Comparing blacklist and whitelist usage/size

No, it was his good attempt at using your name as an insult.

Yes, that is my assumption as well. As posting K is not against the rules, yet if a mod or someone of similar authority asks you to stop and you chose to continue. Then that would most likely end in a suspension. Even more severe if you wish to make a thread the next day with insults. It all stacks and will end at some point for your account in a permanent ban.

Please do not, even though it is quite funny and I think he should now change his name to that. Please do not provoke him. Most certainly not to just make him respond out of spite. Even though if he does have a sense of humor, he will surely enjoy the name you just gave him. He has a right to be here without issue just as much as anyone else does. hahaha Nokkencrates... Very clever though.

I already know you've been trolling me since the day we met. I just entertain your bullshit because it bumps the thread.

Perhaps we've had different experiences, then, because almost all I see on SteamGifts is circlejerking and community elitism. The forums are a toxic environment and seldom does one come across a civil and respectable discussion; the rest is decadent shitposting and circlejerking over trivial and pointless matters, comment chains of one-word replies and banal reaction images of no value or merit. Maybe we just have differing definitions and interpretations of what qualifies as "circlejerking," though. For all I know, what I find to be deleterious and despicable about the community is exactly what you adore about it.

You're right that my initial post was poorly worded; I have admitted as much. However, I can't carry all the blame because after all, it is the decision of the community (in particular, its users) on how to respond. Needless to say, many responded negatively and hostilely, and continued to berate me after I attempted to expound on my initial sentiments.

It's absurd to dismiss any and all critiques of SteamGifts as having "already been discussed" without proper citation to verify such bold claims. Otherwise, it's simply a type of thought-terminating cliché attempting to stifle discussion and terminate constructive criticism. Anyway, even if it has been discussed before, no change has obviously been made nor any attempt on behalf of the community to facilitate it, so it was apparently ineffectual and thus a revisiting is in order. So, unless you can point out the instances wherein these discussions have occurred (and, moreover, that these discussions ended in cogent rationale for not reforming the system), I don't see any reason why I shouldn't incite further discourse on the issue.

The length of time does not decrease the level of threat a flaw poses; if anything, it only increases the threat level. Yes, the current blacklisting system may be deeply ingrained in the current community culture and norms; however, that is the problem, or one of many, and needs to be changed if so. The current blacklisting system and the norms surrounding it are harmful to the community and breeds misconduct and abuse which only further contributes to the toxicity of the community as a whole. Moreover, even if the current blacklisting system is considered acceptable within the community, it is nevertheless harmful to it, especially with regard to newcomers who are unfamiliar with the corrupt system wherein they are being initiated. Why should these new users be undeservedly punished for their ignorance of how to tiptoe around a hostile and combative community prone to abusive blacklisting habits? And how is this better than a healthier, more responsible community which would be infinitely more conducive an environment for new members?

In case you haven't caught on, not once have I argued for the removal of the blacklist system. I have criticized it and proposed reformations to it, as well as suggest amendments to site policies regarding blacklisting, but I have never argued against the very existence of such a system. Although it may be wiser to remove it since the community has exhibited gross irresponsibility and malpractice with utilizing the system, I nevertheless support the existence of a blacklisting system, which I believe is a viable safeguard against rule breakers and violators who are not caught or monitored by the staff.

The current environment and conduct surrounding blacklisting is hardly effective at discouraging certain behaviors, let alone promoting positive ones. Many times, users don't even announce their blacklisting, so the victim doesn't even know that they were blacklisted, or when, or why, or for how long. Those who are told they are blacklisted (or have the audacity to attempt to confront the blacklister, like I have) are usually done so in a hostile and negative way. In many cases, no explanation (or insufficient explanation) is given even then, and no corrective or proactive measures are taken to ensure that the blacklisted user changes their behavior. Moreover, there doesn't appear to be much consideration for blacklisted users and it's questionable whether the blacklisters regularly check and maintain their blacklists by removing certain users after a set period of time. For many, being blacklisted is an indefinite punishment with little chance of being lifted. Most don't care, though, because (like I said) they don't even know they're blacklisted.

I disagree that there is presently "a healthy balance between giveaway entrants' and gifters' rights" in SteamGifts. At this time, and especially after the changes to the blacklist system that accompanied SGv2.0, the weights have shifted significantly in the latter's favor. Instead of blacklists applying only (or, at least, primarily) to private giveaways, it now affects all giveaways by the contributor against the target user. Coupling this significant change with the popularization and streamlining of the blacklist system, and now the community is power-tripping and inconsistently blacklisting any and all dissenters for the most trivial of faux pas and minor offenses, often on a whim and based on the mood of the blacklister at that particular moment in time. The system is broken, but (more importantly) the community's treatment and exploitation of the system is the major cause for concern. This is exactly what I mean by "toxic": the community is overall incapable of managing itself without increased hostility and blacklisting, and it is too irresponsible as an entity to properly deal with the issue, or even acknowledge and recognize it as an issue in the first place. No, it'd rather blacklist and stamp out critics in order to keep the "peace" (if it could be called that) and uphold the normative abuse so rampant among the community.

You are utterly false in claiming that I "completely ignore gifters' rights." This is an important aspect of the community and I greatly respect them; however, I believe contributors have been given too much leniency in recent memory and as a result, the entrants are becoming victims of blacklisting abuse. If you're such a fan of misrepresenting, misleading, and misunderstanding your interlocutor's arguments, though, then so be it: I'll reverse the libel. If anyone is the problem here, it is you for being so oppressive to entrants and demanding that contributors have free reign to arbitrarily abuse and exploit their privileges in order to discriminate and restrict anyone they see fit, no matter how absurd the reason behind it may be. You are in favor of despotism by the contributors, and not the "balance" you profess to seek. You are a demagogic charlatan demanding the equality among contributors and entrants when in reality, only the former is considered worthy of consideration to you and your own.

But, of course, such slander leads us nowhere. No matter how accurate or exaggerated it may be, hostile accusations and presumptive conjectures only undermine the integrity of the discussion and degrade its quality as a worthwhile and meaningful exchange. Having said that, I'd appreciate it if you dropped the accusations and instead kept to the topic at-hand. I'm not interested in shit-flinging, ad hominems, and defamatory remarks. If that is your aim and goal, then this discussion is through.

I've already addressed the fallacious "gifter's giveaway, gifter's rules" argument previously, and I find it unnecessary to lengthen this formidable wall of text any further in my reiteration of it. I should add, however, that a site without rules is an anarchistic, chaotic hellhole undeserving of being called a "system" in any capacity. SteamGifts already has rules, and I'm not arguing that these rules necessarily need expansion nor that "rules" must be "impose[d] ... on everything."

People don't listen to me because they don't care to do so. Blame my "mindset" all you want, but it doesn't refute the points I've made.