Dun Dun...
Looks at users profile
DDDDDUUUUNNNNNNNNNN
Comment has been collapsed.
100+ wins more that given=blacklist
i don't care if you give away only bad rats or only AAA games just fkn give something back
Comment has been collapsed.
I only blacklist people who I see being dicks on the forum.. especially those who get aggressive, abusive or threatening. If someone doesn't give away games that is fine with me, the level system is there for a reason and I don't care if someone wins something from me who has never given anything away. I actually don't even check.
As for people who get upset when they see someone only gives away in private groups - a lot of my giveaways are in private groups, however, all of my wins that weren't large developer giveaways, are also from private groups, I enter very few public giveaways, so I think it's hard to judge someone just because they give away in private groups.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, but someone like me, I'd notice the wins as well, meaning there's no real reason to blacklist you.
I've seen others that do the same, pretty much only give AND receive from their group(s)
And you also do have a decent number of public ones as well... I try to be fairly liberal.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't blacklist based on won/sent ratio. However, if you do have ~700 games on your account, from which 82 are won here while sent like 5 yourself, AND and on top of that you do stupid shit... Sorry, no more free games for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
+ Effin' 1.
I couldn't care less about win ratio.
It's the mindset / attitude of some people that really bugs me first and foremost, especially when they go out of their way to antagonize everyone and their dog and then use some half-assed excuse to act all holier than thou, such as people are assholes and such and such, in the broadest of terms... and expect other people to be nice to them or else... those other people are part of the elistist assholes per their own flawed biased rationale.
One does not need to be a push-over or a kiss-ass to refrain from using broad demeaning labels placing the entirety of the community (or pretty darn close) in that said demeaning label. There is still plenty of middle-ground. People who refuse to acknowledge this and still act entitled are pretty much the only ones ending on my sh... blacklist, besides the obvious scammers or serious rule-breakers like re-gifters and such.
Oh and beggars. Sorry, but this is SteamGifts, not SteamFood or SteamShelter, so... NOPE. Not from me.
Comment has been collapsed.
"If I want to make sure that my GA goes smoothly I just set the CV to lv1 (because it means that a person entering made at least one GA that had been marked as received and by doing so he/she knows how the site works)."
This
At least try to reach lv 1 for much more giveaways open.
Comment has been collapsed.
A leecher for me is someone who is just here to take and not giving anything in return.
High differences between gifts sent and won is a variable, but not always.
Someone who only makes group giveaways but still takes from publi giveaways is a leecher to me, because he only gives to a hand full of people and takes from everyone.
Someone who is registered for a long time and only created a giveaway or two at the beginning to raise his cv is a leecher.
Someone who never made a giveaway is a leecher of course.
Someone before said that when someone won more than he gifted could be just lucky. Depends. If he never did a giveaway in 3 years or just 3, that's clearly leeching.
And yes, I blacklist as much as I can, because I don't want them to win anything anymore, at least from me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I honestly thought I was the only one that blacklisted the "give only to group, take from public" high level users... Looks like there are a few more than me around.
And like I said in an earlier post, I even try to give benefit of the doubt, but in some cases it's just so clear what the person is about.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's something I decided recently since I saw that this was actually a thing. They only give to groups to have the permission to stay and get triple AAA titles in return. PLUS they have a high level and still enter public giveaways.
I could rant about it for days...
Comment has been collapsed.
That's actually an interesting point: is someone who only creates group-specific giveaways a leecher if they enter into and win public giveaways? I'd say so, but I'm still unsure as to whether I'd blacklist them for it.
I don't agree with much anything else, but that one point is something I hadn't considered.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have much money and I feel bad about giving games to ppl that don't deserve it. I am not promoting anything nor do I advertise anything so I do care where the game goes to. That's why I blacklist ppl very fast on here.
Comment has been collapsed.
And who doesn't deserve it? How can you justify the claim that someone doesn't deserve generosity? What determines whether someone deserves generosity?
Comment has been collapsed.
Behaviour for example in the forum. The obvious ones: Begging or being plain dumb and annoying.
Here is a good example: I recently had a bunch of giveaways going and had those thank bots everywhere since I had several giveaways going I was able to see who was using a script or was just unoriginal. I looked at every profile and the perfect example is a guy that was registered for 3 years. Gave away 3 games at the beginning adding to maybe 100$ (profile worth, the actual cv is less) and won over 1000$ in the course of his membership. When I can do giveaways with only 60 bucks after paying the bills and buying food why can't he do it? I consider this exploting since all the gifts are from real people who paid real money. I handle this the same way in real life you give to receive and vice versa.
I am on the cellphone right now and have a headache so I'm not at the peak of my eloquence ti explain myself. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
And what defines "dumb" or "annoying"? Why should your mood determine whether someone deserves your generosity? That may be a common attitude, but I'd argue it's irrational.
Why should it matter if he is able to give away, or if he even wants to? Why should there be an obligation or requirement for the user to give away games and spend what little money they have left on others? Even if they are loaded with enough money to buy every game on Steam, why should they be required to give away? It may be appropriate and desired from them, but I don't see why they should be required to. You do, but that is your decision and you have no obligation to do so. If you simply stopped and started spending your money on other things (or if you started donating that money to charity instead of buying games for people), should you be blacklisted by others? Why should others be required to follow your lead or risk blacklisting if they don't conform to your liking? I don't see how that's exploitation.
If you'd prefer to respond later, you can. This thread probably won't go anywhere anytime soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
At the end of the day, it's only his (or my, or anyone's) blacklist though. I'm not banning people from the site, just choosing which people I do not want to give to...
Maybe someone blacklists all people with cat or dog avatars, is that fair? Sure it is, if they don't want to give to that person.
Am I obligated to give cash to every bum I see? No. But if I see one I want to give to, I will.
Blacklists are ALL a personal choice, people are just offended because they don't like hearing they don't live up to someone else's standards.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think it's fair at all. Like I have said before, it may be their right to do so, but exercising one's right is not always right. Just because it is the decision of the blacklister, that in no way justified their decisions. There is no ethical justification for blacklisting so arbitrarily and as far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than discrimination and powertripping.
Am I obligated to give cash to every bum I see? No. But if I see one I want to give to, I will.
Yes, and that is exactly the justification for why people are not required to give away. However, if you're going to donate to a homeless shelter, it's not right (nor is it allowed) to choose which homeless people are not allowed to benefit from your donations.
