Moral Dilemma

[Misty Glen]

I know of quite a few players who have either faced this moral dilemma or will possibly face it in the future, including myself, and I wanted to know what others would do or have done in this situation, and your opinion on the whole thing.

(Just to clarify, I'm not referring to any specific player or creator here. This is just something I've been wondering about for quite a while. I'm not trying to have a go at anyone, so try not to be offended if your views or actions do not reflect my (current) opinion.)

Essentially it is regarding AE animals. In a situation of this nature the original creator no longer plays and there is sufficient evidence to say that it is pretty unlikely they're ever coming back. At some point before they disappeared the creator sold some whole animals of this creation, but none of them had anything but a breed to replace policy on it. The player(s) who own these animals face one of two options: either strictly abide by the creator's conditions and hence have the creation eventually go extinct, or break their promise in order to keep the creation in the game.

What would you do in this situation? Are there any other options?

Although I don't like either option I'm perhaps slightly leaning more towards the second one. I'm thinking that when a creator places "breed only to replace" conditions on an animal they do this because they don't want to see their creation excessively bred and devalued. If the player(s) can ensure this does not happen, then they are obeying the creator's (perhaps unspoken) wishes even if they're not keeping their word. However if the player(s) then charge exorbitant fees for sale and stud on this creation since they now have a monopoly the market, then I consider it pretty immoral to take advantage of the situation like that. At the same time making no profit on the situation is not feasible, since giving away the animals will devalue other AEs.

In such a situation would you say these players are justified in applying conditions to the animals? Personally, I would consider it a bit rich for them to demand conditions that they didn't adhere to themselves. If they don't trust the player they're selling to then the animal should be sterile anyway, instead of having breeding conditions on it, and if the player is trustworthy then I see no problem with explaining the situation to the new owner and have them join in your endeavour to prevent the animal becoming extinct. By that I don't mean for the player to go out of their way to breed more of the animal, I just mean that if they wish to sell some at some point, then they may, so long as they're actions aren't unreasonable.

Creators, if you quit the game and one of your AE creations was in this situation, would you rather it went extinct or was kept alive in such a way that it was not exploited or devalued?

I'm a creator who has created AEs, and when asking myself the same question and imagine my own creations in this situation the only response I come up with is "I don't know". I think perhaps I'm having trouble relating to the situation. I'll sleep on it.

[Drmchaser]

It is a sticky situation however I would opt to keep the animal in the game, just not go overboard with breeding and like you said make sure who you sell it too is responsible. I have a few AE's of my own that I created and I know I would prefer that they not go extinct because I did use real money to make them. I know of a few AE's that have already gone extinct and I think it was a loss that didn't need to happen. No one person would have any actual breeding rights to the animal but whoever has the animal on their farm would become the guardian of the animal, in the case that more than one person has said animal on their farm, we as a community would have to maybe take a vote to see who becomes the actual guardian, we would all have to come to agreements to save the animal but not to let it become over bred, it would become a community decision then. If it happens that the creator does come back, then guardianship could be restored to the creator. These are just ideas though, they can be changed and worked with if someone else has a better idea.

[KaylaBlue]

I think that personally, if I were a creator of an AE breed, and I stopped playing for some unknown reason - I would want my breed to stay intact, and therefor would give permission to someone to take over the maintenance of the breed.

I also think that the policy of only breed for replacement is overruled when the player decides to stop playing. If they cannot bring themselves to play for such a long time, then why should they have a say anymore in the animals that they so conveniently gave up on?

This is just my opinion, but i don't think that players who don't play anymore should be able to, so to speak, "dictate from the grave."

Kayla

[Daisy Rabbit Mae]

I agree with Kayla.

[Vitani]

We've all faced this conundrum I think....

Personally, if I KNOW I'm quitting and intending to never come back, my own A/E's would be gifted to the players I trust to treat them as I would, including breeding enough to keep the variation active. If I was "taking a break", I would again pass out those A/E's to the same people, with the proviso of only breed to replace until such time as I return, unless more than say...6 months passes...

At the end of the day, you've just got to go with your gut. If the player comes back and goes bananas, well...All you can do is explain your reasons, and have the evidence to back yourself up that you were keeping the breed active, and not over doing it...

[milon]

mhm.

ah, I've got several breeds that were either gifted to me, or I bought and the players either quit, or vanished. then there's the situation where I didn't bother to replace my originals and have had to go to other people to purchase a replacement. I don't see any reason why that has to be the end of the line, and thus, I will breed. either to improve colours, to stock up on lower variations, or to sell to other players. I use fair judgement on who and how they're given out to, sterile or fertile.

obviously, I chose the second option in the poll above
{:

[Misty Glen]

Wow. I can't believe the overwhelming response to my poll. I'm glad I'm not alone in this.

I had a think about how I'd feel if one of my own AEs was in this situation and I've come to the conclusion that if I left this game and never came back I wouldn't be too fussed if some people broke their word and bred when I said don't, however I would be quite upset if a creation that was so special to me got abused and excessively bred.

Usually though, if a creator knows they're leaving they do pass the rights on to another player, but the issue is that sometimes unexpected things come up in life, and a creator doesn't always get that opportunity.

Sometimes I think creators are too strict with the conditions they put on an animal. I've reached the stage where on most animals I sell I ask for nothing more than the player to use their common sense and ensure that whatever they do with the animal does not lead to it being excessively bred or abused in some way. And if I suspect they can't or won't do this, then they don't get it whole. I'm yet to see this come back and bite me. "Breed only to replace" isn't necessarily required to prevent excessive breeding. My reasoning is that if you can trust a player enough to let them have a whole animal that they will only breed to replace if that's what you ask of them, then why can't you trust them to only breed responsibly instead?