Should winners that don't play won games be able to enter GA's?

Not punished but I feel that the gift goes wasted if it will never be played. Hence I try to compete the games I win in timely manner. Still have some left. Also, that is the reason why I mostly skip EA games as I desire to play them once they have been finished. Better let someone else enjoy the early fun instead of keeping it dusted in my library till the release.

Backlog is the main reason I cut my entries in GAs by 90%.
Let's say I win Fallout 3, I know for sure that one day (maybe after 2 years even) I will play the game. If a person is going to play it right now and I'm going to play it in 2017, why should I be excluded from entering? We both are going to try it out so why him and not me?

I think you were referring to those famous "game collectors" that add games to library without trying them out. I will never understand that I swear! Why would you ever fill your library with crappy games?
I personally enter only games that I think I will play some day, but unless I tell you directly that, you can't know why someone joins GAs that doesn't play in reasonable time. This is why I think it's a bad idea.

Thanks for not discussing this issue.

I really don't care if people play the games i giveaway. I'm giving it away, if they respect SG rules i couldn't care less if they play it or not for several reasons.

I'm not a cop , i don't care who wins the game as long as they respect the rules, i won't check if they played or not and i don't want to.

People play the games they want whenever they feel like playing the games, i don't get to decide that for them just because i gave them the game.

The fact that i gave them the game doesn't give me the right to control their gaming life.

I have games that i bought and never played for several reasons, it can be due to time constraints , it can be because i don't feel like it and it can be because some friend calls me to play another game.

That being said you can blacklist whoever you want for whatever reason you can remember, this just seems one of those strange reasons.

I said it once and I'll say it again, in today's reality people are working, going to school or just don't have time to play games. By putting this rule would make this very unfair due to low winning chances. Because that would piss off the winner.

I only enter for games i intend to play,but even though i only have a bit over 500 games,i simply do not have time to play every one of them all the time.

That being said,the way i see it,when you give something that great,but to tell someone what they should do with the it is a bit to far if you ask me.It is like buying a car for someone,then saying damn i should have never wasted my money you never drive the damn thing.It is not you who gets to decide how often they should drive and when.

Same can be said for games people win,how does it give you the right to demand they play the game and play it often .if they should be blocked from future GA's for not playing previous wins..There are risk when making a giving away you better learn to deal with them or move on.You could ask people who really intend to play it to enter,but in the end it is up to the person who enters when and if they play it.

The risk of making a GA..

It may get re-gifted...
They may already own the game..
They may just enter for game count..
They may never play the game...

And so on...

I guess in the end though you could check winners and blacklist ones who have not played previous wins,though as a lot said about the VAC issues,sure there will be people on both side of this fence.

This sort of mentality is somewhat akin to the jigsaw killer.
"You don't appreciate life enough, so you should die." ->
"You don't play/appreciate your wins enough, so you should be punished."
Who are you to say I don't appreciate my wins? You don't know my mind. For that matter, who are you to say how much is "enough" appreciation? The whole premise is based on arbitrary nonsense.
This is just an exaggeration of course. I know they're not quite the same, and I'm not saying anyone is like a serial killer.

Me, I have a large library, and I sometimes worry that I superficially look like a 'hoarder'. However, I only enter giveaways for games that I'm interested in playing. I've had some wins that I haven't gotten around to playing yet (for software reasons in some cases), but I absolutely plan on playing them in the future.
I don't hold the winners of my GAs to any standard aside from those needed to enter. While I hope they will play it, it's their game now, and what they do with it is their business.

Burn them at the stake, ofcourse.

View attached image.

wow, the hate in this thread...

just close this and spare yourself more hostility.

this week was work + sleep for me. just idlemaster. next week seems the same.

If any gifter think I am not allowed to enter giveaways its okay for me.

I don't have time to play all the games I have, I do my best but I'm only a man.
At least I don't just idle games like some people do.

December 29, 2011. Bought Mafia. Played it a little years earlier, liked it, wanted to play more.

February 10, 2016. Haven't played a single second of Mafia.

I'm probably still a little better at playing games I've won than games I've acquired on my own. Relative to those two situations I've done a really nice job on games Steam friends have given to me.

This suggested policy is unenforceable and unwanted.

As you rightfully mention right in your OP, we are game collectors, not game players.

If you want to ensure that the gift you give away is going to be played the most sure way to accomplish that is to give a gift to a Steam friend on a limited budget, a game you know they really want to play, or even a game you can play co-op or multiplayer with them and other friends.

1000 "no" wow people really don't like the idea.

i always enters game i will play...sometimes it take sme more time to play them but..i always try to do it... :p.

Sure, there are ups and downs to both sides of this issue, but "after 1 month" is just cruel.

i never saw so many votes in a poll :O

at least sg users aren'y fighting each other, first time we all agree on something :3

View attached image.

No, moral of the history - you are hypocrite. Your topic title was suggesting to punish people for not playing won games. And you are the one who don't play won games - you won Guns of Icarus Online more then a year ago and according to playing time you only started it to get trading cards. Do you really want to be punished and don't be able to enter GA's?

i have no idea what i just read.... really, late to the party as is.
but why?

and being that negative? we deserve the world we live in? really?

fine, next suggestion i'll make is that if you complain cg will kick you from SG. (not really)

i find it insulting to spit the well you are drinking from.

Thank you for bringing this issue)) But you did nothing wrong, usually you have to ask to get the answer))

i play a new game maybe once every week or 2, but i have so many that ive only played like 20% of the games i own. but ill get around to them sooner or later

I think everyone also has the right to be a game collector. Figurine collectors also never play with their wrapped collections.

Hey, with so many users agreeing we could change constitution or something!

Lets make it a rule, that every user that makes new thread with a poll, have to wear pink bra doing it!

I haven't read the thread, but I imagine someone has posted this.

Hypothetically if for some odd reason you had to complete all games(or let's say even half) of your games/wins, it wouldn't stop anything. People would just use idle master to idle time on each game.

If anyone is wondering what happened here:
.
I asked a tricky question
A majority didn't like that such equestion was even asked and no debate should be taken
It escalated quickly confirming that there is an issue, but apparently that's just my opinion
The words I originally used were far from the whole problem, as pathetic things (informal fallacies, personal attacks, ...) kept coming after I edited.
.
Moral of the history? We deserve the world we live in.

What a petty final edit.
Your phrasing up till now was rude, but non-offensive, but this goes past the line of respectability.
Let me rephrase what you said in clearer terms:

Let me express my frustrations:
.
I asked a question I expected a different answer to
The fact that my opinion is in the minority means everyone else is wrong and I don't need to pay their perspectives any mind.
My rude behavior got negative responses, but I'm using that as validation that I'm right
I don't need to take any responsibility for my actions, you all suck.
.
Moral of the story? Fuck all a'yall.

I'm not even being facetious, that's exactly how it comes across. That sort of overall passive-aggressive negative phrasing seems unfathomable to not be intentional, but if it isn't, do recognize that this is why people don't respond favorably to you.

Nah, my internet is slow as balls and I got a bandwidth cap every month. Biggest reason I even haven't tried every game i've bought.