Blacklists are ALL a personal choice, people are just offended because they don't like hearing they don't live up to someone else's standards.
Of course it's a "personal choice", but so is brutally murdering your dog and robbing a bank. Your point? People are offended because it is unjust and unethical behavior. I don't give a shit if I qualify by some random stranger's arbitrary standards. I do care, however, when they use these fallacious excuses to justify their discrimination and abuse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, you're one of "those" Someone who feels it's their right to tell me how MY money should be spent.
There is no ethical reason for leeching either, it's nothing more than trying to get over on others and getting things for nothing, while being useless to the community. I also wouldn't allow a child rapist around children, is that "discriminating"? You probably think so. ("Oh, there's no bad people, just bad choices")
NewFlash for you. Life isn't Fair. And it won't EVER be. You and I will NEVER agree, it won't happen... I assure you, been there with you people, and done that. Yes, to you, I'm obligated to give whatever I have to whomever YOU want me to? Hardly. How utterly pretentious of you to attempt to judge what others legally and rightfully do with their own coin.
You then compare legal and unimportant actions like blacklisting to killing animals and robbing banks? The two are completely unalike. That sir, was a complete fail.
Personally I LOVE IT when sensitive people are offended by my words or actions. Because the next thing they get to hear is they have the right to be offended, and I have the right to not care that they are. Being offended entitles you to nothing. NOTHING. (I know that's probably alien to you, but that's how it goes) Perhaps they should get a thicker skin, the world is hard on the weak.
I'll continue to both blacklist and whitelist by my own personal choice for whatever reason I deem worthy, as the tool(s) are intended to be used. And I encourage others to freely do whatever they feel comfortable with. It's YOUR choice, NO ONE else's.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, you're one of "those" Somebodies who would rather jump to conclusions and clump people into strawman stereotypes of your own personal caricaturing because you refuse to actually respond like a mature adult, and choose to misrepresent your opponent's argument instead.
No, I feel like you should behave like an ethical and responsible individual who won't blacklist like a crybaby child just because a certain color or word triggers you. "Leeching" doesn't require ethical justification because they are the recipients of others' generosity. What you call "leeching" is just entering into giveaways and winning them. If anything, it sounds like you're just bitter that you aren't as lucky, but that would be a mischaracterization now, would it? So-called "leechers" serve a vital role in the community as being recipients of gifts. Whether they contribute is inessential because there is no requirement or obligation to do so. It is preferred, yes, but preference does not (and should not) translate into prohibition.
I also wouldn't allow a child rapist around children, is that "discriminating"? You probably think so. ("Oh, there's no bad people, just bad choices")
The internal errors of your example aside, comparing a child rapist (someone who is a malicious threat to children) being allowed around children to someone winning games without giving any away is so absurd that I wonder if you're trolling. I won't even bother refuting that since anyone with a brain would realize that you just made yourself look like a fool.
So you first argue that it is fair to blacklist whomever you want. Now, you're trying to justify this unfairness? How pathetic can you get? Yes, life is unfair, so this justifies lynching blacks and beating up cripples. The unfairness of life is not, nor is it ever, a justification for unfair conduct. It's a specious excuse that attempts to rationalize abuse as somehow natural.
You then compare legal and unimportant actions like blacklisting to killing animals and robbing banks? The two are completely unalike. That sir, was a complete fail.
My comparison was meant to illustrate that your point about it being a "personal choice" does not justify blacklisting whomever you please anymore than it justifies animal abuse and bank robbery. Likewise, my comparison above of lynching blacks and beating cripples as being justified because "life is unfair" is meant to show that, yet again, you rely on empty rhetoric to validate a position you probably already know is unjustified. I say you probably already know it because so far, you're just backpedaling and switching your arguments in rapidfire succession. You don't defend your points, you just keep throwing shit until it sticks. Every time, I strike them down, but you continue with your fallacious argumentation. If you don't actually try, this conversation is through.
And before you try to use my arguments against me, my extreme comparisons are appropriate and valid because they properly indicate the flaws in your reasoning. Your child rapist example, meanwhile, failed to accomplish this and is moreover misrepresents my argument by misconstruing it as arguing for malicious threats to be given free access to abuse others. I'm not. I'm pointing out that so-called "leechers" are not malicious whatsoever and that you are unfairly discriminating against people who won games (but haven't given any away) for no reason outside of your own bitter discontent. Seeing as you have already exhibited the logical integrity and coherence of a schizophrenic, however, I don't expect you to pick up on these nuanced distinctions.
Personally I LOVE IT when sensitive people are offended by my words or actions. Because the next thing they get to hear is they have the right to be offended, and I have the right to not care that they are. Being offended entitles you to nothing. NOTHING. (I know that's probably alien to you, but that's how it goes) Perhaps they should get a thicker skin, the world is hard on the weak.
Oh, so you're a petty troll who gets a kick out of being an unmitigated asshole. Yeah, this "conversation" is definitely through. Don't bother responding and don't expect one in return.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah so leeching requires no justification but I have to justify my personal preferences to a nitwit? As usual YOU are the one making no sense, but I can only assume you're so used to hearing yourself talk you can't accept anyone else's point of view. But I already pegged you there earlier hadn't I?
And I KNEW you'd say my example was absurd but your equal example is valid, (comparing criminal activity to blacklisting on steamgifts) and now you're attempting to tie ME to YOUR ideas of lynching blacks and beating up cripples? Those are YOUR words, not mine. I literally might feel sorry for you if you weren't such a sad example of why it's a shame we protect idiots from natural selection. Apparently you're just bitter you have ZERO power in whether people blacklist or not, and you know you've already lost, no matter how hard you struggle to gain a foothold. I detect the strong stench of real life loser in you, and unfortunately, it's seeping through your keyboard and monitor screen.
Perhaps you should go create a whole bunch of nice AAA give aways for the poor helpless leeching community... But wait, let me guess... that's OUR job, you can't be expected to put your money where your fetid mouth is.
You'll have to point out where there is any 'back pedaling" or switching arguments as I have staunchly held that it is people's right to use both the blacklist AND the whitelist however they see fit, and that, is the ONLY point of this whole conversation. Are you just using buzzwords without knowing their meaning? It seems so. Or maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension. YOU are the one attempting to turn it into a lynching or a bank robbery to deflect the fact you can not win.
