I think "Access to the "Enter" button of a giveaway is granted by permission of its creator" could be interpreted as "by entering you agree blah blah blah is allowed" even if not mentioned in the description. maybe is worth rephrasing?
because that isn't allowed, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
maybe is worth rephrasing?
Hmmm...
The point I was making has nothing to do with actually entering a giveaway (nor what comes after it). What I meant was "having access to the button that says, 'Enter Giveaway' is dependent upon the giveaway's creator giving said access." Is there a better way to phrase it? Perhaps substitute "dependent upon" for "granted by?" No, that changes the meaning and is therefore confusing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see any other way tbh. That was clear enough to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
what I mean is that saying that by entering you agree to something may be interpreted as you MUST agree to get the permission perhaps? maybe is just me misreading tbh
Comment has been collapsed.
In order to see the button, you must gain the consent of the giveaway creator. Once you can see the button, there are no further requirements to enter beyond clicking on it.
I did try an adjustment, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Once you can see the button, there are no futher requirements besides the Second Law: "you are declaring that you do not already own what is being given away" (since SG's ownership check is not flawless). Correct?
Comment has been collapsed.
I was confused by this also. I think the confusing sentence was "Once access to the "Enter" button has been granted, no further qualification is needed for entry." Sandwiched in between the others, it implied to me that if I could access the GA then I earned a spot in the GA regardless of what the creator says but that directly contradicts the preceding and successive sentences and is not what I think you meant.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you can access a GA---having gone through whatever gates there may be---then you have the right to enter it. (You may choose not to do so.) If you somehow manage to access the GA without having gone through whatever gates its creator has put in place, then you do not have the right to enter.
I believe the source of the confusion is how the word "condition" is used. Strictly speaking, there are only two "conditions" to entering any given giveaway:
- You must be given access to the giveaway page by its creator.
- You must click on the "Enter Giveaway" button.
As for the first, that is by design of the giveaway's creator. He or she may use any of the gates SteamGifts provides. The second is by choice of the potential entrant. In the event access is rescinded by the giveaway's creator (e.g. you are kicked from the Steam group for which the giveaway is created), that must happen before the giveaway expires. If you are qualified to be there when it ends, you are qualified to win.
Q. What about SGT gates? Are they considered a gate which SG provides?
A. No. In such cases, the actual SG gate is the "invite only" gate for the giveaway. SGT is used to access that invitation from the creator, and SteamGifts has nothing to do with it. The creator of the giveaway may invite anyone he or she wishes to invite.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's easiest to say "You can't add conditions to enter a giveaway other than membership of a group or a whitelist."
Comment has been collapsed.
Those are not conditions for entering. Those are conditions for accessing the giveaway page. In both cases, the conditions may be changed/permission may be rescinded after a user has already entered the giveaway, effectively disqualifying that users entry. If that is done, it must be done before the giveaway ends.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, if I put link to private GA in discussion topic, wait for them to enter, and then remove the link (and add a gate for example) - all of them are disqualified, since they can't access link anymore, and bypassed the gate?
Comment has been collapsed.
The time limitation does not rescind accesses that were valid, but it does mean that any future entries would be invalid.
Similarly, if one had access to the page, but did not actually enter, if they then came back to enter after the link was removed, that would be a disqualification.
However, the example I think fits Khalaq's statement better is that of private group entries. For example, we do allow winners to be reselected if they were removed/kicked from a group prior to a giveaway ending, but after they had entered.
Comment has been collapsed.
ok, so if I follow a link to an invite-only giveaway, and don't have enough points, so I leave the page open (happens to me quite a lot), meanwhile giveaway creater removes the link, and if I enter now my entry is invalid? Sounds ridiculous to me.
