Should SGTools GAs check for multiple wins?
reasons i do not create sgtools ga's personally. ✅
i have no problem entering them though, i just don't make them
Comment has been collapsed.
ouch - that burnt :P - never throw stones in the glass house of knsys - he has the data power :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Is there no setting to check multiple wins date?
So we can make rule to something like multiple wins before 30 days.
Since we can't reroll if it is over 30 days. CMIIW.
I haven't tried SGTool giveaway, so I don't know.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you can set date limits to any rules you set on SG, which makes this thread rather peculiar. :X
The thread also ignores that there's no instant way to check if a user has a single multiple win, a single streak of multiple wins, or a clear habit of abuse. Standard SG protocol is for a user to ask for a SGTools bypass based on their circumstances, in such an instance, since such filters far more dominantly filter out what they're intended to, rather than users who might be excused in their circumstances.
Likewise, it misstates that you can report/reroll for multi-wins after a giveaway ends, but that only applies in certain circumstances. If we did have that option, we wouldn't have to stress so much over using SGTools like a bludgeon for every giveaway, or the fact that we've no protection at all in public giveaways.
And, most significantly, this is why this thread is unnecessary.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you can set date limits to any rules you set on SG
Oh, that's good.
Thanks for answering my question.
Comment has been collapsed.
Likewise, it misstates that you can report/reroll for multi-wins after a giveaway ends, but that only applies in certain circumstances
You can always report, but the request will only be approved if the winner hasn't yet been suspended for his/her multiple wins.
Comment has been collapsed.
Show me please?
EDIT: You're right. I entered one, 9 months ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
How can you tell it's only one? You check each GA that you entered since joining the site?
Comment has been collapsed.
so you have data of every user what GAs they checked with the sg-tool stuff??
And there is no Privacy Policy or Terms of Service on your page?
Is there a way to delete all the data you collect about a user?
This dosn't feel good tbh. I directly log out my account from this site and would kindly ask to delete all the data you collect!
Comment has been collapsed.
more than having and keeping that data, is directly using it on a public forum (To shame one user , nonetheless) :(
Comment has been collapsed.
But if you're checking manually after the GA ends and requesting a reroll, then why not just add the multiple wins check to SGT in the first place? The whole point is to save time for Support and for yourself.
[Edit: I agree that the documentation of this issue would be a nice improvement. Multiple wins does not equal bad person.]
Comment has been collapsed.
Because if it's automated then those who served suspension and could not remove the multiple win are still locked out, and there's nothing they can do about it. In contrast, unactivated wins are very easy to solve and then it's really only the time of support and me vs. the winner not caring about breaking rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
By "automated" do you mean the large dev giveaways where they are automatically marked "Received?" How often do these GAs happen in quick succession where you can automatically be marked with multiple wins, with possibly a dev who won't reroll? Maybe the new docs can advise only to enter one such GA at a time, and not enter other GAs for the game until the dev GA is over.
I know that adding a multiple wins check to SGT may prevent a handful of folks from entering who tried to fix their problem but can't. But it prevents a lot more folks who simply have multiple wins, and saves me and support time. If the handful of folks in group one contact me and want to explain, then I can always give them the URL and notify knsys that they're valid entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
By "automated" I mean the GA filter automatically blocks users with multiple wins.
I don't expect people to contact every the creator of every SGTools GA they wish to enter and provide explanations. I wouldn't do it if I was in the same situation.
Close to 5% of users don't pass the multiple win check (according to stats from knsys) . That's potentially 45,000 of the users on this site. Even if only 1 in 10 of them are in a situation where they can't fix multiple wins, we are still talking about thousands of users.
Comment has been collapsed.
With respect, your numbers are inflated. A fraction of those 900k-plus users are active, and another fraction of those read the forums and enter SGT GAs. I know you said "potentially," but still...it's a pretty small number of people who have multiple wins, wanted to and/or tried to do something about it, but were unable.
Comment has been collapsed.
Based on developer giveaways with level 0 filtering, I seriously doubt that the active userbase would be significantly more than a few 10k people, maybe somewhat more if we count people who just enter the site weekly. And then even less visits the forums, where the SGT giveaway links are - I think the number of affected is mere fragments of your estimate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Multiple wins seems like a careless person and makes me wonder why they marked it as received in the first place. Either that, or they just don't know what games they already own and keep entering.
Is there ever a case where it forces someone who already owns the game to mark it as Received (Mass Giveaways?) ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, there is a case. If there are more than 50 (I think) keys, it will make you auto-Receive. That said, I believe you can then activate one and mark the other Not Received. The whole situation is rather complicated and there are definitely pitfalls.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you still have to mark it as received (that's what I have done whenever I have won a Mass GA). When a Mass (50+) GA ends, the keys will automaticly be sent to the winners (the GA-creator don't have to lift a finger), but it won't automaticly be marked as received (is my experience).
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not that hard to avoid. In the end they should have know better.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair it's pretty obvious that you shouldn't have multiple wins. It's not about how clear it is in the rules, but personal ethics. If you've already accepted a win of a game, why on earth would you then accept another apart from out of greed?
Comment has been collapsed.
