Is suspension an effective punishment for cheaters?
Re-gifters are thieves
There's the rub. You can be an inconsiderate twat and not activate your win but you can't steal a gift. The whole point of giving is to transfer ownership of something without conditions. Granted, we need rules on this site to prevent substantial abuse but the current system already does that. There isn't a legion of assholes on the site looking to steal a bunch of games. There are a few rotten apples, but the rest are just average Joes that just happened to fuck up.
You are viewing the situation from a very dark and skewed perspective. It is better to focus on the good to be found on this site than the bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
you can't steal a gift
My analogy, like all analogies, is imperfect.
What is stolen in re-gifting is the credit for making a gift. We measure that in CV/level/rank/whatever you call it. So it's reasonable to assert that an attempt at a kind of theft has occurred. A military analogy might be "stolen valor", which is also a criminal act in many countries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2013 for the U.S. example):
"The law amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received a valor award specified in the Act, with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit by convincing another that he or she received the award."
Right now, getting caught entails loss of those points and a timeout. This is a passive punishment that requires no action or cost to the user who cheated. I am suggesting we invoke the condition of winning a gift that it must be activated (it's in the Terms of Service, the FAQ, and the Community Guidelines) and this be the active punishment that serves as a true deterrent.
As a secondary benefit, it means that using sgtools to check for unactivated wins provides a definitive proof of an unpunished infraction. If a cheater acquires a replacement license and activates it, their record is cleared. This works the same whether they were caught cheating and punished, or whether they realized their mistake on their own and fixed it.
A further benefit is a lower workload for moderators, as they won't have to respond to any more reports for cheaters who have already been punished. Honest users won't have to make those unnecessary reports, either. The ex-cheater's record will be clean.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for the late reply, been a bit busy with rl stuff on my end.
What is stolen in re-gifting is the credit for making a gift.
Regifting is actually not as prevalent as many have come to believe (even with multi-wins). What happens to those copies depends on the offender, but it is rarely recycled back into the system. Secondly, nothing is lost. Ill gotten credit is gain by the offended when they regift, but the initial person still obtains their credit from their giveaway.
A military analogy might be "stolen valor" ...
This analogy is hyperbole so I won't address it.
Right now, getting caught entails loss of those points and a timeout. This is a passive punishment that requires no action or cost to the user who cheated.
Let us assume that the primary goal of most users (and in your view rule breakers) is to solely win games. These are the "leechers" who enter everything while feeding back as little as possible. Then would it not stand to reason that the greatest punishment one could extend to such a group is to prevent them from entering giveaways? For everyday added to a suspension is another day where they cannot browse the site and try their best to win game. How is this not the greatest possible cost to pay for a transgression for the offender?
I also take issue with the fact that you call it a passive punishment. Both the identifying the offending user (i,e, rerolls/user reports) and the enacting of the punishment (suspensions) are actions that require active engagement. When the user submits a ticket regarding their suspension, that too is them taking action with regards to their misbehaviour.
Remember, if we truly believe that these are a group of no-goodniks who merely want to use the site for all that is worth, they will most likely inquire as to why they have been prohibited from the site. It would stand to reason that those would visit the site everyday to "steal" the wins from the honest would take lightly to being suspended. Thus, once told the how and why of the situation, would it not it be in their best interest to begin complying with the rules? Those who continue to persist and break the rules, would they not be acting against their interests and most likely find themselves among the minority of those whom have at one point offended?
Now, this all hinges on the assumption that these rulebreakers are those who are merely self serving and wish to drain the site for what it is worth. However, let us now view this issue from the opposite end; assuming that said rule breakers were active members of the site (not necessarily on the forums, but in general).
If this was the case, we can take for granted that they either know the rules very well or know of the rules. In essence, you may understand that situation A is clearly wrong, but not completely sure of situation B. If said person found themselves breaking the rules because they misinterpreted situation B (a moment that was against the rules, like winning a Def. Ed. of game X but only getting the older version and marking it as received), what do we gain as a community by barring them from the site after they have served their punishment? These are active members whom have contributed in some positive way to the overall health of the site and yet, under your very own suggestion, are no longer welcomed to the site because of a mistake. I do not see any benefit to preventing them from rejoining the site, and I doubt you do too.