I understand how it works with groups, it's logical and understandable, just can't see how can this be applicable to private giveaways. You can't know when or how person get to the page, they can stay there for days and then decide to enter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for bringing this up. My family had a recent COVID-19 scare and it had me wondering what is the backup plan if the gifter is unable to log onto SG in the event of being hospitalized or - G-d forbid, dead? Is there any way a MOD can send the winner the key after 7 days has passed?
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually you can sent the key at a later day and the person may change the feedback ,but if too much time passes and you get him the game ,you can request feedback with a support ticket .
There is no automatic send feature except its a dev giveaway with 50keys i think .
Comment has been collapsed.
The only person able to send a gift/key/link/whatever is the creator of the giveaway and/or his or her proxy. If the creator does not give it, and has not made arrangements for someone else to give it in his or her stead, then it is not given. If the creator is unable to deliver the gift, it will not be received.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I was hospitalized for Covid-19, sending out a giveaway would be the least of my concerns.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you enter a giveaway, you are declaring that you do not already own (at least in part) what is being given away.
So entering a giveaway for the "Complete Edition" of a game to get the DLCs while you already have the base game is illegal, right? What if the giver explicitly allows that in the description?
If the Grace Period expires without proper delivery, the winner has the right to mark the gift "not received," and the creator has the right to ask for a re-roll.
Writing "By entering this giveaway you're agree to allow me to delete this giveaway should the key be invalid" on the giveaway description is not a binding agreement from the POV of the system then. It will probably earn you a spot in a lot of blacklists tho, so don't do it.
Once access to the "Enter" button has been granted, no further qualification is needed for entry.
Have this rule ever been contested in the past? For example, a giver wrote "To enter this giveaway you must have fewer than 10 SteamGifts win in total", then denied the winner based on that condition alone. Would he be able to get his key if he write to SG support in this case?
Comment has been collapsed.
For example, a giver wrote "To enter this giveaway you must have fewer than 10 SteamGifts win in total", then denied the winner based on that condition alone.
With the exception of blacklisting, there is nothing preventing a user with more or less than 10 from entering a specific giveaway, provided they have the link. If you made a public GA (or even shared an invite-only publicly in the forums), the rule will be ignored for a reroll request.
However, if using e.g. SGTools to block access to the link in the first place, you have not granted access to the giveaway, whether the button on the giveaway page is clickable or not. Assuming they passed that check legitimately, the reroll would not be granted.
Comment has been collapsed.
If SGTools counts as acceptable gates I think that should be stated explicitly. Also might want to clarify why being removed from a steam group results in a reroll when no longer passing an SGTools check(games won) doesn't or at least make that exception explicit. That said I think aiming for perfect rules is pointless on a volunteer run site when just banning stubborn people that won't desist after the intent is explained is much less stressful for you guys.
Comment has been collapsed.
While the explicit callout of acceptable gates might be helpful, there may be novel options that people come up with that I wouldn't want to discourage.
For example, industrious users have made/used all sorts of puzzles/interfaces for gatekeeping, from setting up their own websites with minigames to internet easter egg hunts. I think that kind of exchange between users is great for the community and stating "A", "B", and "C" are ok would give me the impression "D" is then disallowed.
If something runs afoul of the rules, we'll try to address it when it comes up.
Comment has been collapsed.
So entering a giveaway for the "Complete Edition" of a game to get the DLCs while you already have the base game is illegal, right?
In cases where participants may already own part of what is being given away, it is up to the giveaway's creator to decide what is allowable. By default, you cannot enter a giveaway if you own any part of it, but its creator is given the authority to determine how much may be owned by those wishing to enter. If the creator says anyone missing any of the parts may enter, then that is the rule. If the creator says no one may enter if they own more than the base game, then that is the rule. And so on. For obvious reasons, someone who owns 100% of what is being given away is not allowed to participate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait, really? Change the guidelines right now, then.
"Try to refrain from entering giveaways for packages if you already own the majority of the games contained within. The giveaway creator may request a new winner if they believe you own too many of the packaged games."
That should say "any", not "the majority".