If I want a game, I'll enter multiple giveaways for it. If I'm asleep or at work, there is a very small chance I can win multiples of the same game. This has actually happened twice to me. Both times I've asked for rerolls for the second key, both times it was granted.
However, one of those times, a GA creator was offline for almost 3 weeks after I had already redeemed the first key. Winners cannot request rerolls, only GA creators (I know, I tried). Tried to friend/message creator on Steam, he blocked me. Obviously, it all eventually got sorted out when winner came back online. So that's an example of a situation where honest users can be blocked out of sgtools GAs for multiple wins due to circumstances outside of their control.
Bottom line: it's not always a case of greed for multiple keys, and an automated sgtools GA will never be able to discern shady users from users who are actively trying to resolve a problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait, the multiple win sgtool checker won't fire unless you mark both GAs received. And you don't do that unless you've redeemed the game to your account. A GA can be in "waiting for winner respond" indefinitely, which should've been the case if you need a reroll but can't get into contact with the GA creator.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a very good point, but seriously, not many people understand the ins and outs of this website to come to this conclusion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't mark the second one as received, simple solution. If the GA creator wants to get that CV then they will do a reroll when they come back on. You wont be locked out of SGTools and you will be following the rules of this website.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't mark the second key as received; sorry, thought that went without saying. I was also under the assumption sgtools just looked at matching titles in wins, not that they were marked as received.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was speaking from a hypothetical point, didn't mean to imply that you had broken the rules at any point sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
No worries, was trying to clarify myself. Clearly I voiced my story without knowing all the details behind the scenes with sgtools, so I'm kinda at fault for the confusion (not an sgtools user at current, but will probably start using it next month after I move). Thanks for being awesome at discussing things without turning it into an argument, this forums needs more level-headed people like you in it.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as I know, SGTools is an independent site, not a part of SteamGift. SteamGift keep winners secret until they mark the gift as received/not received. I doubt SGTools can detect wins before they are marked as received/not received (I think this is exploited by some regifters).
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is that there's practically no documentation to help users avoid this infraction
Common sense should be enough to avoid it though. Why would anyone accept twice the same game?
But I agree that the long-term stirmata over this infraction, when others can be easily fixed, is a problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
i think what op is getting at is we were all young and dumb at one point (not necessarily here) & those mistakes can't be corrected as easily like u said on the long-term part. i just ran across a high lvl (9-10) the other day who won a game from me and had multiwin past im sure they wish they never had done.
i still check out of curiosity, but don't bother with rerolls personally, for that anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Common sense says that a stovetop is hot, you shouldn't touch it...
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand the results of the poll so far. Could it be that I phrased the poll badly? Do 65% of voters really think that someone who had two wins of the same game 5 years ago should never be able to access SGTools GAs?
Comment has been collapsed.
For some, it's may be a matter of that It's a lot easier to check a box than write a custom rule.
For others, they may think that there should be no expiration to "rule-breaking."
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably, Some people hate "cheaters" with all their heart (Even if they did out of a mistake )
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, many SGT GAs are trains. Checking every single winner on trains is even more of a pain than creating the train itself (up to several hours).
Comment has been collapsed.
I certainly do, however after being denied a reroll on a user that had multiple wins on multiple games, with repeat offense after serving prior suspensions, and on one offense had 4 wins on a single game, I'm more inclined to believe there's an underlying problem that goes beyond SGTools checks.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/Hx5lN2G <- Read first.
Or maybe we just expect people to interact with the community directly in regards to their circumstances, instead of demanding we compromise the primary function of SGTools, its utility in filtering out intentional rule breakers, by catering to a minority that can almost always resolve their circumstances on their own anyway (through contacting the GA creator, unmarking received, or contacting the creator of the filter they want to bypass).
Add in that you appear to be trying to strongarm your perspective on us, and my opinion of you has dropped from this thread.
Oh, I appreciate your sentiment, but you're knee-jerking a faulty solution and then acting shocked when we clarify that we've already thought the matter through on our own and that our approach makes far more sense, since it allows us the control to let valid users through at our discretion while reliably keeping invalid users out.
On the flip side, your approach, which doesn't even mention things like date limiting on the restriction (which I see plenty of SGTools creators apply), seems to be an explicit "You're bad for using this filter." despite the fact that not using it presumably lets through far, far more invalid users than valid users- meaning it's not comparable to using the filter, which, as detailed above, doesn't have a downside like that.
I've had reroll requests refused on users with, for example, 14 multi-wins. The approach you detailed flat out does not work.
The existing mainstream approach on SG does, as the very few users that could have valid exceptions made for them AND can't unmarked received on a giveaway because they were silly enough to activate both keys, can simply ask for a bypass.
tl;dr version:
Existing approach:
Lets through 0% of problem users, 100% of users the GA creator would wish to let through
Your approach:
Lets through 100% of problem users that don't also have non-activations, 100% of the users the GA creator would wish to let through.
Assuming a 1:1000 ratio of non-problem users to problem-users.. or hell, a 1:2 ratio.. your approach just doesn't seem to have any merit whatsoever- namely, as the only thing it changes is in adding something negative.
