Why is it wrong to give something away for free?
THIS, completely agree with you, if you don't want the game, don't enter. Also, to the OP you can't trade it, it must be activated
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you even enter giveaways if you want to regift it? No - you win and not activate, you are suspended! That's how it works and that's how it should work because whoever gifts something does so without expecting anything in return. To be honest the rules are even too easy on jerks - you won something and did not activate? Ok, maybe you did not read the rules - a small suspend will do itl but the second time it should be permanent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should contributor value be there in the first place? It benefits those that spend money on games to give away, while barring the lower class (Those that can't/don't) from entering those raffles.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should contributors be awarded? Not rewarding them goes fine on Scrap.tf and Tf2r
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not like anyone is being held at gunpoint and forced to make contributor giveaways. People like having options.
Comment has been collapsed.
IF having options is what you want, then preventing people from selling their winnings is the opposite of what you should be doing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would you want to win something that you don't want? It just makes no sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because you want to be able to game the system by putting all your points into low-entry giveaways, win them, and then repost them for contribution points.
Comment has been collapsed.
your annoying, follow the rules and there wont be issues. kinda like when you hear about cops shooting criminals and everyones upset cuz he shot the guy...
dont break the rules and you get to live. simple as that
Comment has been collapsed.
Certain options are incompatible. If you allow regifting then the contributor system breaks down. If there is no requirement to activate games then people could gain contributor value from gifting games that didn't exist and everyone could be level 10.
This site has gone with the contributor value option. If you don't like that then like you said there are sites that do things differently. It isn't up to everyone else to change to suit you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should they not ?
There would be no giveaways without contributors, so it's nice to be able to make giveaways that says "yo guys, thanks for keeping this website alive".
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't mean to be rude, but probably you should use those sites instead of this :/
Comment has been collapsed.
"lower class" people are getting things for free, while people who are giving are being rewarded for actually making a contribution. It's not a complicated process.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can still giveaway even if you spend absolutely nothing. There are ways, all you need to do is to find them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because the only reason you would ever consider regifting would be to artificially increase your level here to gain access to more giveaways that you didn't rightfully earn and thus, don't deserve. The only REAL benefit to regifting would be to give the game to someone who actually wants it, in which case, why would you even enter in the first place? You shouldn't be entering giveaways for games you don't want, so you shouldn't have to worry about regifting.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's literally exactly what I'm saying. You contribute more, you earn more. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, your saying pay to win systems are not bad for the user?
Comment has been collapsed.
The users are also the people giveaway the gifts though.
Comment has been collapsed.
This isn't a video game, dude. I don't know what articles you've been reading about the effects of P2W on developers and their user bases, but it doesn't work like that here.
Comment has been collapsed.
The system is:
Give away more items to win more items.
It's a perfectly valid analogy.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've seen user with 0 sent games and close to 200 wins, so it's definitely not P2W.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except that you're implying it has a negative effect on those aren't in a position to create giveaways. It's completely irrelevant. You're comparing beneficial effects or tactical advantages over other players in combat situations, to a website about giving away games. Do you really not see how flawed your logic is?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think he's trying really hard to convince himself that he's right
Comment has been collapsed.
I was about to post a pretty long paragraph on how there's a difference between what he calls a debate, and what he's actually doing in completely ignoring peoples counter arguments and purely preaching his own opinion as the one true answer, despite its blatant flaws. But it's really a waste of time talking to him at this point, he's literally just here to argue with people.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is bad? Contribute more to something and you might get more out of it. Anyway It's all chance. giveaway more games and you get into level restricted ga that have a better chance of you winning. It doen't equate to Give away more items to win more items.
Comment has been collapsed.
Um, no. No it is not a "valid" analogy. Not only is it a bad analogy. It's OBVIOUSLY a bad analogy. Here is why:
A game is expected to apportion victory based on skill (or in some cases luck). It is thus irksome when it instead apportions it based on money spent. The game is not fulfilling its expected function.