Comment has been collapsed.
The Guidelines are meant to be inclusive, not exclusive. "Try to refrain..." is a guide to the one entering. "The...creator may request...if they believe..." is the explanation of why (and declaration of the creator's authority in this matter). There is no restriction on how much is "too much," so it is up to the creator. There is nothing that says a user has a right to enter if he or she owns less than a specific portion of a package or bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
But you just said "By default, you cannot enter a giveaway if you own any part of it," The guidelines say ""Try to refrain from entering giveaways for packages if you already own the majority of the games contained within." Shouldn't the guidelines reflect the default, and not what the creator is allowed to change it to?
Comment has been collapsed.
"Try to refrain from entering giveaways for packages if you already own the majority of the games contained within."
This is a suggestion, not an absolute. (Note that it says "Try to refrain from entering" instead of "Do not enter.") If the giveaway creator allows all entries, regardless of how much the entrant owns, you could potentially enter a giveaway while already owning almost all of the package. (Some people actually do this.) In such cases, the creator has given the go-ahead, and Support does not interfere in the process. Other people would call it a "dick move," but the creator allows it. The suggestion is to not enter the giveaway in such a circumstance, but entry would still be allowed.
"The giveaway creator may request a new winner if they believe you own too many of the packaged games."
This is a right given to the creator of the giveaway, and an explanation of why winning a package of which you already own a majority is probably a waste of your time. Taking an example from the opposite side of the spectrum, you have a giveaway whose winner owns one part of the package, and permission has not been granted by the creator for partial ownership. The creator simply says, "I never gave permission for people to enter while owning any part of this package," and Support grants the re-roll request. That is "the default" in action. (I cannot remember this happening more than once.) You have probably noticed potential entrants asking the creator of their giveaways whether or not he or she allows partial ownership. This scenario is the reason why.
TL; DR: The Guideline cited is fine as currently written.
Comment has been collapsed.
May I ask what prompted this reminder, has there been an increase of "infractions" in one of these categories?
Thanks to all SG moderators and keep up the good work :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm somewhat curious as well. But mostly, I wonder why even bother since the majority of rule breakers don't usually use the forum, to my knowledge. I guess we can hope it'll reach a few people who are still confused about the guidelines?
Comment has been collapsed.
That, and it offers both an opportunity for clarification and a citation toward which to point those who are confused.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more or less an apparent (willing or otherwise) ignorance of some of the primary rules of the site.
Examples:
- Unsuspend requests where the assertion is made that no rule was broken when they regifted their win.
- Users creating a giveaway for "ABC" then stating in the description that it's actually "DEF"
- Others, for sure, but you get the idea?
Comment has been collapsed.
Unsuspend requests where the assertion is made that no rule was broken when they regifted their win.
I mean I'm known to be an advocate of cruel and unusual punishments but if somebody claims they didn't do anything wrong "because it was THEIR game after they won it" AFTER it was pointed out to them they did, why not simply perma-suspend (suspend not ban) them until they take a picture of themselves holding up a handwritten piece of paper saying 20 or 50 times "I have finally understood regifting is BAD." or whatever applies?
In my opinion those pictures should probably NOT be posted publicly but I'm pretty sure after that the lesson would stick 😅
Comment has been collapsed.
As Gaffi explained, I was simply calling attention to the inherent meaning of our Guidelines. Whether due to misunderstanding or thoughtlessness (or both), a huge percentage of Support Staff's time and energy is spent handling issues related to what I cited.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you create a giveaway, you are promising to deliver what you select in the creation process.
yeah, sure, tell me more about this. every other giveaway has "please allow me to delete GA in case anything go wrong" notice, and people REALLY do request removing of those often. And it's granted! Nobody is promising anything anymore on this site.</grunt>
Comment has been collapsed.
And it's granted!
