rule, that's been around for a long time. I've had many people come to me over the years and make their claims of "Hey, btw, they're totally not here." I do a little searching, see when the last time they've posted in Gaia thread. . . On rare occasion I'll ask said owner to PM them one last time, give me a screenshot, all that goodness, and then we'll usually settle it.

But these rules were always in place.

I think the reason we've run in to a problem is that usually when people break lifematings, both parties accept it (grudgingly or not). It is an incredibly rare occasion that one party denies the breakup. That is where things get tricky and sticky and is where we have run in to some problems

The lifemates rules have always been this way. You guys write the agreement, and know what you're getting in to. . . . Also, for people worried about having soquili go stagnant if an owner is away, that is what the "Blanket Permission to Breed" portion is. So long as both parties filled out "Yes" . . . you can still breed the pair regardless if the other owner is around or not. It's in the agreement.

If a party were to say "No" on the Blanket Permission to Breed, then that pair would need both owners consent. But most people, 99.9% automatically fill out yes, and give the people they're lifemating with that choice.

For people who are upset and stuck with an inactive mate, again, the three month rule gives allowances to other players who do go MIA. So you can get out of the inactive breeding or a relationship that isn't going anywhere RPwise.

Anyway, just a friendly reminder that honestly, I didn't cahnge, take away, or add, anything new. It's just now a mix of Uta & Original Lifemate Writer Cajmera wording.

Thanks! I'm sorry people are upset over the new verbage. It was not my intention to ruffle peoples feathers, simply to make a cleaner looking page than what was originally posted.  

[Darkmoon Dancer]

Thank you, Uta, I was just about to clarify that also.

Nothing has changed, people.

This is the way lifematings have always been, there are two ways to get out of it:
1 - All owners/co-owners quote the agreement and agree to break it which starts the cooldown penalty
2 - One owner goes MIA and thus it gets brought to Staff with records of trying to contact them or anything else that may help prove they haven't been around.

This is why Lifematings should ALWAYS be taken seriously, but they have been like this all along.

So in short, if someone goes MIA, you can still get out of a lifemating and always have been able to, it just takes wait time and we need to double check to make sure of the claim.
 

[Ktns]

And I should note that my post wasnt directed at any 'recent changes' Im just adding my 2cents based on the rules now and as they always have been. I kinda ;TLDR some of the other posts but I wanted to make sure my post wasnt in regards to a misunderstanding of rules that didnt change. /end babble 8D  

[Sabin Duvert]

Honestly, I don't think that the penalty is a bad one, even the difficulty in breaking Lifemating. It's supposed to be a big commitment, it gives a (small) increased chance at 3 baskets. With the breeding pair rotations most people have (ie, not just turning around and breeding the same couple again after the cool down), it shouldn't just be a cavalier matter of making a lifemate because you have a breeding pair that at least ICly has coupled up. Lifemating isn't required, even if you plan on having your soquili breed with each other all three times. But I've also seen at least two occasions where a pair decides to lifemate and then one of the players arbitrarily decides against it after they've netted a breeding, which sucks for the other person - especially if it's a soquili that they wanted to settle down and find love. It's really hard to find a soquili a lifemate if they only have two breedings left.

THe rules aren't stopping people from breaking a LM if one owner goes missing. It's really only stopping a one-sided decision to break the pair up, and kind of making things difficult for one owner. And like Uta pointed out - even IF one owner goes missing, you don't HAVE to break up the LM pair. You can still breed them and give the MIA owner a basket, and if they ever come back, they have it waiting for them.
I've had that happen to me before. And I prefer that with some of my LM couples rather than breaking them up.

It is a little rough if the one-sided reason for wanting to break up a LM couple is the other owner isn't RPng as much as you wanted them to, but that's why it might be best to make sure you talk it over with them before hand and make sure you both know each others' expectations. Because I think that that is the lesser of two evils vs having a LM broken on you after another owner gets the breeding.  

[saedusk]

Okay, so before I say anything, I'm gonna note that I've always known the rules are this way, I just haven't commented before now because it's not in my nature to unless someone else brings it up. Next, whether people honestly didn't understand the rules before the clarification or not, I don't think their concerns should be dismissed as ruffled feathers. Yeah, nothings's really changed, but sometimes it just takes one small thing for people to realize something's not what they thought it was and step forward. I've always had my own concerns about the way things are set up with lifemating, so I'm finally gonna say something.

Please also note, I am not talking at all about inactive owners. Only owners who have, for some reason, hit a crossroads in their opinions.

I agree with Faith that staff should consider implementing some kind of system with lifemating that is similar to co-ownership agreements. They are essentially the same thing, a binding contract, and while a lot of people who are really close and trust each other feel safe with co-owner agreements like 'everything will be discussed together when necessary,' others outline every little detail down to who can break the agreement and who can't and why.

Yes, lifemating should not be taken lightly, and I understand the separation between OOC and IC, but if two people no longer get along (or some other situation), it's unfair to force one person to remain in an agreement with the second, and lock their horse in some kind of breeding or plot/rp limbo. Maybe they should have given it more thought beforehand, but hindsight is 20/20. They could very easily make their soq fall out of love IC, and then it becomes like some kind of weird forced relationship, very unlike healthy relationships where if one person says it's over, it's over. Things could get ugly quick, and then staff could very well still end up having to play mediator somehow, which is what it seems like they're trying to avoid.

