i don't really wanna write a wall of text justifying my opinion, but i pretty much agree with all the users who said no; i don't really like this idea at all ;c sorry!

The reason I'm not in favor of this is because it makes it sound like you are justifying looting an account simply because it's virtual 'home'. It doesn't matter if someone self-froze or was frozen for a good reason (or accusation) and even if their account has been off for a year- subeta staff has stated they will not go into said users accounts and remove any items to give them to anyone or sell them off.

I asked a couple of years ago about a user I did some cws for who was iced if they could get my copies out of their account cuz I never received them and they said they couldn't and wouldn't do that as they basically will not 'loot' an account for any reason. So, those items I simply do not own, simple as that and that's fine with me, honestly.

The other part that I worry, is if they did do something like this, what will stop ppl from appealing and petitioning for inactive accounts to be 'purged' as well? "Well, they haven't been around for almost 2 years, so it's kind of like they're frozen...." No, it's unethical and immoral and I don't agree with this idea.

Basically imo, don't be so butt hurt about not being able to own rare or old private wears and trying to justify why you think it's okay to steal other people's property simply because they're no longer there, even if they aren't coming back.

(This isn't a zombie apocalypse, you don't need to raid a home to survive- you can live without these cws, really you can.)

Oh man, oh man... Well, I'll start by saying it's definitely an interesting concept. However, as a site user, I'd be very much against it ;c While it'd be "nice" to have those old things circulating, it wouldn't be -nice- (morally, emotionally, civilly, policy wise, what'll have you) at all.

Solsticesprite, far and odduckOasis pretty much covered it in a way much better than I could possibly hope to, so I (humbly) make my words their own.

I agree with everyone who's been against this idea... staff has already made clear in the past they're against this too...

This snowballed into something hateful, which was neither mine nor 's intention. We simply had a discussion about recirculating old CW's back into Subeta after accounts were deemed "dead", based on our own personal experiences with friends that could have dumped their CW's to others given the chance. It's not "immoral" if frozen users are given the option to surrender CW's, as I suggested in my earlier post. Providing an opportunity for frozen users to "dump" their items if they ever are perma-banned. Nobody is trying to loot items from accounts, simply provide a service for permabanned accounts to recirculate items. I have around 360 CW's-- if I were to be frozen for some reason and not come back, I'd love to recirculate my CW's as a simple gesture to other people that enjoy collecting CW's as much as I have over the years.

Basically imo, don't be so butt hurt about not being able to own rare or old private wears and trying to justify why you think it's okay to steal other people's property simply because they're no longer there, even if they aren't coming back.

This is so far from the truth, though. It's not that we're "butthurt". We're brainstorming a way to provide some way to bring back some copies to give other users a fair shot at owning certain CW's that aren't as obtainable. CW's have been around for an incredibly long time and Subeta's CW market doesn't feel as involved as it used to because of the number of people that have quit or been frozen. If that number of people could have the opportunity to pass on their CW's by simply clicking a check-box to approve that once their account has been dead for a while, why shouldn't that be an option? For example: Cash Shop > Custom Wears > Settings > Whatever option to auto-pawn/auto-donate items after a year of inactivity. Or in the recolor menu, provide the option to make certain items private recolors.

This isn't really a matter of ethics, imo. Good excuse to villainize people for a simple idea and providing nothing constructive... smh. My longer post must be tl;dr

Exactly what said. I have a good chunk of CWs, and as for being butthurt about not having x or y, you really couldn't be more wrong. I own my favourite CW, but should I be frozen I would like the items in my account to be recirculated just as my username and pets will be.

whee, alright, this got posts. just gonna put in the numbers i still have issues with, so if i skip one, i don't have anything else to say regarding that aspect.

1. that'd be insanely hard to do from a logistics standpoint. it's a good idea, but if it was going to work, it would have had to be implemented back in 2011 when cws started. now, there's way too many items that there's simply no way of finding out the status of anymore - a lot of their creators and artists have left the site without a way to contact them, a lot of them have no records posted anywhere, and relying on memory is not a workable way to do something like that. people could accidentally mark things private that never were, or they forget to mark things, or we get debate and drama over what was and wasn't a private of someone who hasn't been on the site in four years. also, this is a detail thing, but if it was made where it couldn't be bought or sold by anyone but the creator, then... wouldn't they have to own all the copies? bc if no one else can buy it, the creator can't sell it. so you'd have to have some way for people to return the copy to the creator, or for the creator to sell it to someone that it not themselves. i'm not sure it'd be possible from a coding standpoint to make it where it could only transact between the creator and someone else either? not sure on that, i don't know much about coding, it just sounds difficult.