For the no-goodniks and the active members alike, the suspension actively works as a means of deterring future misbehaviour. To artificially extend their punishment by adding a secondary condition is overkill.
As a secondary benefit, it means that using sgtools to check for unactivated wins provides a definitive proof of an unpunished infraction.
You forget that sgtools is just that, a tool. It is not gospel nor law and thus cannot be used as definitive proof of anything. It is outside of the purview of this site, and it must be recognized that like all tools, it is limited in scope and must be used appropriately. Sgtools merely reports the bare facts of a given situation: Person A does not own X win on their profile. It does not tell you the "why" behind situation and to fully rely on it is foolish. It is handy and I used it a lot, but I know better than to blindly trust it.
A further benefit is a lower workload for moderators, ....
Going to speak from a personal perspective as one of the new guys. To this I say malarkey. It does not take long to verify if someone has broken the rules before when it comes to "Non-Activation/Multi-win". Support for the longest time has openly welcomed users to check their winners and to submit a reroll requests, regardless of the age of the infraction. The most time consuming of tickets, in my personal experience, have all been under "Other" where I need to explain to peeps why their giveaways now costs 0p and provides no CV or why they can't find X on the giveaway list.
So ya, peeps should actively check their winners and request rerolls for infractions as old as the site itself. What they shouldn't do is submit tickets asking us why someone blacklisted them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Analogies are analogies, not literal assertions. It's a comparison for the sake of seeing similar properties from a different perspective, and thereby promoting insight, understanding and maybe even a path to consensus. If you're just going to discard my attempts out of hand—like every other site staff who has dogpiled this thread—don't expect your reply to be given a fair reading either.
Also, when I refer to suspension as a passive punishment, I mean it doesn't require the person receiving the punishment to do anything but wait it out and rejoin.
Finally, I do not have any problem with "leechers" or those who do not make giveaways. I'm happy to give away keys to those who give nothing in return, so long as they're not trying to gain rank by re-gifting.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a comparison for the sake of seeing similar properties from a different perspective, and thereby promoting insight, understanding and maybe even a path to consensus.
I agree with you on this point, but the analogy that you provided is of a severely different degree of scope than the situation at hand. You are attributing the idea of someone regifting a bundle game to that of someone making the claim of being a war hero. While they both possess similar traits (falsely claiming ill gotten recognition) they both lie at very different ends of the situation. If you were to say that regifting was the same as putting your name on a office gift for you boss that you didn't help pay for, or telling your mum that you did the dishes when it was your brother, I would have an easier time understanding your point. Instead, you choose to take this idea of ill gotten recognition and take it to the furthest extreme possible in order to prove your point. Either this is intellectual dishonesty on your behalf, or you are severely misjudging the degree of a situation that a minority of offenders commit.
I cannot stress this enough, the majority of those whom fail to activate their wins or have multi-wins do not go on to make the same giveaways on this site. For the most part, they are not attempting to represent themselves as something they are not but rather misusing a gift that some kind random stranger was nice enough to give them. What ultimately happens to these gifts is anyone's guess, but it is rarely used to gain more CV.
like every other site staff who has dogpiled this thread
I'm sorry you feel that way, but we are merely trying to stress why the current system is set up the way that it is. If you wish to invite an open discussion on the matter, you must be prepared to defend it. Just because a group of people disagree with you does not mean we are trying to be mean.
when I refer to suspension as a passive punishment, I mean it doesn't require the person receiving the punishment to do anything but wait it out and rejoin.
True, but as I stated beforehand, it would not be in their best interest to understand why they were suspended in the first place. Those whom do not care and continue to misbehave already get extensions for repeat offences up to permabans.
Comment has been collapsed.
these walls of text you posted will hurt you one day
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol, I didn't mean to write so much, I swear XD. Been stuck writing papers for the past couple of days so I'm a bit more wordy than usual :p.
Also, why so ominous today D:
Comment has been collapsed.
While they both possess similar traits (falsely claiming ill gotten recognition) they both lie at very different ends of the situation.
you are severely misjudging the degree
You do grok the proportionality at work here? Something can be vastly different in quantity while being the same in quality.