Only if the winner agrees - You can certainly decide, as a winner, to refuse to deletion, and there's not a thing anyone can do to force you otherwise. It's just kind of a dick move that's usually unnecessary, so most people won't mind agreeing to deletion. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, yeah, but isn't deleting giveaway a dick move too? I mean, it meaningless and takes time from support, and because of those "delete my ga" tickets someone will have to wait for more than a week for their reroll.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry to say, but I kinda agree with the person above. Asking for giveaway deletion is also somewhat of a dick move. I remember there was some kind of debate a little while ago about that very subject... (no I can't find the thread) I never understood why it was such a big deal for some people to simply take the "not received" feedback. Your key was duped, you might have tried to find a working one but couldn't for whatever reason, just take the red mark and move on. To me, it looked more like a desire to have a perfect profile: all green, no red. It could be an OCD thing, maybe?
Still... now you know my stance on that matter and I'm wondering if I would stick to my guns if I was asked permission to delete a giveaway I had won. Why's that? Well, if I say "nope", that would make me look like an asshole, wouldn't it? Especially if the giveaway creator is someone like you: very well-known on the forum and has given away lots of games. Yeah, I'd feel bad. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I don't disagree - I'm just saying that the "please let me delete the giveaway if the key doesn't work" thing is really not ground for deletion if the key doesn't work. It's a request, and the winner can ignore it if they want, but most people will agree out of politeness. It's a bit like being asked to do a favour from someone, you don't need to, but if you want to be kind despite the fact the situation is the giveaway creator's responsibility, you can do so. I don't think people who write this in their giveaway description expect people will agree to these "terms".
Also, I don't think you should feel obligated to agree to deletion if you think it's fair the giveaway creator should receive a unreceived mark as per following the protocol SG has in place. If I didn't deliver a key and the winner would not want to agree to deletion, I would completely understand and hold no grudge and I wouldn't think they were a bad person for it. It's my responsibility to deliver what I giveaway, not the winner's business to deal with that.
Perhaps the use of the expression "dick move" was in poor taste, apologies about that - not agreeing to deletion is just not going out of your way to be kind and do a good favour for a stranger, it doesn't make you a bad person in any way. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I didn't mind the use of "dick move" at all. Yeah, not agreeing to delete a giveaway certainly does not make you a bad person. I know I'm not. However... please take a second to read your post again. Or... hang on, just let me point out some things.
will agree out of politeness
but if you want to be kind
not agreeing to deletion is just not going out of your way to be kind and do a good favour for a stranger
Don't you see? With your post, it's so heavily implied that giving the ok for deletion is the nice thing to do and that not agreeing, well... what's the opposite of being nice? Yeah. Being a jerk. So while saying nope doesn't make you a bad person, imho, it makes you look like one. And by "bad person", I mean... an inconsiderate human being. At least, that's the perception that I have. Also, that you in particular wouldn't hold a grudge against someone who wouldn't agree to your request doesn't mean that everyone would be like that. But then again, if some get pissy and resort to blacklisting, that's their prerogative too.
I'm sorry, jbond. I guess I kinda get irked when I see posts like yours that emphasize how saying yes to giveaway deletion is the nice thing to do... That situation has yet to happen to me but if I was to say "nope", I would most probably feel like a jerk. Because many people say it's the nice thing to do. Which is kinda weird in a way... feeling like a jerk. I mean, for sticking to the rules. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why it's such a big deal that people ask to agree to giveaway deletion if, like I said, you have no obligation whatsoever to agree to it if you don't feel like it. The fact that you would be doing an undeserved favour to the giveaway creator (and therefore I assume they would appreciate it) doesn't mean the opposite is bad or wrong. Yes, some people will take it that way, but that is not your problem. People will get angry/blacklist over the silliest things, and again, nothing you can do about it.
If I went to a store and accidentally broke an item, I'd expect having to pay the price of the item. But if the store owner decided to let me go as a favour I'd appreciate it. That is going out of your way to be kind to someone, even when you know the person is in the wrong, and doing this kind of thing should be an exception you do occasionally, not the expectation for you to do every time because you feel you'll be the jerk if you don't.
