Some clarification would be good indeed - it was weird to see two person being warned for basically saying that they intend to do a trade to get a game. Don't take me 100% seriously in this, it's a very sleepy rant with quite some mumbo-jumbo.
It feels like a stretch to use a blanket-warning for this. I absolutely support the "if you have nothing of worth to say, don't say it" regarding bundle topics ( Nobody cares that you don't want to buy a bundle because they are repeats. We, as intellectuals with genius level 240 IQ, also can read the "bundled" column. If you don't want to buy because it has a fake 89% rating and the devs are guilty in not petting their dogs/cats, then it is an information on which someone can make a better decision if they want to support them)
I also said things like " I'll check ground buys and try to win it in the meanwhile", as a sign of I do find that game worthy, but not the whole bundle. It's not that much different from the "buying for The Sexy Brutale alone". Also if someone is buying a bundle for a single game, there is a chance they will trade it. Will they be warned too?
At the end of the day, I don't give a toss. I try to check bundle topic comments less, because of the entitled and really uncalled for negativity ( It was already bundled 4 years ago booo, shit bundle) that adds nothing to by day, it only takes. Whatever the rules and the mods say, I will follow. But for the love of god, communicate first. Nobody wants a policeman / mod tell in their face, in public that they are breaking rules that they can get punished for. Not knowing a law does not allow you to break it. Ok. But rephrasing an already existing written rule in someone's head is no fucking way grounds for public warning.
Change the rule. Then rewrite it to reflect your idea of it's interpretation. Communicate, make the info public, then start going around warning people. Because currently you guys are just making people feel like a rule breaker while they act the same as they were weeks before, and the rules haven't changed either. ( The "we mean it differently" and the " we think it can suggest things" are very dangerous slippery slopes, as one could see it in various governments' communication in the past, darkest times of history.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks, adam1224. FWIW, I like reading the comments about how people don't want to buy a bundle because they are repeats, etc., even though some of them do come off as entitled, never-satisfied types. But if I think it's a shit bundle, I like reading that somebody else says, "OMFG, four wishlist games, insta-buy!" It's part of what makes this a community for me.
My main thing is I hate the idea of getting reprimanded for something that I feel is innocuous, and isn't even written up that way in the guidelines. I take rules very seriously (on this site and in general) and I hate to be accused of wrongdoing when I think it is unfounded. And I don't appreciate being told what my intentions are ("ZOMG, that was obviously a way to circumvent the rules and set up a trade!"). Not that that's happened, mind you, but today has shown that it could happen, or could have happened. One more reason to stay away from posting here, and just using this site for gaming news, deals, etc., which is 95% what I use it for.
Comment has been collapsed.
We had a community FAQ/Guidelines thread at some point where recommended changes were added to it at some point didn't we? This would be a great clarification for that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Trades should not be posted or organized on the site.
Organizing is taking an action. Mentioning an intention to act is not the same as taking that action, and is not covered by the above rule, period. Reading meaning into a rule other than what is explicitly stated, is not how rules are supposed to work. If it was, there would be a lot more people in jail right now.
One can choose to believe that a statement of intent actually resulted in an action "behind the scenes", but it can't be proved. And if it can't be proved, it didn't', for any practical or actionable purpose, occur.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh boy…
First of all – no, support do not want to ban use of word trade. I think it’s obvious how ridiculous it would be.
It’s not first time when I wrote in the forum that users should avoid posting trade comments, both as [H] Deponia [W] Doom, and as indirect mentions that should be avoided. I was even poking users that clearly posted direct trade messages to change them. And only then, when they did not follow my suggestion, suspend them after 24 – 48h. For clearly not wanting to follow site guidelines, even when rules were put in front of their face.
Problem is I can see more and more of those not-direct maybe-trading invitations.
While they are harmless at their very base - everyone can express themselves freely, as long as it does not involve attacking others, hate speech etc (so suspending someone who just wrote comment, without giving it much thought would be ridiculous) - then it can get dangerous when someone has malicious intent there.
I think most of long-time forum lurkers remember “Twitch situation” or “curators situation”. Where support did not interfere, when few users posted links to / mentioned their twitch (or other social media) here and there. Or when users used group recruitment to gather people for their curators, promising giveaways as “reward” for joining. It was not harmful at the beginning, but with time it lead users to believe it’s fine to do so. And when support finally decided to step in and stop it – they started to argue:
- it was fine to do for so long, WHAT CHANGED??
- others do it at well, why can’t I??
