i do agree with MSKOTOR in both cases, and very ok for updating faq/guidelines and such.
Comment has been collapsed.
None of my examples involve trading on this site, or even discussing trades.
Comment has been collapsed.
They are not discussing trades. They are mentioning, in context of a post with other content, that they will be looking for a trade. Do you think that's bad for SG, and if so, why?
Discussing a trade is, "Hey, anybody want to trade for my copy of Bad Rats?" or, "I don't want to buy this whole bundle-- anybody want to trade Bad Rats to me?"
Let me clarify, though, that I was referring to my five examples, not the original posts from the other thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
very easily can cause trading to happen on site
Do you mean on this site? On SG? If trading starts happening on SG (like my "discussing a trade" examples), then they should be admonished/warned/suspended/etc.
Talking about religion or politics can cause misbehavior to happen, but is not itself forbidden. For that matter, saying, "I love going to my Hebrew temple" can very easily cause anti-Semitism to happen on site, but saying you're going to temple isn't itself a violation [Edit: nor should it be of course.].
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm having trouble following a fair amount of that, but I think what you're getting at is that if one mentions the practice of trading, then traders will flock to the forums and start breaking the rules by trying to offer / set up trades. Well, if/when they do, they get suspended, and if they continue, perma-suspended...like any other behavior against the rules. I just don't see how a casual mention of trading (like in my examples) is bad for SG and should result (eventually) in a suspension.
Comment has been collapsed.
"keens on"...is that another way to say "depends on?" I've never heard that before.
Yes, clearly SG and ST should be separate-- somebody here mentioned a historical reason for that-- that they didn't want bundle sites thinking we were a trading site (and therefore bad) or something like that. Plus, nobody wants to see trade spam in these forums.
My argument is that simply mentioning an intention, inclination, or possible consideration of trading a game, especially in the context of a response with other content, is not the same as "intentional discussion about trading." And at a minimum, at least update the Guidelines to reflect that. But obviously people have different opinions on the matter...nature of the beast I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
But I don't think any of my examples were "trading talk," as these things tend to be in the context of discussing a bundle, its games, their merits, whether you want to buy it, or maybe just tr-- oops, I did it again! ;-)
I mostly come to SG to hear about deals and new bundles, so I tend to scan the bundle threads. So I've been a little bit out of the loop until the past few hours I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a massive stretch. No trader's going to go to some random person to trade just because they mention it. Why would they spend a minimum of around 10 minutes and a maximum of around an hour just to maybe trade with someone. It's extremely inefficient because you don't know what they have to offer, what they are willing to give and what their reputation is.
If someone truly went that route, then it's just the trader being extremely inefficient. I mean, odds are that some traders are so flat out stupid that they forget literally 80-90% of the trading process, but I doubt it's even one a month.
To add to this, why does it worry you that someone starts a private conversation with someone after seeing a public comment? It's obvious that so far it's never been a public thing.
Plus, people comment on the bundle on those threads. If someone says "I'm going to trade for some of these", then it just shows that the user doesn't think the bundle's not worth buying and is more worth just trading for. If this is suddenly not acceptable, then we also can't say things like "Can't afford it" or "Would get it if there weren't so many repeats" or "Damn, it has that one game I want, but I already have/don't want anything else from there" because it can be seen as begging now. It's a reach, at best.
Comment has been collapsed.
Understand you don't care about people getting scammed or ripped off and that's fine especially when they are done inefficiently.
Oh... it's that type of conversation... Yeah, I forfeit since this is the game you're going to play.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're putting words into his mouth.
Understand you don't care about people getting scammed or ripped off
Comment has been collapsed.
Can I safely conclude that you believe the examples I provided above are/should be punishable offenses (presumably after a warning or two)?
In your opinion, are those comments bad for SG? If so, can you help me understand why?
Comment has been collapsed.
they are "bad". this is what i've thought:
"imagine being a Mod". in a giveaway site (with a Trades section, btw). a site where, obviously, begging is not allowed...
isn't that an hard work?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not talking about begging here. I think what you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's hard to tell what is just a comment about trading, and what is trying to sneakily set up a trade. I would argue that an ironclad, "thou shalt not mention trading" is overkill and unnecessary. The five enumerated examples I cited in the OP seem perfectly reasonable to me.
But in the end, if a few people trying to set up trades on SG has caused the guideline to evolve into, "do not mention trades or trading," then at least update the Guidelines.
Comment has been collapsed.
it gets old when we see the same comments every day on sg. borderline begging and trading should be stopped.
and no, don't start with excuses. we know some users gift stuff when someone mentions a game they want. it's a way to indirectly beg and since it works, they keep doing it.
oh boy i would love to get this bundle
damn i wish i had $5 to buy this game
i need to trade this game soon *wink* *wink*
i only like X game from this bundle, gonna trade... soon™
and in the same spirit we have whitelist-recruitment threads. they are just wl4wl threads disguised as "i'm nice and generous".
they even go the extra mile with requirements and they always include the classic "be generous and make whitelist giveaways x times per month".
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that some have used bundle threads (or other threads) for indirect/sneaky attempts at begging, or trying to set up a specific trade. And I agree that's shitty. This is why we can't have nice things.
I also think that we don't always know what somebody is really intending, so we who are attuned to begging may assuming somebody is begging when s/he really is just saying, "I really want this game." Not everything that looks like begging necessarily is, and it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.
Unless somebody has been "convicted" of this kind of begging, we can't assume that everything that looks similar is actually an attempt to beg or get somebody to gift a game...although that certainly happens.
My point is that I don't think that just because some users have done this kind of begging/trading, that everybody on the entire site should risk suspension for mentioning a general willingness to trade for games-- or if it absolutely has to be that way, then at least update the Guidelines to reflect it.