That situation has yet to happen to me but if I was to say "nope", I would most probably feel like a jerk. Because many people say it's the nice thing to do.
Last little note, the fact is that accepting deletion is the kind thing to do (as described above) and there really is nothing you can do about that. And again, not being nice does not equal being bad. The fact that some people see it as such is more of the problem here than the fact people request for deletion in their giveaway descriptions, in my opinion. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
The nice thing to do is to just follow the rules of the site and not put pressure on others to allow you to break them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, except an agreement between gifter/winner to delete a giveaway is not against the rules (it even goes through support, who then approves it). So debatable, but I get where you're coming from nevertheless.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is it a "dick move"?
If I try to deliver the key to you, but can't due to some circumstances beyond my control - a bad key, can't find a working one, store support takes more than a week to get back to me, etc - I will apologize to the winner and ask if I can delete the giveaway. I don't see how that makes me a dick.
You're right, I do want to maintain a perfect profile - I don't want to take a hit, as minor as it is, for something that was out of my control. Should I be punished because a legit reseller messed up?
I also think the "not received" feedback isn't intended to punish people who legitimately try to deliver on every giveaway but occasionally can't for whatever reason - I think it was intended to discourage people from making giveaways for games they don't have. For example, I can see a deceptive individual making a high profile giveaway - Cyberpunk 2077 for example - figuring that it would get them onto a bunch of whitelists, and figuring that the thousands of people who enter it won't go back later and check to see if they ever actually delivered on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The "not received" feedback applies to any giveaway creator who could not provide a working key. Period. The reason behind it does not matter. This is how the site works. I thought the rules applied to everyone.... Why should you and other peeps get a free pass?
You talk about punishment. This is not a punishment, it's a consequence. Just like getting that green "received" feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought the rules applied to everyone.... Why should you and other peeps get a free pass?
Who gets a free pass? We explain the case to the winner, and let them decide whether to allow us to delete the giveaway or not.
This is not a punishment, it's a consequence.
It is both a punishment and a consequence. But a consequence of what? Buying a game from Humble and getting a bad key? Of something entirely outside our control?
I think that the spirit of the rule is to discourage bad faith giveaways, not to punish people for retailer error. But if you disagree, that is your right, and you can just mark giveaways "Not Received" instead of letting people delete them.
Comment has been collapsed.
We explain the case to the winner, and let them decide whether to allow us to delete the giveaway or not.
It should be - we explain the case to the winner, and replace the key with a good one. Asking for a deletion should never be the go-to action.
I think that the spirit of the rule is to discourage bad faith giveaways
I also believe it's meant to maintain the integrity of the site in general. People enter giveaways, they should be able to expect to receive what they've won. Period. No ifs, ands, buts, or excuses.
You may feel free to see a Not Received as you will, but it simply means the winner did not receive what they've won. Lately, it certainly seems as some people are more interested in keeping their profile "perfect" than they are in actually making good on their giveaways, and that's unfortunate. We expect the winner to be honest and decent, why shouldn't we expect the same of the giveaway creator?
Comment has been collapsed.
It should be - we explain the case to the winner, and replace the key with a good one. Asking for a deletion should never be the go-to action.
That's the ideal situation, certainly. The first thing I did was contact the reseller to get a replacement key so I could make due on the giveaway. Sometimes it may not be possible. In my case, Humble support took over a week to get a replacement key for me, which put me outside the stated delivery window. If the winner wasn't willing to wait, my option would be to buy a new key, do nothing, or ask for a deletion. Given my situation, buying a replacement key would be financially irresponsible of me, so I would ask for a deletion because it's better than doing nothing.
