When people create giveaways they have the option to make it Contributor only. The site already locks out steam accounts below a certain value. These methods are already in place to reward givers and prevent leeches.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh. You're back...
No. This is a bad idea. The site is for giving, leave it as it is and let the givers choose the requirements to enter there giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
These are all sucky ideas.
There really isn't anything wrong with the current system. It's one which allows gifters flexibility, and a number of options.
I can't see the benefit to these suggestions which essentially strip gifters of these freedoms.
Comment has been collapsed.
that is true, if I had the resources to buy a game to contribute on this wonderful site, I definetly would, because I feel that I owe this site a lot. I won 9 great games, and I try to win a game on other sites so I can give it away here, but didn't happen yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
5.43 estimated wins but only 1 gift won. That's the worst luck I've seen yet. I'm only at 1.58 estimated wins and 0 won. Looks like I have something to aspire to.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sure support will pay attention to all your amazing suggestions.
Comment has been collapsed.
If that were to happen, I'd not use the main feature of the site. No need to be exclusive to a lot of people for no apparent reason than your own pedancy. Some of those guys there simply don't have the funds for it you know, and once they give away something they can they're yelled at because the "the site is flooded with Metro HURR".
Comment has been collapsed.
well personally i think that there should be an increase in wins for the quality of games that have been shared as well as on total "donated price of the said games".and yes let anyone compete but the ones who share the most should get more chances to win. thats only fair.
Comment has been collapsed.
while I totally agree, on getting rid of CV, do you honestly believe that without it all group GA's would suddenly become public GAs accessable to anyone? The person buying a game for his real money has a right to decide how he wish to Give it Away. It shouldn't be forced by any stupid rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Groups are okay. They've been around for a long time, and they serve their purpose. But CV is a twisted concept. People can get a lot of CV just gifting within their group, not doing much for SG at large, and then enter a CV-limited public or forum giveaway. I don't like that. I also don't want to gift to people who have $2000 CV and won 100 games. I would rather gift to someone who won nothing or only a little, even if he has contributed little or not at all. Yet there's no mechanism for me to limit this.
My comment about an inbred group meant to say that I don't want all of SG to be that. I don't want people entering giveaways to have to contribute anything, as was suggested in this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
there are mechanisms for everything you mentioned - they're called specific rule. Want to exclude special people from your GA? request a rule for it, got support approval, create a priv with your own set of rules and post it. Easy as that.
And with 2nd section - if that's what you ment I totally agree, as OPs idea is simply plain stupid ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
well - if someone misses your GA advertisement it's his damn own fault. why should you worry? The same way - if you create a 2 day long GA it will still be missed, because "since not everyone log in daily". You will never get with your GA to everyone who applies to join. But it's still damn better solution than having a system implemented on a site for every imagineable GA. Look at the example.
ET3D wants GAs for people below 2k CV and below 100 games won, but he don't want to request rule for priv GAs because he want's GAs to be public - so cg has to implement 2 new types of GAs. Then DoJu decides that he wants to be able to create GA for people who donated more than 30.01, but less than 1000$CV, so new implementation, then zelgh wanst to run public GA for people with only 1:1 or better ration on win/comment and win/received - 2 new implementations. And so on and on till finally someone demands an implementation that only people with freaking MyLittlePony in avatars may enter his public GAs and cg commits suicide.
If you want specific rules including/excluding certain people from your GAs - do them in private GAs with support rule approval. If you want to make a public GA it's up to you, but bear with it that no rules are applicable.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it's more suited for giveaways, instead of having a lot of giveaways in both the main page and forum, it's nice to have everything in one place.
I do agree that it's a little hard to implement an avatar rule in giveaways, but a simple >#CV / <#CV or >/<#gameswon next to a giveaway shouldn't be the hardest thing to do. It would be confusing at most, but better than making private giveaway threads in my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
The fact on the other hand is - that as it may look simple to you - actually there are literally countless of such an easy queries you may wish to create GAs on. >CV, <CV, >comment, <comments, >won, <won, >created, <created, max_unreceived, max_deleted, >entered, <entered, >estimated, <estimated, date of registration, ratios of everything to everything, must_comment_to_enter, must_have_not_won_in_X_time etc to just name a few.