Comment has been collapsed.
they don't risk suspension, they risk getting called out by support.
and we already follow rules and guidelines to prevent a minority from exploiting steamgifts, this isn't different.
imagine a bundle thread with everyone replying "oh boy i would love to get this game, i might trade it, i have X, Y, and Z game to trade... if not, i will have to wait... maybe for my birthday, or christmas", because they know indirect-begging works.
look at whitelist recruitment threads (this is why i mentioned it in my previous reply). it's the perfect example of indirect-wl4wl gone wild because support doesn't get involved.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh boy i would love to get this game, i might trade it, i have X, Y, and Z game to trade... [deleted part about begging]
Maybe that's an exaggerated example, but that's clearly "organizing a trade" on Steamgifts, which is (and should be) against the guidelines. That's not what I'm talking about-- again, I'll refer to my five enumerated examples in the OP.
As for wl4wl...wait a minute, is that against the rules? I'm not a big fan of them, but how does support need to get involved. I'm genuinely confused.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a non-written rule on SG, that wl4wl is forbidden. Even mentioning the possibility of someone adding you to their WL is forbidden.
Mully is mistaken about one thing - it can and will get you suspended.
The only exception from this rule, is the WL recruitment threads. If someone asks you to write a message to be added to their WL, answering with a request to be added is considered ok.
Comment has been collapsed.
WL4WL is very common.
I hear the first time from this rule and never hear that someone was suspended for that.
All in all CRAZY
From all the stuff i seen and read today about the rules and the "witch hunting" for "hairs in the soup" at the same time the side loose more and more people that are active and not only suck the life out of this site... i want to make all the time -facepalm-
Comment has been collapsed.
Things like:
Thank you for WLing me, I've WLed you too
are allowed.
Things like:
Add me to your WL and I will WL you too
are strictly forbidden.
Comment has been collapsed.
An unwritten rule as far as the community thinking it's in poor taste (which I generally agree with), or an unwritten rule that mods/support should enforce / warn / admonish about / suspend / etc.? That's a huge difference. Mully was saying that support should get involved with "indirect-wl4wl gone wild," but that assumes it's against site rules, even "unwritten" ones...hence my confusion.
Comment has been collapsed.
As I said:
it can and will get you suspended.
So obviously it's enforced by mods (they're the only ones with the power to suspend).
Comment has been collapsed.
If that's really true, then this place really has taken a downward turn-- I've been largely absent lately. Don't get me wrong-- I don't understand the wl4wl thing, but to be suspended for it, when it's not even in the Guidelines? That just seems wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never seen a mod suspend or even warn against WL4WL, unless something's dramatically changed in the past year I'm gonna say you're probably mistaken on that.
Now, with that said, it is stupid and probably should be a rule in the FAQ/Guidelines against it. I think the whole FAQ/Guidelines need to be revamped.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dang, fair enough. It seems I've missed that entirely.
Wasn't there a thread about suggested Guideline's to be added officially? I remember seeing something like that, but I can't remember who had the thread or what the name of it was. Like, a community guidelines thread.
I think the Idea was to come up with something concrete enough to put forth as a suggestion to CG, in hopes we had enough to convince him to do it. Ring any bells? :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Here's one of mine. The line that got me suspended was:
Feel free to add me to your whitelist if you want
(Not kidding)
Comment has been collapsed.
i remember there were 2 unofficial FAQ threads around that i hid because they were too self-righteous. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
there are probably lots of suggestions to fix the wording and clarify rules in the faq/guidelines, i also wrote 1-2 tickets but they are either ignored by support or passed to cg and dumped in a back hole.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, shit... guess I'm a beggar now. I say: "Ah, great bundle! Too bad I can't afford it." and it's immediately begging? I mean, sure I can not mention that I can't afford it, but why even mention anything then? There'll always be problems to be found with any comment.
I mean, I dunno, maybe I'll get the same outlook at some point, who knows. But right now, unless it's very obvious, just mentioning that you think the bundle's only worth trading for is not really an issue for me.
Though, I agree, I'm a beggar/leech/whatever asshole I need to be for the controversy of the week. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
single instances of these comments won't get you suspended, but doing it constantly will get a reaction out of support (assuming support keeps an infraction/suspension history for each of us, which is pretty logic).
in this particular case, there's at least one more instance of trading organized by the same user that i remember, so for me it makes sense they would issue a warning.
Comment has been collapsed.
in this particular case, there's at least one more instance of trading organized by the same user that i remember, so for me it makes sense they would issue a warning.
Yeah, continuous begging and also obvious extended "oh woe is me" type of speeches are a good sign at the user's intentions. I just don't want this to go as far as considering any mention of lacking money as some type of a begging situation. People run out of money often and expressing regret for not being able to get a bundle due to said monetary setback shouldn't be enough to get someone suspended or even really judged by others. They can judge, of course. But I just think it shouldn't be unacceptable or frowned upon in the community. Again, this wouldn't apply for repeat offenders and those that are fishing for sympathy and possible gifts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then again half of comments on bundles are about how trash that bundle is...
So that's is pretty old too...
Comment has been collapsed.
And ALL of Mulleys post are complaining about those posts. So much it started bothering me.
Comment has been collapsed.
But it's not so easy to accept for me that I can't bother everyone even when breaking the rules. But at least I have a real excuse for it like kalsarikännit and not some made up thing like being social.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's very serious, that's why even have our own national emojis for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good luck with the rules clarification(s).
Other talked months and nothing happened....
Because such possibilities aren't given it is wasted time to think about if it is needed or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm gonna quote myself from the other thread:
Then we can basically disable commenting on all bundle threads, because everybody's mentioning what they like and don't like about a bundle, which could all be interpreted as indirect trading attempts. That's silly.
Also, as you, I don't see it harmful in any way for SG. Nobody's organizing a trade by stating their interest in particular games in a bundle when at the same declaring to not intend to buy it for reasons, but trying to obtain said games through other means. It's simply stating facts. Sheesh.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, indirect trading or indirect begging, if you say you want a game.
Comment has been collapsed.
No? Paydays are a thing.
Maybe you let connection with this person cloud your judgement on people when their is no relation at all?
Comment has been collapsed.
In my world I don't need to censor myself in bundle-topics to prevent appearing like the beggars that only appear like beggars to people who read way too much into lines.
