Retroactively would be quite a bit of work, it's all about the learning experience and improving on the quality. I understand the generosity of inviting people and am not shunning them, just perhaps after we've built a good member base, then we can enforce this rule, as invites will start up again.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been wondering why this hasn't happened any sooner; or maybe it has and it just hasn't been mentioned. Good people tend to surround themselves with other good people. It's not always the case, but I think most of us can say we befriend others with a like-mentality. The same can be said for those who choose to take advantage of or game the generosity of this community - they probably surround themselves with other like-minded individuals.
When the invite codes went out for Reddit, I found myself a bit skeptical. A website that just gifts out Steam games? Surely there can't be enough generous people out there to make such a thing work! I signed-up just see how it would play out. Turns out I was wrong (duh)! There are many generous people out there, and if they aren't purely altruistic, then they go toward the pay-it-forward model (i.e. I win a game, I gift a game).
What Keres brings up is a decent idea. Granted, some people invite others just out of sheer generosity, or because they really want to share the atmosphere of this community; and sometimes the invitees aren't quite the type of people we'd associate with Steam Gifts. This is also why I'm against just posting invite codes wherever just because you're feeling generous and you've got some points to spare. Most people on the internet, and I'll be pessimistic, feel safe around their anonymity and will take advantage of others in a heartbeat.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if this is implemented I won't ever invite people. There is no way of knowing how that kind of invite thing will propagate. Your friends might be good people but not understand how important it is to give it to good people and friends of friends of friends propagating dozens of people deep is just ridiculous to guess if everyone is a nice person. Might as well nix the invite system altogether.
Comment has been collapsed.
It wouldn't stop me from inviting people, I have friends who I can vouch for and it's not very hard to explain the concept of "Don't be stupid" but then again, common sense isn't so common. I just don't want to see the invites being thrown around as easily as they were before registrations went down. There are trustworthy people in real life and on the internet as well. If it does bother you to the point, you can simply not invite them or invite them and tell them not to invite anyone for 6 months. Perhaps only allowing 1 invite a month would help alleviate this?
Comment has been collapsed.
I've already expressed my opinion in this thread on the subject of holding people responsible for the actions of the people they invite. But I'll sum it up here.
This would be a terrible idea that would only slow down the growth of this site and create paranoia of anyone ever who wanted to invite anyone. It would slow growth to a crawl until it would eventually stop (because eventually the 'tree of friends' would end, and you would never invite anyone but your closest friends).
As I said in the other thread though, I'm all for flagging accounts who have invited troublemakers for the sake of preventing repeat incidents, but only when it is clear that the incidents have intent that can be linked to the inviter. (which is to say, flagging an account so if PersonA keeps inviting PersonB to cause trouble and create bad giveaways and other stuff)
If you implement something like this, then you are stuck three years from now with barely 20,000 members because no one wants to invite someone they can't walk over and smack because they got banned. You have the same exact people adding the few remaining gifts someone on the site doesn't have.
Edit: I'm in the same boat as Darkroot here. If something like this is implemented I'd rather sit at 300 points day in and day out instead of inviting someone who could potentially get me banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly have not a clue about Oink, looks like it might have been an interesting place though. Did they follow the concept of holding inviters accountable for the invitee's actions?
The way I see it, something like that(the suggestion in question) can only wind up creating a community built out of paranoia. I'd have no problem with 'keeping an eye' on accounts of people who have invited a large percentage of nefarious accounts, but I certainly do not want people being banned because their friend lost their account in some way, or was drunk one night and screwed things up
Comment has been collapsed.
Who is claiming they are an expert in anything here? Have not seen anyone inappropriately waving diplomas in other people's faces.
If you are referring to me however, I'll not that I'm just following what seem to me to be logical conclusions based on the suggestion at hand.
Comment has been collapsed.
Facebook was exclusive, it used to be only allowed to few prestigious universities, then big universities, then anyone with an .edu email, now it's open to the general public. The reason why it became so big because it was exclusive and people wanted in. I believe as long we control the quality and quantity, we'll be fine as since this is a new and slowly growing site. People will want to be in, and there are standards to adhere to.
Comment has been collapsed.
