Is SG a charity site?

I've done charity in past, I can confirm, it's not the same.

Hell no, this isn't a charity site. UNICEF is a charity site. ASPCA is a charity site. If I want to donate to charity, there are much better sites for that than SG. And much more truly needy people and causes, for that matter.

First, like you said, you need $100 in non-bundled games just to create an account here, then you need a PC able to run any of those games and the games you win here. Then you also need internet. If you have internet, a roof over your head, electricity, a PC and a handful of games, you're definitely not in need of charity. ;)

To me, this is just a site to share some games with other gamers.

In general I'd say that any giving for the sake of giving to others who are less fortunate is charity. I think that SG was largely a charity site before CV, or at least, most giving was charitable, but that transformed it into what I call a "random trading" site. Currently the site encourages giving to those who are better off: the more you gift, the more you can win. I do miss the charity days and it kind of bugs me that people are proud of giving to 8th level gifters, or whatever, when most of these have 2000+ games in their accounts and have won hundreds of games already.

SG is just a game of gift exchange, nothing more.

Yes its charity if you disagree cuz you're gay :>

I give away to earn cv and discard games that i wont be playing so that others can play it.

a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c : public provision for the relief of the needy

We are suffering from the lack of games, we are poor and we need games. relieve us!

charity you expect nothing in return , here we expect people to give back at least what they have won and maintain that ratio(at least most of us do)

I don´t care, if someone calls giveaways here charity or not. But yes...sometimes "charity" for e.g. on humble bundle does not comply my thoughts of charity, like games for soldiers. At the end charity is a very open word...and it´s sometimes about basic needs for people that suffer and sometimes it´s more like a cake for the fat boy next door, but in both cases it´s about making people happy. But of course, some on SG think "charity" is something like welfare than they deserve by rules....just ignore them.

Not a charity organization but people can be charitable here too :)

We help a couple charity organizations in my town, I think it's the best definition of charity (when you consider organizations or people in need)

I have never heard anyone saying SG was charity o_o
And I would never call it like that.. Then christmas, birthday etc. presents for friends would be charity too,..

I think anyone who meets a GA's objective requirements is entitled to a chance at winning. A lot of people seem to expand this to mean "everyone who meets a GA's requirements is entitled to a WIN", which is fundamentally different as well as impossible .

If this is charity I expect my papers ready in time for tax season cg.

I would say no, but not because I think games can't be given as charity. I know there are plenty of good free games, but sometimes a bit more can help. There are plenty of charities based on that. However those charities don't just give those items to random strangers on the street who ask for it, regardless if those people need it or not. That's, in my book, gifting, but not doing charity. To quote, for example, Child's Play: "Child's play seek to improve the lives of children in hospitals and domestic violence shelters". SG doesn't have (and can't have) such a goal, since, of course, steam accounts don't indicate your financial/clinical situation. You can't somehow "filter" people for whom this game could mean an improvement in their life from somebody who just wants another +1 to their library.

Giving away things to others is NOT the definition of charity... we are just a community that gives away games through individual title raffles, are we not?

I'm just glad to find homes for the games I won't ever have the time or the desire to play, sometimes I do buy some games and mostly bundles just to give them away to someone who wants those games, a lot of my wishlist are bundle games so I don't have that stigma for them. I'm just grateful for what I've received and want to keep on giving to others the same joy.

Yes it is; for Lord Gaben atleast! ^ ^

"esp. considering the entry requirement to joining the site is $100 USD of non-bundle games" - What do you mean by this?

generosity is one thing and charity is other

I personally define "charity" as any charitable act, "charitable" being any act that is performed out of benevolence and generosity to another. Since SteamGifts is a giveaway site, and giveaway sites function as an incentivized gift economy, I would definitely consider SteamGifts to be a charity site—and not only because I heavily associate the term "gift" with "charity". In my opinion, describing SteamGifts as a "charity site" is not only technically correct, but I would contend that it is an accurate descriptor of what this site is, second only to "giveaway site". But of course, my personal definition and opinion of "charity" isn't very useful to others, nor are others likely to accept it in the face of ones that are far more widely accepted, commonly used, and authoritatively defined. While I am fully aware that most dictionaries and sources define charity differently, specifically as "giving to those in need", I'm not convinced that this fundamentally defines charity. Do the needs of the recipient define the nature of the gift, either exclusively or in conjunction with other conditions? Or do other conditions define the nature of the gift, such as the intent and motive of the giver, or the consequences of giving the gift?