I also feel like we should be kind and generous towards each other, and that extends to being understanding and giving each other the benefit of the doubt. We all make mistakes occasionally. I once made a giveaway that was region locked, without realizing that it was region locked, and the winner couldn't activate it. I felt awful, and they could have demanded that I get them a key from their region, but they were understanding that it was an honest mistake and instead let me re-roll the giveaway (thankfully, the next winner was able to activate it).
I also believe it's meant to maintain the integrity of the site in general. People enter giveaways, they should be able to expect to receive what they've won. Period. No ifs, ands, buts, or excuses.
You may feel free to see a Not Received as you will, but it simply means the winner did not receive what they've won. Lately, it certainly seems as some people are more interested in keeping their profile "perfect" than they are in actually making good on their giveaways, and that's unfortunate. We expect the winner to be honest and decent, why shouldn't we expect the same of the giveaway creator?
I totally agree. Maybe we're looking at this from two completely different sides?
I'm looking at it from my experience, where asking for a deletion is a rare event. I've only had one case out of 31 wins where the winner asked me to delete a giveaway. Out of my 275 giveaways, I've only had an issue with keys twice - in the first, I was able to get a new key for the winner eventually, and in the second the key worked fine but said "X game for beta testing" in the Steam activation page, and Humble said all the keys they had were tagged as such, so I had to delete the giveaway because the winner was uncomfortable and I could not get a key that didn't say "for beta testing" on the Steam license page.
It sounds like you're talking about it like it's an epidemic, and not a rare, less than 1% chance occurrence. What has your experience been?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll put it plainly and succinctly.
People who put a disclaimer in their giveaways about deletion are using the deletion system as the go-to solution for not delivering a win (for a variety of reasons). As a giveaway creator, a deletion is the absolute last resort I should be pursuing, and honestly, I'm fine with receiving a Not Received should I not be able to deliver on a win and the winner doesn't want to allow a deletion. Even asking them prior to a giveaway ending is a form of passive-aggressive coercion, and releases the giveaway creator from any obligation. I can't get behind that sort of behavior at all. In my opinion, those disclaimers shouldn't be allowed outside of those groups where that stipulation is a part of the group's rules.
I don't view the winner as a "dick" or "asshole" for marking a giveaway Not Received, as others have suggested elsewhere on the forum, nor would I ever consider blacklisting them as others do. I view them as using the site exactly as it was meant to be used and following the rules of the site. I should be expected to follow those same rules myself.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hope I can say this without restarting this whole futile and alienating debate but I couldn't agree more.
When I put up a giveaway, that is a promise and while it can be sometimes inconvenient I usually try to stand by my word.
Comment has been collapsed.
When I put up a giveaway, that is a promise
Exactly. And, while it's happened only a handful of times in 6 years and a number of giveaways, I always feel terrible if I am unable to deliver for one reason or another. Fortunately, I've had some really great winners who offer to allow for deletion (without asking or a disclaimer), and then I'll check to see if I have something on their wish-list or I'll at least whitelist them.
But if I cannot deliver on that promise, I'm fully prepared to take my licks and the Not Received. Because that's how it works.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's also ok in my opinion to give the winner some other reasonably priced game from their wishlist but you do that after the fact.
Obviously they still CAN'T mark the original giveaway Received just somecause they received something but it would still be a nice thing to do. That part is not directed at you Tzaar since I know you know that.
Trying to cover all bases and make the winner look bad is passive agressive just as you said.
Edit: 😅 Should have read your comment more thoroughly since you suggested the very same thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Obviously they still CAN'T mark the original giveaway Received
LOL, I've had someone offer to do that. I think they were pretty new to SG and didn't realize there would be consequences (a five day suspension and a swift kick in the gonads), so I'm glad you mentioned that.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why I explicitly wanted to say it because it seems to be the natural go-to response for many new people here and I actually appreciate the sentiment because it comes with good intentions but it's just not how the site works.
