sry it was 4days ago requested and 3days ago resolved actually.

You don't say? Yes, I can read, thanks for your concern. I made 3 reroll tickets today.

I was aware that I will have to give the gift to the winner in case my reroll request should get denied but I can see why you thought I wasn't. I was thinking about what happens if the winner marks at not received, the request gets denied, I offer the gift to the winner and the winner declines, refuses to mark received etc. I see now that it is unnecessary to think about it because it will be dealed with as it always is. Winner declines? Reroll. Refuses to mark received after receiving? Suspension. Et cetera.

Thank you for taking the time to answer nonetheless. I have you on my whitelist but to be honest I can't remember who you are. After looking at your profile I am wondering if you happen to have written any userscripts? That would be a valid reason for me. I won't remove you anyway as I am relatively careful with my whitelisting and you probably deserve it. I hope you have a nice day/evening. :)

if you don't report, who's gonna suspend rule-breakers or eventually ban them?

evading responsibility makes sg a worse place for everyone. :\

Personally, I work on them from old to new. But that's not the creation time, that's the time since the last bump. So if we request feedback from users, the ticket starts moving around in a queue.

Hah, shit, if something can't be implemented with any flaws then nothing about this place should exist. All the potential consequences are so minuscule compared to the vast net benefit that it's like looking at trickles of piss in a whole ocean of improvement.

Part of the real beauty is how the benefits ripple outward. Instant automation where both parties consent cuts down on the total tickets needing evaluation, so it frees up support to focus on more ambiguous tickets where their input really is needed. Faster results on normal rerolls, faster response on other tickets, and less work for support overalll.

One automatic reroll per ga ? Rest would be given by hand.

I could just copy paste my reply to Mully above--material facts are the same, flaws exist in everything, net benefit matters--but I'll use your scenario to elaborate anyway.

You're describing a variation of an existing problem. The system is already easily abused by a small group all buying the same bundle anyway, over time wins are evenly distrusted and it's still a zero-cost sitting out a few giveaways with nothing being exchanged. Even then, that possibility can still be minimized by deleting the giveaways or squeezing in a manual reroll or two anyway since thats no guarantee of anyone catching the big picture.

Obviously this wasn't your intent, but following the logic your argument doesn't conclude against automating rerolls, it actually ultimately leads to rationalizing the elimination of all groups instead--the actual medium of abuse. Not that I think either of us actually want that--in large for the same principal at work with automated rerolls, the existence of flaws in themselves don't rationalize tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

The difference between the abuse that is and the abuse that might be can basically just be summed up by saying the automation could speed up that process. But above Hugohu already offered one potential solution to that problem within a minute of your post, and there are dozens more that could be implemented. Potential for abuse isn't anywhere near an argument against doing it, at most it's really just argument for where the idea could be improved.

I know, read that a while ago from support. It can wait, luckily.