But in many other cases there is no reason to have such an expectation. There is thus no reason to be irked by receiving benefit for payment. Your analogy is like calling a grocery store "pay to win" because it charges you money before you can leave with food or Netflix "pay to win" because you must pay them before you can watch things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pay to win also denotes that there's something to win at the end. You have a better chance at winning a giveaway for a higher contributor level based on a lower number of users at each contributor level, but it still does not guarantee a win. Even level 10 does not guarantee a win especially when you're still entering a giveaway listed for everyone. And besides that, this isn't a competition... there isn't a leaderboard and it really doesn't matter, in the end, who is on top anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I strongly disagree that this site is "pay to win" and believe treating the site as such is toxic and harmful to the community. Regardless, Teliko's point does still stand, in that the site rewards contributors with contributor value so that they have access to higher-leveled games. It is not pay to win because the only "win" condition is winning a giveaway, something that could be achieved without giving anything away at all. Contributor value is a reward to incentivize contributions, but it is not the only means of winning giveaways, nor is it necessary at all to give away.
Comment has been collapsed.
None of these. It's because you get rewarded the same as someone who paid for it. This strikes most people as unfair.
If you mean something you won here, then that's just flat out against the rules. If you don't want something, you shouldn't be entering for it in the first place so that someone else who does can have it. Re-gifting in that circumstance is basically just you stepping in and acting like a middleman and trying to take credit. Also, you have to activate wins here on your account anyway because it's the only way there's even any proof that anything was given away at all, so it's kind of a moot point.
Apart from that, if it's someone giving away like a million keys, it floods the site, which is why those get removed entirely.
Comment has been collapsed.
So being a middleman,being economical, and doing things you would do in real life is unfair?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, taking credit for someone else's generosity is unfair.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, 'things you do in real life'?
So when Christmas rolls around, you just stash everything you get in the closet and then hand them out to people for birthdays and such the rest of the year?
Comment has been collapsed.
It isn't being economical when there isn't any need for a middleman or any benefit to having a middleman - except for the middleman to make a profit.
Comment has been collapsed.
For context, that thread likely sparked this thread.
To repeat myself from that thread I don't find it wrong in and of itself but these things don't exist in a vacuum and there are likely always going to be other factors which will make it wrong, e.g. agreeing not to regift and then regifting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well mate to make it simple without an "emotional argument" as you've put, the site credits you when giving a game away with it's now lvl system wich is mostly still a system based on the contribution value of the games you give if a game can be gifted multiple times it would make the entire sistem exploitable. BTW there's been just too many of these same threads you could've just searched it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's both. I'll ignore the CV part because others already brought it up, but regifting is basically telling the GA creator "I think what you're giving here is a piece shit I would never touch, but I'll take it anyway to dump elsewhere so I can get praised by suckers who don't know any better"
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it says: "Thank you, but someone else needs this more" (Of course, that's kind of a weird thing to say)
Or if you trade it away it becomes:
"Thank you for the gift, I was able to put it into another form I can better use. Thank you for your assistance!"
Comment has been collapsed.
If someone else "needs it more" then don't enter the giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
People don't really think like that. A LOT of things hit you after the event is over.
Comment has been collapsed.
how do you know what people think? i mean, this thread is proof that basically nobody thinks what you think about regifting.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1; Or just do a key drop on a forum, which is not against the rule in this specific situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just to be clear, the key can't be obtained from a won giveaway. I'm sure you know, just pointing it out. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes I know, I meant if you get the key from a site like WGN. Actually, I should have been more specific, I was referring to the other discussion that MallowOni linked higher up: (http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/bbDx5/yay-added-the-first-person-to-my-blacklist#BBTrsDL)
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, I didn't click his link before. This explains a lot.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then ask the giveaway creator for a reroll and you are done
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't want a game, just don't enter the GA. You aren't forced to enter after all. Even if you win, just ask the GA creator for a reroll via Support. That simple. Regifting is absolutely not appreciated and hurts the sentiments of the people giving the gifts away. These peeps here giveaway stuff because :
a) They already have the game, and dunno what to do with the extra copy.
b) They bought the game, are not interested in the game, and think someone else should play it.
c) They are just charitable.