2. okay, yes, names are a thing. tbh i'm not a huge fan of that, but i'll admit, i've definitely snagged a couple too. however, there is some form of compensation for that, and i do view that particular method of compensation as adequate. that's not the case with this cw idea; i think the proposed compensation is not even close to adequate, nor do i think it would be easy to even decide what sort of categorization that compensation would need to be in (submitting category, number of cws, last market price of cws, purchase price of cws?? - but there's not even a way to keep track of those last two, which would be closer to fair). i have less of an issue with the idea of letting these users release their items into the pawn, but it would 100% have to be up to the individual user, and it would have to be straight into the pawn, not in auction style, for me to even consider this a reasonable idea.

3. there absolutely will always be drama. difference is, not all drama has equal consequence. the drama this would cause is far more consequential to the wellbeing of the cw market as an economy than the lack of old/private cws in circulation.

4. we're so fortunate to have the mods we do, you're absolutely right. but they're still people, and there will always be mistakes made - like what 's currently going through, i personally don't think she did what she was accused of (though admittedly i know very little about the situation, this is purely an example) and she absolutely believes she's innocent, but staff doesn't. in any situation, despite the most condemning evidence, there will still be some way that someone could be innocent - lawyers have proven that so many times over in court cases. and as long as people are involved, i guarantee it would happen to someone. all it takes it one accusation and some semi-plausible evidence, and if you look hard enough, you can find dirt on anyone. the cw community is already small, you're right. i just don't want it to get smaller.

5. this is debatable and i've already said my piece on this in an earlier number, but tbh i don't see many people who owned privates doing that? they probably own privates that aren't their own, so even if they had no problem with their own privates being distributed, they'd have to think about those belonging to their friends. they might still talk to people who are on the site, and those people may not look kindly on their privates being released.

6. (calling this 7 now) not sure if the 30 day no pawn rule is a plausible thing, i think that sorta idea was brought up a lot before the pawn closed? but even if that's possible, people would still stockpile them for the profit and pawn them after 30 days. you could potentially make a huge profit off of that, and there are definitely people on here who are patient enough. i don't know how driving the price down in the pawn would help either, as that would drive down the price for everyone in possession of the item and isn't really fair to someone who owned it prior and may decide they want to sell. considering that staff doesn't seem to be making changes to the pawn, it will most likely work like it used to when it's open, so i do still think it's relevant - if i'm wrong about them making changes, perhaps not, but i haven't heard anything about that.

7. okay, yes, it is minimal. you're right. that's not the issue. the issue is that it's still possible at all. if there's even a .01% chance, it needs to be accounted for. even for a week though, the auction feature would do longstanding economic damage, and i don't think it's worth it.

have you seen this?

I'm against this. imo CWs aren't and shouldn't be treated as "special" items, any more than any other rare or expensive item on the site. Why should the staff 'loot' frozen users' accounts for CWs? They don't do that for old plot items or old CS items or weapons. Some of those are almost certainly more valuable than most CWs. Just because some old items are reintroduced through methods like the antique shop, that doesn't mean that users are entitled to have easy access to whatever rare items they want.

Plus, it's not like there's some limit to the CWs you can make now. Anyone can easily make/commission a knock-off of any CW. If it's so important to have that specific wearable, it's possible to make a knockoff of it. But let's be real this isn't really about HA Fashion, it's about getting rare items and exclusive privates at a discount.

That's not how it works. Once you're gone for a year, frozen or not, your account gets marked inactive and your user- and pet names become available. Your actual account, all your items, pets, wardrobe, etc. are still there (just in some cases, renamed). That's the entire point of the system we have now, that people (who are actually allowed to come back) will have something to come back to.

I feel like probably addressed the rest of the points way better than I could explain my thoughts, I just wanted to nitpick this one because it really is completely different than the suggestion in the OP

I'm pretty much against it because the staff never did it for a huge amount of items that were not available for couple of years and some are still in this situation, if they brought them back from frozen accounts, we could actually buy whatever we wanted in a cheap price and we wouldn't have to wait a year or two until the staff would bring them back..

I see CWs as just another items, especially when you can sell them in the shops now..

And also, what has been frozen can melt "^_^

The suggestion of a "CW donor" clause option on an account is vastly different than frozen/inactive users' items being put up for auction?

I don't really support forcibly removing items from accounts to be sold off. In really any circumstance.

For an opt-in system, maybe? I'd want to see more discussion on that iteration of the idea rather than what this discussion has evolved into though.

i don't support this; folks far more articulate than i have gone into the exact reasons so i won't waste everyone's time with more words BUT! i just wanted to post for the sake of acknowledging that i'm glad that staff have said that it won't be happening (what a weird mouthful but wuighwgh)