I'm fine with that world.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm kinda on both sides here. I also think that I'm biased to a certain extent because I've done this before.
Saying "Would like to get this, but I can't afford it" is fine imo. But I've also done it. I've never done it with the goal of creating a pity party for myself and getting free stuff, but who knows, maybe I'm a subconscious leech or whatever. :D
But also I think that dragging out a comment, going full-on "I hope I get paid by then. Oh woe is me. Had to donate money to a hungry child today, so now I'm starving to death and could've used the pick-me-up." with your comment is pretty scummy and I wouldn't be against getting rid of those ones.
The thing is that lacking money is a pretty everyday thing for most people here, I'd guess. So the idea that you shouldn't mention your financial state is a bit extreme for me. But again, could be a bias. Feel free to call me a cunty beggar, because reading some of the comments on this overall thread has shown that I'm a beggar in many people's eyes :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Whining? Sure. Begging? Hmmm disputable, very much based on context. Is it the only thing a person ever says? probably begging. Does the person often share their thoughts? Why would it suddenly be begging now? People share all kinds of personal thoughts. We have these kind of threads here, is it begging to say there your income is completely gone and it sucks cause amongst others you can't buy games anymore?
Comment has been collapsed.
As I wrote above, I think that even something that seems like "obvious begging" to one person (especially one who is attuned to the begging phenomenon on SG) is not necessarily begging. A relatively new user may say, "Ooh, I totally want that game, but can't afford it atm." They may have absolutely no thought in their head that this is asking/begging/soliciting/etc. Or maybe they do-- we just don't know! I just don't think we should suspend any mention of trading, like in my five enumerated examples above.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. What we use to post on bundle threads is more of a typing our thoughts out loud kinda thing, isn't it? Well, I'll only speak for myself, this is what I do. And is also what I enjoy when reading through this kind of threads.
Comment has been collapsed.
yours, imo, is the example that better fits, here.
and that's not about the use or/not of a word. i don't think we'll ever read in guidelines something like "NEVER write the word trade".
still, a mod, in this site, shouldn't really care if it's eeev or icaio or the very-masked-beggar-trader... he only has to say, like, "hey, be careful choosing your words!". that's all, fair and enough for me to think twice when my comment is/could be related to trading/begging.
and i'm the one that really wanted to ask for a key, few hours ago :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Right, and this post was about trading, not begging. ;-D
I clarified in the OP.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what are we going to post in bundle threads from now on then?
Comment has been collapsed.
By stating my interest in particular games in a bundle when at the same declaring to not intend to buy it for reasons, but trying to obtain said games through other means I'm neither initiating a trade nor do I beg.
Comment has been collapsed.
Example: "Nice bundle, but there's only one game I'm really interested in. Game X has been on my wishlist for ages. Not worth buying the bundle for it, I guess I'll try and find a trade or win it here."
Like so many times before, d'uh.
Comment has been collapsed.
Keens on how you present that in your text. o.-
I want this game and I TOTALLY won't get it through trades that are not acceptable on this site.
The trick is that the caps, bold, italic together raises enough attention to make it absolutely clear that I want to take no part in trades. Maybe even add a wink to show how much of a jolly good, rule-abiding guy I am o.-
Comment has been collapsed.
"Best bundle.ever, praise IGN/IG/Fanatical/Groupees. All games are beautiful. There are no bad games on Steam. Rejoice!"
Comment has been collapsed.
How about comments about the games themselves and not just their trade value? "Game X is actually quite a hidden gem" instead of "I want games Y and Z but too poor to pay $1 so I'll have to trade for them so that everyone who has them extra knows to check my lists".
Or the classics people love to spam on every thread when they have nothing at all to say, "Bump" and "+1".
Comment has been collapsed.
There is one unwritten rule - Moderators are always right. And actually that's the only rule that followed here. And it's not just moderators, even cg follows this logic. At first I was frustrated when I understand it, but hey - the site is nice, people are (mostly) friendly, why should I worry about incomplete and inconsistent rules? So I just accepted that. If mod says "don't do that" - I don't. If mod says - "do this" - I do. If I'm unsure - I create support ticket and ask.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying the mod is wrong; I'm just saying that if that is truly the guideline, then I disagree, but at least the Guidelines should be updated. I think my five examples show how that guideline is, well, unnecessarily harsh.
Basically, I don't want to get suspended for what I consider to be perfectly reasonable behavior just because a guideline has been unofficially extended without my knowledge.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no problem with that. I said in the OP that I may disagree (and cited some examples of why) but I'm totally fine with his site => his rules. But please at least clarify in the Guidelines so I don't get reprimanded/suspended for one of the enumerated examples in the OP.
Comment has been collapsed.
But...I didn't think it was an attack upon me. Did my reply seem like I was defending an attack? Man, written communication is hard. :(
And I know you weren't replying to me but...I commented anyway. I mean...I was the OP. I was replying to the content of your message-- just to state my thoughts on what you wrote and-- well, never mind.
I guess I'll just have a cup of tea or cold beer.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Should be" may be different from different points of view. For example, I may say that cg's interpretation of rules should be written in exhaustive and not vague manner, so that anyone could clearly understand "do" and "do not"s of it, and mods should be following those written rules, and not their opinions when judging. But clearly cg has a different point of view on how it should be. That's why I'm writing about "how it is now", not about "how it should be". And while I would like it to be different, I fine with how it is now too. I'm coming here for positive emotions, not to argue about "how it should be".
Comment has been collapsed.
"trade" is the new forbidden word in these forums. you now have to elaborate sentences without use the forbidden word.
eventually you can use:
- "Nice bundle, I'll probably buy it and keep some while hold the the others for forbidden purposes"
- "Hmm, not good enough to buy, but I'll probably end up giving away for something back for some of those."
- "I guess I'll check out the forbidden side of SteamGifts."
- "Will probably buy... Good gifting and you-know-what-else fodder."
