Including a poll still would have been a good idea, as it provides some numerical summary. Otherwise yes, having more options would be nice.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 to Dragonmania! SGtools options become more and more advenced every week
Comment has been collapsed.
I couldn't agree with you more. I made 3 giveaways the other day and all 3 of them were won by transgressors who have either unactivated games or multiple wins for the same game. It's ridiculous and I will be making a statement about this soon when I have more time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I responded to you about it in one of your giveaways, perhaps you missed it. Quote:
I couldn't agree more. The punishments on this site are frequently absurd, with repeat rule breakers continuing their deeds with impunity (for extended periods at least), while honest contributors are getting suspensions for implicitly calling out the felons. It's ridicules, but it shouldn't deter you from staying here, enjoying the community and giving to those who deserve winning. You just need to realize that you can't rely on Support to always fix things for you. Prevention is better than cure. Here's what I do:
- I only create low level public GAs for cheap games with bad or mixed reviews. If the winner broke the rules, I report them, but if the ticket is denied because they "already served suspension" I just accept it. No big loss. The game they won may be punishment enough ;-)
- For better games which I still want to do a low level GA for, I just use sgtools.info filter and make sure to check both "Activated all won games" & "Not won the same game multiple times". For this type of game I sometime create Level 5 public giveaways, so far without issues.
- For still better games (e.g. unbundled stuff), I just create whitelist- and/or group-giveaways. I make sure to join groups where members are checked for unactivated wins or multiple wins of the same game, and I do the same with members of my whitelist (all 650 of them).
The above isn't exactly the formula for SG nirvana, but it comes close enough ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
While you have repeatedly announced your disagreement with the rules of this site and how transgressions are handled---and you are certainly entitled to your opinion---please remember that your point of view is simply that; your opinion. Embellishing the facts until they become falsehoods (e.g. "rule-breakers continue their deeds with impunity") does a disservice to both the people who read your postings and the Support Staff who work hard to keep things running smoothly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for the poor phrasing (edited now). It's not the majority or even the typical case, but it does happen that people who broke the rules repeatedly stopped just in time before getting a permanent ban. The fact that they eventually stopped doesn't mean that everything is good and dandy.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can agree that we can hope for better. I would prefer people just followed the rules from the beginning, but it doesn't always happen that way. I would also like to see a way of picking up on "repeat offenders" more quickly, but I have not yet figured out a way to do that short of manually checking every person I come across.
Comment has been collapsed.
I saw it. Thanks for your perspective and the info. I appreciate it. I've been largely neglecting my notifications, because frankly I resent having to devote time to this nonsense. But I will sooner or later. I've had more important things to worry about though, like an ill family member.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry to hear that and I hope you family member is fine now. Definitely there are way more important things in life to worry about than the ethics of giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you. I wish I could say that things were getting better but they aren't. If I had advice for anyone it would be to enjoy and appreciate what you do have rather than fret over what you don't. It seems easy to fall into a habit of taking many things for granted.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the biggest problem is the black or white and no grey area in between.
If you started out with a mistake and grew up to be the most generous person on SG you are still blocked from entering the "no multiple wins" or "no unactivated" giveaways.
I'm fine with the numerical demands, if you want exclusive groups but are too lazy to make one that is how you do it I guess.
Just please, try not to turn this town into a fenced off neighborhood like Hidden Hills. (Charlie Sheen could be your neighbor....)
Comment has been collapsed.
It was already told few times - you can easily get rid of not activated game by activating it on your account. Multiple win is more complex, but still can be done.
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot can be done and is told, yet the same questions pop up over and over :)
There is a FAQ that hardly anybody uses, even less people do searches in discussions for solutions to those kinds of problems.
People like fast and easy solutions, no tldr...lets create a discussion instead!
The lurkers still outnumber us forum dwellers.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, would make it much easier and nice to use it for public giveaways as well...
it would also be nice, if the system could save the giveaway options, you have used last time (at least as cookie). if you want to create a big train, you have to choose all options again and again... and probably cause of repeat you will make at the end mistakes^^
Comment has been collapsed.
You're...right, but Dragomania is right too :-/
And who's right more of you both?
Comment has been collapsed.
If i remember correctly a mod / cg stated directly that they will never implement any feature restraining new users from anything.
And yet they implemented blacklists and whitelists.
My opinion on this: I don't really need it, i wouldn't use it if it was here and i don't feel comfortable with everyone getting more and more "elite" around here.