If I cared about my personal wins compared to my contributions don't you think I could just stop doing any contributions and only "enter"? Don't look now, there's another big hole in your "argument"
So I'm an "asshole" OK, I can accept that. I'm sure anyone who disagrees with you MUST be an asshole, but I'd rather be that than a limp-dicked embittered loser that deludes himself into thinking he can abolish the social injustices of the Steamgifts blacklist. And I don't blame you for cutting and running, you won't win. People will still blacklist on their own terms no matter how much you whine and shout "Unfair" like a spoiled three year old hearing the word 'No" for the first time.
Good Luck with that crusade, I predict you lose... but you're likely used to it.
Comment has been collapsed.
You made sense and seemed reasonable in the first two comments. This made a vast turn.
Comment has been collapsed.
The point at which people deliberately resort to fallacies, personal attacks, and misrepresenting their opponents' arguments is the point at which I cease to respect them. I've had a long day and the last thing I need is some troll triggered by my goading to start making me sound like some sanctimonious fraud.
Sorry about the hostilities. Not to him, but to everyone else who had to deal with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know about you, but I am not here to take donation or alms (I've certainly taken more than given).
Taken from FAQ:
Who is giving away all these games?
All giveaways on our site are provided by users in the community. Users manage their own giveaways, choose when they start, when they end, and who is able to enter. Once their giveaway ends, a random winner is generated by our site, and the giveaway creator receives the necessary information to contact the winner in order to send the gift.
Comment has been collapsed.
What is your point, exactly? I am fully aware of the FAQ. It doesn't conflict with anything I've said. The FAQ and Rules & Guidelines provide basic conditions for using the site, short explanations of how the site works for newcomers, and a few recommendations to consider when using the site. It does not cover the ethics or propriety of properly exercising one's rights on the site, nor does it cover any sort of code of conduct among the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know, just thought you may have mistaken what the site serves as to have compared it with donation to homeless shelter, based on my interpretation at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate your concern and I'm glad you're trying to remind people of the site's purpose according to the FAQ. I am aware of this, and have my own views on it which I've stated at various points. Like I explained below, it was just an analogy to represent that this is a giveaway site and we shouldn't be excluding people from our generosity just because of some vague, unjustified excuse. From below:
It was an analogy. Of course they're different things. But fine, I'll explicate: this is a giveaway site. You give away games, which are like donations. Entrants are potential recipients who wish to receive your generosity. By blacklisting select people without justification, you are undermining the very purpose of this site and the very giveaways you create. Your generosity is hollow if you filter out people based on your arbitrary, subjective criteria.
That was the point I was trying to make to him. If you'd like my personal views on the role of a giveaway site and whatnot, I recommend seeing my response below.
Comment has been collapsed.
i agree. i don't understand why people keep complaining about blacklists. it's as simple as understanding that they are managed by users. there are NO rules or guidelines to follow. you blacklist whoever you want, for any reason you find valid.
what's fair for some, won't be fair for others. just learn to tolerate other's choices and move on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because it's your right, that doesn't mean it's always right to exercise it. I recommend reading my posts for an elaboration on this. You can also find more in my old thread about this.
Comment has been collapsed.
no amount of philosophical talk will change my mind, sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
And what makes that any different from bigotry or closed-mindedness? Isn't an unwillingness to consider other opinions and change your mind those by definition? I'm not trying to insult you here. I'm pointing out that what you said implies a very unhealthy attitude about things.
Comment has been collapsed.
actually, it's very healthy. it prevents me getting involved into these nonsense discussions.
Comment has been collapsed.
That doesn't even make sense. It's healthy to be a closed-minded bigot because it prevents your views from being challenged and it keeps you from participating in discussions? That also sounds rather antisocial as well.
If you have a problem with a discussion, then change it by bringing forth criticisms and guiding the discussion through your own contributions. If you wish to criticize the discussion itself as pointless or "nonsense", then initiate a metadiscussion and challenge the value of the discussion itself. Simply avoiding it to ensure ideological complacency just renders your opinion on the matter irrelevant.
Comment has been collapsed.
i don't even know what you meant with all that. please stop talking to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then maybe you should choose to think about what I said. But fine:
It is not healthy to be closed-minded or bigoted because being that way causes your opinions and views to go unchallenged. It also keeps you from having discussions. This means you cannot improve your views and it can be seen as antisocial, too.
If you think a discussion is pointless or "nonsense", then you should tell people that by criticizing the discussion itself. People can then discuss whether the discussion is worth having. If it is decided that it is not, then those people will stop discussing it. If it is found that it is something worth discussing, though, then people will continue and hopefully you will join in. Avoiding any discussions and not voicing your opinion about things just makes your opinion worthless.
This will be my final response, but I am trying to make things clear to you. Hopefully, I did. Have a good day.
Comment has been collapsed.
CyberEvil already gave you the answer I would have given you and you alredy stated it yourself.
"Why should your mood determine whether someone deserves your generosity?"
It is my money and the games I giveaway are provided by myself unlike someone who is giving away free games or is regifting, which is against the rules and only happens when people want to raise their CV to have better chances at winning games.That is self-enrichment and doesn't contribute to the community.
I handle this website like I handle everything else. If I consider someone not worth my time I am not obliged to keep contact or endure their behaviour. I am the one who decides who is worth my time or in this case: My money, which is even more worth then time, although people say time is money.
I don't blacklist when someone likes anime, which I don't, or when they went on a rant, as long as they can provide rational arguments. I act reasonable.
I trashed the naïvety that everyone is good and deserves the right to be treated good long ago.
Like I said I contribute with the little money I have and games can be bought that only cost 0,24€ on Steam or bundles for 1$ which contain several games sometimes even triple AAA titles. What reason would somebody have to not even do such a small giveaway when they buy games like GTAV for themselves?
Groups require you to give away certain amounts of games with a certain amount of value for you to remain a member and weirdly enough this seems to be perfectly reasonable, mostly because it provides you with better games and higher chances to win.
Gifting publicly means you don't simultaneously have (very) high chances of winning more, so why bother, right?
If everyone would follow your arguments noone would give away games anymore. The few people, considering the amount of people at lvl 0 and the inactive users, that give away games are the only reason you, I and everyone else can even enter giveaways.
You fail to see the point that those games were bought by people from all over the world, some have a lot of money, some have almost nothing and leechers are here to take those games, diminishing the chances for every fair user that understands the concept of this community.