- "I think that HumbleBundle has really decreased in quality since the acquisition by IGN. I used to buy their bundles all the time, but these days, I prefer just the-verb-that-must-not-be-said for the one or two I want."
Comment has been collapsed.
lol
I was actually already forming phrases like this in my head for when the next bundle shows up, ahah.
Comment has been collapsed.
Going to be fun times when the April bundle drops since usually lots of people mentioning trading for the unlocks. Let's see how many warnings or flower y language are used.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol! My favorite one is the "hold for...forbidden purposes" line.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good old Dark Side of Steamgifts..m which naming it will be forbidden. Yet it still got it's button up there. Not contradictory at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
That makes trading hentai bundles quite impossible here. If you're speaking of unholy forbidden things you're going to do with the games, everyone will just assume you're talking about the normal healthy thing to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I think that HumbleBundle has really decreased in quality since the acquisition by IGN. I used to buy their bundles all the time, but these days, I prefer just the-verb-that-must-not-be-said for the one or two I want."
You will do the do?:o
Comment has been collapsed.
You are correct, if even mentioning trading (i.e. "time to hunt for a trade") is not allowed, the guidelines should be updated for more clarity. (Since no one could interpret that comment as "posting or organizing a trade").
But don't hold your breath. "Updating the guidelines for more clarity" is not a thing that happens very often on SG.
Comment has been collapsed.
What other point does the comment have than organizing a trade? I mean that's the only way anyone interprets mentioning the thing at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Organize means "to make arrangements or preparations for (an event or activity); coordinate."
Let's say you are responsible for organizing transportation for a group of people. If you say "I need to get in touch with the bus company", is that organizing transportation?
I'd say no. Just like saying "I'm going to see if I can trade" is not actually organizing a trade.
I think the problem with a comment like this is that it invites a response, and the response is against the rules. So presumably that's why SG wants to stop even basic comments about trading. Makes sense... but the guidelines should be updated.
Comment has been collapsed.
There still is no other point for the whole comment other than inviting a response. Otherwise it wouldn't get posted at all.
A bus company is like a bundle site, so you can say you're going to do business with them. But in your example you're using a forum to sell the rest of the seats to the bus you're going to rent. "I need transportation for X people and the bus has space for Y more, so I'll have to try to find more people who want to come along" is more like it on a forum where the rules forbid organizing mass transportation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I wasn't going too far with the transportation analogy, I was just pointing out that the word "organize" has a specific meaning. Simply saying that you are going to do something in the future is not actually "organizing." Actual "organizing" requires you to actually do the thing, not just say you're going to do it.
As a couple of others have mentioned, not everyone posts a comment like "I'm going to see if I can trade" because they are trying to be sneaky and they secretly want someone to contact them to discuss trading. Some people just post things online because this is a community and sometimes it's just nice to talk to the community. There's not always a hidden intent.
However, it appears that SG is taking a harder line, and any mention of trading is now prohibited. That's fine... but they need to update the guidelines.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's lawyer BS where you try to twist everything to allow your shady business that's clearly wrong, but just found a specific hole in the laws to go through.
There is never any hidden intent, it's obvious for anyone to see. Some just like to believe that humanity is so good that nobody would break any rules so they are blind to it.
Updating the rules is always a good idea, especially when every new generation of staff is getting stricter in enforcing them. But that doesn't mean that some things that have been overlooked before so much that people have gotten used to them were ever allowed by the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
I definitely don't believe that "nobody would break any rules", that's silly. Of course there are rulebreakers and dishonest people and troublemakers in the world.
I just don't believe that everyone should be assumed to be a rulebreaker, just because some people are rulebreakers. I try to be optimistic and give people the benefit of the doubt when possible.
Along those lines, you'll never convince me that every single person who's posted something like "going to look for a trade" or "hope I can find a trade" was maliciously trying to bend the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
They are still breaking the rules no matter if they realize it themselves or not. Either you assume that nobody is trying to break rules and allow everything or you assume that everyone is trying to break the rules and forbid things forbidden by the rules. Or then you assume that mods are mindreaders who make a difference between the first 2 cases with identical text in post with 2 different intentions.
People are already given the benefit of the doubt when they get a verbal warning to not repeat that instead of getting disabled. Since after that warning they know to not mention trades for social reasons and wont get in trouble, all is well and nobody got hurt.
Nobody needs to ever believe everyone is breaking the rules on purpose. It's just that allowing some people to do it sends the message that it's OK to break the rules as long as you word in vaguely enough. Breaking the rules by mistake or because of no knowledge of the rules is still breaking the rules no matter what the intention was. Those can be mitigating factors for the sentence, but they don't nullify the crime.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought about that...but I'd already spent enough time (and am still spending it) on work hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ooooh, A Rite from the Stars. I have this on my wishlist since all eternity, been foloowing the Kickstarter and all. Dammit, hopefully I find somebody willing to trade for it. Edit: Found, yay :)
For this one I'd say that it clearly is a conscious attempt to initiate a trade. It doesn't always have to be direct e.g. I want "this" for "that". I would say it's the same thing with the begging rule, where indirect begging is considered as one.
Comment has been collapsed.
a conscious attempt to initiate a trade
No, it was not. But whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyone can interpret it in a different way and that's exactly what guidelines and rules should stop us from doing. It's impossible to define whether it is a conscious or not act, hence it shouldn't be allowed.
I've said it multiple that there are many rules that need clarification in order to define what exactly is allowed or not.
On a side note, did someone get suspended for comments like that?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm leaving my 5 cents and stating that neither of those two examples you've provided in OP are trades or invitiation to trades, and the users posting them are neither organizing the trade or actively using the SG forum to aid them in search for one, merely mentioning a possibility based on their future action.