So, yes, the magnitude is vastly different, but the small-but-real punishment I am suggesting be required (buy the game they failed to activate) is vastly different in magnitude from the punishments that a military impersonator would serve. Proportionality.
say that regifting was the same as putting your name on a office gift for you boss that you didn't help pay for
This is a misleading analogy, unless my work contract at this hypothetical job directly links my promotion prospects to the amount of money I spend on office gifts, but I've never heard of a workplace like that. At SteamGifts, on the other hand, our level is directly calculated from our material generosity. So if we're going to work with your analogy, we must additionally specify that we work in an office where annual performance reviews look only at how much you chipped in to the birthday fund.
This potential for cheaters to gain unearned promotions is one of the factors that annoys honest users.
What ultimately happens to these gifts is anyone's guess, but it is rarely used to gain more CV.
Fair point, if true, so I'll address it.
At first glance, this seems to contradict my last point, but whether they re-gift a key here or elsewhere (I've caught users re-gifting SteamGifts wins on IndieGala many times), or use it to gain favor with a real life friend or acquaintance, it's still similar misuse as ill-gotten CV on SteamGifts.
This site exists to share our love of video games by gifting our keys to strangers who will appreciate them. Appreciating this is a key point here, and it's specified in the FAQ, Community Guidelines and Terms of Service that activating it on your own Steam account is a requirement. Obviously, we can't police whether a user actually plays or enjoys their games, but activating it will do as a minimal requirement.
That is fundamentally different from taking that key and using it as currency to gain favors.
does not mean we are trying to be mean.
I don't care if you're mean to me. I'm not a snowflake. Hell, you accused me of intellectual dishonesty, which is a serious charge to someone with an extensive post-secondary background, but I know your charge is without merit so I'm merely facepalming at your abuse of terminology and I'm not personally offended in the least.
I do, however, find it interesting that the majority and the most intense objections to my proposal come from site staff, while the majority of regular users perceive that there's a problem.
I think the issue in this regard must be one of perspective. From the perspective of everyday users, we see rampant cheating. If we look at users' records, we regularly see users with long lists of infractions still happily winning more giveaways.
From the perspective of site staff, you see a system of complaints being processed into punishments (where appropriate). Your job is to process those complaints into punishments (where appropriate). Naturally, you take some pride in doing your job. That's not in dispute.
But the efficiency with which complaints are processed and penalties assessed is not the issue. The issue is whether the rules are both just (as in justice) and effective (as in preventative of further cheating, whether by persuasion, disincentive or exclusion). Everyday users who look into it see neither aspect as fulfilled.
Elsewhere, jatan reported an 18% recidivism rate. That is not a number to be proud of. We can do better.
it would not be in their best interest to understand why they were suspended in the first place
You do not want cheaters to understand why they were suspended?
Are you effing serious? Tell me that's a typo.
If you wish to invite an open discussion on the matter, you must be prepared to defend it.
I've written more than 3,000 words in this thread (not counting copy/pastes or quotes). I think we can agree that I'm prepared to defend my point.
PS:
those whom fail to activate
Those whom do not care
Who, not whom. Subject of the sentence, not object.
An easy way to test it: is it easier to rewrite the sentence with he or him? For instance "he fails to activate" versus "him fails to activate". "He does not care" or "Him does not care"? If him doesn't work, you've used whom correctly. If he works, it should be who. Him-is-equivalent-to-whom is easy to remember because of the m. And yes, it's a seemingly gender-biased trick, but it works.
I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi nor to belittle you or your argument. You mentioned that you are writing papers for school. Fix this misunderstanding and get a slightly better grade on your assignment. Good luck.
Comment has been collapsed.
Either this is intellectual dishonesty on your behalf, or you are severely misjudging the degree of a situation that a minority of offenders commit.
Hell, you accused me of intellectual dishonesty, which is a serious charge to someone with an extensive post-secondary background
You obviously misjudging the situation compared to the majority of commenters, but instead of admitting that you rather make a backslash and play the victim-card of being accused, while humblebragging with your "extensive post-secondary background" while you still can't take criticism, nor phrase proper arguement as it was again proven. Also about the workplace simile - making a nice workplace atmosphere will make one to be perceived as a better workforce, going along better with people. It may be different in quantity but same in quality that spending in that situation on the boss/workplace will net you long term benefits :P
Comment has been collapsed.