To be fair, doing a whitelist giveaway is about as 'elitist' as it gets. Plus it is basically the same thing as using features that restrict people from giveaways, except you have a greater level of control. The main difference between this and the SG Tools 'rules' being that you can't include/exclude everyone who might fit certain criteria because that's just not practical with whitelisting/blacklisting.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really need it, i wouldn't use it if it was here and i don't feel comfortable with everyone getting more and more "elite" around here.
thank you,
+1
Comment has been collapsed.
+1. I'm seeing the elitism more and more every day. It seems people only want to give away to precise crowds, but still want CV as though they hadn't. It's disheartening, to say the least. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems people only want to give away to precise crowds
I wouldn't say giving to precise crowds but rather preventing some. Rulebreakers and leeches are the most affected and more often than not they rarely contribute anything but whining blacklist threads.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't say giving to precise crowds but rather preventing some. Rulebreakers and leeches are the most affected and more often than not they rarely contribute anything but whining blacklist threads.
And what about rule-breakers who have already served their punishment? Why should it be up to us (the community) to continue punishing them even when they've "done their time" and since become contributing members of the SG community? I know of several who have broken rules at one point and are now great members of the community.
Sorry, but I don't much like the term "leechers". I never have. Unless I know every single person and their circumstances, it's not up to me to judge them. Lumping people into broad generalized groups has never much been my thing. Besides, there's a level system already in place to segregate out non-contributors. Any further tools serve only to segregate those users even further (through ratio, etc) and are unnecessary IMHO. There are already groups, whitelist, etc for that purpose.
The whole thing makes me wonder if this new push is not so much for more options as it is making people feel better about excluding others while still getting their "due" CV. To each his own, but this isn't something I can support with a clear conscience.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should it be up to us (the community) to continue punishing them even when they've "done their time" and since become contributing members of the SG community?
Because if it's either that or us (the community) and Support getting continues punishment.
Solution for rule breakers: Activate your wins and/or do what's needed to get rid of multiple wins. No-one gets punished, everyone is happy :-)
Comment has been collapsed.
I ask to re-roll every time I see a rulebreaker win my game and support gets that punishment you want to spare from rulebreakers. At least here you can remove that mark on your account if you bothered to. Most rulebreakers don't even bother to learn how to fix their mistake until they've been blacklisted by a good number of people or can't join a giveaway they're hungry for then start calling contributors names and act like they're entitled to the giveaway a person is doing. (You'll see the same people on similar threads.)
The rulebreakers that become great members of the community are few and have probably taken steps or bothered to take steps how to clean up their account. The issue here is about the vast majority who doesn't care as long as they can still continue taking. Those are the leechers.
The whole thing makes me wonder if this new push is not so much for more options as it is making people feel better about excluding others while still getting their "due" CV.
Groups, whitelists, and invite only GAs basically do the same thing. You have an issue with that too? Maybe not cause you've won 3 invite only GAs and 5 group/whitelist GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
Groups, whitelists, and invite only GAs basically do the same thing. You have an issue with that too? Maybe not cause you've won 3 invite only GAs and 5 group/whitelist GAs.
The difference is that those tools are already integrated into the site (and were when I came back to SG) -- whether I agree with their use or not is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion How others create their giveaways isn't my decision, either - I just enter the ones I want that are made available to me, and I do it without complaint for the ones I cannot enter. I don't choose their white-list or group members. While you were "browsing" my profile for ammunition, maybe you've noticed that I've also never made a single invite-only, group, or white-list giveaway - again for reasons of my own. That's not to say I won't someday, but at least I'd be doing it well within the confines of the site's given tools. My blacklist, on the other hand, is comprised entirely of people who are overly rude or disrespectful to others here on the site, or people I've directly found to be rule-breakers (usually on accident). Again, all within the confines of this site's rules and tools.
Besides, the question proposed here isn't whether or not I agree with the tools the site currently employs, but rather do I want MORE tools to segregate users in giveaways, and to that I've already replied no, and given my reasons for that decision. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and honestly I couldn't care less for the consequences of my choice. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
While you were "browsing" my profile for ammunition, maybe you've noticed that I've also never made a single invite-only, group, or white-list giveaway - again for reasons of my own.
Oh I actually noticed that and understood in a way why you don't want to limit GAs. Then I looked at your wins and saw those and was a bit confused cause you were basically supporting people who excluded others while getting their due CV and it seemed you thought badly of them from your reply. That's why I pointed that out.