Some mods should probably take stick out of their a**es and stop acting like sheriffs of the wild west, especially when they can't even come to one single interpretation of their own rules and can provide you with 3 different outcomes from 3 different support members. It's completely natural thing that people mention what they like and don't like from the bundle, in the thread dedicated to that bundle, and while I agree with the rule and people blatanty asking in the thread whether somebody would trade/give them a game (or them wanting to trade leftovers), I completely disagree with extensive censorship and banning trade as a word or even mentioning such possibility just because somebody could interpret it as one. What next, you gonna ban mentioning of a group buy in all IndieGala bundles because they're strictly trade-oriented? People won't be able to post "I'll get it in a group buy" anymore, because they're actively looking for a group buy? Sure, it'd be the best if people just didn't mention trading on the site at all, but there is a HUGE difference between asking for a game and mentioning course of action. "It's a better idea to trade for that one game" isn't a freaking trade invitation, it's opinion about the bundle. People saying such thing aren't looking for trade offers, they're stating that the whole bundle isn't worth it. Especially the second example in the OP shows that, where user highlights one specific game from the bundle, and is seen as trying to trade for it, which clearly isn't objective of his comment on SG.
If there is anything that needs to be done, it's extensive interpretation of the rules done by cg himself, and all staff members following that interpretation. Until that happens, I'd appreciate if staff members didn't try to interpret the guidelines as rules on their own, since some of them are clearly incapable of doing so and doing more harm than good in the process, even if majority of the team is very good in it and I love what they're doing. It's always a few black sheeps ruining it for everybody.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some mods should probably take stick out of their a**es and stop acting like sheriffs of the wild west
so why don't you build your own wild west and start sheriffing there? i don't like what you wrote, obv, but what's funnily unfair is that is coming from you.
Comment has been collapsed.
so why don't you build your own wild west and start sheriffing there?
Because I don't classify the whole website by actions or opinion of a few people, and contrary to what I wrote, I like SG as a website, and I've stopped participating in almost every form of SG discussions a long time ago, exactly because of that. I've also built "my own wild west" back in 2015, where I participate every day and I'm very proud of, also due to SG discussions and the moderation organized here. This however didn't stop me from enjoying the website, and even popping up in the threads here and there, especially if it considers my own projects or SG website as a whole, and this is such case. You don't have to hate something to criticize it, moreover, such criticism is usually meaningless and non-constructive, while the opinion from a person that wants to help, even if very negative, can have a very good outcome. This has already happened in the past, I'm even behind some of those changes. Just because some aspects of SG are a mess and I openly criticize them, doesn't mean that I don't want them to become better, quite the opposite actually.
i don't like what you wrote, obv, but what's funnily unfair is that is coming from you.
You don't have to agree with my opinion, every person has his/her own, moreover, I'd be shocked if you did, as I'm one of the several people that openly state what I think without worrying about going against the most popular opinion, and if something is shit, then I'm not afraid of calling it so, and no amount of suspensions or blacklists is going to change that. I don't know what is particularly unfair that this opinion comes from me, but I'll be happy to elaborate if you're interested to know what exactly has driven me to this opinion.
In any case this is not the attack directed at the support team, because as I stated above, vast majority of them is fine people that do their best in their spare time to try keep this site up, and I could name really a dozen of people I've personally interacted with that understand the community position they're in and they're trying to help the people, also by keeping up with the discipline and ensuring that everybody follows the rules. But there are also several people that are just awful at what they're doing, and they should never be given this position to begin with - a big part of those is already out of the team for one reason or another, quite a few over my pile of arguments.
Comment has been collapsed.
vast majority of them is fine people
that's a lot approximated, Archi.
we really need to know a more precise percentage.
Comment has been collapsed.
No problem, I've went through support users and above.
There are 28 staff members. Out of those, in my opinion:
- 8 people are exceptional. 6 of them should be promoted to super mod, 2 are already super mods (and above, cg). Being exceptional includes a lot of motivation, determination and patience to make SG a better place, shining in every single interaction with the community.
- At least 7 (remaining) people are doing a very good work, above what I'd accept as an average. It shows their commitment and this is what the staff should consist of. 3 of them are super mods.
- At least 5 (remaining) people are doing just fine and I never had any problem with them.
- 1 person is inactive and doesn't do anything, should be removed and free the slot for somebody else.
- I have my objections to exactly 3 of existing staff members. Objections most of the time include inconsistency in rules enforcement, double standards, not acting fairly, being rude, disrespectful or outright aggressive towards SG users that they're supposed to help, and similar matters. I never base this on my own interactions due to potential bias, always on interactions with other users. Other classifications include a mix of both. Lose of respect directly influences my opinion.
- Remaining people (around 4) I consider neutral, I didn't interact with them long enough to make an opinion, it's entirely possible that they're fine people, considering I didn't manage to have anything against them either. Still, I can't classify them easily.
Extra note: at least 4 more people I had problems with are no longer staff members.
All in all, I support at least 20 out of 28 existing staff members, and openly oppose only 3 of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I've got enough bundled games that I should sell some cheaply instead of buying more. Of course I'm just mentioning this nonchalantly instead of trying to organize a sale because that would be forbidden.
So this is OK according to some people as well?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see anything wrong in saying "meh, already own 3/5, gonna get for remaining 2 and trade leftovers away". It's very different from "I'm currently selling 3 games from this bundle, leave me a message at <redacted>".
Comment has been collapsed.
What purpose does that comment have other than trying to organize a trade tho? You can just say "These 2 games are worth buying the bundle for and rest can be given away" as we are on a giving, not trading, site. Or "Bought tier Nep-Nep-Nep just for 3 Neps, traded tier Nep-Nep Neps to some fool for tons of valuable games and giving the rest away" is also fine because all the trading happened before already.
Comment has been collapsed.
You assume that each word in the sentence above has some purpose, while in reality people just say what they have on mind, and it's never 1:1 interpretation of their true willings. For example, here you assumed that adding "and trade leftovers away" must be an invitation to trade, you even asked what other purpose there could be. In reality, there is no purpose, user posting something like that just wanted to say what he's going to do, and he did that without any clear intention to actually use SG for any kind of trading-related activity, merely mentioning his planned course of action. He could as well say "gonna get remaining 2 after I get paid tomorrow", does that look to you like the invitation for a loan? Because to me it's totally normal that people mention such things without any clear intention. It's useless information for you, sure, but this is the difference between a review and stating what you have on your mind. "Gonna grab the bundle and play XYZ" and "gonna grab the bundle and trade leftovers" has exactly the same informative value and purpose - it states the planned course of action, and it isn't invitation to a game or a trade. Just because people are awful at interpretation and can twist everything to their logic and reality doesn't make it so.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I assume there is a purpose for the whole post which can only be trading.
