Wouldn't it be better if SGTools was integrated directly in Steamgifts ?
No.
It takes literally 3 clicks to go to the sgtools link, check if you pass the requirements and then click on the giveaway link. Currently I really don't see the need for a complete integration.
Comment has been collapsed.
OK but you understand that there's no way other than thru a Forum Thread to give away the SGtools link(s)..
That's not a problem to you ?
Comment has been collapsed.
You can already check which entries are invalid with SGTools , i don't see the need to integrate directly onto SG
Comment has been collapsed.
As a way to easily share the links .. btw there's 2 in here hence the need for this useless post.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then expand the sgtools site and make the giveaways there, not here. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
It's intended for ivite only giveaways that you can only get to through a post anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
sgtools uses cached info to avoid cheaters (or everyone would be able to bypass unactivated/multi wins and ratio checks).
sg would have to add the same system, which is another reason to get tickets and people complaining. right now if something fails on sgtools, knsys deals with it, not support.
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh... Forcing that on every single person is a bit unfair.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mmh I never said to enforce it on every giveaway ..if you could confirm you want to use SGTools for a giveaway .. by that I meant if someone wants to use it, like the option to set a region-lock or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, but that's the same thing as just going to the website yourself. I'm taking it as a full implementation to the giveaway system, but either way, it's a forced system. I'm not saying it's pointless but some of the requirements that get used(other than for specific reasons) could get pretty horrible.
Comment has been collapsed.
I prematurely voted yes, but now I'm not so sure. I kinda like the interactive threads: they stop bots ninjas and people that don't care enough to check threads from leaching even more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems like not many people see the point of this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like it. I never was into the invite-only giveaways. I like to give equal chance, but an automated filter to weed out the bad seeds would be wonderful.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't use sgtools and I don't take part in giveaways that ask for it, regardless of whether I pass or not and even though I would pass all the checks regarding rules. I just refuse to put myself through some judiciary system to check if I am "good"!
I came here in this site first for the giveaways and then started giving some back. I am sure there are people who will make mistakes and break rules, who will correct their behavior and do right, who will continue no matter what, who will not learn, who will be banned (even-unfairly) and never get a chance, who will never give games but only win, who will face the right consequences etc..etc.. And people are quick to judge them as either good or bad as if we know the history behind each username. So there will always be "right" and "wrong" behaviors. And to me another pre-check that will allow them onward to the kingdom of Givalhalla isn't the way forward. Chasing after "bad users" has become a with-hunt and even though I like retro-games, that much going backward isn't to my liking. If you want to make sure your giveaway goes to the "right people", make it private/wishlisted and invite just your friends. Otherwise I believe it's a disillusion to believe that people who follow rules are good, and the rest is the bad crop.
There is support to check the rules anyway and in my view the current system, more or less, works..
PS. Oh my.. that's a bit of a wall!
Comment has been collapsed.
Here Here. Down with the SGTool elite. Free games for everyone!
Comment has been collapsed.
If that would ever be implemented, it wouldn't mean people have to make "elite rules".
There's just people that don't want to support those that don't follow the rules because THAT is what's unfair.
Comment has been collapsed.
True, but as it is right now, people that make mistakes will get punished, even if they already had a suspension. Why would people that were already punished, be punished more?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it is very easy to fix mistakes. There's no excuses, it can be fixed. And some people just don't learn from mistakes even after the third suspension, so no, I am not supporting this type of users sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most of the checks I see people using SG for is for sent/received ratio. Punishing people for being lucky sounds unfair to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah I think the most important part is checking for rule breaks.
"Being lucky" is a way to word it, I would call it leeching if someone won 1000 games and hardly gave anything back :D
Comment has been collapsed.
People shouldn't be conditionally generous. I see people who are level 6-7 who have gave plenty but because they won more then gave they shouldn't be allowed to win more. If people want to make sure people have given back they should slap the Level Requirement, not give ratio rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think your issue is with ratio rules in general, but with having it set to 1 (i.e. gave more than won).
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure you saw my edit, so posting it as a reply...
I use ratios extensively in my main SGTools filter, but if you look closely you'll see that almost anyone can pass. The ones who don't, you probably won't want in your GAs either.
Comment has been collapsed.
Only thing I see on my end was I don't think your issue is with ratio rules in general, but with having it set to 1 (i.e. gave more than won).