(To be clear, my tone is sharp and my opinion low because of the one-sided view you present and the disdainful tone to your post toward users that use the filter, not due to your making the suggestion in itself.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not convinced this my suggestion is "catering to minority that can almost always resolve their circumstances". What are you basing this statement on?
And how exactly do I "strongarm" my perspective on others? I presented the issue as I see it, and used the words "plea" and "recommendation". I'm not a native English speaker, so would appreciate it if you could explain what is it about what I write that constitutes strongraming?
The main reason I'm surprised by the results of the poll is that it's open to all participants in this forum, not just to those who create SGTools giveaways. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of users with multiple wins on this forum is higher than the number of people who create SGTools giveaways, especially when I'm not the only one among them that believes that it's best to not use automatic filtering for multiple wins .
Regarding date limiting on the restriction, it's covered by one of the options in the poll. I'm not hiding it, I have used it in the past, and I was the first on this thread to suggest the specific rule when the question was raised in one of the comments.
I disagree that what you refer to as Existing approach (locking out users with multiple wins) let's in "100% of users the GA creator would wish to let through". It certainly isn't 100% in my case.
If you think my approach only brings in "something negative", then you're missing the point. Not all users with multiple wins are negative, or bad. The subject is much more complex. There are various scenarios where good people end up with multiple wins and cannot fix them even if they want to. The issue is poorly documented (as are many of the other ins and outs of this site) and to make things worse - whatever documentation is available, is limited to English only. Yes, for every problematic scenario there is the correct way to handle it, but those who don't bother to read threads about the subject will never know about these solutions, and they are very unlikely to come up with by themselves.
My tone in the OP is not disdainful (or at least so I hope). I did lose patience with one user, and when I read that sub-thread again my main conclusion is that I was too late to detect the bait. I can't promise it won't happen again, but I definitely would prefer to avoid this kind of back and forth.
Comment has been collapsed.
I updated the OP. Hopefully it help clarify my intentions better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Questions:
1-When you win a game and enter the same game later for the DLC does that count as multiple wins?
2-What if you win a game and you don't receive a key and you win the same game later with a valid key, multiple win?
Comment has been collapsed.
1: no, it would be tagged differently with steamid #'s so it wouldnt trigger the multiwin (though permission for that situation is normally required)
2: marking one of them not received, then the other marked received also would not trigger the multiwin flag.
Comment has been collapsed.
- No. It has to have the exact same AppID as far as I know.
- No, because you should mark the first game as Not Received.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for letting me know!
Now I know that I can enter Payday the Heist GA's without getting into trouble.
Comment has been collapsed.
People should give a second chance to users with multiple wins. People are so harsh these days. They're so eager to ban a steamgifts user from giveaways even for life, but about other more important things, like scamming, they don't really care about punishing the victimizer.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got a multiple win once. Same game within 2 hours of the first win (Both occurred whilst I was sleeping).
Voided me from many SGTools GAs.
Still, people can use whatever means they want when giving away games for free.
I can always reroll a Steam account if I'm unhappy with how it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Only one account for me and I'll take the lumps that come with making mistakes with it thanks.
I'm just pointing out that people can start afresh if it bothers them so much.
Comment has been collapsed.
You didn't have to mark both of them Received. You could have asked either GA creator for a re-roll.
In fairness, though, there's insufficient documentation to know to do this. And you're at the mercy of the GA creators to request the reroll.
Comment has been collapsed.
I made a mistake, I didn't know what I was doing and I'll live with the consequences. People giving away games for free are already being incredibly nice and if they don't want to give certain people a chance for whatever reason then that's perfectly within their rights in my opinion.
I would suggest that making rules clearer to newbies could improve this site's clarity on the matter. But as I said earlier, a free game is a free game and win or lose it's the thought of those giving them away which matters :)
Comment has been collapsed.
No worries-- wasn't meaning to cast aspersions, but your post made it sound like because you were asleep, it wasn't really your fault and you were voided from many SGTools GAs. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
And you didn't contact the giveaway creator to do a re-roll?
Because all it takes is a re-roll to remove it from your profile...
Comment has been collapsed.
They didn't get back to me and I didn't want to make a fuss about it all and so used it within a 1 hour GA of my own (Which I have learned since is wrong!). The only reason I got caught is because I dobbed myself in.
That said, it was against the rules and so rightly punishable restrictions have been placed on my account.
We each live and learn! I still think that it is great that people share games they don't want with others and that's the spirit which makes me come back (And share myself).
Comment has been collapsed.
Regifting is one of those things many of us find intuitively to be wrong, based on our own social expectations and experiences, so it becomes a challenge to recognize a perspective that would find it acceptable. People do make mistakes, and there's certainly necessary leeway to be made for that, even if only out of the purely selfish recognition that you'll no doubt need that consideration to be made for yourself some time in the future.
In any case, I applaud you for both taking responsibility for your actions (regardless of the circumstances, they were full your own decisions, and thus it shows maturity to recognize and acknowledge that) and respecting and appreciating the other users on the site.