I don't choose their white-list or group members.
You kinda did apply for one just saying. ;)
people I've directly found to be rule-breakers (usually on accident). Again, all within the confines of this site's rules and tools.
If that's what you want to do then fine. But let others reserve the right to want to check for rulebreakers and be diligent. Even if the additional options get implemented, you don't even have to fully utilize them but let other people who want to check do it. Like you've pointed out, there are people who broke rules and became great members of the community. But what about the vast majority who hasn't bothered to correct their ways? Do we just turn a blind eye and pretend they don't exist? This tool forces them to at least learn how to correct their actions. Is that being elitist?
Yes, I saw your reply and read your reasons and I've replied to that too but this one is primarily about your notion that people who put limiting criteria on their GAs are this: "I'm seeing the elitism more and more every day. It seems people only want to give away to precise crowds, but still want CV as though they hadn't."
And the consequences of this would probably affect me more than you. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh I actually noticed that and understood in a way why you don't want to limit GAs. Then I looked at your wins and saw those and was a bit confused cause you were basically supporting people who excluded others while getting their due CV and it seemed you thought badly of them from your reply. That's why I pointed that out.
I wasn't supporting anything beyond their right to use the tools given by this site to create their giveaways. Don't read much more into it than that, outside of the fact that I wanted those games, but that should be obvious enough (or I wouldn't have entered). Again -- all within the rules and tools provided by this site.
You kinda did apply for one just saying. ;)
Choosing the members of a group and applying for one are two different things entirely. I have yet to join a group that requires "group-only" giveaways, so I'm sure the one I applied for didn't have such a requirement (since I don't agree with such requirements but certainly don't condemn others for using them as long as it's within the site rules and using the tools given here). Again, I have yet to make a group-only giveaway, but if I did it would be made using the tools available here on-site.
"I'm seeing the elitism more and more every day. It seems people only want to give away to precise crowds, but still want CV as though they hadn't."
That's merely an observation made during my time here. Nothing more, nothing less. Read into it what you will. That's on you, not me.
And the consequences of this would probably affect me more than you. :P
Quite possible, which is perhaps why you're more vehement about your opinion than I am, to the point of browsing my profile in an attempt to find some sort of hypocrisy? ;) I stated my opinion, that's all. I don't expect you to agree, nor will I try to change your mind.
On another note, new information has been provided me about the sync function, and I'm currently re-evaluating my stance on the whole thing. (This is addressing your second to last paragraph only). It seems to me that the non-activations and multiple wins checker could be directly implemented into the sync function, and the whole suspension process could be automated, completely eliminating the "need" for that part of SGTools' functionality.
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems to me that the non-activations and multiple wins checker could be directly implemented into the sync function, and the whole suspension process could be automated, completely eliminating the "need" for that part of SGTools' functionality.
sg rules only give you a suspension for unactivated/multiple wins. you can come back from your time out, keep your wins unactivated and enter anything you want.
sgtools doesn't check if you are already suspended for an infraction, you either fix that problem by activating all your wins or you won't be able to enter those GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I got all that.
BUTTTTT -- we have to sync once a week, right? Change the (would- be) automatic suspension from 2-3 days (or whatever it is now - maybe 5?) to one week. That person stays suspended until their wins are activated, and can come back once their wins are all activated. It would all be automated and cut down on support complaints at the same time. Win-win as far as I can tell.
Multiple wins are a different animal entirely. That would require the winner to contact support and blah blah (insert stuff you already know here). Not sure exactly how that would be handled, but it could definitely be flagged by the sync system.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's merely an observation made during my time here. Nothing more, nothing less. Read into it what you will. That's on you, not me.
These is more on the philosophy now more than anything but isn't it also be the speakers responsibility to make sure the message they're trying to make clear comes across as what they wanted it to be and not let it be twisted?
Quite possible, which is perhaps why you're more vehement about your opinion than I am, to the point of browsing my profile in an attempt to find some sort of hypocrisy?
I guess you could call it that but I was thinking more of consistency in action...which is the basically the same I guess but personally it doesn't hold the same negative notion as hypocrisy in my head. Looking for hypocrisy implies I think you're already bad and just need proof, searching for consistency personally means that your words are admirable but do your actions support it? I don't know if that makes sense but know that I don't think of you negatively at all! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
There is big cons about implementing SGtools into the site itself - not long ago site was barely responsive and CG had to remove "last" button from main GAs page (and do some more optimizations). So adding options which would force site to calculate real CV ratio / multiple wins / non activations checks etc everytime someone want to enter into GA would kill this site permanently most probably.