I'm still just mentioning selling cheap games because that was the only thing on my mind when writing the rest of this comment, not for any kind of purpose of trying to find buyers here, just innocently mentioning it since rules don't forbid that. So you think it's OK for me to start posting this into every thread because it's on my mind?`
Like I said above, if people have nothing at all to say, they can just stick to the classics and +bump the thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you think it's OK for me to start posting this into every thread because it's on my mind?`
Yes, if you're so short-minded that you can't come up with anything better than "will trade the leftovers away", I'd just be sorry for you and move along :3. It's still not an invitation to a trade, neither organizing one, and personally I'd never assume that you're actually using SG with intention to aid you with trading with the above sentence, even if you'd explicitly say so yourself. Smart person will see that phrasing as irrational, stupid and ineffective, so it can't have a real purpose, while a stupid person will just ask outright.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not trading anything, I'm selling the games. I'm just not doing it here, but I keep mentioning it for no reason at all. Looks legit right? I'm just posting this because it's on my mind.
The only thing it ever is or will be is an invitation to to trade, otherwise there is absolutely no point for it. The only other purpose for the post you have given is posting pure gibberish without any meaning or intention in it and that falls under no spam rule.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/2vIIuBq
Even better explanation.
Comment has been collapsed.
You also kill forums by allowing commercial posts everywhere outside their dedicated zones. What next, "I bought this box of cheap Viagra but my gf left me, whatever should I do with them now?" or something? Spam kills far more things than forbidding things for which there is a clearly labeled section where they are allowed.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a huge difference between product advertisement, trade intention and just casually writing what is on your mind. Come on Star, you're not a moron, I don't need to explain that to you. Jokes aside, even if you created such thread I'd also be fine with it, as long as you didn't include any links or other suspicious way to redirect traffic.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see the huge difference between intention to trade and posting about the intention to trade, but I guess I would need to be a moron to see it? I'm also fine with keeping all rulebreakers in 2hu group, but what relevance should that have when your bot enforces the rules? They are just casually leeching games or whatever because of social reasons with no ill intention, should they get punished for that? Or is it just some rules that can be broken freely with some made up excuse or all of them?
As long as you keep drawing lines in water and allowing this and that special exception for every rule, people will keep getting more inventive in breaking the rules just because they can. The next one bending the rules bit more will use the previous as justification, "That one was allowed and mine is just a little bit worse, it should be allowed as well."
Comment has been collapsed.
As long as you keep drawing lines in water and allowing this and that special exception for every rule, people will keep getting more inventive in breaking the rules just because they can. The next one bending the rules bit more will use the previous as justification, "That one was allowed and mine is just a little bit worse, it should be allowed as well."
So start to ban every single form even remotely connected, including the unintentional references just because somebody could interpret it in the wrong way, and stop people posting altogether. Maybe we should delete the discussions entirely then, because "I like this bundle" could be interpreted by some idiot as intentional signal that he's interested in trading for it. Don't even get me started on "I have X wishlisted since years!", because that is CLEARLY a want according to you.
My argument is that simply mentioning an intention, inclination, or possible consideration of trading a game, especially in the context of a response with other content, is not the same as "intentional discussion about trading."
No point in further elaboration, this is my opinion and at least several people share it as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the point, stop interpreting at all, just take it literally. You're the one interpreting obvious trading as social gibberish while also interpreting the want to buy the bundle yourself as trading while assuming staff can read minds to make a difference between them. I'm not interpreting anything, posting about the intention to trade is a post about intending to trade to me, not some made up social thing.
You really can't see the difference between these?
"I have couple games wishlisted from this bundle so I must buy the bundle"
"I have couple games wishlisted from this bundle but not going to buy it myself so I have to find some other means to get the games"
"I have couple games wishlisted from this bundle so the rest are extras I need to trade away"
One is about the intention to buy the bundle and two are about the intention to trade games, can you figure out which ones are which?
You argue like a lawyer, not someone who wants the rules kept unbroken.
Comment has been collapsed.
I definitely agree that some of the things in the FAQ and Guidelines should be made clearer and I'm hoping they will be updated soon. I'm one of the newer members of the support so sometimes I like to get advice from members of the staff before taking action. The "I'm looking to trade" comments are obviously not allowed but then you have a more grey area where it's not so direct and we as support members have to try and use our best judgement to deal with the situation. For me the quotes mentioned in the OP which I've added below by themselves to me don't come across as breaking the guidelines but it also depends on what else was included in the rest of comment(s).
"Nice bundle...I'll probably buy it and keep some while trading away others."
"Hmm, not good enough to buy, but I'll probably end up trading for some of those."
"I guess I'll check out Steamtrades."
"Will probably buy...good gifting and trading fodder."
"I think that HumbleBundle has really decreased in quality since the acquisition by IGN. I used to buy their bundles all the time, but these days, I prefer just trading for the one or two I want."
Here's an example of something similar I ran into recently.. "I just got Game 1, Game 2, Game 3, and I don't even want them. All I really wanted was Game 4 or Game 5. Oh well I guess I may trade them or possibly make giveaways with them." This is a comment that has a have, a want and mentions trading which is what you see on every trade thread on Steamtrades.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends. If it's about Groupees grab-bags and you mention "aaaw, I got X, I wanted Y" according to your last part that would qualify as a trade-offer even if it totally isn't.
And from what I have seen this was brought up with a Groupees "mystery item".