I have looked at your profile and I already told you about my financial situation. What are you spending your money for? How old are you? What is it that makes you unable to spend 24 cents on a game?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, CyberEvil decided to take the whole "let's insult and call names" route, so I abandoned trying to discuss anything with him.
It is my money and the games I giveaway are provided by myself unlike someone who is giving away free games or is regifting, which is against the rules and only happens when people want to raise their CV to have better chances at winning games.That is self-enrichment and doesn't contribute to the community.
I don't condone regifters and those who break the rules. I actually explicitly stated that those are the only people who deserve to be blacklisted and considered leechers since they leech the system by exploiting the very foundation of the site (more in my post linked above).
My point here was that if someone annoys you, why should you blacklist them simply because of your mood? People can be annoying but otherwise upstanding, involved users. Anyway, you may be annoyed through no fault of their own, and you may simply be in a bad mood. I was trying to illustrate that you may be unfairly blacklisting people because you think they're "dumb" for whatever reason or they annoyed you. Why shouldn't they blacklist you in return?
Blacklisting regifters and rule breakers is different because the blacklisting is justified on the premise that they are exploiting the system and generosity of others, and defying the very rules which govern the community. Many users blacklist for no other reason than the person's avatar being about a game they don't like, or because someone posted a meme that makes their eyebrow twitch. I don't think that's appropriate, and I'm wondering if you do that. if you do, I'd like to hear your reasoning for doing so.
I trashed the naïvety that everyone is good and deserves the right to be treated good long ago.
I don't see how that's relevant. My point, in case you were wondering, is that everyone deserves an equal opportunity to be a recipient of your generosity so long as there is no justification for depriving them of that. If your justification is that they annoy you or something else of that minor magnitude, then this seems rather unfair and unjust toward them, not to mention hardly any justification at all. Yes, it's your gifts and your money, but that doesn't automatically mean it's right to deprive people of the opportunity to benefit from it. Exercising your right is not always right.
Yes, it's also your right to do this, but that does not you need to exercise it out of spite or discontent for them. I'll reiterate my example above: if you're going to donate to a homeless shelter, it's wrong to choose which homeless people are not allowed to benefit from your donations. Just because one beggar so happened to be grumpy that day, that doesn't mean it's right of you to single out that fellow and deprive him of benefiting from your generosity. At that point, is it really even generosity? When you donate and give a gift, it's to anyone who wants it, not who you want to have it. If you wanted it that way, then you should pick someone you like and give them a game rather than trying to give it away to anyone who flies under your blacklisting radar or is lucky enough to not catch you during a bad day.
What reason would somebody have to not even do such a small giveaway when they buy games like GTAV for themselves?
Why should it matter? It's their decision to do what they want with their money, just as you can decide to do what you want with yours. You decide to buy games to give away. If another user rarely spends money on others and usually spends only on himself, but he is not breaking any rules and not regifting or trading away what he won, why should it matter what he does with his expendable funds? If you're blacklisting people off their financial decisions, that seems rather inappropriate to me. I don't think it's really your place to be discriminating against others based off their personal finances, especially when you don't even know what they actually are.
Groups require you to give away certain amounts of games with a certain amount of value for you to remain a member and weirdly enough this seems to be perfectly reasonable, mostly because it provides you with better games and higher chances to win.
It's reasonable to some, and usually only to those who participate in it. I consider it misusing the site as a sort of elitist gambling den and I would consider that bordering on leeching behavior if no public giveaways are created.
Gifting publicly means you don't simultaneously have (very) high chances of winning more, so why bother, right?
Because public giveaways are the essence and guiding force keeping this site alive. (I get that some of these are probably rhetorical questions, but I might as well answer them anyway.)
If everyone would follow your arguments noone would give away games anymore.
I don't see how that makes sense at all. There are plenty of people who give away simply to give away out of the kindness of their hearts. I can name two off the top of my head right now, both of whom are friends of mine and active contributors on SteamGifts with over hundreds of confirmed giveaways. There are also other users who are major contributors to the site, but do so for more pragmatic reasons: they wish to participate in those gambling dens, or they wish to promote their product or group, or they wish to make a name for themselves. Still others give away solely to enter into higher-leveled giveaways. Note here that the incentive to giveaway is already encoded into the site, system, and community: the level system and how one earns the opportunity to access such giveaways. Unlike the threat of being blacklisted by users who consider them "leechers" or blackballed by groups who they think do not have a good enough ratio, the main impetus for giving away games lies in the very system itself. No community "enforcement" is needed.
The giveaway site would continue to thrive as usual, except there won't be this suffocating atmosphere of disdain for those who don't give away or fear of blacklisting for simply not giving enough away. This new environment would be more conducive to a healthy community, since users do not have to worry about being mistreated for simply being new, poor, or opinionated. Additionally, it may even foster more giveaways because the more people win and enjoy their experiences on the site, the more likely they will feel the desire to give back. That's why I did, back when I still believed in this community.
You fail to see the point that those games were bought by people from all over the world, some have a lot of money, some have almost nothing and leechers are here to take those games, diminishing the chances for every fair user that understands the concept of this community.
And what is "the concept of this community"? I'd reiterate my own opinion, but I've already explained my position on this before, above, and below. But no, I do see that point. You seem to believe that these "leechers" are some pervasive, ominous demographic majority which will overtake everyone once the contempt for them stops. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of Lv. 0 users are a minority and even if they aren't, it's obvious that the community and site is thriving despite their existence.
Ending the hostilities could only breed further altruism, whereas continued hostilities only breed further resentment. The hostilities serve no purpose, though, because in the end, those who will not give away will not, those who do continue to do so, and those who might... Might, but there's a better chance they will if they receive a positive experience from the site rather than elitist members treating them like modern-day lepers.
You can terrorize and abuse your children, friends, and family to force them to do what you want. Some of them may supplicate and give into your demands, but many will grow to hate you and won't help you when you need it the most. Perhaps if this community stopped beating their SG children, friends, and family, we can start to return the giveaway site we once were.
What are you spending your money for? How old are you? What is it that makes you unable to spend 24 cents on a game?
Does it really matter? I can tell you my sob story and lament my poverty, too, but in the end I am a leecher to many, maybe even you. It doesn't matter how rich or poor I am, since apparently all that matters is the ratio on my profile and the giveaways extorted out of me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't mean to be disrespectful but you to fail to be objective and consider other user's opinions and arguments as valid. You are subjective about this matter.