On a different train of thought. If this was implemented would you(or anyone else reading) ever invite anyone? Considering the fact that sending out an invite puts your account at risk, and not sending an invite keeps your account safe (assuming that you, yourself follow the rules).
Now do not respond right away saying yes. Weigh the decision for a few minutes. I'm just curious what everyone has to say on that train of thought.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't, no. I've invited three fairly random redditors and checked their post history and steam accounts beforehand, but that wouldn't keep a determined troll from creating a posting history and taking advantage of my generosity and I'd rather not be bitten in the ass for being nice.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have friends who I am able to trust, 5 people on top of my head and would love to invite them. And by suggesting this idea, this idea is used and being enforced on a private forum that I am a member of and it has considerably helped the quality of the community. I'm not saying what works for them, will work for this site, but it is an idea and albeit will take tweaking to perfect. Perhaps if you all are too wary of the 3 person chain, we can do 2 person if you all feel more comfortable with keeping track of your most immediate invites.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would. I would only ever invite people that I trust to not transform into terrifying, blubbering retards that spatter their retard-juice on the innocent people around them. So far, I haven't even invited anyone. I've had a few people ask me for invites, but I've turned them down because I didn't trust them to not do the above.
...But so far, I haven't given away any games yet, and I feel as though that partly invalidates my opinion on this.
Comment has been collapsed.
So long as your intentions at heart are in the right place, the fact that you haven't created a giveaway will never invalidate your opinion. And it does seem that your intentions are in the right place as you haven't given away invites to just any random person. The spirit of this community is something, I feel, that needs to intact in order for it to work properly. Hell, even I'm somewhat reluctant to create another giveaway until I know most of the "bad apples" have been weeded out. I'd like to be friends with my gifters and giftees because I hope we share common interests in games or otherwise, and that's what being part of the community is about.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd rather sit at 300 points all day than take a chance on inviting someone who may or may not be an active contributing member. Keeping it relatively "exclusive" for the time being gives the mods time to sort out what exactly they want this site/community to be - for the same reason they closed registration.
The community has grown considerably for a site that's only been available for little over a month or so. I wonder how many, of the nearly 8000 members, have even posted a comment in the forums or read the FAQ.
Comment has been collapsed.
This would be kind of bad if those generous people that just give away their invites to random people to be nice. The person giving those invites away was just trying to be nice and it just so happens that some person used that invite and did bad things. I agree that this definitely needs to be implemented because of what happened with the guy that made a ton of those fake giveaways to generate enough points to create a second account for himself, but I think it should be tweaked a little bit, so the people who give away their invites randomly have a reduced chance of getting hurt by it.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, let me get this straight. You want to hold people responsible for someone they invite? All for one and one for all type deal? So, we are suppose to know that the person who says "Oh I'll be good, I'll do giveaways" is actually going to do this and do legit giveaways? Personally I think it is bull because not everyone is going to know that someone is going to be a dick about something. That is like the terrorist that blame the country for the actions of a few.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not regarding them as terrorists, I'm just saying that invites needs to be given out more responsibly. I have friends who I can trust not to goof up or scam people. I'd hope you do as well. It will help form steamgifts into a better community with lots of rapport, think of it as other positions where you have to apply and agree to ToS for a job, a position on a committee, greek life, and so forth. That's real life, and judgements are passed on people who have recruited others who have done poorly. The internet is much more anonymous, and requires a more tougher stance.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I gave it to my brother and a few friends and in turn those few friends gave them out irresponsibly, am I going to be held accountable for them? Probably the way things are going. It isn't right. You are saying that it is all for one and one for all and screw how you feel.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's unfortunate that your situation turned out the way it turned out. If we do put forth only the system where you're only responsible for your immediate invites, then only your invites who gave out their invites irresponsibly would be dealt with, not you. Also noted earlier that I'm not asking this to be done retroactively, but if this system is set in place, I hope members of this site will practice more caution with who they invite.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess it is right for you since that is how it works in America. You are guilty by association. I just think it is wrong. How would you feel if say you invited someone who you thought would never be a big douchebag and in turn he does do something completely douchey. You get banned because he got banned, that's it for you. This is what I don't get, you suggest something so.....I hate to say it, stupid without any consideration of how it would feel if it happen to you. Don't say you would be like "Oh well, I won't do that again." It is a crock to blame someone else for someone else's actions. Everyone should be accountable for their own actions instead of placing the blame on someone else. It is like parents who blame their children's bad behavior on video games, music, tv, movies. It is not the fault of the media but the fault of their own child. It is time to grow up and realize that it is your actions that do this, not someone else's actions. Stop blaming other people for what someone else has done.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not guilty by association, its responsibility. Like I said in my original post, I've been a member of a private forum that practices this system and all it made me do was to choose my invites more wisely. My invites haven't screwed up and I invited them fully knowing that I was responsible for them and explained the ramifications. My friends respect me too much to screw up on a site that would affect my standing. Also note above, I never said what the consequences would be. That would be up to the moderators to decide, PersonB could get banned and PersonA could get a warning or suspension. If personA continues to bring in people that violate the ToS of the site, then he could be banned, only due to repeated evidence of irresponsibility.