From what I see in this topic several people seem to read way too deep into innocent comments.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for the reply. I'm glad that you don't consider those breaking the Guildelines, but the admonishment from the Mod specifically talked about "mentioning you're just willing to trade," which my examples all do. So at a minimum there's disagreement / different interpretations among the staff. Which is normal! It's a big site with lots of rules-- there's bound to be some confusion even among tenured staff. I guess we'll all just keep plugging away.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've updated my original comment which I feel gives a clearer more detailed response.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is becoming stupid. (not you OP)
We add more and more rules and mods go for more and more to "keep the page clean" even if it was never a big problem.
At the same moment we have less and less giveaways, discussions and comments...
You can kill a community by to much rules...
Comment has been collapsed.
This puts it so well. Thank you.
Comment has been collapsed.
So... going for a "spirit of the law" discussion and looking for input that can actually help amend the rules to something that makes sense for everyone...
Why is it against the rules to mention trades?
- SteamGifts is not a place for trading; trading belongs on SteamTrades or elsewhere. I believe this thought is primarily so that the forums here don't devolve into trading forums, keeping the community as spam-free as possible.
- Historically (long ago), most bundle sites had phrasing that required all keys to be redeemed on your own account. Some still suggest that this is the case, but most are more realistic about things, most of the time.
- Can be construed as begging
When should it be okay to mention trading?
- Never?
- When contemplating out loud a personal valuation of a game?
- When discussing your off-site intentions?
- Out of the context of trading (i.e. this discussion thread).
Should someone be punished for mentioning trading?
- No?
- Called out (admonished) or warned?
- Suspended?
- Suspended for repeat behavior?
- Suspended for repeat behavior, after a warning?
What constitutes begging?
- Asking anyone to give you a particular game?
- Expressing an interest in a particular game?
- Expressing an interest in trading for a particular game?
- Expressing your inability to afford a particular game?
- Expressing an inability to acquire a particular game due to other reasons in your life (parents, time, credit card, region, etc.)?
- Mentioning that you're only missing X particular game(s) from a bundle or collection?
- Repeat behavior?
...curious what everyone's opinions are... but off to go trade my attention for the information in a lengthy video for a bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I'm really surprised by the range of responses on the topic. I think maybe some people are really tired of veiled begging and some blatant veiled trading and...just kind of want to go with the nuclear solution?
Comment has been collapsed.
Then again, reading, how much of this "veiled trading" is actually intend to trade here and not just the reader reading Into things?
Comment has been collapsed.
And how effective it is. I must have dropped plenty of might trade lines, but never once has been contected based on something on SG....
And I accept nearly any friend request...
Comment has been collapsed.
I got a few free games. Get on my begger's level.
Or maybe it's because I don't really trade so gifting is the obvious next step.
Even if I am a notorious crime-riddled person even having a trading on this forum 2 day ban on my name (from.a really old grabbag topic where everyone did it. I only knew it was against the rules when half the topic users got suspended.)
Maybe my level isn't that high after all.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a reaction one sees everywhere online at some point. The people in question get tired of seeing XYZ post, sometimes understandably but their annoyance becomes disproportionate. This is how we end up with complaints about complaints type posts or in severe cases knee-jerk responses to simple turns of phrase or flippant comments. It becomes a situation in which the person is embittered by seeing X and thus might see X where it doesn't exist. I've had posts here and elsewhere online twisted completely into something I never even approached saying because of this kind of reaction. I once received a reply to a cut and dry support question thread telling me in no uncertain terms to take my sob story elsewhere... shrug
It's not necessarily so much that written communication is hard as you mentioned in another post. Some people will simply twist your words into what they want to see, even if that interpretation upsets them. In some cases it leads to the person becoming the very type of poster they're annoyed by. There's a few of those here on SG.
Thank you for making this thread. This issue requires clarification as to the letter of the law and the context in which it applies. There's a lot of good debate and discussion here as to what constitutes initiating or looking for a trade. It's important to remember that even when we think we're clear with what we mean, others can and will interpret it differently. Sometimes those interpretations can open up new ways of looking at something.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are wise and awesome, and not necessarily in that order. <salute>
Comment has been collapsed.
Even a simple comment "I want it" may be considered as trade offer in a deep view
Comment has been collapsed.
Food or relationships aren't specifically forbidden in the rules and we don't have sister sites of FoodTrades and RelationShipTrades for exactly discussing those things.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't see the relevance of any rules? Or just not understand why trading games is not allowed here because there are other places meant for it? Or do you think it's perfectly fine to start selling food on these forums? Invite all supermarkets to post their ads here?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm twisting your blind faith in humanity that nobody would ever break rules on purpose, they are all doing it because of social reasons.
What other kind of rules do you think should be allowed to be broken just to be social? Or is that excuse reserved for only trading?
Comment has been collapsed.
So being bad at something forbidden makes it allowed? It worked for at least one ancient moonshiner, who told the judge that his product was tar colored, tasted horrible and didn't get you drunk. He got free when the sheriff and all his men vouched that it didn't get you drunk at all.
Out of your examples hunting for a trade is as clearly trading as it can be. Waiting for payday to buy the bundle yourself is not, unless you specify that you will look for a trade if you don't get money in time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its probably going to be SteamFood and SteamMates probably tho. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
lol. ;-) Nice of you to omit the username...that was balanced of you.
Comment has been collapsed.
What's the matter? Get reprimanded by support while you were fishing for a trade?
Comment has been collapsed.
Uh, nope. Going on the offensive, are we? :) See the provided full context links in the OP.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I did follow the links.
Rather than be sarcastic and agressive, I'll just say that I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Comment has been collapsed.
I daresay your original reply was sarcastic and aggressive. I thought my response was well-measured. Oh well.