Your "rules" are definitely fair enough. Far from some of the more stricter requirement that I have seen that screw legitimate users.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a neverending discussion. Just because someone is given the "power" to decide who they want to give games to doesn't mean Steamgifts would suddenly be flooded with thousands of giveaways that only "the elite" can join. Otherwise there would already be plenty of Level 8-10 giveaways but I can tell you for sure they don't happen often :)
My opinion: It is fair to let the gifter decide to who they want to give games to. Actually it's just giving better chances for everyone because users tend to only give games to groups / whitelist when they don't want to deal with rulebreakers even though they would like to give everyone a chance under xy circumstances (custom rules, for example not breaking the rules :p).
Comment has been collapsed.
This is true.
I try and avoid public giveaways as a rule-
In fact, in my last public giveaway with 10 copies of the game, at level 5?
6 rule-breakers in the initial lot.
Two were excused by the distant date of the rule-breaks, but the others were recent.
One had 27 Non-Activations.
I had to do two extra rerolls.
And the ratios? Some weren't especially favorable.
So yeah.
I stick to private giveaways, and more often, group.
I started PosTho in the first place because giving public gibs was too much of a mess, and SGTools wasn't around at the time.
Between the two, I've got a good format for using the site, now.
But Public Gibs? That's still a cesspool I don't enjoy wading in. :X
Having a filter would definitely make me far more likely to create public gibs.
Comment has been collapsed.
People shouldn't be conditionally generous.
That's the same argument that gets used against blacklists (but strangely, not for whitelists, even though it's the exact same concept).
Why does people giving games the way they want to matter at all?
I mean, "Woman's Night" at bars is a conditional that's a bit degrading for all involved, and we won't get into mentioning outright bigotry.
But as far as "this is the format in which I feel comfortable giving games", why is your opinion of "what should be done" any more valid than that of the person giving the game?
In fact, since they're the one giving something for free, the validity of the course goes to them.
You're being blatantly hypocritical, making the exact same arguments of exclusion, but with far less right to do so [as it's not your matter to give judgement on].
The only thing that's happening here is that people have different perspectives on what is right- and so long as we can respect each other's rights to determine what is suitable for themselves, we're fine.
But if someone started insisting everyone on the site adhere to a certain ratio restriction as being the only correct one to use, it'd be identical to what you're attempting to promote here.
You're trying to establish guidelines for everyone else, where what is right is based on your own perspectives, even though the matter is something you'd be leaving to the individuals in question if you were treating them with respect.
And more succinctly: Inclusion is a nice gift, courtesy of the considerations of the person doing the inclusion. Deliberate, targeted exclusion is definitively negative. Exclusion-by-way-of-somply-not-offering-inclusion is totally fine, noone is obligated to give you anything past basic human rights and a modicum of basic respect.
If I throw a house party, I set the rules, and expect guests to follow them.
If I say "This is a St Patrick's Party, wear green or don't enter", well, that's my prerogative, silly and arbitrary as you may find it. But, certainly, you don't need to try and enter the party, you can go find another one to enter if you don't feel changing your wardrobe is worth the effort.
Please give the perspectives of others the same respect you would like your own perspective to be given.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can you right that in regular paragraphs instead of some list of points you are trying to make?
Comment has been collapsed.
- It would have been great for giveaway creators (no need to waste time creating pointless rerolls, only to be notified that said user "had already been suspended for that infraction").
- It would have been great for good users (better odds)
- It would have been bad for rule breakers (this feeling of being left out).
Comment has been collapsed.
But why should users that have already been suspended not get a chance at winning it? Maybe they made a mistake, but they were already punished. Why punish them more?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because 64% of this community do not agree that serving suspension and then putting all burden on giveaway creators and Support is acceptable.
Comment has been collapsed.
not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just pointing out that ~130 votes does not represent entire community :) if you would want to hold voting as an opinion of entire community there should be at least 50% of entire community members and for the sake of accuracy - as widely distributed as possible between variety of factors (levels, account age, activity in the forums, suspended or not suspended before and so on..)
when i create a giveaway i pretty much don't care who will win. i don't check them on SG tools, i don't ask if they were ever banned or will they play the game..
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd love to have it integrated because I'd like to be able to add more rules to my giveaways without having to make them private.
The issue right now as I see it is that SGT means a lot of casual users of the site will never see GAs they qualify to enter because they don't read the forums. The only way to reach those users is making public GAs which then lets in tons of rule-breakers (which contributes to the massive backlog of support tickets the site has to deal with).
Integrated SG into the site from the user perspective could be done by splitting the GA creation page into a simple and advanced screen. And from the entrants perspective they'd just get a polite message that they can't enter like they do already if they click on a link to a GA for a group or wishlist they don't belong to.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that it would be nice to have more rules, however implementing SGTools into SG, is probably really hard, if not impossible. I think it would be nice if SG would allow to make more rules, outside of using SGTools.