- it’s not pin pointed in the guidelines that doing so is forbidden. So I can do it!!
- etc.
So no, mentioning word trade, when you’re excited about game in a bundle (but it’s in 3rd tier) will not get you suspended.
But I also do not want to reach point where every 5th or 6th comment in bundle topic will be “Oh geez I really want that game, time to look for trade”, esp if those posts would be made by the same users over and over again. When they are either known ST or Banter traders / users with “solid” reputation here, so it’s “known” it’s fine to do trades with them etc.
They also could use argument “It’s not in the guidelines!”, “It was fine to write before and others do it, why can’t I?”, “Show me point in guidelines that states how often can I mention I want to trade off-site!” etc. It would also make new users feel like it’s fine to make this kind of comments.
I will agree with FateOfOne thought that some points in guidelines and FAQ could be changed to be more precise, or tackle matters that popped up since last update.
And again – guidelines did not change, and I don’t want to suspend users for indirect comments. But I want to try avoid another “curators drama” that can start in few months or a year.
Comment has been collapsed.
Only now I recalled that Deponia was given away for free, so trading for it would be terribly bad.
Plus a lot of people give Deponia: The Complete Journey as just base Deponia, as DLH incorrectly described their free game giveaway. So those giveaways are doomed from the beginning.
Comment has been collapsed.
don't worry. there are so many unwritten rules and I saw so many suspensions outside the guidelines, that this matter is just a very small part of the problem. moderators overpowered themselves. this wasn't clear enough til khalaq's thread came out. after that, this matter became more clear than I though I could ever see. there's no steamgifts guidelines anymore. there is moderators guidelines. i'm here time enough to say there's only complaints from users and warning from moderators left. events died, free games threads died, shitposting threads died, recruiting group died, now bundle threads is the targed. steamgifts staff will find a solution for this, but i'm sure the origin of the problem will remain intact.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will agree with FateOfOne thought that some points in guidelines and FAQ could be changed to be more precise, or tackle matters that popped up since last update.
what sg needs is a simple list of actions that will get people either warned, warned>suspended, suspended, and perma-suspended.
there's already a list that can be expanded with more information (like no wl4wl) in the roles page.
Comment has been collapsed.
First of all – no, support do not want to ban use of word trade. I think it’s obvious how ridiculous it would be.
LOL, of course not...overreaction is a common human failing. ;)
It’s not first time when I wrote in the forum that users should avoid posting trade comments, both as [H] Deponia [W] Doom, and as indirect mentions that should be avoided.
Of course the first type is a violation of the Guidelines and should be treated as such. The "indirect mentions" are a slippery slope, but let's move on.
Problem is I can see more and more of those not-direct maybe-trading invitations.
I think part of this is the proliferation of bundles and bundle threads, where some of those kinds of things are more likely to occur (all of the examples in this thread, including the theoretical violations enumerated in the OP, are from bundle threads).
While they are harmless at their very base - everyone can express themselves freely, as long as it does not involve attacking others, hate speech etc (so suspending someone who just wrote comment, without giving it much thought would be ridiculous) - then it can get dangerous when someone has malicious intent there.
I'm not sure how we got to talking about hate speech and malicious intent here. Maybe you mean deliberately circumventing the "don't set up trades" by using "indirect mentions" as an example of malicious intent?
As for the rest of your reply, as I was starting to suspect, part of the reason this came about was because of more bundles / bundle threads and some recent developments on the forums. And add to that the remaining PTSD from the Twitter and Curators situation that if some behavior starts recurring, and is abused by some, that you need to make sure it doesn't get out of control. Because you guys are unpaid volunteers and should do everything you can-- including enforcing some "unreasonable" restrictions-- to ensure you don't find yourselves in another such situation.
And again – guidelines did not change, and I don’t want to suspend users for indirect comments.
Well, I think the enforcement of the guidelines have changed, even if the Guidelines themselves haven't changed. I don't think any of the quotes in the OP would have resulted in warnings a few years ago, as they would be now. But at least I understand a little better why this is the case, and I can adjust accordingly. I still don't see a downside to clarifying the Guidelines on this and other matters, though...other than that it takes Time.
Thank you again (and the rest of the admin staff) for your time and efforts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I also wanted to add in that regular SG members can't see what we see and there's times where they have a history of different types of behavior and have already been warned. I've seen several cases since joining the team where people who have gotten in trouble end up only telling the community or their friends part of the story and even tell details that never happened and as support members we can't mention any of that. No one wants to think that of people but it happens.
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.