Your "I can always reroll a Steam account if I'm unhappy with how it is" is a bit awkward though, could you please clarify that you weren't recommending multi-accounting? :P And do note that it does cost you $5 to create a new, fully functional Steam account, and I'm fairly sure SG requires $100 of unbundled games on an account for it to activate an account on SG. So it may be less simple than you seem to expect.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi Sooth,
I certainly don't condone multiple accounts as that would bring a lot of fraudulent activity into the system which would make it harder for everyone involved in gifting and receiving gifts. Were someone who had been issued with punishments for breaking the rules however, they could retire the account with the infringements and start a new one should they feel the need to be included in more GAs. As you've stated that comes at a cost but I'm merely pointing out to anyone complaining about their blackmarks that the option is there should they feel strongly enough to reroll.
As for regifting that one is completely on me, no doubts about it. Multiple wins can happen without any intent other than entering the GAs. Giving away what has been won should have been something which stood out as not a decent thing to do and whilst my intentions may have been misguided, it was disrespectful to the original GA member and potentially could have massive problems for abuse on the site if this were the norm. A quick rule button (At least until level 2 has been hit) would certainly have helped clear up any misunderstandings.
On the auditing of infractions, I was only 'caught' for openly admitting to someone asking questions about policy. I'm still happy to take my marks as rules were broken but I think a lack of easily clickable rules and punishing those who openly admit to their own mistakes in public once they know the rules leaves many unpunished and ignorant. If future members could be prevented this treatment I would feel that my appropriate punishment has helped others from making similar mistakes in the future :)
Comment has been collapsed.
A quick rule button (At least until level 2 has been hit) would certainly have helped clear up any misunderstandings.
On the auditing of infractions, I was only 'caught' for openly admitting to someone asking questions about policy. I'm still happy to take my marks as rules were broken but I think a lack of easily clickable rules and punishing those who openly admit to their own mistakes in public once they know the rules leaves many unpunished and ignorant. If future members could be prevented this treatment I would feel that my appropriate punishment has helped others from making similar mistakes in the future :)
Those points would have made for a much more productive thread. :)
By all means- punishing for the sake of punishing doesn't accomplish anything positive. If there's better options, we should certainly pursue them. ..and I don't think too many people would argue about the handling of rule clarifications on this site being a constant issue. I've certainly had my own frustrations with the the vague phrasing and lack of rule inclusion present in the FAQ. Add in the many users that appear to be unaware of their obligations to read community guidelines when joining a community, and yes- having popups and other rule indicators for low level users would more than likely solve enough problems to make up for any annoyances they may make.
Comment has been collapsed.
All-in-all I think we have a fine community, that's the reason I keep coming back; gaming and tech news gets handled well and there is a pile of good humour here.
A way of making sure newbies know the rules and punishments having a sentence which ends according to the severity of rules broken after a given time would be an improvement however, as I stated earlier, people can choose to give away games as they see fit with level, groups and SGTool parameters and they are more than welcome to give to whomever they see fit to.
I accept my punishment for rule breaking and am happy to be an example to others as to why people shouldn't break rules. If we could just make sure new members were fully aware of the rules and sanctions put upon those who break them I think we'd have more people taking part in our community :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, if they swapped rule-breaking from the 'suspension + one month probation' to something like 'suspension + three months of probation + one month per total infractions (including caught past infractions)', we could just ignore the rule-breaking altogether (except for determining if a permanent suspension is warranted, and infraction length total).
Let it have a marker that SGT can check to see if the user is on probation or not, and then move the current SGT non-act/multi-win functionality to the extended code, and add 'On Probation' to the primary filter checkboxes.
The problem is that the existing penalties have always been far too lenient, especially considering that of the rulebreakers, the majority seem to be autojoining multiaccounters that couldn't care less about the site's rules and community. And so we migrate to the rather strict approach of SGT. In fact, that's a pretty consistent trait of the site, having to look to outside sources for things that SG should handle internally.
Currently, SG seems to focus on punishing GA creators for using public giveaways, but that is an approach which also unfavorable to decent-minded rulebreakers, since they get caught in that sharp response. Having more discouraging penalties that allow GA Creators to be more relaxed with their public giveaways [and emphasize punishing intentional rulebreakers over minor offenders] would definitely do a lot to move GA Creators from the strict approach of SGT.
tl;dr Any problems with how rule-breaking is handled is a matter of the site taking a laidback approach that disfavors honest users and encourages them to less gracious responses than they'd otherwise consider [and not with the perspectives of people that use SGT for filtering, as this thread indicates].
Comment has been collapsed.
Good points and well made Sooth however I'm much more casual a user than most.
For points talking about people being on whitelists and in groups and the like you'll need to find someone more involved in those circuits. My win ration is something like 1:1500 and it's mostly public or openly given train links for easy quizzes and threads. Just me manually clicking on things that I might like to win. No scripts or any of that (I feel it goes against the spirit of gifting to gank the system).
I do think that a suspension/probation system with pop-ups for levels 0+1+2 reiterating the rules and onsite filtering, rather than third party, would be helping make the community a better one.