Comment has been collapsed.
why do you think implementing SGT will be really hard? Isn't SGT using the same data that's already stored in SteamGifts?
Unless they use completely different programming platform I don't think it should be a difficult task. Maybe knsys can enlighten us about the possibility of integration/implementation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, to start off, they would need to make quite some changes to the interface when making new GA's. Then when clicking on a GA everything needs to be checked (which shouldn't be too hard to implement) and the user needs to get the right things returned (the GA or an error stating why they can't enter). Plus it will probably increase the load on the server quite a lot, since it needs to get and send more data (this is probably the biggest thing), meaning that they would need better servers.
Comment has been collapsed.
What I have done is use SGTools for a train, but add a few public GAs with links to the SGTools check. It does require that they at least skim a description, but that's not a lot to ask.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Give the GA creators more freedom without the need to switch from site to site, which I'm sure can become tedious for people who make a lot of GAs, and grant only 1 steam login permission instead of two (a security risk, maybe small but still).
Also (but that may be a real burden on the servers) to cut down on "why can't I enter?!?!" complaints flooding the forums/support, SG could implement a similar method as the level system - you won't be able to see giveaways that have rules your profile doesn't comply to.
Comment has been collapsed.
The main effect is that people can now safely give to everyone except rule breakers. Previously you had to do whitelist or group giveaways to ensure you get good winners. Not anymore.
How can giving to a much larger group be considered a bad effect?
Comment has been collapsed.
Like Yirg says, it's not just about power trips. The only SGTools rules I'd seriously consider are rule-breaking and VAC bans. Group giveaways and/or adding a CV requirement meets any other needs I might have.
Granted, you did say "some people," not "everybody," and I appreciate that. But even if "some people" get a power trip, I don't think that means SGT is a bad thing. My 2 cents. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I voted maybe. why? because sgtools has a shitload of crosssitescripting running and i dont like that. also its not really well programmed.
also.. theres no use for people who like to have a private profile. (yes... if 'you' like to see it, just befriend me and you can watch it... idc.. i have it pivate because i can and i dont like every shitplayer to watch my profile.. good? no?.. i couldnt care less)
so.. -> maybe if it would be programmed nice and neatly without shitload of crosssitescripts and the option to have a private profile.
Comment has been collapsed.
Checking winners for activated and multiple wins is something this site requires giveaway creators to do. How do you expect them do it if you, or your fellow private profile users, win a game? Whatever you suggest, I'm likely to have already tried it, and I can tell you - it's no fun.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes and im totally fine the way steamgifts does that.
if it is checked in reasonable intervals i got nothing against shortly making my profile public and after the scan make it private again... thats perfectly fine.
and honestly... please calculate the probability to win the same game in 1 week
yes.. its possible to abuse that system... still.. its not very likely to do that on a "professional basis"... plus.. even if you win a game twice... it shows up after that week.
Comment has been collapsed.
The other problem is the way that the checks on sg itself are implemented. Maybe I don't want to have in my account, anymore, a game that I won. And to hold you from potentially pointing out the "why did you enter" argument, maybe I didn't know if the game was good enough, maybe I changed my mind, maybe I finished it and want it out of the way (not just hidden), maybe my partner is furious that I spend 25/8 on it and wanted me to get rid of it for good.. No matter what the reason though, if you won a game, you have to keep it or be scarred as a "cheater". And that alone creates a complex situation that cannot be resolved with fast-track solutions like these tools.
A point-in-time indicator that a user is "OK so far" perhaps? Then the question "what is OK" could arise.. More problems..
I could give you many other examples of why people should be allowed some leniency before punishing them to the pits, or even expect them to correct the error by buying the game. But there will be people on the other side who won't agree with me for their reasons, regardless of whether they understand why some forgiveness should be allowed.
Then again this is the argument of giving power to the mass or the few, because not everyone can control the power..
For all that mountain of text I have decided that when I do make giveaways, perhaps with level or puzzle, I just give the prize to whoever and move on.. (Although I have a "Than Kiou" fetish that I expect from a winner.. Doh.. I was almost perfect! )
Comment has been collapsed.
Whatever their reason is, for lack of a better option, they just need to except that deleting games is not an option. At least hiding them is still easy to do and provides a reasonable alternative in most cases (and "most" is already pushing it, since I doubt many users are even interested in deleting games from their inventory. Edit: Let's check).
Comment has been collapsed.
You're assuming they're not interested.. Deleting a game wasn't an easy option until fairly recently, so in time we don't know if more people would choose that option instead of hiding as it was already a long time complain-request from steam users. As is known, with great power comes great responsibility and SG is becoming more powerful every day. At some point, perhaps sooner than we think, users will expect a better solution in this lacking department. Maybe an indicator like my suggestion.. Then again that would make it even easier to flag people as "bad"..It's why I think leniency is better than punishment..
