That might be nice, but I wonder if adding another table to store restrictions would put a much heavier load on the server.
Comment has been collapsed.
Asking support to re-roll requires evidence of breaking the rules here specifically. However, let's say someone is cheating but can't prove it, you can't get it re-rolled. And I am not asking for blacklisting after someone enters. I am asking to blacklist prior to them being able to enter at all.
I'd also add that this would allow users who are harassed or just have people they don't want involved to be barred from giveaways. (e.g. a person who trolls you, etc.)
Comment has been collapsed.
People will abuse it to let not enter people just because they don't like them and the probability that someone you don't like wins a giveaway is very low. There will be also be many people that want to add someone to the blacklist after he entered and then don't send the gift to the winner (many people don't read rules), that will also lead to that many more support tickets will be send to support because of blacklist questions.
Even if it's your giveaway you still have to follow the site rules. When you want to change the rules you have to make your own site or don't send the gift to the winner and live with the negative feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
I still don't see any abuses here. Abuse is when wins somebody who we don't like and we have to gift him.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I know and I don't think your idea is bad but there will be many issues with that and there will be many people that want to reroll a giveaway when it is like in 2. You don't have to give the winner the gift but then you have to live with the negative feedback. And public giveaways should be available for anyone to enter. You have to live with that you have to give games to people that you don't like here.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree that public giveaways should be available to everyone unless the creator wishes since real monetary value is involved. A job opening is the same. It is technically public to anyone who wishes to apply to the job; however, the job creator is allowed to set restrictions.
Comment has been collapsed.
"On the other hand, it's your giveaway and I think you have the right to decide who's entering it /="
^ This entirely. Having proof and knowing whether someone is being abusive or not are two different cases. It is very easy to hide evidence for something where it is nearly anonymous online; however, real monetary value is involved in giveaways and I believe the creators have every right to determine limits and restrictions.
As for the innocent until proven guilty bit... it really doesn't matter. If someone doesn't want you in their giveaway (e.g. private/group giveaways), you're not getting in anyway. A blacklist for creators is no different functionally. The only difference is that it allows the creator to open up the giveaways to a large subset of the populations than just private/groups while restricting a very small subset of people instead of opening it to a small subset of people and restricting a large subset of people.
And here's the thing, what if I wanted to do a public giveaway but restrict out people I do not wish to enter? That is entirely different from restricting everyone and allowing only a small subset of people in (such as private or group giveaways).
If you really want to go strictly by site rules only and have everything approved by the very few mods/admins running this site then a blacklist would essentially be naming every person publicly who is disallowed to enter a giveaway for every giveaway created.
Another example: What if someone has broken no rules but you really don't want someone to join for personal reasons? Let's say the person is a homophobe, a racist, or some form of bigot. Should I be allowed to restrict my giveaway? I believe so.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't have evidence, how can you be sure they are cheating ?
Comment has been collapsed.
An example from my own giveaway, a puzzle: Seven people who are all friends with each other entered the giveaway nearly simultaneously where tons of other people couldn't get through. This has strong implications of answer sharing at the minimum.
How can I prove it though? Very difficult.
Comment has been collapsed.
Too bad. The staff at SteamGifts have, by letting the ban expire, made it clear that they have been fully punished for past offenses.
Why do you support vigilante action ?
Comment has been collapsed.
easiest way, create a group, make it public (anyone can join), and ban the one that don't follow the rules or that you want in your banlist.
then post giveaway only for that group, easy as pie
the only thing not easy is to find a good name for the group ;p
I tried Steamgifts Whitelist but it's already in use, and also "The group name, Steamgifts eats spaggath, is already in use" There is some weird group name up there ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
what if steamgifts mod decide that we all need to join a public group when we signed in, and then manage the group giveaway blacklist from there? they don't even have to add anything to their site and they can give us that ability.
My idea is still the cheapest way for steamgifts mod to have this without getting more load on their server.
Comment has been collapsed.
I actually do want such a feature. restricting by contributor value just isn't getting the job done anymore. when you can buy a $100-$150 value bundle for $10 (such as the recent Amazon packs -- and there will be more) it completely breaks the system if these games are not retroactively added to the bundle list (which they have not been). because of being able to so easily inflate contributor value due to these types of packages it means nothing anymore. meanwhile people who do not resort to that (and might be a more deserving giveaway winner despite having a lower contributor value) are left out in the cold
Comment has been collapsed.
If you ask me blacklisting won't even stop anything. You could easily make a post on here or another forum and tell people you're hosting a random giveaway and enter numbers into a hat and then control who you want in and out. There's no way the site can be perfect in eliminating that.
Comment has been collapsed.
These aren't global blacklists. If they're not wanted in a giveaway for whatever reason, they have no right to complain. It is a giveaway (i.e. free). Whether someone is innocent or not in this case is not an issue. There is no financial/criminal/etc penalty to them.
To ammend to this: If they are blacklisted after they enter a giveaway, they can remain in said giveaway because they spent points to enter. Different case.
Comment has been collapsed.
The way you said it though was as though you'll be paying attention to other people's blacklists and start taking names from there. I'm not saying you won't be rightfully adding names or not. I'm just saying that some people might be innocent and then added to one blacklist, then another, then a few more, and word spreads. Lets say for instance someone holds a giveaway and 'John' wins but is accused of cheating. The giveaway maker then goes to their group of friends on here and tells them all that 'John' should be blacklisted. These people go on to tell their other friends etc etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
The admins/mods wouldn't ban without proof regardless. The only thing I meant by aggregated data is that this provides a list of users that admins/mods can monitor as opposed to being a free-for-all at the moment.
But I do see your point about how users can eventually through word-of-mouth make a DIY global blacklist. I don't see this as likely though given how many creators there are.
An individual's blacklist should be private, regardless.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I don't know, I can understand your side as well as the opposed. One thing - I was thought of cheating because my friend and I entered a private giveaway. I can see how that looks suspicious but the reason it turned out like that was cause he was at my house. It had nothing to do with giving away the link. Now 7 or 8 people is a different story and of course there are people who really are cheating. I just think it's a bit harder to tell at times. Though, as I said, I get both sides of the story.
Comment has been collapsed.
315 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by D34Done
447 Comments - Last post 48 minutes ago by Hawkingmeister
14 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Fatality92
27 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by tabbou
41 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by XfinityX
33 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by 76561198082881386
80 Comments - Last post 12 hours ago by Asteria94
53 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by Shurraxxo
61 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by reallurker
171 Comments - Last post 30 minutes ago by meneldur
6,928 Comments - Last post 37 minutes ago by knsys
109 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by ceeexo
24 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ceeexo
111 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by rimvydasm
Are there any thoughts to blacklisting people from entering giveaways created? As opposed to limiting it to a private and/or group giveaway.
When there is strong evidence of 'cheating', there is little power for the creator of giveaways. A blacklist to prevent entry would go a long way for creators.
Edit: I should note that 'cheating' is not the only reason to blacklist. Perhaps moral, ethical, other reasons as well.
If real monetary value was not involved, this would be a non-issue; however, since it is, creators need more tools at their disposal.
Comment has been collapsed.