Whether that will ever happen or not is another thing. I enjoy lurking and entering public GAs and giving back when I feel it's working out karma-wise, that's enough for me :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Your SGTools rule makes me ask this out of curiosity: How is this any different from the VAC ban rule? Isn't that the same? Something that happened in the past that you can't get rid off, shouldn't those users be allowed a chance as well?
Comment has been collapsed.
The name of the check is misleading. It's not a regular gaming VAC ban where there can be false positives. It's a trade ban, which Valve gives to known scammers. Much worse offense and no issue with false positives. I have zero tolerance for this kind of people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh! I read that wrong then. Thanks for the clarification.
Comment has been collapsed.
no issue with false positives
Unless you piss off the wrong person and he gets a group of friends to report your profile for scamming. Actually happened to a friend of mine who got a trade ban for a while because of those bogus reports.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see you used custom rules for entry in your giveaway. I also see restrictions for some of your past giveaways as well. Why are these types of exclusions considered good while multiple wins is considered bad?
Comment has been collapsed.
While you have no tolerance for those with trade bans, they probably have no means to change their ways either. Others who use the multiple wins as an exclusion probably have no tolerance for those who don't bother reading the rules, or even the FAQ where it clearly states no multiple wins.
You also exclude those that do not frequent the forums, why is that? I see a large amount of invite only giveaways. I wonder how many of these were blocked by custom rules as well.
I also see giveaways that are above level 0, even at least one that requires at least 1000 CV to enter. Why did you not have tolerance for those that were less giving? Not everyone is capable of spending large sums of money to giveaway games for others. What did they do wrong?
Comment has been collapsed.
When you say "you" are you referring to me? Because I don't use levels and definitely don't require 1000 CV in any of my giveaways. And close to 20% of my GAs are public.
I personally don't have an issue with those who do. It's perfectly fine. The point of this thread is to make people more aware that multiple wins are poorly documented and difficult to remove, so they may want to re-consider configuring automatic checks for them.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/H9kDk/the-beginners-guide 3 weeks ago by Yirg
Level 7+
There is also a level 3+ and 5+ invite only for the same game. I also see 3 level 10+ giveaways, 1 for a group and 2 invite only. I did not look any further. Why do you have no tolerance for those of lower level but for rule breakers? You've also excluded some because they did not belong to the same group(s) as you. Were they perhaps invite only groups? What did everyone not in the groups do to deserve such an exclusion?
The documentation is fairly clear in the FAQ:
"You should only enter to win giveaways for yourself, and if you win a game, it must be activated and redeemed to the Steam account used during registration."
This excludes you receiving multiple copies of a game as you can have only 1 copy redeemed and the others you can't giveaway. (I am aware you can remove the first from your library to redeem another copy but then the first would no longer be redeemed and you would be breaking the rules)
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/9OSFd/armada-2526-gold-edition 5 months ago by Yirg
Level 5+
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/ZrFCQ/alien-breed-trilogy 5 months ago by Yirg
Level 5+
These linked to a forum post with a SGTools giveaway with the following restrictions:
RealCV won: Less than 500 & RealCV gave: More than 500
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/oRDJ1/nightmares-from-the-deep-the-cursed-heart 6 months ago by Yirg
Level 5+
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/cPwBb/loot-hunter 6 months ago by Yirg
Level 1+
You seem to be missing my point, break it down to me why X exclusions are good (including but not limited to: invite only, group/whitelist only, trade bans, RealCV won, RealCV gave, level, etc) and why Y exclusions are bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
You had to go back a few hundred GAs to find Level based ones. Nice! Also clapping my hands for finding a GA with the 500 CV restriction and taking it completely out of context. Would you be surprised if I told you that all my GAs when I reached Level 1 had levels? I'm proud to say I evolved to use higher levels as I increased my own level, then when SGTools filters were introduced I evolved all the way back to use Level 0 :-)
All exclusions are fine if they fit what the GA creator is trying to achieve. I just think that Levels and Multiple Wins checks don't achieve what many GA creators think they do, hence the need to increase awareness.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually it was less than 200 giveaways ago, thank you. Even in context you still excluded people for your own reasons. Those who won more than 500 CV had only 1 way of entering your giveaway, breaking the rules and marking games not received potentially getting them suspended or even banned entirely.
So if all exclusions are fine, then rewarding those that did not break the rules is good? Also many rule breakers are not found/reported in a timely fashion. The filter is a good way of preventing them from entering your giveaway and requiring a reroll, and prevents them from doing it again if you don't bother checking.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you're complaining about 1 giveaway out of my 690? You are aware that I can use whatever restrictions I want, and so does any other GA creator? The fact that almost all of my GAs are Level 0 is my own decision. I'm not saying it's what everyone else should do.
So if all exclusions are fine, then rewarding those that did not break the rules is good?
The two parts of this sentence don't depend on one another.
- All exclusions are fine, as long as they fit what the GA creator is trying to achieve.
- Not breaking the rules is good. Rewarding for it is up to the GA creator.
Filtering for multiple wins doesn't help if the user cannot clean their profile. They're just locked out. It's up to the GA creator to decide if they're ok with it. I'm just here to raise awareness to this issue.
I feel like we're in a bit of a loop, so I'll let you say the last word.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just think that Levels and Multiple Wins checks don't achieve what many GA creators think they do, hence the need to increase awareness.