'Verbal' agreements (yes, I know everything on gaia is technically written, but 'unofficial' agreements could get lost or something) can only be trusted to a certain extent; talking to someone about it and agreeing doesn't necessarily mean that some many months later they will still agree and/or even remember what was discussed. And lets not sugar coat things here, it is very possible for someone to decide they don't want to end an agreement when someone else does, for IC or OOC reasons of all kinds. Case-in-point, the recent lifemate breaking attempt that was likely a large basis for this new cleaning up of the rules.

I'm not asking the staff to change the rules, I'm just asking that they take the concerns into consideration and try to come up with a different way to preemptively avoid problems. If larger scale agreements were implemented, it would still then be up to the owners to outline every possibility if they felt it necessary, from one owner not rping enough, to what happens to the lifemating if one owner decides to leave gaia and rehome their horse.

tldr; Lifemate agreements could, in my opinion, benefit from a written agreement system similar to co-ownerships.  

[Faithofthefallen]

Thanks for clarifying Uta and DD! Like I said in the first post I wasn't quite sure if was understanding the wording right and I will admit I wondered if recent events had maybe spurred a change but looks like it hasn't so glad we could clear all that up! And thanks for all the feedback and comments, I am happy that we can all discuss this and grateful for everyone's opinion, be they for or against any sort of change! ^-^

I do understand why the staff want the owners to all agree since both pets will be put on the cool down penalty, and looking at it from that standpoint, I don't think the default should in any way be that either owner can break a LMing for any reason unless both owners agree that they are comfortable with that risk. I think that if some sort of new form were implemented and people choose not to use it, the default should stay that all owners have to agree since it affects all owners' pets. As Sabin said, having a LM leave unexpectedly or after only one breeding can be just as devastating as having an inactive one, and I think having people just toss LM's aside and put the other owners on an unwilling breeding cooldown could cause just as much, if not more, problems. In my opinion it also goes against what lifemating is about, your only supposed to do it if you want to stay in it together till the end. We all know that its not perfect though and we can't predict how things will turn out! Sometimes things do fall apart, its the sad reality!

I hope it doesn't sound like I want the decisions to be completely one sided or that I'm an advocate for casually breaking lifematings. I just think it might help to get the details worked out in a more official, public manner. That way, even if one owner did want to end it, the other owner would have had to have not held up their end of the agreement. They would essentially already have agreed to accept the consequences by their actions. I like that in co ownership agreements you can adjust how detailed you make them, it makes people more willing to co own with people they don't know well and have more freedom of choice and compromise between owners who do know each other. I think a Lifemating contract of the same type could also be more individualized to meet people's comfort levels with their fellow owners!  

[Tygress Dream]

I like the idea of having the option to add terms to lifemating agreements similar to co-ownerships.

I personally don't rp my Soq very much but still have a few plotted lifematings. The fact that one particular family has so many strong pairings is actually an important part of the personality of one of the offspring in the family. Would I be willing to separate them if the other owner requested? Probably but I'd want to be able to agree to some IC reason for it. It's hard when there are IC plotted reasons to really want to keep a certain pair together so I can see where in some cases it would take a lot to finally get all parties to reach an agreement. Having something established ahead of time would help smooth the process and prevent future conflicts.

I also had a case where the other owner was absent from Gaia, but I still continued entering comfortable with the rules in place. Thankfully when the pair did get their baskets I was able to successfully contact the other owner, but if I hadn't been able I would still have had my basket and they would have theirs when they returned.  

[ATh e a r t]

Just something I'd like to see.

Since people are suggesting making it like a co-ownership, I'd really like to see what someone would call an 'agreement'.

I mean, I personally see it as complicating things more than anything. The form already has spots for owners, UCs, LM/selective, blanket permission...

I guess I'm wondering what you guys exactly want to add?  

[Faithofthefallen]

Yeah basically just what Candle wick Ghost said, I don't think it would have to be super specific. Maybe just the option of adding activity/rp expectations but left loose so people can personalize them. Owners could add what what they want from each other within reason and specify who is allowed to end the agreement if these expectations are not met, or perhaps just specify who is allowed to end the agreement for whatever reasons (maybe a co owner isn't especially active or something). I wouldn't expect people to start ending them all the time, but it would be like a safety net. Does anyone else have any suggestions about this?

I figure if it was used, staff wouldn't need to record any more info than they do now, just where they are so they can find them if they need to reference them.  

[Ishtanballa]

I am for there being something, someway, for someone to be able to get out of a lifemating with another party that refuses to release them.

I mean I get it, it's a commitment. And I can see why it should be difficult to get out of one when both parties don't agree. But over time, people and circumstances change. Who's my friend now may not be my friend a year from now, and I wouldn't like them essentially holding my pet hostage so they can keep that chance at edits, or simply out of spite. Or for other reasons.

So yes, I understand the difficulty. But I think there be something in place where someone should be able to fight such things.  

[ATh e a r t]

Personally, I think this part could be a problem:

"specify who is allowed to end the agreement if these expectations are not met, or perhaps just specify who is allowed to end the agreement for whatever reasons"

What gives one owner the right to end a life mate over another? I think this is a problem that could arise more than anything.

 

[Faithofthefallen]

Which is why both owners would need to agree about who has the right and under what circumstances. I don't think one owner should have more/less rights in the agreement. People could just as easily put that all owners need to agree as to say that one owner may choose to end it under 'X' circumstances. That was the example I was using to try and explain what my idea was, but I'm not saying that the default for lifematings should be that one owner can end the agreement anytime. Especially since it puts both pets on a breeding cooldown, that would be unfair. I think that the default should be that all owners need to agree on a breaking unless an alternative was laid out when the agreement was made (which all owners would have had to read and agree to to make the lifemating agreement in the first place)