So no, trying to gift a game that you won back to someone else is pretty much voiding the first GA's purpose + A slap to the face of the creator. Not to mention trading it off is even worse, because you are using someone else's hard earned money to profit a ton (You basically "begged" for the game in a sense.)
TLDR: Don't think you are doing us a great service by regifting. Its more like a dick move to do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because you're supposed to active the game on your account. Trading a game you've won is just as bad as regifting it. Because you're entering giveaways for games you're not even interested in activating on your account.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aside from anything else, because it is the only way to prove that a game existed. Otherwise the system is entirely exploitable.
Comment has been collapsed.
This, which I already told you if you were actually reading what people are saying.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) Why would you enter a raffle for a game you don't actually want? You're taking the game away from people that do want it.
2) Create Private Raffle -> Enter lots of people into it that are in cahoots with you -> Don't give game -> "Winner" marks it as recieved -> You get CV without gifting anything -> repeat
Comment has been collapsed.
If you can't follow community X's rules, don't join community X. :)
If you only learn the rules of community X after joining it, and realise you can't follow them, leave. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
So it's wrong to break the rule because it's a rule?
Thats not exactly valid reasoning.
Comment has been collapsed.
This ain't the government, it's not like you didn't have a choice to join it. If you disagree with a rule to an optional thing, don't join it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right or wrong, you can decide that yourself. I haven't said anything is wrong, but you can imagine whatever you please. :)
Several giveaway sites exist; you can find different rules in all of them. Some say you win a game, you keep the game. Some say we don't care, it's your game do whatever you like. If you have a moral objection to the rules at this particular giveaway site, perhaps you would prefer to find one that fits your ethics better and play there instead.
But you sound bored, perhaps you're more interested in seeing replies... :)
Comment has been collapsed.
that's the first smart thing you said here. unfortunately we told you many reasons already, why you should follow that rule.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think pointing out that regifting is an unfair system that provides an easy avenue for users to exploit the system is anything like an "emotional appeal". Unless you're counting all moral arguments as mere "emotional appeals" now, I think the moral argument alone justifies prohibiting regifting.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm talking about the:
'It makes me FEEL bad' arguments
As for somebody that hates the level system, and doesn't think it should be there, the problem could be avoided by not having that system.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what your augment against it? you hate the level system?
Comment has been collapsed.
I do hate the leveling system, thinking it causes more problems than its worth. I point out smaller sites let you re-raffle and sell your winnings (TF2r and Scrap.tf) and suffer no ill effects, therefore this site likely would have minimum inpact in case of removing that rule.
Comment has been collapsed.
thinking it causes more problems than its worth
Such as?
I point out smaller sites let you re-raffle and sell your winnings (TF2r and Scrap.tf) and suffer no ill effects, therefore this site likely would have minimum inpact in case of removing that rule.
Other places don't do it is faulty reasoning and not an argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, if all the other sites jumped off a bridge, obviously SteamGifts should get to jumping too! It's what all the cool kids are doing!
Comment has been collapsed.
Except that it doesn't cause any problem, apart from the people who don't want to contribute anything and don't understand why those who do are rewarded with more exclusive benefits. Those sites are smaller for a reason. With incentive to give comes more giving. This site wouldn't be half of what it is if it wasn't for the reward system, and there are plenty of higher level people who still give thousands of currency worth of giveaways to non-contributors.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I hate the SteamGifts rules and love other smaller sites with different rules!"
There's a solution for you: Stop using SteamGifts and use "the other smaller sites" you love. Simple as that! ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
The rule is there because people agreed to certain rules that would create the kind of site and community that they wanted it to become, therefore removing this rule would most likely cause a big impact. Different people have different value and if you joint a community it is because you agree to it's rule and value, if those change then you just changed the kind of community it will be.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because the stuff you get here at those sites are digital creations generated by a game. They have an approximate cash value but you don't really have to spend that money to acquire those items, only playing time. SG doesn't function that way. People have to spend money to have something to give out. All I see is you trying to enable a culture of begging and utility at the expense of other's economic generosity.
You're complaining why a vegan store doesn't serve meat when other store that sell meat have been successful and have minimum impact in serving meat.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or the problem could be avoided by going someplace else that has a different system.
Comment has been collapsed.