This has nothing to do with us blaming other sources for the fault of an child, we ("as parents") are responsible for our invites ("children"). You don't take a child who is going through their terrible two's to a china shop and not expect to pay for damages when he accidentally breaks something.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, if your child KNOWS better...but even then a child makes mistakes. They are all human. Don't blame others for the actions of someone they invite. It is rude. They need to take on their own responsibility, not have someone else share the blame. It is not my fault someone went off and did something stupid, it is their fault.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is making false giveaways a mistake? What about selling accounts? The ToS clearly states its not acceptable. If we included the ToS agreement on the signup page -- which I don't recall seeing when I signed up, it would reduce some I suppose. I honestly don't think this method is very much to ask for on a free site that gives away free stuff by members who are generous.
Also not all children know what is right and wrong, but I'm assuming the majority of members here are older than 13 and already know the differences between right and wrong. Yet children need a guardianship until they are 18 for a reason. I think this would be a good learning experience for us all and help improve the quality of the community and prevent bad eggs.
Comment has been collapsed.
One thing I just thought of regarding Cult's example of Oink, it is a small difference but an important one still. With Oink if you got banned that was not the end of it, there is no way with Oink they could track individual people so banning someone just meant they could come back whenever they got a new invite. It could reliably be used as a method of conditioning people to follow the rules when it operates in a fashion that less a ban and more a 'go create a new account'.
On Steamgifts however a ban is much more severe than it was on Onik. If you got banned and wanted to make a new account there is an account value you have to reach on your new account before you can even join Steamgifts (I'm assuming this is something that will be kept in effect at least as long as invites are). So there is an intrinsic monetary value to a Steamgifts account (that of the 30 dollars worth of games you have to possess) compared to the example on Oink where the account really had no such value from what I understand.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, account value isn't really hard to get right now. AFAIK Indie Bundles count toward it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I'm not saying that the consequences will be all the same. PersonB can be banned from using Steamgifts but PersonA would be suspended for a month or two weeks or whatever the mods feel is fair. The point of this is that repeat offenders will be flagged through this system and if personA has shown to invite dubious people, then he must be held accountable for his actions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but still holding them accountable for the actions of their invitees. I apologize if it was misconstrued out sounding like there was bans all around. That would be up to mods and I think a trial period of different strategies should be tried out.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with this completely. The invites shouldn't be just given away to random people, but given to your friends and people you know will be a great addition to the site. I have several invite codes that I have generated, that are just sitting there waiting for the special friend of mine that deserves it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should I be responsible for what my friend does?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if your friend does something wrong on the site than you have poor judgement on who to invite here. Only invite the friends you can trust not to take advantage of this community. Also you informing your friend of how the site works and it's rules will help your friend not make the mistakes that will get you both in trouble.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do chose my invites wisely, I have to pay a whole 50 points for one.
Comment has been collapsed.
if you can't trust him, don't invite him. and you should also think about why you call him a friend if you cant trust him
PS: if he's 13 and broke, he shall go wash cars
Comment has been collapsed.
Said it in the other thread, but again, I find it weird that people are apprehensive about people that invite random strangers would be held accountable. That's kind of the problem. You're inviting random strangers. Why? To be nice? To spend points? Just because? If you're inviting people you don't know or at random, it's part of the problem, and you should be discouraged from it. If you can't say "This person won't be a total toolbag" and mean it, don't invite them.