I don't think that making a polite post in the bugs/suggestions form (with some context and explanation) is a "mountain," but I guess that's a matter of perspective. My main reason is that 1) I think the unstated guideline is unreasonable, 2) I don't like thinking I could get suspended for what to me is an innocent comment like my enumerated examples above, and 3) at a minimum, I wish they would clarify the guideline.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Steam's Summer Sale forbidden cards now drop"
Sounds so naughty.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah those examples are ridiculous. I wonder if they would mod somebody for saying they traded for a game instead of entering giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think those examples are ridiculous too, but they meet the criteria of "mentioning you're just willing to trade" and clearly there are quite a few people here who think that should be verboten. It's surprising to me, but good to know.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see the harm in it really but site rules are site rules, and that's kind of like going on a drug forum and posting "man, I'm in San Francisco near 9th street and can't find anybody selling cocaine. Hopefully I'll find somebody to get an 8 ball from soon". You may have not outright asked for a source but you sure as heck just asked for a ban
Comment has been collapsed.
The SG equivalent of your (admittedly facetious) example is, "man, I'm on Steamtrades / barter.vg at [link] and I can'f find anybody willing to trade [game]. Hopefully I'll find somebody to trade with me soon."
That is clearly a violation of the current guideline against organizing a trade. I have no problem with that being a violation.
I don't even have a huge problem with "site rules are site rules" even if I disagree, but at least document them properly (update the Guidelines) and enforce them consistently.
Comment has been collapsed.
My analogy might be a little facetious because unlike SG the site owners of a drug forum could get in actual legal trouble if they didn't strictly enforce rules like that, but it took me all of five seconds to view your Steam profile and click your SteamTrades link with the Steam Inventory Helper extension, which most people looking to trade would likely have making it a bit redundant to link
¯\(ツ)/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
steamgifts-mode:
"man, I'm in steamgifts entering all giveaways for bundle-trash-31 and can't win a single one. Hopefully I'll find somebody to trade with soon. I could do a group-buy if I find someone willing to split the bundle."
and you can add a bit of self-pity and indirect-begging so the combo is complete 👍
"man, I'm in steamgifts entering all giveaways for bundle-trash-31 and can't win a single one. Hopefully I'll find somebody to trade with soon. I could do a group-buy if I find someone willing to split the bundle. I can't afford $1 right now after preordering Bloodlines 2. It sucks to be poor!"
😢
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd really like a BMW F 850 GS Sport but I can't afford one right now. It would be great if somebody was trading one for some spare bundle games, a CS:GO key and a TF2 hat.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's go with your example a bit...Joe User checks out the latest bundle...sees some games he likes, others he doesn't like. He gives his opinion in the thread...and says something like one of the five hypothetical quotes in the OP. An hour later, another SG user is reading the thread, sees Joe's post, clicks on his profile, links to his Steamtrades account with the Steam Inventory Helper extension, and offers a trade on Steamtrades.
Please explain the harm done to the SG community, and why Joe should be warned by the mods. As long as he's not proposing an actual trade to another user, or setting up a trade like, "I have [game], willing to trade it for [game]," or spamming anything, I just don't see the harm. But clearly others do, and cg might also-- which is fine-- his site, his rules. But please document the rule clearly and enforce it consistently.
Comment has been collapsed.
I loosely based my facetious analogy off the guy you mentioned who got reprimanded for saying "Ooooh, A Rite from the Stars ... hopefully I find somebody willing to trade for it". Even if he didn't outright ask to organize a trade he was clearly hinting at it so I don't disagree with how the mods handled it. SteamGifts doesn't have any legislator or judicial review, it doesn't hurt to try and debate it like you're doing and if they listen and decide revise the rules to be more clear that'd be great but personally I don't see anything that needs to change. I don't see anything wrong with going off a case-by-case basis either.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, the woman who wrote that claims that was not the intention, and only she knows what she was thinking. But either way, it's hard to prove "intent" one way or another.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder if its partly because I see a recent influx of Trade related threads being made recently like asking about how trade works etc, cant remember the context since I'm not interested. Probably seen at least 2 similar threads this week.
My personal experience when mentioning I only want 1/2 games of a bundle was others suggesting I trade the rest. My reply was I dont trade sorry so I end up not buying the bundle. I am fine not mentioning the Trade, just like I try not to use the F-Word. Personally since I do not trade, I have less inconvenience in this case. Cheers~
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, maybe it's been coming up in the past few months when I've been scarce. I mostly tend to check out the bundle threads. But maybe it's just a case of "this is why we can't have nice things."
Comment has been collapsed.
SG being SG there are no shortage of people willing to push any given boundary until it becomes tiresome. I can understand SG mods wanting to stomp on things before they get out of hand. Has it crossed the line into people getting stomped for things that might happen in the future rather than for what they have actually done? I don't know, can't people just be glad that I don't get to make any decisions around here?
Comment has been collapsed.
It would very much vary depending on how much gin I'd drunk.
Comment has been collapsed.
Almost always glad to see your perspective, Sir. But yeah-- I feel like something, or several somethings, must have happened recently to ratchet up the definition of "don't use SG to set up trades" guideline.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know, can't people just be glad that I don't get to make any decisions around here?
Most of my opinions about the site can be summed up as " The current / proposed idea of X is something I don't really like because reasons. But then, the other option, Y, some it's own problems, like reasons2. It's... fucked either way, they are wrong in different ways, but we have to choose one. And thank fuck for it's not me who have to make that decision between that two.
Comment has been collapsed.
Man creates thread offering free keys. Man requests free keys. Moderaptor eats man. Dinosaurs inherit the forum.
Comment has been collapsed.
[Edit: This thread is about trading, not begging. There are some overlapping ideas / ideals, but my focus here is on trading.]
I'm adapting this from a recent bundle thread. Full context here and here.
The only mention of trading in the Guidelines suggests the following:
Users have recently been admonished for
and
The explanation was:
I've always thought the point of the rule was, well, so that people aren't posting and trying to organize trades, even stuff like "Hey, looking to trade for Bad Rats," or "Bought the bundle...anyone wanna trade?"
If the above comment from the mod is truly the guidance that mods have received, then please update the Guidelines to read:
I would disagree with that clause in the Guideline, but at least it would be clear. But consider, according to this revised guidance, the following are violations:
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with these, with the possible exception of #3 (since it adds nothing).
Comment has been collapsed.