That rule is older than the CV system and is the point of this website...
Comment has been collapsed.
Here I thought it was to give away games to random people.
Comment has been collapsed.
To give away games to random people who want to play them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why not to random people who want to use them to make their lives better?
Comment has been collapsed.
Forget it, he is just out to profit over other's earnings.. Leave it be.
Comment has been collapsed.
He means giving the games away to strangers (like OP) who could sell the game they dont want and use the funds to get something they do want.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Level system, or any Contributor Value system, exists to incentivize users to give away and reward them for their contributions. As great as it would be if most people gave away out of their sheer generosity and philanthropy, more people are interested in giving away if and only if it benefits them in some capacity. Offering an incentive for giving away helps keep the community alive and drives users to give away. Without it, many users—including those with very high contributor values—might leave and join a site that better suits their interests. A secondary role of contributor value systems is that they provide the contributor with a means of restricting their giveaways to fellow contributors of a particular level or amount of contributor value. This is particularly useful for those who do not trust noncontributors or believe that those users do not deserve the giveaway.
Essentially, contributor value systems are implemented because they are useful and help maintain a consistent flow of giveaways by providing an incentive that every contributor can appreciate. It's a system that benefits both parties and works great at convincing users with no interest in generosity to give away. It has some problems and flaws, both inherent to the system and related to the many forms it can take, but it generally works. If you would like a giveaway site that does not use a contributor value system, I believe the French giveaway site Cadeaux Steam does not have one. The site has a reputation system, but it appears to have no impact on the contributor's account aside from operating as a "trustworthiness" statistic of sorts.
Comment has been collapsed.
If Mc Donalds sells cake at 10am but Burger King doesn't do you also throw a sissy fit?
if you don't like the rules of a place and prefer to be somewhere else there is just one thing for you to do: GET THE HELL OUT
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I wonder why Burger king doesn't do that, and point out Mc Donalds cakes are pretty bad anyway. Just because I don't like the rules doesn't mean I won't try to rationalize why they are there, and I wouldn't quite steam for the things I find object able on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
IF you don't want a certain gift don't join the giveway. Let the other people who want it to have a chance.
IF you won. It's yours and play it. Other people paid money to start the original giveaway. it's a insult to them that you give what they paid for to earn yourself ranks.
- So you mess up other people's chance to win because you join giveaway you don't want.
- You use other people's paid gift for your own gain...
Gratz now you are the first people to made in onto my blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
So your putting me on your blacklist for having an opinion and asking questions?
Comment has been collapsed.
IF having options is what you want, then wany1981 adding you to his blacklist is perfectly fine. It was his option m8
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems like a irrational thing to do though. You don't tell somebody of different political opinion you never want to see them again for having they're opinions. I'm not stopping him, and if he wants to do that, that's this problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're throwing a hissy fit because you hate that some people who make giveaways make giveaways only for people who make giveaways and want to change the rules so you can be one of those people who "giveaway: games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not throwing a hissy fit, I'm asking questions.
Do you say a reporter throws a hissy fit when he acts a political candidate why he holds his opinions?
Comment has been collapsed.
This isn't a political debate. we answered you're questions about the rule, now you're just complaining because you don't like it and making bs arguments about morality and politics to prove you're point.
Comment has been collapsed.
I put you on blacklist because
-
Reason above.. There are rules for this site and you want to break them. If you don't follow the rule don't be here.
-
All of the other people are trying to explain valid reason to you but instead of listen, you insult them.
-
Looking at your profile. Seeing you win giveaway that only have 1 entry piss me off.. It's obviously not the first time you and your friend try to cheat the system.
-
I just don't like the way you Troll.
If i am site admin i would kick you but i am not. Blacklist is all i can do so i am happy to do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
While this guy has many problems, his 1 entry win wasn't from gaming the system. It was a public giveaway, and comments refer to the number of entries being glitched at the time. I assume that the corrupted database wasn't fixed for all giveaways, and that was one that escaped.
Comment has been collapsed.
i c.. alright... well.. he is still going on my blacklist ;b
Comment has been collapsed.