If you've adopted collective responsibility and imposing this to others, then yes. Everyone here speaks his own mind, express their own opinions , we are not "you all are...", like you claimed back then. No-one is eligible to collectively bag members of a community and provoke them to get contradictory replies, it's unproductive and ill-mannered.
You're eligible to choose anyone's opinion you disagree with and reply to it with your facts and your arguments, not trashing theirs. Have you tried doing that?
So, Instead of nagging about the definition of your actions, try to change them or just apologize and withdraw them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I couldn't care less about what winners of my giveaways do with their won keys.
"Re-gifters are thieves" - I don't think you understand how theft works :d
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that the whole discussion is going in a wrong direction. The problem lies not in the severity of the punishment but in the detection rate. I already suggested that on sync all received but not detected games should create a ticket(with a new category) for manual check. A ticket like that should have two possible outcomes - add appId to ignore list(and invalidate all other tickets associated with it) or mark as valid offence(possibly automatically serving suspension/ban judging by the number of offences, however this would require some integration with the current system to detect for which abuses user was already punished)
The biggest flow of the current system is that rulebreakers have to be manually detected by other members. If they simply choose wisely which giveaways to enter they can avoid being detected for quite some time.
Ps. I know that my suggestion would generate a lot of tickets at the beginning but after the ignore list gets filled up the only reports left would be for the rulebreakers who managed to avoid detection and at the same time there wouldn't be any need for user reports for this type of offence(which can be duplicated as normal users creating those don't have the knowledge if somebody served his punishment for a given abuse or not) .
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice and feasible idea.
I don't know if knsys (creator of sgtools) is involved or affiliated with SG staff, but his detection tool and his already tested algorithms could be of some use, since he's already checking and ignoring all weird appIDs like DLCs etc. That way, it would be even less ticketing at the beginning.
Comment has been collapsed.
Definitely. The technology is there, with a sync picking up most games on the account. If it detects a mismatch between games marked as received and games on a user's account (with an exemption from the check made for games and DLC which do not get picked up correctly), the user should be unable to enter (or be selected as a winner for) any giveaways until this is rectified.
Simple, effective, and very easy to police.
Coding issues aside, it could conceivably be implemented straight away, effective going forward, with an amnesty given to everyone for past infractions. That said, I'd prefer to see it backdated.
Suspensions, as we know them, could be reserved for poor forum behaviour, etc. Giveaway blocked users would be free to roam the site and post on the forums, but unable to enter or win giveaways until such time as their account is fixed up.
It would certainly take a lot of the burden off the mods, while effectively blocking some of the most common forms of ballbaggery which currently plague Steamgifts.
C'mon cg. Make it so :)
Comment has been collapsed.
OP, I hate to see you go on a 2 month vacation, but hopefully you'll come back with more focus on what can be solved and what has to be worked around. I agree with many of the issues you raise, but learned to accept that some aspects of this site are not likely to change in the foreseeable future, so better enjoy the (many) parts that I do like.
Comment has been collapsed.
This a██hole has a clean record: http://www.sgtools.info/nonactivated/ProceduralTexture but we've all seen people with one or two or a dozen unactivated wins in their record because they re-gifted games instead of activating them on their own account.
Current site policy allows moderators to punish those who cheat with temporary suspensions and eventually permanent bans. I would argue that suspensions are ineffective deterrents against cheating. I am constantly seeing users return and do more re-gifting, hoping to gain rank and access to better giveaways. They are not dissuaded by a timeout.
What would be effective is making those users clean up their record by acquiring another key, and activating it on their account, before they're allowed to enter GAs again. To allow users to continue with just a suspension is like a convicted thief getting sentenced but not having to return what they stole. Re-gifters are thieves: they steal from the honest users of this community. They should be required to return what they stole by activating another copy of the game they won. This is a punishment that fits the crime. It is proportionate and just.
SteamGifts will not consider such a policy change without a demonstration that users feel the current punishments are ineffective. Thus this thread and poll. Derogatory remarks about my mother go below.
Comment has been collapsed.