Since the word's very origins, both etymologically and historically, "charity" has been associated with the giving to the poor, not necessarily those in need. Even today, this definition underlies the basis of most charities, and this has generally been true since the term's formation. If we subscribe to the rather particular definition of charity being the act of giving to those in need, then that begs the question of what exactly a "need" is. According to the Oxford Dictionaries, the same source that defines "charity" in the aforementioned manner, a "need" is defined as "[a] thing that is wanted or needed"[1]. By this definition, even if we retain the definition of "charity" that you seem to prefer (and which is stated in the Oxford Dictionaries, among elsewhere), it's clear that SteamGifts could easily qualify as a charity site.

You might object and point out that there is a fundamental difference between a "want" and a "need"—that the ambiguity between the two terms, and their common treatment of being a matter of degree rather than kind, is fallacious. While this may be true, how does one meaningfully distinguish between the two as disparate qualities? A need could be essentially that which is necessary for survival, but what is survival? A want could be anything that is inessential but desired, but inessential to what? One could easily argue that video games are a "need" for some because happiness, satisfaction, and entertainment are all necessary and essential to living a healthy life. Therefore, if video games are a need, charity is giving to those in need, and this site is a means through which some could give video games to others who desire it for the aforementioned reasons, then SteamGifts is most definitely a charity site.

What about if charity is defined as giving to the poor, as it was originally used? The case for SteamGifts being a charity site is more difficult under this definition because there is uncertainty about the amount of material wealth users on this site possess. In my opinion, charity is defined by the perceived disparity between the giver and the recipient, not by any actual disparity in wealth or status or whatever other metric is used. This isn't just my personal opinion; throughout society, an act is typically considered charitable if it is perceived as such, regardless of whether that was its intent and regardless of whether charity was the motive of the giver.

I think the essential disparity that we acknowledge in acts of charity is one of power; the giver possesses more power in a particular way than does the recipient, and the giver exercises this power, often at the detriment to the giver's own power, in order to benefit the recipient of the charity. This is also true in altruism, a concept that underlies charity. Acknowledging that charity is an act of exercising one's power—or sacrificing some of one's power—to benefit another, I believe it's fair to interpret giveaways as acts of power. This is because giveaways could be viewed as situation wherein the creator demonstrates their power over others by giving away a part of that power to whichever recipient wins it. Regardless of whether the recipient actually possesses less power than the giver, the recipient is placed in a position of subordination to the giveaway creator when winning their gift. More importantly, the encounter is often perceived as such. Why else do we thank the giveaway creator for their generosity, especially when it was costly for them? Mere manners? I don't think so.

Let's go back to my personal definition. One major issue with it, aside from being very broad, is that the presence benevolence and generosity—perceived or real—are fundamental conditions for an act to be charitable (and therefore charity). As you and many others are probably aware, there are many users on this site whose interest in SteamGifts and giveaways is limited to Contributor Value (CV), contributions–winnings ratio, Contribution Level, and giveaway feedback, all with the intent of gaining access to exclusive giveaways from private groups and elite contributors. For these users, their contributions are investments, not generosity, and their giveaways are exchanges of goods for CV and Levels, not acts of charity. With this in mind, it's quite obvious that for these individuals, SteamGifts is not a charity site. It's not even a giveaway site! For them, whether they admit it or not, SteamGifts is a gambling den where they pay for access to the clubs through contributions, keep in the club by maintaining their ratios, and place their bets with their points.