Obviously that is fine and completely up to you, but I cant help but feel it could (maybe does) make these forums a bit worthless. You will never hear an opinion too unpopular for fear of exactly this, it just becomes an echo chamber of what everyone thinks anyone else wants to hear.
Im new here, maybe it is already like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm curious, what sort of empirical evidence does one give to show that something is wrong? Epicnes, could you illustrate by telling me what sort of statistics show that murder is wrong? (And, if you can't, would that mean all you have are emotional arguments that murder is wrong?)
Comment has been collapsed.
A interesting argument, allow me to demonstrate.
Person A kills person B.
The amount of people on the planet goes down by one, making our species more likely to go extinct.
Person B is now unable to do anything that could save our species, therefore making us more likely to go extinct.
Person B's possibly beneficial genes are now gone. This makes us more likely to go extinct.
Therefore, Person A just reduced the likelihood of the survival of our species.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are no statistics in what you just said.
Also, in some circumstances killing a person will surely increase the probability of the survival of the species. So your argument won't cover all cases of murder. Is murder right if it improves the chances that the species will survive?
Comment has been collapsed.
It depends, but there is no way to know before you do the act, therefore your putting a gamble on the rest of the species. As for the numbers, I did not make them up, gene pools are a thing, and so is the total amount of people on the planet
Comment has been collapsed.
You made up the probabilities. That was what I was referring to. As TreeB points out, it's easy to make a case for assigning very different probabilities.
And no, you're "it depends" answer won't do at all. If you think I can judge that killing somebody likely would hurt the species, I could just as easily judge that it likely would not. In both cases the judgement would depend on specific circumstances. You're acting as if, for some reason you haven't stated, I'm required to form one of those judgments and unable to form the other.
Comment has been collapsed.
Were overpopulated, people dying in some places is beneficial, also that's a hypothetical scenario, not empirical evidence.
Comment has been collapsed.
Person A regifts Person B's game.
Person B stops giving away games.
The amount of contributors on steamgifts goes down by one.
Therefore, Person A just reduced the likelihood of the survival of steamgifts
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would person B stop giving away games? That doesn't stop people on TF2R and Scrap.tf from raffling games.
Comment has been collapsed.
People don't like dealing with assholes who break the rule so they stop spending money on them. Also, No one cares about TF2R and Scrap.tf, If you like their rules, go to those sites.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because like tempete said, there are people here who have never given away a game, yet they've won hundreds of games. That's wrong imo, those people are taking advantage of other's good will. IF having options is what you want, then we should have the option to give our games to whomever we want m8. And I don't want to give away games to non-contributors/leechers, it's my option m8
Comment has been collapsed.
Subjective reasoning based on a human-centric outlook. The extinction of our own species would quite likely be beneficial for many other species on the planet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but it makes it a lot less likely any life will make it off Earth, therefore reducing the variety of life in the universe. It would also hurt a lot of species that depend on humans for survival.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but it makes it a lot less likely any life will make it off Earth
What makes you say that?
It would also hurt a lot of species that depend on humans for survival
So a few domesticated animals might suffer? small price for the damage we do to the ecosystem.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, all your arguments work by showing that something you want to show is wrong leads to results you are assuming are wrong.
But what happens when I demand statistics and numbers to show that reducing the variety of life in the unvierse is wrong, or that making the human race less likely to survive is wrong? You can move the wrinkle a few times, but you're going to run into trouble eventually...
Comment has been collapsed.
The extinction of the dinosaurs did not make it less likely any life would make it on Earth, and in fact it gave rise to our own current domination of the planet. Biodiversity does not remain in a constant incline or decline but fluctuates greatly over spans of geological time. Species that depend on humans for survival would likely die out, but many species whose survival is actively threatened by humans would be allowed to thrive in their place.
You are objectively and provably wrong on this.
Comment has been collapsed.
And would also help a lot of species that are becoming extinct because of humans hunting them down.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wrong. Population fluctuations are modeled most accurately as iterative functions that are highly dependent on their starting state, such that changing the population could have a negative or positive influence, or none at all. Furthermore, the carrying capacity of the environment has been artificially elevated through technology such that the population is actually much higher than it should normally be able to be without some kind of massive die-off. Whether we're genuinely overpopulated or not, it's a distinct possibility, and eliminating someone, especially if they are a drag by being unable to contribute to production, frees up resources for others.