That's not at all the impression you give. The impression you give is in line with what Lypiphera is addressing, where you seem to be indicating that multi-wins are a special matter that should be excused, while other filters are acceptable. No need to get snappish over a valid response to your own phrasing.
Regardless of anything else, you do seem to be approaching things in a negative, hypocritical way. Perhaps consider changing up your phrasing in some places (to be more clear in your intent and respectful toward the perspectives of others), to avoid responses such as Lypiphera's and mine?
Comment has been collapsed.
Aside for this sub-thread, do you see style/tone issues with what I wrote in the OP or in the rest of the thread?
My view of exclusions isn't really important for the subject of this thread, but I'm going to create a separate thread soon to discuss it. I think there are some interesting moral questions about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
My point is that if he figures rule breakers are good then what did those people not in his whitelist do that was so unspeakable that they were not allowed entry into his giveaway? How can I get into his good graces? What about those group only giveaways? Half of his groups are invite only, what must I do to enter these and every other group that uses SteamGifts? If I can't see who the group is then I cannot even narrow it down to apply. I am trying to get his reasonings on why he considers these and other exclusions good and rule breaker exclusions bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
its not that rule-breaking exclusions are bad, he's just pleading with people to add the timer on it so its not condemning people for mistakes they wish they never made upto a 1-2years ago (or whatever you like, just not a perm condemnation).. obviously he cannot tell you what to do on your own GA's, nor is that his attempt here. just trying to get you to see that kids will be kids and make mistakes, but eventually they grow up and wish they hadn't and it cannot be undone quite so easily so sending a child to prison for the rest of their life isn't really a good solution. im unsure why you are fixated on being able to enter into his specific GA's though, everyone is allowed their own choices on gibs.. i just made a lvl10+ only gib for the first time today, i wanted to give something unbundled that only a few friends of mine owned to the people who have given the most.. to each their own though on how they wanna setup rules or restrictions, just keep it in mind if you continue to use the sgtools filter, some people you are denying are no longer rulebreakers and truly wish they could make up for it (and many have in other ways).
Comment has been collapsed.
The timer was not mentioned in the original post, nor has it been added since. What is the cutoff? Why 1 year and not 6 months? What arbitrary date is best? Support lists 1 month as grounds for a reroll, but are they really conformed?
I am "fixated" on his as he is the one requesting the relaxation of restrictions yet he restricted many from his giveaways. I believe he should properly explain why each of his restrictions are good while what others use are bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah i actually don't even know where the timer thing is located anymore either, lol. and like i said on first post, i dont even make sg filter giveaways personally, but that's mostly out of lazyness mixed with me honestly not caring about the rulebreakers that much. but i do understand why others would entirely, so i like the concept of sgtools and have no problems entering into GA's created that use them. the #'s totally upto you though, whatever you feel best, even if that does include permanently never allowing multiwins back into your particular gibs.. but i even found that at least 3x lvl10's in my current running giveaway do fit this topics discussion and none of them have broken a rule since 2013-2014, and imo have more then made-up for their mistakes. but that's just my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah case by case is best for foolproof, it could even be a current regift in progress you could catch that sgtools couldnt possibly know about yet, or something you can see is actively being corrected and just waiting supports assistance.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, thank you Adam. I had read the poll originally but forgot about it later and missed it when I looked again.
Comment has been collapsed.
np, I also just ran through the poll, then I got confused, because I knew I didn't (properly) read about numbers, but I still remembered them :)
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest it's too much effort if you create long trains. Even if not and your giving away one copy I don't blame anyone who use sgtools check because giving away should be fun in the first place. I don't create giveaways to have more work (I don't do much giveaways right now anyway but still, I'd rather enjoy giving away than checking if somebody hasn't broken any rules). Although I admire those who have more patience than me, I just don't have it in me. I'm even tired of giving away games with sgtools. To be honest I'd like to have build-in feature on SG to choose to who my giveaway is directed to - even if it is the worst bundle crap I'd like to have a choice to give it to somebody who hasn't won anything yet than to zelgh I~voI With all my respect to zelgh. But you know what I mean.
Btw, it should be somehow clarified that somebody has suffered a punishment for breaking the rules. For example if somebody had multiple wins and they got their suspension it should be noted on their profile somehow and multiple win should be somehow cancelled or at least not count anymore. Or rule breaker should be informed that multiple win will be removed after they will provide a game they've won twice, reroll should be made and key should be attached by support member (I know, they have too much work already).
Comment has been collapsed.
I know very little about VAC bans or economy bans (or even the difference really), but I noticed you used a rule excluding them from the sg giveaway in the thread. Aren't those permanent too? Or at least very difficult to get removed or revoked, same or harder than getting a reroll from five years ago?
Assuming that's all true, what distinction do you make between someone getting caught cheating in a game 3 years ago and someone else who got multiple wins to trade/regift just as long ago when it comes entering a protected giveaway?
Comment has been collapsed.
tbh that depends on the one who gives you that ban either. that can be a foolish thing like trading.