Comment has been collapsed.
should be as complicated as the level system^^ saving the ratio in the database and if ratio is needed, check if ratio better than needed
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, but still site would have to run whole check at least once per day (for 800k+ users) and store result somewhere - which isn't bad. Because it could be done during "lazy hours" with small traffic.
The bad thing is that you would stick with this cached values for whole day and if your GAs would end after this check in worst scenario you would have to stick without "better" statistics (CV value / level / GAs ratio and so on) for 23 hours - so won't be able to enter into GAs even if you meet their requirements. On the other hand people which would be able to "cheat" system by giving few free copies / exploited games and so on would be able to enter into "better" GAs even when they clearly don't meet requirements.
Sure, site could run calculations like this more frequently (like once per hour or something), but it'd have huge impact on site responsivity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Impact would be tiny, the most time consumig task is already executed for CV calculations. Calculating additional values is 'free' compared to the cost of DB access
Comment has been collapsed.
how does it works with level system? will it only calculated, if you a game get marked as received or if a steam prize will changed? this would be the same moment, the ratio would need to be changed (for you and the winner).
Comment has been collapsed.
Calculating real CV ratio / multiple wins is one freaking MySQL query for SG, why do you state things you have no idea about?
Yes, it's painful for us (developers working with SG) to implement some things, mostly because SG is not developer-friendly and we need to hack our way through, but it doesn't mean that SG can't access the same information out of the box in 1 very simple MySQL query.
Handling non-activated wins is the only thing which requires a bit more, because it also requires checking owned appIDs by user, SG also has access to that, but it would be 2 queries instead of 1.
In fact, implementing all of that would make SG smoother because SGTools wouldn't have to do dozen of requests to fetch all won games, and with every game more the number of requests increase.
But of course, everyone knows better, especially people who have no idea how any website works.
Comment has been collapsed.
This - the cv table is already queried. And non activations can be checked on sync only, making it basically free
Comment has been collapsed.
CV / ratio are static information. Basically you can pre-calculate them and updated when giveaway is marked received. Which is already a DB query.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see it now, after comments of people who are more into software than I am, that it woudn't be much problem.
But what about checking for activations / multiple wins? Righ now site checks for it once per week - it would have to be done a lot more frequent (and it would be done automatically, so users would have to have public profiles all the time) plus there are lots of false positive hits - we should have another role "false positive checker" who'd work as Shobo, but instead operate on some kind of "white list".
Comment has been collapsed.
Activations / multiple wins are two different things. Activations can be checked at each sync of profile, leaves some room for bad timings, but there is trade-offs...
Multiple-wins shouldn't happen at all. And really anyone should be barred from entering give-aways that have been marked received for exactly same game.
Comment has been collapsed.
For me it's big yes. But..
Only after few months of, hmm, evaluation period so we can see how it impacts forum community in reality and which conditions do more harm then good (if any)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree it should be implemented, and I'm not even going to argue whether I find it a good idea to have the limitations or not cause it seems that point is already kinda moot. sgtools now supports complicated limitations, so the cat's out of the bag anyway... So either implement it cause you think it's a good idea or implement it to at least have a certain control over it if you think it's a bad idea...
The only argument against it I could in theory see is leaving it external like this has technical advantages but I just can't really imagine this in practice...
Comment has been collapsed.
No. Hacked way to do something (SGTools) is unfriendly for SG server, because it requires sending dozen of requests for something that could be achieved with one simple MySQL query. If more people start using it, it's possible that SG will keep dying even more often.
I did some small tests today and the situation is actually pathetic, but only cg should hear about the results.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's possible that SG will keep dying even more often.
Another good reason to import some features here at SG.No dependent on the SG Tools page if it should fail/shutdown (heavy Serverload).
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what I meant by theory and practice... In theory "technical problems" would be a good reason but I can't image it to be true in practical application...
Now that I thought about it a bit, another argument against could be "not too many people know about sgtools and we don't wanna promote it any more" (Not from a technical standpoint, from an ideological one)... Cause I bet there are much more people that would add limits if it was offered upon creation, compared to having to use another site... But even then something like an api should be implemented, I guess...
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, but I think there are enough limited giveaways already. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
To be clear and upfront -- I don't care if people use the new SGTools to create their giveaways. To each his own, blah blah blah.