It is impossible to provide a rational basis for a moral viewpoint because moral viewpoints are opinions by nature with no inherent truth value. Even your argument relies on the unspoken assumption that more humans is a morally good thing, which cannot be proven.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd be curious to know how you'd establish that opinions have no truth value. It is my opinion that the Earth orbits the sun. But clearly that has a truth value.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not your opinion. That's a fact. You're using an equivocation. All an opinion says is basically, "I like this," or, "I don't like this." Hence, the only way it can be untrue is if you say you like it but really don't, or vice versa.
Comment has been collapsed.
I worded that poorly. Whether or not one actually holds the opinion one professes is the only truth or untruth that an opinion can have.
Facts and opinions are mutually exclusive. Facts are objectively verifiable, while opinions are subjective statements of personal value, be it moral, aesthetic, or what have you. I've never known them to mean anything else, though I won't dispute that a dictionary may offer one or more definitions that vary from this usage somewhat.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I took that first reply down to replace it with a better one. (See bellow)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not equivocating. It meets the dictionary definition of 'opinion' (I can quote it for you if you like). But OK, you're clearly using the word differently than me. I don't have a problem with that.
I still don't follow you, though. You admit at the end of your post that what you're calling opinions can be true and false. So how can you then argue that because something is an opinion it has no truth value?
Also, moral judgments generally aren't statements of that form. "Murder is wrong" doesn't have the form "I like this" or the form "I don't like this". Liking isn't mentioned at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oops, replied to your other comment before you deleted it. It should still stand as a response to this post. Also, you can edit your posts if you need to add or reword something.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know I can edit, but people often don't see it. I wanted to avoid the mixup we just had. :)
So what is a fact, on your view? If something is objectively true, but can't be verified right now (because, say, I don't have the right tool to check on it) is it a fact?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. Just because a fact is unknown doesn't make it untrue.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, then we seem to share that definition: any true proposition is a fact.
But that means that by your own account many opinions are facts (because many are true propositions).
Comment has been collapsed.
I suspect that whatever opinions you hold to be true are things that I would classify as facts.
In my understanding, an opinion is a value judgement with no rational or factual basis which is formed from one's own intuitions.
Examples of opinions:
"This song is great!"
"Lying is wrong."
"Broccoli tastes terrible."
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, I get what you're saying. Those don't look like what you originally said opinions were: statements about what a person likes or dislikes. Many statements about what a person likes ARE facts, because many of them are true.
But OK, let's talk about those examples. Two of those examples of opinions are ascriptions of properties, namely the properties of greatness and wrongness. Now, some ascriptions of properties have truth values. "My desk is solid" is true. "My desk is liquid" is false. Why can some ascriptions of properties have truth values while others can't? (I assume it has to be something about the properties ascribed. Songs and acts of lying are incontrovertibly features of reality.)
[Hope you don't mind the back and forth. I'm enjoying it.]
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I was making a slight leap there that I didn't explain. Those statements are essentially reducible to the more or less equivalent statements of, "I like this song," "I don't like lying," and, "I don't like broccoli." In that sense, all such statements can be similarly reduced.
And as far as the properties, greatness is essentially just perceived quality, as are wrongness and terribleness, though they are negative in contrast. These things cannot be said to be objective and are entirely dependent on the subjective impressions of the one forming the opinions, which is why I say they cannot be true or false. And those subjective impressions are what lead one to like or dislike the thing in question.
I hope this is making sense and giving you an idea of what I mean when I describe something as either factual or merely an opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I think I'm following you. You aren't the first person I've talked to who believes more-or-less this, by any means. (But details vary.)
So, let me try and state your positions: you hold that an opinion if it confuses an individual attitude had about a thing for an objective property of a thing. Is that right?
Comment has been collapsed.
(Oh, and I sent you a friend request so we could continue this in messenger, if you like. Feel free to ignore it.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Congratulations, you got on my blacklist not by directly breaking the rules, but by being bloody thick.
