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

I don't agree - those of us who have a backlog that's large sometimes take weeks/months/years to get to some games. :)

Punishment... no, never.
Should they play it? Definitely. They choose to enter. They know their PC specs and how much spare time they have.

You could always use white-lists or just give directly to people if you want more of a chance to find people who will play the games though. (^_^)

No, I think it should be punished after a year. If you have a large backlog, why take the chance of those who will play it right now? Or like, at least start working on your backlog as an indication that you are interested in playing it, rather than just letting it dust in your library.

No way, I really don't think it's the case.
In my case I'm guilty, I won games that I never took the time to start playing. In this case it's entirely my fault, and whatever I say doesn't change it.
I mean, I have a huge backlog, not even close to the ones of people on this community, but the games I won are not enough to complain about it. I'm fucking lazy, I have nothing to justify myself.

I think everyone can have problems in their lives that keep them distant from games.
Also, we have a lot of witch hunting in this community. The system you suggested would only increase this problem, imo.

That being said, I completely understand your point and the reason behind it, but in my opinion it's not a good idea.

I searched a bit, but I didn't find anything I might have posted previously in this thread, so here is my opinion:

1. In a perfect world, everyone would only take what they need, and nobody would waste anything.
2. The problem with "blanket rules" is that they do not take into account a particular person's situation.
3. As a matter of principle, I do not place requirements on a person who accepts a gift. Once given to them, it is theirs. Period.

Keeping all of the above in mind, if I am not willing to hand over a gift, knowing that I am giving up the control and responsibility that comes with owning it, then I do not offer it. When I create a giveaway, I have to accept the possibility that the gift I give might never be played since the universe offers countless situations in which that might occur. A gift with strings attached is not a gift. I may, however, make some effort to find a recipient who will appreciate what is given.

Who cares? Have something like 1,300 games I've never played. I enter GA's because I collect games. It's a hobby. I certainly don't NEED more.

And here I am missing the whole drama because I'm actually trying to play the things I won here...

So I win a game, I have activated my win but I don't plan to play it right away. NO! That is not allowed. I must play the game I just won so someone else can feel good about me winning the game they gave away turning something I do for fun into a chore.

If as GA creator you feel this way, it says a lot about your anal retentive need to control the behavior of others. Some people don't seem to understand that when you give something away you disavow any right to it. SG already has all the rules needed to ensure user don't abuse winning games. As long as I activate my wins and not win multiple won copies of the same game I am within my rights to do whatever I want with the game I have won. I can play it as soon as it is installed or I can play it on my deathbed 60 years from now. Once the game is given away the giver no longer has any right to the game, only the winner who now owns the game does.

If as a GA creator you feel I owe you more than my gratitude for winning your GA please blacklist me now. It will save us both a lot of time and apparently it will save you some heartache. I do this for fun, being forced to play games on a deadline doesn't sound fun to me

This topic reminds me of the tired topic in which GA creators demand entrants do some stupid human trick to enter their GA. It's asinine and lacking perspective. I've said it before and I'll say it again: We are just giving away games here, not the cure for cancer.

Late to the party. Let's see if I can reconstruct what happened here.

• OP made a proposal.
• OP did not enjoy the huge amounts of disagreement with this proposal.
• OP retroactively recast it as a "social experiment" (very similar to the "I was just trolling" defense), while continuing to defend the proposal (such as by characterizing the existence of disagreement as "... confirming that there is an issue", for example) and finding dramatic/intellectual-sounding labels (like "witch-hunts" and "informal fallacies", respectively) with which to blanket-declare disagreements invalid.
• "Social experiment" phrasing was later reworked again, cast as capitulation to "political correctness", whatever that means in this context.

Can an unbiased party check my work and give my thread-archaeology a thumbs up or down?

I see this as very difficult to enforce. There are countless reasons that someone might not play a game and there are varying degrees of how badly one might want a game he wins. For instance, I've won a couple games over the past couple weeks but have only had enough time to play one of them for a half hour. I very much want to play more but for the time being, I just can't.

There's just too many variables involved to punish someone for not playing a game.

Maybe if Stea, was better at recording achievements and playing time, and there were fewer points available to spend it games it would be a little more viable, but I wouldn't really support it regardless

Many of the games I win are played with Another steam account through Library sharing and Family view...

Check out reddit.com/r/giftofgames or something if you want your giveaway to be more "appreciated"

If you want people to play your games rightaway, just say so and a decent chunk will back off. I certainly do.

Aaaaaand you did it again. You edited your first-post again and put yourself over other people again. I thought we talked about that already. But now it is pretty much proven:

• You obviously can't stand other people to have different opinions.
• Eh.... No... It is not fun to argue with you if you just keep saying "WAWAWWAAW I CANT HEAR YOU AND YOU ALL HAVE NO IDEA ANYWAYS WAWAWAWA"
• You obviously think you are better than others
• Why do you even ask for people's opinions if you feel like you are boss anyways and if you don't accept other opinions anyways?

Well, I don't check if people play the game. And myself, I have a backlog including many gifts won over time (though I've played some too when I feel like it's time to play them - or because I wanted them in my Steam library and having already a retail copy and played it - I think about many many old games before Steam came around).

Like the others said, many factors can enter and mislead people to think that it's not played or that it's played. Making official sanctions for that would mean that you'll feel forced to play a game and will make many of us leave the site - or just idle in the game to show that we installed the game and "played" it - my joy is to give, winning is just an extra.

But given the numerous edits (and as I missed the drama, I don't know really what happened, even when reading the thread), I don't know if my answer is answering your initial question.

But in the end, I feel that it's harsh to punish someone for that. That's my opinion.

And little tip for the future: you said youself you asked a tricky question - don't expect a debate without flames, be prepared for the reactions you will receive ;).

I understand your point. But we would never be able to distinguish between people who never play games they win, and people who play such games after days/months/years,

For example, I won Dying Light GA a year ago and I just played it 1 month ago because I didn't have PC strong enough to handle this beautiful game. Should I be 'banned' because someone with good PC could have played it 1 year ago and then never play it again after finishing game? That's for you to decide, but I think after 1 year period its a draw (I finished the game. The other person would have also finished the game - just in different time). I hope you catch my point. =)

"We create our own demons"
-Tony Stark, iron man 3

A gift is a gift, you aren't entitled to attach strings. For some of us, the meta game of collecting is a joy quite separate and as much fun, if not, perhaps more, if my wildly hit or miss backlog is at all typical. Are we wrong? I've given stuff away, I'm not just leeching from the community. Is the satisfaction I get from collecting somehow less valid? I see where OP is coming form, to a certain extent. I often wonder about people who give away gifts with high level restrictions, I get that they want to reward people who have given a lot to the community, but aren't those generally speaking the people least in need of free games? And the people who would least appreciate and value the gift? I don't quite get it, but if that's what makes their boat float I am not going to condemn them, nor do I think that feature should be removed.

SAM/IM, end of story

Many of us only have things to give away because of our hoarding habits. Punishing hoarding is punishing the very behavior that results in so, so many giveaways.

I don't even have the time (and sometimes the equipment) to play all the games I bought myself. ;_;