BUT (and this is a huge but for me) -- I am not overly fond of the "no unactivated wins/muiltiple wins" exclusion policy. Someone brought it up to me yesterday, and I gave it a good amount of thought. At first I liked the idea of being able to automatically exclude people who had previously broken the rules However, my mind has changed completely on the matter. There is already a system in place, whether people like it or not, to deal with people who break the rules. On top of that, there is a blacklist to which you can add rule-breakers if you like. That should be all that's needed. There are already several ways to deal with rule-breakers in place.
These new SGTools are adding another way to exclude anyone who has previously broken the rules, even if they've already served their punishment (per the site rules and guidelines) in the past. I've already seen people say "well they can buy and activate the game and be rid of that blemish." That really doesn't excuse the fact that they've already been punished for what they've done. Should they continue to be punished? For how long? And what about multiple wins? Should a user be excluded simply because a developer refused to re-roll a giveaway? And what about new people? Should they be forever "marked" and excluded from giveaways simply because they didn't know all the rules of the site (which others have openly admitted in another thread need to be easier to read before using the site).
Maybe I'm going a little too easy on people, but in my opinion -- once you've served your punishment, you should be given the chance to learn your lesson and straighten up, not forever have that wrong held against you. With this new tool at our disposal (or even worse, integrated into the site), it'd be far too easy to exclude people who have made mistakes in the past. Let's keep in mind -- everyone makes mistakes -- and I know of a few people on this site who had initially made mistakes and went on to become amazing contributors to the site and community.
Just my two cents. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Serving a suspension may rid the rule breaker from blame, but it continues to punish giveaway creators and Support because it creates and endless loop of reroll requests being created, and then denied. I just had 3 of those yesterday (thank you jatan11t for the patience). The rule breakers of course aren't bothered by the never-ending mess they created. SGTools fixes this problem.
And if a developer refused to re-roll a giveaway I believe Support will be willing to delete the winner from the GA.
Another benefit of having this type of filter is that new users will know about the importance of activating their wins and rerolling multiple wins very quickly. Currently they have to read the FAQ, which most of them probably don't do. Not to mention that it doesn't even cover multiple wins.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I just don't care as much as others about giveaways I create, but I most definitely feel that the tools I've already been given are adequate for my needs. Any further tools added (particularly those that are community run and in use without prolonged testing) are only going to serve to further segregate an already extremely segregated community, in my opinion.
To each his own, though. I can respect others wanting to have more options at their disposal, even if I don't agree with their reasoning for wanting them. I'm not referring to your reasons in particular -- I can certainly understand how someone would want a much smoother giveaway experience -- but I've seen other not so tasteful reasons proposed for wanting these tools available. I'm just hoping these new "options" don't fragment SG even further.
Having said that, I will never use SGTools to create giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "don't care as much as others about giveaways I create". Don't you check your winners? If you do, then you care. You just may not care about the time you and Support waste on this. If you don't, and others follow you and don't check their winners, then rule breakers would never be punished and the site will become regifters heaven, driving most contributors out.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I don't check my winners. Not one. Never have. The site does that when it forces a sync, and infractions are then dealt with (either automated or by support - that I don't know). My level of involvement ends when I set a level requirement for the giveaway and send the key/gift, and that's how I like it. I have a whitelist and groups I can join if I want other requirements for giveaways. Typically I like to keep it simple.
If people truly feel these tools are needed to deal with rule-breakers (though I feel that's not the ONLY reason people want them), then the problem is with how rulebreakers are found and dealt with (or more to the point -- how readily available rules are to new users), and SG's system therefore needs revamping. I applaud the way you've been one of the few people I've seen using SGTools in a positive manner for low-levels and people who try but can't always contribute, but let's face it -- you're in the minority here. Most people it seems just want to use them to add more restriction to their giveaways beyond what the site offers. While I'm usually in support of options for most things, I can't say I'm in full support of more options in this case ... again, just my two cents.
I came here to give away some games, and maybe win a couple in the process. That's all, that's it. What I've been seeing lately has made me consider going back to how I used to give away my games -- to my Steam and Facebook friends. In fact, I'm now to the point I'd be all for doing away with CV and levels altogether and see who sticks around after that.