This opinion is growing more popular these days, especially as more people abuse the blacklisting system to punish "poor ratios" and openly ridicule those who are winning too much—and giving away too little. Despite how these views, beliefs, and behaviors are antithetical to what SteamGifts and the concept of a giveaway site is, these people continue to shame those who aren't good enough for their ratio groups, and actively seek out new converts among those whose ratios are. The irony is that a giveaway site is meant to be a place for people to give away to those who are less fortunate or, at the very least, interested in getting a free game, and the giveaway creators were usually thought to be generous and benevolent people—hence the whole "charity" idea. Nowadays, however, with ratio elitists whose behavior amounts to poor shaming under the guise of weeding out "leeches", the idea of a "giveaway site" has taken on a rather perverted form.

For me, I prefer to keep the meaning—and idea—of a giveaway site true to its core function: charity. I'm not here to gamble. Are you?

1. I chose this particular definition because it is a noun and seems to best fit the context of this discussion, particularly since "need" in this definition is treated as a distinct article rather than as a quality or state.

It's Gabens secret weapon
Skynet undercover

I never considered Steamgifts as a charity but a way to share games you liked with other people. And this would probably be my biggest gripe with this site. A lot of people don't enter for games they want. They just want o win something (with no intention of playing) and act out of greed.

And to a certain degree I would say there are no "poor" gamers here (computer games are luxury items anyway) that need gifts from the "richer" ones. You need games worth 100$ to join the side and if you enter AAA games you need a PC to handle them. Both aspects show that those people have money (There IS a minority who acquired PC and games through other ways but they are a minority). If people don't want to share games and stay level 0 then the reason is greed and nothing more. Even if they REALLY don't have the money as soon as they win one game with trading cards they have Steam Wallet they can only use on Steam. And they decide to use it for themself. Everyone could be atleast Level 1.

Well, sounds a bit harsh but it is my honest opinion -_- Not a charity side. Rather a place to share games you liked and to find stuff you overlooked. But people are here for different reasons.

I pronunce it BIMP!!!
Yes i know what i've written

A lot of the same people who see this as charity site, will blacklist people with bad ratio. So I think this doesn't make much sense, right? Also, if everyone here were level 10, with hundreds of thousands given away and a lot less wins, the reason for SG to exist wouldn't make sense at all, right? It would be just a fun and fancy trading system for rich people.

For myself, I don't even know why I use this anymore. I mean, I don't have a reason, a rationalized motive. I guess it feels good to giveaway, making someone happy, and at the same time have the excitement of seeing the cat gif once in a while. Both feelings are addictive. It feels good have someone thanking you for a gift, and it feels good winning once in a while. So for now, for me, its simple as that. I started out a bit greedy, won a game in my second day here, then gave away some stuff just to get level 1 and have more chances, then I tried to balance the games given and the games won, but now I just don't care anymore. If I see a good deal, I think first about giving away. I dunno why. Just feels good. I gave away a lot of games I still don't own and I wanted, just because it was not a priority for me and I felt better about giving something good than having it for myself.

And I still have a lot of keys of good games here that I'm waiting for a motivation to make a train/post/puzzle/celebration or something like that. Some of these games I'm actually even trying to win here, lol.

Now when I see a good deal, a bundle with some good games in it, my first thought is about getting something to giveaway. I often get 2 bundles of the same, to activate something myself and giveaway the rest.

But this is not rational. I dunno why I think like this today. Maybe a good environment have a good influence on us. The good people here had a certainly had a good influence on me, so yeah. A healthy environment encourages healthy actions, healthy behaviour.

But I can understand people who uses this for the most various reasons. Even if they have other priorities in life and buying gaming is not the #1, when even a few bucks can make a difference in their life (that is why I don't normally blacklist people with bad ratio, only if for instance, I eventually check someones profile and he never gaveaway, or gaveaway just a little, won tons, and I see their steam profile and they have the latest AAA games, or something like that).

Cause as I said, if everyone here were level 10, with hundreds of thousands given away and a lot less wins, the reason for SG to exist wouldn't make sense at all, right?