What to do?
There are some people with "bad ratios" (depending on what you see as bad) even in higher levels. For me, blacklist is only for rulebreakers and not for people with ratio problems.
If you want users to fit certain criteria, do a sgtools GA, or one of a group that fits. But not setting them beforehand and whine about winners not fitting them afterwards is pretty lame i think.
But, in the end, do whatever you think is right with you, it's your games, do whatever you want with them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, who cares what you do? It's a victimless crime. It's not like you're taking something away from that user. You're just not giving something to them. They won't suffer from it, since they don't know about it anyway.
At least that's my opinion. Random blacklisting isn't nice, but if you want to do it, then why should you be stopped.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well yeah. If I have a party, I have a right to choose who I don't want to invite. In the end it's your giveaway, so you should be able to choose whether or not you allow certain people the access to it. if that's a bad thing, then we should get rid of group giveaways and whitelist giveaways too, since they're excluding even more people for no reason. (Whitelist ones exclude people you don't like)
Again.. it's my opinion. I've never said that it's something that matters... I've never said that what I said was correct even.
This is all subjective.
Comment has been collapsed.
did you even bother to read the comment that I was responding to before you posted your response to mine?
"blacklist is only for rulebreakers and not for people with ratio problems"
TRANSLATION: if you break the rules, welcome to the blacklist!
"It's a victimless crime."
not a crime, but an infraction of the rules... [ sarcasm ] so, yeah, breaking the rules must be "victimless" [ /sarcasm ]
"who cares what you do?"
you seem to care, except it seems you're oblivious that I did vote "Just Let It Go"
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I just thought that you were in the opinion that he shouldn't be able to blacklist people because of the way the sentence was written.
"Blacklist is only for rulebreakers and not for people with ratio problems"
But in the end there are no rules for blacklist... for a reason. Blacklist is supposed to be for us to govern who we want being able to have a chance on our games and who can't.
Breaking rules is obviously blacklist worthy. Ratio problems are so too, though, if you care about it. If you don't, then obviously you don't have to bl. But saying that bl is not for ratio problems is kind of weird, since bl itself is a victimless crime as I explained before.
But yeah, sorry for not explaining myself well enough. Didn't want the misunderstanding. :/
Also... isn't it obvious that no one knows what you voted? xD
Comment has been collapsed.
I just thought that you were in the opinion
thought you didn't care what I did, or do you? LOL
(btw, it's "of" the opinion not "in" the opinion)
"isn't it obvious that no one knows what you voted?"
yes, it's now obvious which option I voted but you were still oblivious to my vote. obvious vs oblivious? yes, there's a difference... try looking it up! I'm now beginning to see the need "for not explaining myself well enough" or... perhaps, next time you don't start off being so smug with comments like "who cares what you do?"
Back on topic: the last time I checked, there were less than have a dozen profiles on my "blacklist" and most (if not all) were added because they had been identified as scammers or accusing others of scamming and falsely posting negative reps. Whereas, my "whitelist" continues to grow with profiles I've had positive interactions (ie smooth trades, friendly communications, and helpful guidance). I haven't participated in any of the forum or group activities... yet! I look forward to trying a few soon and hosting a couple of my own before the beginning of Summer (when my gaming takes a backseat to riding my motorcycle). Trades (and Giveaways, more recently) have been my primary focus here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude... don't mock my grammar. I know I'm shit at writing. :D
But In all honesty, what I'm trying to say is this: Blacklisting should be up to the user. They should be able to choose whether they want to blacklist rulebreakers, people with bad ratios, people with bad grammar or in extreme cases, people who are just with a different opinion. They can also do that with no real reason or they can just blacklist no one.
These days Steamgifts seems to get more and more political with it's discussions. If you don't care about being blacklisted, then you shouldn't have any problems, but just know that some people really love getting "triggered" (it's just so funny that people get triggered by nonsense). And when someone gets... sigh "triggered" then they might blacklist you and just remember you as a horrible person. It has happened to me and a bunch of others. Be careful. Past all of that poop, you'll get to the delicious creamy insides of the real SteamGifts users. People, who are friendly, curious. They accept anyone and everyone. Doesn't matter their age, size, origins. These people are like a second family. Treat them well, they'll treat you well.
Oh god... I turned very preachy! xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklisting someone because they're lucky, poor or both is pretty low imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're lucky, great! Now maybe you can give some back to the community in return.
If you're poor, no problem! Maybe give away some bundles, or at least pick carefully which giveaways you enter.
If someone has 250 wins and given away 10 games, then good for them, but there are other people who deserve it more. Don't see how that's "pretty low".
Comment has been collapsed.
I put these kind of winners in my blacklist, personally. Nothing wrong with lucky people. But when the winner has hundreds -if not thousands- of wins just because he entered every possible steam group which is doing GAs and that he doesn't even launch the games he wins (most of them are ""collecting"" games and cards), that's just sad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people just can't afford a good ratio, financially. I see it as we're here to give things away to make others happy, and I'd think that some people are here because they can't afford to get most of the games themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you care about ratio - don't giveaway, just trade games away. I'm sure traders always have 1:1 ratio, you should be happy.
Comment has been collapsed.
29 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Picollo30
20 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Vee79
8,591 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by m139
215 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by VeniVidiVici
1,912 Comments - Last post 50 minutes ago by Axelflox
9 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Sh4dowKill
16,367 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by steveywonder75
1,563 Comments - Last post 37 seconds ago by Madpie24
9,269 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by JTC3
928 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Noobdynone
73 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by UltraMaster
73 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by 538UL84
561 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by JCDenton
4 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by DeltaBladeX
I Just finished my 60+ giveaways and i noticed 3~4 peoples that had some really bad ratio of winning and sharing.
What do you guys think i should do?
I already send the keys, keeping them for 7 days till the last minute would be bad since i dont know if i will be here to send them later or not.
Should i just blacklist them so they dont enter my next giveaways?
Or should i just increase the level even more?
Or let it pass since only 4 from 65+ had that bad ratio?
For me a bad ratio is not related just in comparassion of winnings / sharing, you also need to look what was shared and won.
One of those guys had gifited a Bioshock triple pack ($59,99) and is level 3! and won like 10 times more ($$$) in 100+ giveaways (and he has a bunch of AAA games that he features on his profile it's for sure looks like he only gifted the pack to level to 3).
Another guy gifted $400 some was bundled so probably not 400 real worth but won almost 3000 (Some AAA).
Comment has been collapsed.