Comment has been collapsed.
rules are enforced by support, but users are the ones making reports. staff can't be checking the forum, GAs and profiles all day long, that's not how SG works, it's impossible.
khalaq once made a thread about this: http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/GeDfy/
not gonna discuss sgtools anymore, i'm tired of people complaining. -.-
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, well that's entirely new information to me. I was under the impression that syncing your account also checked for multiple wins/non-activations (the same way SGTools does). Seems it would certainly be a welcome addition to the sync's functionality.
I don't know if that changes my opinion on the OP's question -- I'd have to consider it further with this new information (and the link Mullins posted as well).
Copy-pasta'd because I didn't feel like typing it all out again. Thanks for the link. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
The site does that when it forces a sync, and infractions are then dealt with (either automated or by support - that I don't know)
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. My impression is that infractions are only punished based on user reports and that syncing is mostly used to remove owned games from the Giveaways list. I could be wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, well that's entirely new information to me. I was under the impression that syncing your account also checked for multiple wins/non-activations (the same way SGTools does). Seems it would certainly be a welcome addition to the sync's functionality.
I don't know if that changes my opinion on the OP's question -- I'd have to consider it further with this new information (and the link Mullins posted as well).
EDIT: Now that I think about it, WHY ISN'T that part of the site's sync function? LOL
Comment has been collapsed.
^What Yirg said and additionally limiting the GAs forces them to learn the rules. Like you've read in a lot of threads, these rulebreakers don't even bother to learn how to fix their mistakes UNTIL they've noticed they've been blacklisted or limited from entering a giveaway. Then they create a topic about "how rule breakers are constantly punished and should catered to" not saying all topics like are the same but on average it's generally that.
Not everyone uses sgtools anyway and people are already acting so angry they can't join the giveaways they feel entitled to. There has been about 50-100(?) sgtools vetted giveaways yet people act like it's the end of their world and have no more giveaways to join. There are still plenty of giveaways that aren't using sgtools so why are they singling out the ones that do? Clearly because they want THAT specific GA and not just any GA.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why is everybody thinking the way of limiting new users and stuff?
What about the function to be able to give games with a library size less than X and who have, for instance, given more than Y. Why does everybody appear to just want to give to people who a) have thousands of games already b) mostly don't play their wins c) follow allllll teh rluz. Because not playing a game doesn't suck, but not activating it is a capital crime.
I'd love to spend money on somebody who's happy and playing my game and not spend $15 on dudes who farm it for 20 cent cards.
(Yes, I know I could use Sgtools to achieve some of that, but that's a pain if not implemented, and I'd have to trouble the mods in case of and so on and so forth.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know how serious you are about these suggestions, but I wouldn't mind seeing them implemented. Especially library size would be great option for public Level 0 giveaways.
I don't think it would be easy to enforce that people play their wins, but I would actually like to have something similar limiting me, as a winner. I would like to automatically be excluded from giveaways of people I won games from but haven't played yet. I'm doing this currently for giveaways by KTS, who I won two great games from recently (one of which - Undertale - I just started playing).
Comment has been collapsed.
See my comment below for more elaboration, but limiting yourself from other users could be counterproductive. I'll just take my ratio-group for an instance, where we regularly win games from the same persons - often on a monthly basis. With an automatic limitation such groups wouldn't work anymore.
Regarding my suggestions, I would like to see them in place, honestly. But as an internal, widely accepted SG-system, not external via Sgtools. I also don't like blacklisting people - always leads to drama. Taking note of that, there's some users i really sympathize with (as persons) but wouldn't want to win a game from me I just spent 15€ on, because I can almost certainly tell they're not going to play it in a timely manner. Blacklisting those would be an option, but very time consuming for me and very drama-y for both sides... So nope to that.
I would have far less of a problem giving more "good" (meaning: non bundled rather expensive) titles to people who I feel are most likely to play it. But as for now, seing bundle GAs and exploited games can take you to level 7 and beyond (which I feel is astounding) I have no way to ensure this doing a high level giveaway.