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm actually very lenient about many things (ratios, old multiple wins, VAC bans), but when it comes to unactivated wins I'm not. I consider deletion of won games too be enough of a fringe use case to not be lenient on and let regifters etc into my giveaways. The rule is very simple, even if not quite as explicit as it should be:
"Won gifts should be activated to the Steam account used during registration, and they should not be regifted, traded, or sold."
http://www.steamgifts.com/about/guidelines
If one wants to play by the rules, they have to activate the game and keep it in their Library. If they can't stand the sight of the game, just hide it. Failing to play by the rules has a price.
Comment has been collapsed.
Goes to show how differently people view rules..To some a VAC ban would be a worse offender, for example. I find it strange that you are so lenient about the other things/issues but so strict on something that probably wasn't even considered at the time as deletion was practically almost impossible before.
Furthermore rules are made be people, they're not axioms and can be changed/amended. Since I have the option to delete a game (activated, played, won, bored, deleted..whatever..) I want the freedom to exercise that option and I'm sure SG will adapt in time to cater for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
People can get a VAC bans for using a graphic mod. It's more difficult to predict and avoid false positives in this case than it is to simply activate your wins and avoid deleting them.
Multiple wins can be difficult to correct when the only method do it requires that the old GA creators would still be active on this site and be willing to co-operate.
Ratios have their place in some cases, but there are other ways to be positive contributor on this site. There are plenty of people on my whitelist who were added simply for writing interesting posts on the forums.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wasn't asking why you are lenient here and not there, because if I ask another person they would give their own reasons. I am saying that one must understand that different people have different views and we should respect that..
Comment has been collapsed.
I explained why I'm willing to be lenient in those cases, and why I'm not willing to do the same with unactivated wins. SGTools allows me to enforce my preferences, just like it allows others to enforce theirs. I'm perfectly fine that I can't enter some giveaways because I don't meet the criteria. That's how life is, and people can't always get what they want, especially if they choose to ignore the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't break SG rules yet I cannot take part in some giveaways because people chose an external tool to sg which I refuse to accept. But it's fine..
People don't always get what they want, regardless of whether they follow rules or not..
Comment has been collapsed.
has a shitload of crosssitescripting running
Comment has been collapsed.
- People are already using SGT more and more these days, which means it serves a purpose that SG isn't delivering and obviously wanted. That's one simple reason to at least add some of its features to SG.
- For those who say it will raise the amount of tickets - it might for some areas. But it will also lower the amount of tickets just by removing a large % of rule-breakers from the equation. Unless we get some real hard data of what kind of tickets take the most time for support to solve this is just speculation from both "pro" and "against" sides.
- Proper implementation will allow some people (few of them commented in this thread) to move back their GAs to the public sphere so more people will be able to enjoy their gifts, but now with some added protections.
I vote 'Yes' unequivocally - more freedom for GA creators, less chances for cheaters, less hassle for a lot of people who already use SGT.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes
and too stupid to find all the hints >) long day today sorry
Comment has been collapsed.
Hahaha sneaky way to hide your giveaway, well done!
Comment has been collapsed.
OP,this has been repeatedly proposed.Sad but true:This (like many other) Suggestion will be ignored by SG staff / admin again ! Did you found any (or just one) Statement from sg admin about sgtools and it's features/possibilities (good/bad idea or something similar) ?
It's a very desirable suggestion ,especially for public giveaways !
But rather than complain about missing features for (public) giveaways here at SG let's THANKS again knsys (and "friends" who are involved to sgtools) for one of the best/useful "add ons" for giveaway creators here at SG.
btw:The more (sg tools options) the merrier.With this in mind: GO knsys GO :-)
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok I'll bump this for 1 last time.
Contrary to the usual saying this time it's probably 'the fewer the merrier' so I'll leave it be after this.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like the idea of SteamGifts Tools and what it offers as extra options to control who can enter a giveaway, but the the fact it's not directly integrated in Steamgifts makes it a little more complicated, doesn't it ? I mean if you could confirm you want to use SGTools for a giveaway and have the giveaway link from the main page send directly to it's specific SGtools page instead of directly to the giveaway page would make it a lot more useful. Maybe I'm dreaming because it's probably not that simple to bring that whole setup into how SG works now but it would be nice to avoid useless Forum Threads just to spread out some SGTools links because you decided to use it for some giveaways.
Yes, No, Maybe ?
If you're lvl 5+ and 7+ you might consider having a better look at my OP, just sayin'..
Comment has been collapsed.