You even go on to suggest that I choose reasons for blacklisting that I haven't mentioned. I am old enough and have experienced enough (that's why I mentioned the naivety) to know the difference between mood-related annoyance and people who are trolling or disturbing the community.
I wouldn't mind being blacklisted by someone in return or for the same reasons I choose to blacklist someone.
You basically rob me of my free will and say that I shouldn't be allowed to decide about my giveaways, if this would be the case I wouldn't create giveaways at all. Yes, what people consider right isn't always right, but if someone decides to tattoo "faggot" on their forehead it is still their decision and it is inevitable in some cases that people will do this. It is their life they are handling not yours.
Of course this is an extreme argument, but you hopefully get the point rather than trying to come up with an counter argument.
You also compared blacklisting to unlawful activities while talking to CyberEvil. It isn't against the rules to blacklist someone and it is a user specific decision everyone is making for themselves.
If someone decides to blacklist me just for my username I wouldn't bother. It is their decision, not mine. Is it reasonable? Maybe not. Would it be legit to argue that I am allowed to enter every giveaway no matter if I am considered a bad person, or not? Definitely not.
Furthermore you said that leeches are an important part of this community as they are the recipiants of the giveaways.Does this require any money or work? No. Are they gaining profit and getting something for free for doing nothing? Yes.
I can't help you if you consider leeches that important when it's the creators of giveaways that are upholding this community.
You don't want to openly discuss your financial situation and reasons why you don't create giveaways, which is fine for me, but also it is obvious that you have a weak spot why you won't eloborate here.
You have more games than me, even when I count my Xbox 360 games that I have collected over the course of 4 to 5 years plus all the iPhone games I bought and yet you talk about poverty. Which is exaggerated since you are not homless, are you? Also donating to a homeless shelter and giving away games on this website are two different things. People registered here aren't as much in need as someone who is homeless. In fact, homeless people get donations to cover basic needs. Games are a luxury item, noone needs videogames to survive.
It was nice talking to you, but when you won't even discuss a topic objectively I don't see the point to go on.
I have made my point.
Comment has been collapsed.
I love you bro, but you're wasting your time.
Anything you say will be considered invalid by him. Like you, I very carefully decide who I blacklist. I actually don't even have to worry about level 0 users as I abandoned level 0 give aways altogether. But then, using THAT tool is clearly going to be unfair too.
In the end, they were provided by the site to be used or unused by the individuals themselves, and it will continue to be so after the last word is said in this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
I love you too! That's why I whitelisted you. I will probably only consider whitelist giveaways in the future so welcome to the list!
I know, I totally agree and this is why that post was the last one I wrote. I thought the "I made my point" was a clear ending to my discussion. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I have been "objective" this entire time. Unless you're operating off some unique definition that isn't universally accepted, I find your accusation to be patently and demonstrably false. In fact, it's rather absurd for you to accuse me of being "subjective" when you literally defended your position by appealing to your own personal feelings and moods. I have not once "based [my arguments] on", nor were they "influenced by" any "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." My arguments have "not [been] influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." Those are the definitions of subjective and objective, respectively, by the way. Any instances which may have been subjectively influences are also supported by objective analysis (which you conveniently failed to address), so I'm confident that I have not employed any specious reasoning.
You explicitly stated that, verbatim, "If I consider someone not worth my time I am not obliged to keep contact or endure their behaviour." This clearly indicates that you are basing your arguments on, or they are influenced by, "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". That is subjectivity by definition.
You even go ... trolling or disturbing the community.
I suggest those reasons because that appears to be what you're implying. Instead of assuming malice, you should correct me and defend your position. You said, verbatim, that (at least some of) your reasons for blacklisting people are: "Behaviour for example in the forum. The obvious ones: Begging or being plain dumb and annoying." That is the entirety of your position thus far regarding why you blacklist people and who you blacklist, so that is the only information off which I can work. If this didn't accurately represent your position, then you either should have clarified then, or you should have clarified now. You did not, so I still have no reason to assume that your position is any different except that you claim it is not.
I wouldn't mind being blacklisted by someone in return or for the same reasons I choose to blacklist someone.
You miss my point. I'm trying to show that if someone blacklisted you based on the same or similar arbitrary criteria you have imposed on them, it would be unjust because they did not treat you fairly. They abused their blacklisting power to effectively deprive you of opportunities and charity simply because you didn't conform to their capricious standards and fickle misconduct. If you do not personally care, then that is your own subjective opinion of it. Since we are discussing general ethics and propriety, your personal response to that particular incident is only meaningful in the scope of your conduct. It has no impact on the rest of the community, nor does it represent the rest of the community.
You basically rob me of my free will and ... I wouldn't create giveaways at all.
No, I am holding you accountable for your behavior and conduct on the site. You still have the right to blacklist whomever you please. Nobody is stopping you and I'm not advocating that you shouldn't be allowed this right. Like I have already explained before, though, what matters here is whether your blacklisting behaviors are right, not whether they are a right. If you would not create giveaways because you would prefer to abuse your right and do not wish to be held accountable for that abuse, then that is your decision. I will still hold people accountable for their decisions, though, and challenge them when they are rash, unjustified, or unjust.
Yes, what people consider right isn't always right, but if ... are handling not yours.
What's your point here? Yes, of course it's one's right, but that's the entire foundation of my argument: just as it's wrong to unjustifiably blacklist someone, it's wrong to tattoo a slur on your forehead. it's their decision, just as it is yours, but don't be surprised when people criticize you for your poor choices.
And by the way, my point was that exercising your right is not always right. In other words, just because you have the right to do something, that right does not justify your exercising it in every circumstance. I have the right to free speech, and yet I and many others would say that it's inappropriate to shout ethnic or racial slurs at a children during recess. I believe you misread my message.
You also compared blacklisting to ... everyone is making for themselves.
I already explained my comparisons above. If you considered the context of those comparisons, I'd like to think you'd realize that my point wasn't to equate blacklisting with illicit activities, but to refute and reveal the sophistry of his arguments. I have never once said that blacklisting is illegal or against the rules. That's absurd.
Would it be legit to argue that I am allowed to enter every giveaway no matter if I am considered a bad person, or not? Definitely not.
Fortunately, I never argued anything even remotely of the sort, so there's no contention here.