Note that I am no saint myself, with not having played all of my 54 wins. And honestly, some bundled wins I'm not planning on playing anymore. But in return, I don't really care what happens to most bundled games - I just care what happens to the titles I actually drop the bucks on for somebody else. And when I see it goes uncherished most of the time it kind of makes me sad. Well, I'll stop now because I could endlessly discuss this topic, as well as it being very sensitive and some users heavily disagreeing with me ("but I'm a collector, I collect games on steam so I want to win everything because another AppID in my account is sooo great. Playing games, what is that?"). No. I disagree. You don't collect games from my hard earned money. You play them, as intended. In the same way, you wouldn't give a millionaire 10 bucks because he's collecting money, would you? Grr
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't say it's about limiting new users but rather rewarding contributors and people who follow rules. Limiting giveaways from rulebreakers FORCES them to learn the site rules which is a good thing for everyone esp for Support plus it's also lesser headache for GA creators.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, rewarding contributors is automatically often excluding the weaker ones, as I feel that there's a general paranoia on SG here from some users that every user below level 7 is a bot and doesn't follow the rules (intentionally exaggerated). I also like people following the rules, but sometimes, people overdo it. I can remember threads about people complaining that 70% of their winners broke the rules and they had to reroll a million times - this is also a lot of workload for support.
But that's not my point. My point is that it bothers me when I spend a lot of real money (so not talking bundle games right now) for people who farm it for cards (at best). There's no way to enforce it - but chances that the game is played are higher when the users library is smaller. At least in a public giveaway, I'm explicitly excluding my ratio GA group from this, because we all own a lot of games there, but we also all spend a lot of money for this group.
But as for the general mass goes, some people feel entitled to enter everything they want regardless of intention to play it or farm it for cards. I don't care about that when it comes to bundle games, just saying it again. And I absolutely don't agree with that. You, of course, can't prevent that from happening either, but one could ask for an option to limit this kind of activity by, for instance, limiting library size.
Unfortunately, most efforts so far are rather limiting new serious users than limiting anything else.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I've just recently encountered a lvl 7 bot and they're part of a group that needs to have a montly non-bundled GA too :v So that's disappointing to say the least but that's beside the point.
You can actually try to ask the creator of sgtools to try to include that option if it's actually doable. SGtools can also limit the max level a person can be to enter your GA. I think for the most part you can work the settings to the advantage of new users. It's really up to you how you manipulate the settings.
Comment has been collapsed.
Really? A level 7 bot that's in a monthly ratio group? What's the point of said bot then? I mean you have to give something away then. I don't know how to feel about that case :D
Comment has been collapsed.
At the moment, I think he's entering certain levels of public giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
This community has gone to ....... and i dont care if u blacklist me, ban me, whatever because there is nothing more that keeps me here.
Isn't this site called steamgifts? Always high level cheapskates complain about something. If U dont like to give, especially in holiday times, go the .... away!!!
It would be best for U high level cheapskates to sit in a room and exchange games between yourself, and then brag away that u gave some breadcrumbs to pidgeons.
Youre like politicians, sick, twisted, sociopathic and make me and alot of others sick. You don't have authority here and never will.
just my 2 cents and happy bday to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
actually sgtool would promote more public giveaways from high level members.
Comment has been collapsed.
high level cheapskates
I do not think that a lot people gets to lvl 10 by keeping gifts for themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
If people were true cheapskates, they wouldn't be high level. Just saying.
There's always someone like you who complains about other people not giving more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Would be nice to see a few tools from sgtools brought over (checking for activated/multiple wins) since those actions are encouraged by the site and support in the first place.
The other stuff, I'm more iffy on but it basically boils down to 'their money, their rules' and the more options you give, the better,
Comment has been collapsed.
i am right \o
no, i am o/
i'm so tired of these threads -facepalm-
Comment has been collapsed.
But mommy told me I'm right because I'm special. Are you telling me she lied to me?
Comment has been collapsed.
Two ideals this site tries to adhere to are flexibility and keeping the power in the hands of "the people" as much as possible. Enabling "the people" to give to whomever they please is good, but automation tends to reduce flexibility.
Comment has been collapsed.
All those fancy ratio settings, CV-settings and many many more.....I really don't have a strong demand for them.
But I would kiss CG and the whole support team ( and you know I'm a prince) for just implementing the function to make a combo of hidden+group-giveaways
I'm aware that begging is against the rules....so I just add my innocent face here:
Comment has been collapsed.
I only read the OP, but couldn't figure what it is you're trying to achieve. Maybe I'm dense...
Comment has been collapsed.
@primarily addressed to "cg" (sg admin)
Hi everyone,
since more and more SG members utilize the options/filters of SG Tools (http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/jFlpd/sgtools-future-new-tool-opinions-suggestions-ideas) for their GA's i would like to see (some) options here on Steamgifts as a "built it" feature.No poll because a) not conclusive (based on the entire community) and b) easy to manipulate.Your opinions please.
Comment has been collapsed.