I've seen that happen repeatedly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair enough, you won't find argument from me there. :)
I don't care for those disclaimers myself, since they're now making up their own rules that aren't actually enforceable. I wouldn't like it if someone marked one of my giveaways Not Received, but I wouldn't hold it against them. I only blacklist people for being really rude and abusive towards others, which is why I only have 5 people on my blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Many times, I have seen those red marks add up over time, and people eventually do start commenting on it. If it seems that giveaways are being created "in bad faith," Support gets involved.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I imagined it as a possibility, but I'm saddened to learn that it's actually a thing. I am disappointed by humanity yet again. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
Or lose CV equal to what would have been gained from the giveaway had it been good.
Comment has been collapsed.
All right!
It can also be used by extraterrestrial intelligent life forms.👽👾・・・∑(´Θ`)What!?
It does not exist in the rules that the winner is an earthling.😂
However···.
Sometimes mysterious phenomena seem to exist.
That's when we take advantage of our support tickets and thank the people who support us.(人Θ'o)Yup♪
Comment has been collapsed.
You could add message like this to that generic info that you get while being suspended xD
Comment has been collapsed.
For the majority of us this is common sense, but for some reason people keep ignoring them. Perhaps (not having my hopes to high though), this makes less people break rules somehow.
Excellent job Khalaq wish there was a "like" and "retweet" (sort of) function to use it (?
Kudos for the impecable redaction.
Cheers.-
Comment has been collapsed.
- If you enter a giveaway, you are declaring that you do not already own (at least in part) what is being given away.
I have a question. How is considered a game that was pulled from Steam and then released again with different AppID. The content is still the same, without anything added. Is it the same game or different game?
Comment has been collapsed.
Looks like there has been some absense in the feedback :/
Comment has been collapsed.
-- You cannot win a Group giveaway if you are not a member of its Steam group when the giveaway ends.
--- Once access to the "Enter" button has been granted, no further qualification is needed for entry.
So, If one if a member of a group, enters a group GA but before the that, was kicked from the groups and wins the GA, would s/he not be a winner?
Comment has been collapsed.
The process is not automatic, but the giveaway creator may request a reroll in this case, and it would be granted.
Comment has been collapsed.
Keep in mind that the winner may have entered the giveaway using a different gate (e.g. Whitelist), in which case being kicked from the Steam group may not be sufficient to disqualify his or her entry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Somewhat related to this, sometimes people make giveaways when they see an interesting sale on Steam, but if the process of accepting the gift or rerolling takes too long, therefore exceeding the date of the sale, the gifter then needs to purchase the game at full price or face the consequence of not having sent the gift.
I think it might be pertinent to mention that gifters, by creating a giveaway, accept that the process of sending a gift might take more time than they expect and that there are risks to making giveaways for games on sale for which the keys have not yet been purchased.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was covered in point #3 with a description of the Grace Period and feedback. Of course, knowing something is different from understanding it, and human beings are prone to action before thinking about consequences.
P.S. (On occasion, I myself have ended up paying full price due to delays or a failed key. It is not fun, but a promise is a promise.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree.
It's just that even if the giveaway ends while there are 7 full days before the end of sale, if the first winner relinquishes their claim after 5 days for instance, then the next winner will have a new 7 days to claim, and therefore a gifter who thought they were safe might actually not be. That edge case might not be clear and could take some people by surprise.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Grace Period is only the first seven days. In practice, additional time is given when the gift is "passed" to subsequent winners, and all parties involved (creator, winner, and Support) work to resolve things as quickly as possible. On very rare occasions, however, there is sufficient delay so as to force a full-price purchase. People can plan, but Life™ happens. In the end, all we can do is deal with it as best we can.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Totally unrelated personal anecdote... My mother used to tell me if I didn't go to the arcade to play pinball, I could save my coins. And I should probably not give my coins to an arcade of pinball in winter (the fourth season) when the owner has a suspended business license.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the reminder.