Furthermore you said that leeches are an important part of this community as ... free for doing nothing? Yes.
Firstly, I don't believe I have argued that anywhere in this thread, and probably not anywhere else. If I did, then that is not my belief now, nor do I think it ever was. Secondly, you have yet to justify why lack of contribution (which I assume you mean to be lack of giveaways) qualifies as "leeching" and how this translates into a justification to blacklist them. If you are not attempting to justify the blacklisting of so-called "leeches" or noncontributors, then there is little else to discuss in this department.
I can't help you if you consider leeches that important when it's the creators of giveaways that are upholding this community.
Again, I don't believe I said that. Perhaps you misunderstood some of my statements which were meant to imply that recipients are essential to a giveaway site. "Leechers" are a type of recipient which does not give back. They are essential by virtue of being recipients, but their status as so-called "leechers". Contributors are also essential, but if there are no recipients, there is no one to contribute or give to.
You don't want to openly discuss your financial situation ... a weak spot why you won't eloborate here.
It's not a weak spot. It's irrelevant to this discussion and shouldn't matter anyway. I have nothing to hide, but I simply refuse to give you ammunition by trying to use my life as justification for extorting gifts from me. If I can afford a giveaway and I wish to give, I will. It is my decision, just as it is yours. Otherwise, it's simply none of your concern. Regardless, my relative poverty should not hold any weight in your judgments. I'm not seeking sympathy, nor am I interested in divulging my life here. If you're so interested, find my thread about blacklisting. I mentioned my financial state multiple times there. If you need a hint, consider why I chose "poverty" as the sole descriptor of my wealth.
Comment has been collapsed.
(SG character limit)
You have more games ... and yet you talk about poverty.
I have been given Steam Wallet gift cards by relatives before, long before I had discovered giveaway sites, so that money is gone now. Most of my games also come from friends who bought them for me, as well as from bundles I received for my volunteer work at another site (I'm not even compensated anymore, so now I do it for free). I have never begged. I have simply had generous people, I have won a number of giveaways, I watch for every free game during a promotional event (where the bulk of my games came from), and I have worked to earn bundles.
My game library is none of your business, nor should it be any of your concern. If it makes you feel any better, most of my games are from free promotional events and I'll probably never play them. Having a multitude of negatively reviewed, free trash nobody wants isn't anything spectacular.
But why am I trying to justify any of this to you? It has no relevance and if anything, I feel like you're trying to mislead the discussion and cast a suspicious eye on me. It's best if you keep to the topic rather than let your subjective prejudices interfere.
Also donating to a homeless shelter and giving away games on this website are two different things. People registered here aren't as much in need as someone who is homeless. In fact, homeless people get donations to cover basic needs. Games are a luxury item, noone needs videogames to survive.
It was an analogy. Of course they're different things. But fine, I'll explicate: this is a giveaway site. You give away games, which are like donations. Entrants are potential recipients who wish to receive your generosity. By blacklisting select people without justification, you are undermining the very purpose of this site and the very giveaways you create. Your generosity is hollow if you filter out people based on your arbitrary, subjective criteria.
It was nice talking to you, but when you won't even discuss a topic objectively I don't see the point to go on.
I have, and if anything this appears to be more a case of accusing your opponent of your own faults.
I have made my point.
And I have refuted every one of them. Your turn.
I recommend starting with defining "leecher" and explaining your exact rationale for blacklisting, and who you typically blacklist (and under what conditions or criteria), so as to prevent further confusion. Then, it would be ideal in convincing me if you justify your position with logic and reason by constructing a cogent argument on why it's ethical and appropriate for people to blacklist however and whomever they please. Focus on building this argument and ensuring it's strong rather than contradicting my claims with little to no substantiation. Remember, keep within the top three.
P.S. – I know you blacklisted me, just so you know. It's pretty pathetic and it only shows that you are incapable of handling criticism. You effectively proved my point.
Comment has been collapsed.
Trying to keep in the top three. I tried to show DownwardConcept respect by thoroughly analyzing he response, scrutinizing his every point, and refuting them in turn. Unfortunately, he has no interest in continuing this discussion and has chosen instead to blacklist me (which proves my point), misrepresent my argument, and mischaracterize my position. If only he'd be intellectually honest and civil about this, we could continue that exchange and hopefully conclude on some common understanding.
Comment has been collapsed.
the only point he has proven is that you bored him to death, and he chose to ignore you, like everyone else in here.
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't invalidate my arguments. I would even say that I doubt he left out of boredom. If anything, he disengaged because he didn't feel like having his opinion challenged or criticized. He'd rather voice his opinion, then step off the soapbox and walk away. He isn't entertaining any challenges, which renders his statements dogmatic.
I don't think you have the authority or right to speak for everyone else in the thread or on this site.
Comment has been collapsed.
your arguments are 100% valid, you won the internet and you beat everyone else in this site. have a happy life now.
Comment has been collapsed.
They're insincere and I don't believe you, and it doesn't matter if they're true, anyway. I don't care about "winning" anything. I care about getting people to think about their actions and make the right decisions. I likewise don't care about "beating" or outperforming anyone on this site, argumentatively or otherwise. I want what is best for SteamGifts and I hope that my criticisms encourage healthy site habits. Sorry, I'm not the shallow, eristic caricature you apparently believe me to be.
It doesn't matter if my arguments are completely valid if nobody reads or listens to them. A valid argument is only valuable if it is considered. Otherwise, it's just useless text on a screen. I'm trying to be a contributing member of SteamGifts here, so why are you so hostile toward it?
Anyway, I thought you didn't want to talk to me anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
Never blacklisted somebody because of the win/gifted ratio and don't plan to, however, if I notice somebody who won hundreds of games here, given nothing (or almost nothing months/years ago) and has all the newest AAA titles/plenty of keys or gifts in the inventory, "that's not nice" does pop in my head. If you can't give anything, that's ok for me. If you barely use the site, that's ok too. But if you get a lot from a community, you should consider giving something back imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
ok, you see one day the fourth guy, that got lvl1 with giving away a free game and already won 50 or 60 games.....but blacklisting for that fact....hmmm. Meanwhile i think it´s pointless to make a lvl1-GA, so at least lvl2 would make sense,,,on the other hand i still wish i could exclude my whitelist from any level-restrictions.
Comment has been collapsed.
"on the other hand i still wish i could exclude my whitelist from any level-restrictions."