I on the other hand prefer a simple 3-easy-to-understand-types of GAs and if I want some unstandard rules I can make them in priv GA. Cause honestly - for majority of people tens of types of GAs won't matter, as they anyway just make simple GAs - if they make priv they do simply to forum/chat drop - and implementing confusing system that most of users wouldn't ever use and would just make it harder for them (especially newbies) to use the site, just because small % of people wan't special rules in public GAs when they already CAN use them in groups and privs is not worth it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then it would be a lot easier to be able to tick a box called "unstandard rules" at the giveaway creation page if you wish to feature those. It would work the same way as in forum private giveaways, since you don't know the rules until after you press the giveaway/thread.
Also, I doubt I'm the only one who dislikes re-rolling giveaways because people can't read simple instructions in private giveaway threads. I know re-rolling would occur exactly the same with the above solution, I guess I just don't like having to scroll through the forums for giveaways.
And I don't know anything about website coding, but I wouldn't hope it would be harder to implement a ">/<#gameswon" command or something, than it would be to do the #CV requirement one. I guess it would still take a while, and make things a tad bit more confusing, since people still don't know about the bundle rule...
Comment has been collapsed.
it's not about how hard it would be - it's about that with so many different factors it would a) much likely happen to interfere with each other causing unpredictable bugs and glitches. Thats one thing.
Second thing is that major part of any design of any interface is to keep it simple and intuitive - ypur proposal is totally opposite.
Third - as we're speaking about interface - it's important to be able to easily distinguish various types of GiveAways - especially with numbers of GAs being posted on SG on a daily basis. With simple system it is easy - with your system it would actually be impossible - with various types of GAs being marked with various indicators. And what if a GA will have few types at the same time? gameswon, CV, estimated and ratio let's say? and other have the same but instead of ratio has nonegativefeedback? Imagine entering every single GA on page every single time you get on SG just to find out that 2/3 of GAs you're not eglible to enter. It would be much more pain in the ass than just "scrolling through the forums for giveaways".
Finally - fourth - like you said - people are still confused by a freaking bundle system. And you want to force onto them confusing, non-intuitive, unnecessary over-expanded system, that would cause only troubles except for the part of "I don't have to make priv GAs if I want extra rules". While majority of users (the small-time lurkers, who will give a bundle game a month, but still majority of GAs are such a small GAs like it) don't even bother with any rules on their GAs whatsoever.
Comment has been collapsed.
We gift games, but we are not stupid. I paid for those gifts and i want the right to exclude leechers and boosters from my giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wish people who try to background moderate/run a website should be banned, but there we go...
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, I'd say 30.01 minimum CV. And you know what is worse than a leehcer? A leecher who complains about leechers and dumb people who think that taking charity that was meant for them is leeching. There are other things I would've loved to say but I probably would get suspended for that.
Also yeah, lets only give stuff away to people who can afford to give stuff away and not to people who don't give stuff away because they probably can't afford to do so or even buy games to themselves. Want to five away stuff only to people who giveaway stuff? go and trade stuff. Urgh, seeing such idiocy and douchery is so frustrating.
Comment has been collapsed.
Copy-paste from the other thread...
OP: "I think I know better how people should want to give their stuff away. Therefore the site should force upon everyone the rules I dictate, instead of offering tools to let people decide for themselves what to do with the stuff they paid for with their own money."
Comment has been collapsed.
well of course - there should be forced rules, created exactly like that so OP would have a biggest chance posisble also excluding biggest posisble number of other people. Why propose something constructive, when you can propose something that will be profitable exactly to you? :>
Comment has been collapsed.
11 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by Mohamed74
47,140 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by JMM72
8 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by szacsoka
0 Comments - Created 2 hours ago by pb1
16,403 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by MLD
31 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by NoctuaVentus
20 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
287 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Lironezzz
471 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by Shanti
32 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by Shanti
58 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by BlackbeardXIII
9,464 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by TTRM
42 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by ToatsMcGoats
24 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by Revadike
would get rid of leechers and give better odds to people that actually contribute.
thoughts?
Comment has been collapsed.