I actually saw one who got a full account lock only because of trading. the statement was he traded his games to people of other regions. so even if rarely people can get such a lock without doing anything wrong. and such a lock you wont get away without much luck, way way harder and with less chances then a multiple win. since you are completely in the hands of steam support who is as we know very bad and mostly not even able to answer related to your ticket.
So id re ask:
Why locking people out for such a rule, while asking to remove another rule? Both can happen to people who didn't had any bad intention.
edit: and no "I have zero tolerance for this kind of people." is no valid answer. the same could somebody other say about the multi win rule.
Comment has been collapsed.
and no "I have zero tolerance for this kind of people." is no valid answer. the same could somebody other say about the multi win rule.
It is. And similarly, somebody else could say that screw you Yirg, I'll still use the multiwin-filter. If you look at it, this is just a topic when Yirg says that he thinks something, and he wants the people to consider picking up his habit. Noone's forced to accept it, or to use it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly!
It seems some think I'm trying to "strongarm" people to follow this approach, so I had to add a clarification to the OP. I guess the words "plea" and "recommend" were not enough to convey my intention.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lets just have separate CV for public and group/private GA and make community separation complete.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure I understand how this is relevant to the subject of the thread.
But if you mention it, if one targets contributors with his or her GAs it makes perfect sense to check based on parameters like group/private CV. It's more effective than using Levels.
Comment has been collapsed.
while you are at it, make them stop with the other stupid rules
Comment has been collapsed.
Other than VAC (gaming) bans there's no other rules that I have an issue with. If someone wants to target only contributors, it's perfectly fine. That's what all the Level system is about, but with far less flexibility.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you have an issue with this, most people (and me) do not.
Comment has been collapsed.
infraction that entails a 5 day suspension
what is the difference? the same concept.
the FAQ is full of stuff, anyone can claim it is not understood properly.
indeed, the FAQ should be altered to have those two as the main rules on the top. oh well. life goes on
Comment has been collapsed.
what is the difference? the same concept.
One can easily be fixed at any time, the other, not so much.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree to some extent. This is a rule easily breakable, even more considering that massive giveaways (those with more than 50 copies) are automatically delivered, meaning that there is no way to reject the key if you have already won it during the duration of this massive giveaway, to quote an example.
Still, if I've managed to stay clear of that, anyone could. All you need is a little awareness and respect towards the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't have to reject it, you just don't confirm and use the key anywhere like regifting or giving it to a friend.
Comment has been collapsed.
Would have been ironic if you'd have used that rule here. :P
I really only focus on the non-activated/regifting myself. Though, I haven't done an SGTools gib in a while. I tend to keep my level requirements high and just check after the fact.
Comment has been collapsed.
I only used sgtools once and I didn't add any rule checks because I didn't know if you could specify time periods and I didn't want to figure it out. I don't think people should exclude everyone who has ever broken a rule because everyone makes mistakes, especially people that don't speak english and didn't know the rules about regifting. I manually check all my winners and if someone had 1 or 2 broken rules from 6 months ago, but they have been activating all their wins since then without any problems, I don't worry about it.
I think people should add exceptions to the rule checks, like a certain number of months or a certain number of broken rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
I used SGTools for an event once and I won't use it again, unless the creator adds a way to allow for time passed since last multi-win offense like you can for non-activated, or to let you allow one broken rule. I did suggest this in the official post and was told it was not a feature that would be implemented.
This came to my attention when someone commented in my event post that they couldn't enter because of the multi-win rule. They had multiple wins due to winning multiple developer giveaways that ended at the same time, so the keys were sent automatically, and this happened over 3 years ago. My intention wasn't to prevent people like that from entering. I believe in the saying "you learn from your mistakes," and I'm willing to forgive one mistake. I'd rather take my chances in having a multi-rule breaking leech win a giveaway than prevent someone that made one mistake a long time ago from entering.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you're asking for is possible. Just add this to your rule:
&& last_multiple_win <= date_modify(date('now'),'-2 years')This means that if their multiple wins are older than 2 years they're ignored.
Comment has been collapsed.
OK, I've got the rules and giveaways mixed up. You can't do it with inactive wins. In the SGTools giveaway I had a someone comment that they couldn't pass the inactive wins. They explained that they won a game and the key didn't work, so the giveaway creator gave them another game instead and they went ahead and marked it as received. The game is no longer sold, so now they're stuck with an inactive game on their account that can't be fixed. The inactive win for them was over 3 years ago, so I asked on the SGTools post if he could add the same rule for multiple wins for inactive wins and was told that it wouldn't be added because users can buy the game to get that infraction off their account, which I pointed out is not always possible. I'd also like to see a rule added to allow for a maximum number of rules broken as a simple way to allow people that have broken only 1 (or whatever number) rule(s) in the past to enter. You break a rule, you learn your lesson and don't do it again, all is fine.
I had giveaway recently where a user had multiple wins from 6 months ago (at the time of the giveaway). That was the one where the winner had won two developer giveaways that ended at the same time for the same game. Before sending the key, I sent a support ticket to ask if if the winner had served their time for those, and they answered back that they did. Probably due to being over worked and under paid, instead of closing the ticket, the support person hit re-roll by accident.