This site has rules. If you don't agree with them, feel free to log out and never return.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't agree with them, but I do comply to them. I was asking questions. Frankly, if you go far as to blacklist me, I'm okay with that, if your going to be honest to why you're doing it.
I just wanted a discussion on the issue, not to cause anger or have insults fly around.
Comment has been collapsed.
I could go into detail on how thick you are and how I consider it a suitable reason, but this topic shows that you will ignore or be somehow unable to comprehend it anyway. You certainly don't seem to understand any reason posted related to this topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Calling me thick for having an opinion and sticking to it after it is challenged is called an insult, and is unhealthy for the community. I understand the reasons, and I put out counter points.
Comment has been collapsed.
And all those counter points were shot down early on, yet you still argue for them. You have all the information on why this site is the way it is, and why it won't work your way. That you choose to ignore it and continue this topic is why I have a less than polite opinion on your intelligence.
Comment has been collapsed.
Misunderstanding is where people don't have full knowledge. People don't argue whether the Earth rotates or not because they already know that it does. I'm watching the thread and people gives you relevant arguments, which gives you knowledge why steamgifts have these rules and why it works. However you still believe you are the one you have true. It's not calling opinion it's calling belief.
Although you don't have logical arguments to prove this system doesn't work well. You just hate it. It's ok to hate things. But please don't try to make your hate something logical. It is not.
P.S: Supporting the rules don't make people nondemocratic. Please try to avoid behaviour like you are the right one here. Steamgifts system is something you can freedomly accept (sign in) and you can freedomly refuse (log out). In this I see a lots of democracy.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
ETA: Who knew he would kick up so much fuss over a WGN rule? It also seems (fittingly) that he got banned there as well...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it is a matter of opinion, and not a matter of right or wrong, and therefore asking for numbers and statistics as evidence would be pointless.
You mentioned ruining site dynamic, and for me that is exactly why I don't want re-gifting allowed here. I want some of my gifts to go to people that have a history of contributing and abiding by a set standard that discourages leeching and hoarding.
Sometimes I don't mind if a person would rather trade/re-gift a game I gave, so I give those elsewhere, but that is not what I use this site for, and I imagine many others here are the same.
It may not be the reasoning you were hoping to be able to argue against, but it is the reason many of us contribute here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Birthdays are a real life example. Other people give you gifts that they are not obligated to, and you say you want a new phone, so someone gifts you a newly released phone (like the Galaxy S6 Edge). A few weeks later, the person doesn't see you using the phone it at all, so asks why. You just state that you sold it on eBay for a few hundred dollars. That person would like to know why you would bother asking for a phone rather than money, if your only intent was to use it to get more profit than you would by at least showing the person that you appreciate their gift.
Comment has been collapsed.
IF you appreciate the money you got from selling the gift, you appreciate what the gift got you, and by extension the gift.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, the monetary value of the gift and the gift are two separate things. If i get a car, and sell it, I enjoyed the money, not the gift.
Comment has been collapsed.
The concept of thoughtfulness must elude you to some degree. While I can't speak for everyone, I know I try to put some thought into what I gift people. Why would I bother going out, trying to find a perfect gift for someone if they're just going to sell my gift for cash? If anybody I knew sold my gift or regifted it, I would be rather insulted and would likely not gift them anything in the future, since my gifts are wasted on them.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1, I would be really insulted also. I do GA so someone can enjoy the game I'm giving away, not so they can get CV without actually ever buying a single game.
Comment has been collapsed.
The emotional side of the argument will always be present with an argument such as this, that veers into the territory of the complexity of the human brain. I'm emphasizing the fact that you're making profit off of someone else's gift. There are an infinite amount of outcomes to that situation, but I'll list the most common ones.
1)Gifter is perfectly fine with it.
2) (As I stated already) Gifter questions more why you would ask for a phone rather than money, if your intent was only to sell it.
3)Gifter would be the passive-aggressive type and just because you used their gift like that, would no longer gift anything else to you because of your hidden intentions.