Comment has been collapsed.
This could also cut down on people selling accounts. You sell an account to the wrong person, bam! you've been banned.
3rd degree does seem a bit excessive though. That said it could shut down whole ladders of seller accounts
Comment has been collapsed.
accountability for invites sent can be good to a point... immediate invites make sense but not any deeper, but even then can you really guarantee one of your friends won't do something shady ?
everyone makes mistakes and does stupid stuff, and occasionally you decide you don't want to be friends with them anymore after they have done some things you don't agree with.
preventing multiple giveaways for new users would be good, once they have given away a game then they can create multiples.
also, being semi-active in the forum would be good as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just curious, but could you clarify this section Keres?
---"This rule can be kept up for 6 months, then the 3 degree will no longer apply to personA if personB screws up 8 months later. If personC screws up within 2 months of being invited by personB, personA will not be affected by the consequences."---
It sounds as if it is supposed to be a kind of statute of limitation clause, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. I'd like to discuss this part as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is. Its like a probation period for your invites to behave good for 6 months or however as long the mods deem appropriate. Once 6 months has passed, you will no longer held accountable for your invites behavior. This is based on the assumption that they understand the rules and community guidelines throughout the 6 months period. If your invites screw up on the 8th month mark after being invited, only they will be sanctioned, not you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that me personally, I could go for a 3 month duration max on being responsible for people I invite. And provided it is not an equal punishment for the inviter as for the invitee (invitee gets banned, inviter gets a short (1-3 day?) duration where he can not enter or win giveaways, or receive new points).
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm okay with your idea but I'd prefer the punishment to be a little more stricter, perhaps 1-2 weeks. 1-3 days is a bit too short for my opinion, liking it as a slap on the wrist. Perhaps this would suffice in a first offense, a second offense would get 2 weeks, then 3rd offense ban?
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't like to see anyone who invites get something as harsh as a ban. I could definitely agree to something like a 1-2 week duration where they can only talk on the forum (that way they can still interact with the community, but they can not actually 'gain' anything from it.
If it could be established that the person in question is intentionally causing trouble, that would be a different story though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this is a terrible idea. I got in via the random generosity of a member on the Steam Gifts group, and I posted an invite there afterwards just to pay the favor forward. It's slightly "more reasonable" without the 3-member chain, but it's still a terrible, terrible, terrible idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
Give the mods more power, screen in another mod or two, regulate the giveaways carefully. Not only will banning inviters as well cause the size of the community to freeze/plummet, it won't do anything noticeable in reducing cheaters.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not hardcore enough. Some people have never invited anyone; how can we ensure that all the cheaters get properly banned‽ If anyone gets banned, ban the entire userbase. You'll never have another cheater on this site again! Well, never have another after the first one.
Comment has been collapsed.
27 Comments - Last post 55 minutes ago by Stakaniy
9 Comments - Last post 60 minutes ago by Stakaniy
30 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by akylen
150 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Menacer
33 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by sensualshakti
28 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by MisakiMay
513 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by FranckCastle
802 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by BHTrellis188
30 Comments - Last post 44 minutes ago by venturercatt
134 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Yamaraus
676 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Ilan14
19 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by KiLLLLeR150
28,156 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by philipdick
3,332 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by yugimax
Sometimes the invites fall into the wrong hands and people will exploit the system generating false giveaways and so forth. I had an idea, mainly from another forum that is private that I am a member of.
My idea is as following: Hold people accountable for the invites they generate and their invitees. So if personB gets invited and spams false giveaways by personA, personA who invited personB will be held accountable for personB's actions, and receive consequences. This will keep the community clean and still maintain the generosity of the site. The chain would carry down for personA, personB, personC, up to 3 degrees of separation.
This rule can be kept up for 6 months, then the 3 degree will no longer apply to personA if personB screws up 8 months later. If personC screws up within 2 months of being invited by personB, personA will not be affected by the consequences.
What do you guys think? I hope I explained it clearly.
EDIT: 7/20/11 12:30AM EST Some have displayed apprehensiveness to the 3 person rule, we can reduce this to the immediate people you invite, and your invites are responsible for their invites, and so forth. Please comment if you feel this method is more reasonable than the suggested rule above. Thanks!
Comment has been collapsed.