But sad that you had to do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only problem I see with the marking as received part is the whole "Steam is learning about this game" issue, where a game is in this weird limbo state of not giving +1 etc. It was my understanding that SG, fetching the synced profile data via API also cannot tell the difference, hence I found myself able to enter GAs for games I owned (personally I've hidden them to avoid accidentally winning in such a case when I stumble across them, but I also know that if I'm trying to spend my points on-the-go before work etc, I don't check every single game on steam first and enter games that look interesting).
Maybe it is a non-issue (not like I can spot behind the scenes) but from what little I understand of US legal talk, it's better to be safe than sorry, right? So maybe there needs to be an addendum about that? Just to avoid disputes on account of valve being, well, valve I guess.
If I'm making a moot point, ignore me XD I appreciate this topic regardless.
Comment has been collapsed.
In cases where "Steam is learning about this game," the Support Staff here at SteamGifts learn more quickly. We deal with such cases manually, so that is usually not an issue. On very rare occasions, Steam is so screwed up that we have to take extra measures, and we then notify our users.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well that's one less thing for me to lose sleep over then, haha. Thanks for the quick reply.
Comment has been collapsed.
When you activate a win from a giveaway it doesn't hurt to click on the pic or the Steam icon in the giveaway to make sure it shows that "game is already in your Steam library" just to make sure it's exactly what the giveaway was for.
If there's any question about what was activated you can always check your key activations.
https://store.steampowered.com/account/licenses/
Comment has been collapsed.
Problem is - people who violate rules usually don't read, otherwise they would read faq and guidelines and know it all already... Fat chance they will read this topic if they don't read rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm getting so tired of seeing giveaways asking the winner to agree to delete it if the key ends up being invalid.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am wondering... Would it make you feel better if they did not include that in the description and just asked the winner after the fact?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think so.
I'll assume that most of the giveaways that include such terms actually end up being delivered successfully, so that's a lot of "invalid rules" being posted for no reason - and they all make people angry.
Hundreds of people see the rule and who knows how many get annoyed by it - it's really unnecessary. Just ask the winner when they tell you the key didn't work :)
Comment has been collapsed.
They're supposed to be making giveaways using valid keys. The phrase makes it sound like they don't know if the key is going to be valid. They made the giveaway and they should own up to it when someone wins it.
At the very least I hope that staff is keeping track of individuals who may be habitually cancelling giveaways because they're using bad keys that they wrote down on a post-it note back in 2018 and forgot if they used them yet or not.
I think that this phrase is far more annoying than people saying "thanks" to giveaway creators. There's no reason for them to say it at all. The rules of SG already covers what is required if the giveaway ends up being invalid. I know several members who are also tired of seeing it and have started blacklisting people who say that in their giveaways. I'm not doing something that extreme but I am not alone in my opinion about the phrase.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be much more interesting to keep track of who receives these invalid keys, since it is easy to exploit - even more so when the creator starts out with suggesting that the key might not work.
Comment has been collapsed.
I totally understand that.
Would it be better if instead they said something like, "On the slim chance that this key doesn't work, I would appreciate if you would allow me to delete the giveaway."?
Comment has been collapsed.
The ability to by-pass or circumvent a giveaway's gate does not qualify an entrant.
Is that even possible? Or is that referring to someone somehow bypassing an SGT check?
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly, lower war justification times are worth it. Be responsible for your claims dammit
Oh it's about giveaways? Lameee
Comment has been collapsed.
heh... As tempting as it is to get up on the soapbox you just placed in front of me, I will restrain myself. )
Comment has been collapsed.
Please keep in mind that the functioning of this site is dependent upon its users giving correct input. Therefore, our users are expected to be honest and forthright in the input they provide.
Failure to provide accurate feedback when required to do so by the site may result in restrictions and/or penalties being applied to those involved. Please do your best to cooperate with each other so as to avoid difficult and/or unpleasant situations.
Comment has been collapsed.