I felt horrible after that giveaway. Giving away games shouldn't make you feel bad, so from then on I don't even bother with SGTools or contacting support if a user has one or two minor offenses.
Comment has been collapsed.
Excuse me for perhaps being dense, but what's so incredibly hard about understanding the whole "multiple wins" thing?
If you do happen to hit the insane odds of winning two giveaways for the same game, you just accept one and contact the creator of the other one to inform him/her what happened. They will presumably contact support and be granted a reroll or something.
Rather than not checking for multiple wins at all, it'd be neat to have the option to check for more than one such violation. We're just humans, it can happen once perhpas, but no way it "accidentally" happens twice or more.
Comment has been collapsed.
its not hard to understand, as others said its practically even common sense.. but at the same time many real life criminals from prisons eventually get parole and are given a second chance, why can't something as petty as a multi-win be forgiven too?
Comment has been collapsed.
SGTools doesn't detect multiwins for region restricted giveaways anyway. I went through a lot of trouble with a winner because I didn't check manually.
I think they're really not a big deal as long as they are won in a short time period.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where is the vote option to not make or enter any giveaways that use sgtools?
Comment has been collapsed.
This is not the subject of the thread, but it's a pretty good subject for another thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
but it's a pretty good subject for another thread.
Yes, because all the many threads slamming SGTools and the right of people to use SGTools as best fits their personal perspectives, and despite SGTools encouraging many giveaways to be created that users wouldn't create otherwise, really need an additional thread to join them.
Comment has been collapsed.
despite SGTools encouraging many giveaways to be created that users wouldn't create otherwise
That's the thing that many people miss, like when they complain about bundles that have one key per tier or region locks, they don't realize that the alternative is nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know it certainly is for me. I'd just give all the keys to groups, instead, which is where I was at before SGT [in fact, the entire reason I formed the Positive Thoughts group was because I had just given entirely up on all non-group giveaways, and was, in essence, attempting to create my own SGT filter for myself and others to use. Plus side, if SGT had come out just a bit sooner, I likely wouldn't have made the group- which would have been a pity, as it has ended up being a rather positive part of my SG experience.]
And the only reason I'm doing public giveaways again, is because SGT worked me back into it. I can assure you'd I'd never have touched them again if it wasn't for SGT making me feel less troubled by the core user base, and its users encouraging public giveaways with their comments and filters.
Oh, I'd probably have still done forum events, but they would have been less frequent, smaller, and run through groups. SGT gives you back some degree of control over your own circumstances, in an environment where too many users trample all over respectability and your considerations.
Comment has been collapsed.
When you say SGT is the reason you're doing public giveaways again, you mean SGT giveaways I assume, not regular public giveaways? Just want to make sure, because the term public giveaway has a specific meaning.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think I saw a poll that tried to find what percentage of users on the forum don't enter SGTools GAs as a principle. Was there one?
Comment has been collapsed.
I once won a game twice in one day. Just explained and asked the creator to reroll, wasn't banned... I don't think you get banned if you're honest about it and it was clearly not your intention?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sometimes the GA creator isn't accommodating (won't respond or reroll). In that situation, I think you can just mark Not Received, but I don't know if that's foolproof either.
Comment has been collapsed.
or just don't mark it at all, leave it totally unmarked is the best thing till the creator does finally do something about it. (annoying to see a notification #, but you get used to it, i'm sitting on 3x atm waiting admin reroll which will take months)
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a good idea, although as I understand dev giveaways (50+ keys) are automatically marked Received. Best not to enter for a game if you have a pending dev GA entry.
The whole thing is just complicated and it's easy to fall into a pitfall, especially if you're new.
Comment has been collapsed.
im not 100% sure, but i think i have even fallen into winning the same game twice.. or it may of been i bought the bundle just prior to the win, but just requested reroll and had no problems.
i understand how easy it actually is to win the same game twice though, and being new and don't really even know about the fact that there is support, you may just think to mark it received cause it was sent to you. then a year later your an active forum goer who reads that was a boo boo. after that year has gone by its not easy at all to undo the mistake, especially if gifter is no longer active, but even if they are its a hassle the gifter may not want to deal with.
Comment has been collapsed.
Multiple wins of the same game are an infraction that entails a 5 day suspension (see this page for more). The problem is that there's practically no documentation to help users avoid this infraction, and it can be very difficult to fix. My recommendation for fellow SGTools GA creators is to not configure your filters to check for multiple wins, but to do it manually after the GA ends, taking into account when the infractions were made and how many times. A user with 1 multiple win 3 years ago is obviously not as a "bad" as a user with 5 multiple wins this year. You may decide to skip reporting the former, but it would be unreasonable to not report the latter. In any case if your winner has multiple wins you can always ask for a reroll (select category Other). Whether it's approved mostly depends on whether they already served suspension for that infraction.
A couple of clarifications based on the discussion so far:
last_multiple_win <= date_modify(date('now'),'-1 years')- I used this for a while, but then decided to drop any automated check for multiple wins. I still check manually, and decide on a case by case basis whether to ask for a reroll.Related: How to avoid and fix multiple wins
O.GAEnded.Comment has been collapsed.