+1 Agree!
Comment has been collapsed.
To me, a leecher is someone who takes without giving back. And I don't necessarily mean making giveaways of their own. I understand that some people do not have the means to make purchases online, especially the younger folks, but if they're active in the forums I consider them to be contributing to the community. (Although, with a bit of creativity, anyone could make enough bitcoins to grab a $1 bundle and contribute a game or two.)
I don't blacklist them unless they make asses of themselves, or I find they're using bots/auto-join scripts. However, I don't make many level-0 giveaways because too many times you end up with people not activating their win or not marking the game as received. I still try do do them once in a while to contribute to the whole of SG.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I met a couple of rude people on the discussions, but some of them proved me wrong later with further comments, sometimes people put a comment that may come as rude, but as they write some more you realize they aren't assholes.
I only have 1 guy in my blacklist, he made 2 GAs and didn't ever come back to steamgifts, so he left me and another guy without our gifts :/ (he has played Counter Strike and DOTA the next months so yeah... he just ditched this site altogether).
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't care if you have a 1:1000 ratio, or are giving more games than what you have received, but I hate people who just exploit free giveaways and give these games here (Playfire games like Cobi Treasure, Postal, Numba, etc)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with everything you've said.
I've never blacklisted anyone, except for someone I thought was a jerk but then realized I was misjudging them, so I quickly removed them from my blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you guys consider evilgod to be a leecher?
http://www.steamgifts.com/user/EvilGod
His profile here
Comment has been collapsed.
I find the term leecher is tossed around by people whose giveaways were mostly fueled by RU store prices and other price errors. And at the time they were being tossed around it was during the time where once you hit a certain point, bundle games were worthless CV wise.
Sometime I'm convinced people do things like high level GAs or big flashy ones just to show off how much money they can toss around than actually being generous.
With the new rules it's better if slower. I'd give away more if I thought there'd be real interest in them (as it is, most are just good for padding out collections)
Comment has been collapsed.
Leechers don't exist. "Leecher" is an arbitrary, nebulous term used to justify blacklisting those with few giveaways. It's a term meant to rationalize spiteful behavior toward a group of people who so happen to win giveaways. This is a giveaway site and its function to serve as a platform for people to give away to others. This function is based on generosity and philanthropy; you give away out of the kindness of your own heart. Those who win the giveaways are recipients of the gift. They are neither required nor obligated to reciprocate the altruism. It is encouraged, of course, but that is because altruism is what keeps the site alive. If someone never gives back, however, they are simply the recipient of gifts given by the benefactors who gave them.
Some people, usually those bitter and aggravated with what they perceive to be "leeching", disparage an entire demographic of people and categorize them as parasites on the system. What they fail to understand is that these "parasites" are what gives the site meaning. They are the less fortunate who receive the gifts of others. They are the eager denizens who frequent the site in the hopes of being the lucky winners of another's benevolence. If they become the benefactors, then great! But if they never do, why should it matter to you?
Unfortunately, people treat this site less like a place to give away and more like a gambling den. You don't give to others and hope to receive in return; you create your games and let others place their bets. If you don't pay your entrance fee, then you're blackballed like all the others who can't afford to play. This attitude has cause the site to become less of a community and more of an economy. People would rather gamble than give. If you're a good gambler, you're invited to an exclusive club for higher stakes. That's not a giveaway site. If you want to get games for giving games, then become a trader. This isn't a gambling site and your points aren't your chips.
So no, I don't believe leechers exist. The only ones who would qualify are those who exploit the system and take advantage of the generosity of others. Regifters and those who trade away the gifts they won... those are the leeches, the parasites, and the scum of the site if anyone deserves the title. Blacklist them for their wrongs, not the poor for their lack of giving.
Needless to say, I never have and never will blacklist someone for not giving anything (or enough) away. I only blacklist scammers, cheats, frauds, and regifters, or those whose toxicity pollutes the community. But if you simply win and never give back? Don't worry about it. Maybe some day, you will.
/rant
P.S. – As an aside, you could technically consider someone who doesn't contribute in any capacity while still winning giveaways to be a leecher. If they don't contribute by participating in the forums, commenting on giveaways, creating giveaways themselves, or anything outside of solely entering and winning giveaways, then I suppose that's a leecher. Even then, though, I wouldn't blacklist them. I'd rather them be more active, but they aren't really doing anything wrong, so I have no reason to penalize them for simply using the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
... those who exploit the system and take advantage of the generosity of others. Regifters and those who trade away the gifts they won... those are the leeches, the parasites, and the scum of the site if anyone deserves the title. Blacklist them for their wrongs, not the poor for their lack of giving.
^ This pretty much sums up the majority of my blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Whoops, your quote revealed a typo ("the won" → "they won"). I corrected it, but now your quote is outdated. I'm not trying to make you look bad, I promise!
Comment has been collapsed.
Looks like you aren't exactly less fortunate.. on the rhetoric side :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Depending if you are optimist or pessimist. Or maybe if I am optimist or pessimist due to approach reversal. What do you think?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I hate myself and I'm used to insults, so I tend to assume that. I would like to believe it's a compliment, but you could simply have been sarcastic. That and people usually "rhetoric" is usually used with a negative connotation in all but specific circumstances. I'm also tired, weary, and wary after a long, long day.
I'll take a leap of faith and assume it's a compliment, so thank you. I appreciate it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just whitelisted you. :)
I think I haven't blacklisted anyone yet.
What people consider a leech is subjective. And it's hard to know. Someone might have lost their job and can't make giveaways for sometime and there's no reason why they should stop entering the giveaways. And I believe the number of games someone has on it's account doesn't matter much. I for example won 12 games here and a bunch of games from my friends and sometimes my brother and my mother pay for my games. So in my case, I didn't buy all the games in my account. I don't make much money and everytime I buy a bundle I only buy the cheaper one (the 1 dollar tier). I can't afford more than that. But gave away all I could here so far (19 games). I don't have money to spend on the next summer sale, but I decided to sell my cards and other stuff from games, because I really want GTA V if it goes on sale. If i buy GTA V, it doesn't mean I'm rich and have money to spare. The same goes for the number of games in my account. It means nothing because I could have bought 100 games for 30 cents (and we know there's at least a couple every week).