I could keep going, but please feel free to tell me more outcomes to this situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
How would you feel if you give your mother/father/girlfriend something for christmas, and his/her reaction were "Oh nice, I will save this and regift it on next christmas!"
edit: welp, got ninja'ed by Meeprulez :P
Comment has been collapsed.
This is probably an "emotional argument", however I don't fully know how one would define this clearly: I also personally don't care about what TF2 does, as I think this holds no weight when comparing to a giveaway site. Many "raffles" require entry fees, and the ones that hold them, in general, gain way more than they give away, so it's not a giveaway, but in many cases just swindling and fleecing operations... It's like comparing apples to oranges, but enough about that.
From a personal standpoint, I don't care what somebody does with a gift I've given. If I gave away and it was conditional, then am I really giving out of the pure goodness of my heart, as well as in the spirit of giving? That being said, the community would be unbalanced if large amounts of people habitually regifted what they didn't want, and many giveaways could potentially get flooded with even more people entering just for the purpose of trying to snag a win and "pad their stats", so to speak (besides just "collectors"). Some people would gain levels to higher tiers without contributing much, entering more giveaways for the purpose of gaining more wins to get more level points, further throwing things out of balance, and creating harder to win giveaways for those that actually would want to own and/or play the game.
You can still enter giveaways with low odds being at a relatively low level if you find the right groups, or poke around in the discussions... but still for general giveaways, I like being able to enter higher giveaways with lower amounts of people in them, as well as participating in multiple groups and contributing to them as well. There are some really good ones out there, but again, in my limited experience, most require certain things like contributions to be a part of them, but not necessarily level.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good points. The site would just be recirculating the same stuff all the time, and no new giveaways would be created.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a former mod at ScrapTF I can tell you this: Contributor value is the only reason. TF2r and ScrapTF both allow you to create raffles for anything. Even 3 cent emotes. We aren't talking about 3 cent emotes here. You are talking about games. When I give a game to a friend through Steam you think I want them to give it to someone else? No. That would hurt my feelings. I got it for them. It works the same for these giveaways. If the random person gifted the game I gave them it would hurt.
Comment has been collapsed.
this looks like a beautiful way to set a blacklist trap.
i'll be monitoring this thread. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
If we accept the existence of contributor levels, which are increased as a reward for users who add value to the website, then re-gifting would clearly cheat the system because it would allow users to increase their contributor level without actually adding any new value to the website. And if we do not accept the existence of contributor levels then there is no reason to enter draws for games we have no interest in playing, because there is no benefit from re-gifting. Either way, there is no sound reason to allow users to re-gift.
Having said that, given how many people there are on this website who probably would like to play any particular game it's a little bizarre and selfish to enter draws for games you have no interest in playing to begin with. And I think you'll find most people here will feel you should already know that.
Comment has been collapsed.
After reading OP posts: you clearly prefer those other 2 sites so please kindly go back there... what's that? They don't have as many giveaways as SG? Well maybe it's because their rules are shite in comparison and people don't want to gift there as much as here.
... ohh and also blacklisted
Comment has been collapsed.
of course they don't have more gifts in those sites, they are probably regifting the same 50 copies of temper tantrum all day long. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
That's actually quite false. I recommend doing research before making such wild claims.
Comment has been collapsed.
i would also recommend you to close this thread, before getting into more blacklists. discussing the rules of any site is not only pointless, it's annoying/trolling.
Comment has been collapsed.
After reading this whole thing all I can say is that I miss the days when I didn't read this forum as much as I do now orz
Comment has been collapsed.
If you wish to say why re gifting a game you won is wrong, then PLEASE provide evidence (Numbers, statistics, etc) as to why, not emotional arguments.
TF2r and Scrap tf both allow you to re-gift your winnings, and they get plenty of raffles, despite having a MUCH smaller base.
Alternatively, is it better for the person to trade it away for something else?
Note:
After seeing the responses to this thread, I see the other side of the argument (Many times here, actually).
I will be responding, but I see the trend, and being one that supports democracy, concede.
I have gotten the information and knowledge I desired from the thread. I will leave it open, for multiple reasons I don't feel like explaining right now.
Another Note: I am closing the thread due to the flak I am receiving for discussing the rules and asking questions.
Comment has been collapsed.