I don't really care about all that. I rather think people are just like me, they giveaway what they can when they can. And when I can I'll certainly give more, but won't stop entering giveaways until then for sure. :)
P.S.: Sorry about any grammar mistakes. I'm from Brasil and English is my second language. There's also the fact that my mind is faster than my hands. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Your grammar is fine, actually. There's a few small technicalities, but nothing that really impacts your meaning. I can completely understand what you're saying. If you are ESL, you must have had a great teacher (or studied a lot).
I definitely agree with your sentiments, by the way. Just wanted to let you know your English is clear and easy to read, so don't worry about it!
Comment has been collapsed.
I assume that if people enter my giveaways, they have a reason. I do not know what that reason is and I do not usually care. Different people have different reasons for wanting to win a giveaway, some want the game really bad to play it, some are willing to take whatever they can get to play, some just want something because it's free (sort of), some collect games and will enter everything, and some have a gambling problem and entering giveaways is an addiction. As long as they follow the rules of this site, the rules of Valve's sites, the rules of the retailers, publishers, and developers of the games, and my rules for my giveaways, they can enter as they wish. I will not judge them.
I do not, however, believe that my standards for who is deserving of my giveaways should be forced upon others. Many others feel that some users that do not meet their criteria are not deserving. They each have their own standards and this is good. Let them limit their giveaways as they choose as long it is within the rules. These are, after all, their gifts to giveaway. This is not a government dole.
We have a wonderful tool in SteamGifts that allows us to do many things but it is not so flexible as to meet everyone's needs, no tool is. Using your Blacklist to prohibit those you do not think are deserving is fine, be it for poor ratios (# or CV), poor manners or etiquette, or just because you do not like their avatar. The same applies to creating Whitelist giveaways of only those special few who meet your standards - it's OK. Group restrictions are OK, Level restrictions are OK. It is all OK.
And if you find yourself excluded from a giveaway by someone because you do not meet his or her criteria, then good. Yes, good; it means that the system is working as it should.
Comment has been collapsed.
I generally agree, though I'm hesitant to endorse the idea of it being good or okay for users to blacklist whomever they want. Although it's their right and decision, I wouldn't consider it ethical behavior. If you blacklist someone just because of their avatar, wouldn't that make you no better than the person you blacklisted for poor etiquette?
Comment has been collapsed.
I've seen white power, Stalinist and nazi SS avatars being used...Any normal sane person would blacklist them in one heartbeat...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, many of them are likely trolls. I may not approve of those ideologies, but unless I have reason to believe they actually adhere to them, I'm not sure I'd blacklist them. Then again, if they are trolling, that alone may be terms for blacklisting. I'm not sure, I just haven't come across any such incident yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Using that kind of avatars IS de facto adhering to those kind of reprehensible ideologies and for me is an automatic blacklisting and Steam block... I put those on the same heap like trolls, spammers, scammers, beggars, and the like...
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps I should, too. I have no opinion yet, since I have not encountered any such incident. Anyway, thanks for your replies.
Comment has been collapsed.
No problem; in my blocked list on Steam there are avatars with SS runes, faces of Stalin and Hitler, KKK symbols. I'm certainly not saying they are wide spread but they do exist. I even hear that one of my friends even blocked and reported someone with the black ISIL flag.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's understandable.
Just for clarification, though, my criticism was aimed at those who blacklist someone for having an avatar they don't like that isn't a hate symbol. Something like a particular meme (or any memes, some of us hate them), or a certain game, or maybe just someone doesn't like on a whim. That happens sometimes, and people legitimately do blacklist others for an inoffensive avatar. I never considered hate symbols.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also a very reasonable view imo, couldn't agree more, as well. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
"Mainly, leeching is taking without giving."
I like that definition. The question isn't what leeching is, but rather if you should (or can?) blacklist people for doing it. I think it's a personal thing if somebody minds or doesn't mind giving games away without the recipient doing the same. Each to their own I'd say.
Comment has been collapsed.
I go by quality of games.
I've won 17 games, most of which are pretty good.
I've given away 153, most of which are crap (although some are quite good).
I'd say my good game ratio is far out of balance.
I'm a good-game leecher.
Comment has been collapsed.
Leecher is a word I don't think I've everr used on SG until now. Look what you're making me do! I wouldn't blacklist because of someone's won to given away ratio unless they agreed to a ratio when joining a group and ripped off that group.
I don't believe that there are many or any SG users that couldn't find a way to contribute something if they truly wanted to but it doesn't really bother me.
Comment has been collapsed.
A leecher in my terms is someone who takes more than they give. For example more 1 win and 0 created
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't added anyone to my blacklist. The only person I would have added tried using the game they won in a new giveaway and got a permanent ban.
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually give my games to friends who would appreciate it and put the remainders on Steamgifts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Inspired by http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/D5CPJ/blacklisting-botsleechers
I've seen tons of definition of "leecher", some of them are hilarious, some are just senseless...
according to you, what is a leecher ?
Let's discuss about the behavior of the random users X and Y.
X gifted 100 and received 150, is X a leecher ?
Y gifted 250 ONLY in private gift-exchange groups and received 200 (he won some public GA too), is Y a leecher ?
X has a script that posts a random thx-comment in every GA he joins, is X a leecher ?
Y sometimes post a random thx-comment, but if Y wins, he always posts a thx, is Y a leecher ?
X gifted 100 and received 200, is X a leecher ?
Y gifted 400 (Y is american\european but has gifted a lot of russian\brazilian non bundled stuff - a lot of IGN free games of the month - whatever; TL-DR Y has spent less money than X to reach 400) and received 300, is Y a leecher ?
X is 14 years old, has 5$/per-month, X gifted 50 and received 200, is X a leecher ?
Y is 30 years old, has a work, Y gifted 200 and received 200, is Y a leecher ?
TL;DR:
How do you judge people you don't know ? I mean, I'm aware that the world is dark and full of jerks but... things are not quite so simple always as black and white.
I have more than 100 users in my blacklist, (anyway most of them are scammers that don't even use SG) but I've never blacklisted someone just because "ZOMG he won 200 and gifted the ship !!!!" I cannot know what's going on in his life, probably he's a jerk, or maybe he can barely afford a PC, I don't see why I should blacklist him, we have levels for that.
I usually blacklist people who break rules or rude guys. Now, my profile will probably be inspected and blacklisted by someone, like I give a shit about that.
So... what is a leecher for you ? do you blacklist them ?
Comment has been collapsed.