Do you blacklist people?
I feel its fine as is, their gift so their rules. People who don't speak in fear of blacklisting need to be more secure and just move on, it is not the end of the world if you can't enter a giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more a matter of principle. Is it really right to blacklist someone without justifiable cause, or simply for a post they made? Isn't that an abuse of the system?
It may be the contributor's rules, but there are certain rules which SteamGifts is not a obliged to respect or enforce. When it comes to blacklisting, the administration could easily set down a list of guidelines and set criteria for blacklisting someone. Although there isn't really any penalties which could be enforced to prevent abuse of the blacklist system, it is nevertheless a matter of concern and there needs to be a way to combat it if we wish to maintain a healthy environment as a community.
Comment has been collapsed.
Giveaways are not a right, no one is entitled to giveaways. If someone doesn't want to offer a game to someone else that's their prerogative. It's not like by blacklisting someone that person is not allowed to not enter any giveaway, he just can't enter that person's giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's pretty conspicuous in this discussion, but it still doesn't address the propriety of justifiability of blacklisting, especially when it is done excessively or unjustifiably.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's one of the things I'm requesting. I have yet to define what is "fair" or "excessive" with regard to blacklisting, nor have I voiced my specific views about the propriety or justifiability of certain blacklisting criteria. I'm just pointing out that drbeckett's response fails to adequately address the pertinent issues being discussed; it only points out the obvious.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with this person. People need to stop being entitled. A giveaway is a favor, not an obligation, and they have the right to stop people they don't want from entering whatever the reason may be. Be the reason as just as harassment, or as petty as not liking photos of cats.
Comment has been collapsed.
Refer to my previous posts about the rights of the contributor and the extent of their powers. Contributors aren't godsends immune of any and all faults; they are people who are giving away games and assumed to respect the caveats of the site. Failure to do so is indication of abuse on their behalf, not an exercising of their powers.
Comment has been collapsed.
The "caveats" of the site are "you have a game and give it for free to the guy who win this little lottery we run out of goodwill". The only thing that are against the "caveats" of the site are not giving the prize you said you would and lying to them about not receiving the prize if you did receive it.
You are the one inventing extra ethics where they do not exist or even belong.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are more rules for this site than just those, and anyone with a basic knowledge of SteamGifts would be aware of the fact that it's not that simple, and even the FAQ & Rules indicates as much.
Just because you fail to recognize the problems and refuse to critically examine them, that doesn't mean they exist. This isn't merely a matter of morality or ethics, but of what it best and most conducive for the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
The "rules" you make s much of a point to mention say exactly what I said before.
"Users manage their own giveaways, choose when they start, when they end, and who is able to enter"
"you have a game and give it for free to the guy who win this little lottery we run out of goodwill". The only thing that are against the "caveats" of the site are not giving the prize you said you would and lying to them about not receiving the prize if you did receive it.
P.S. pay special attention to "users manage who is able to enter"
Comment has been collapsed.
There are private giveaways for that, drbeckett ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
"It's more a matter of principle. Is it really right to blacklist someone without justifiable cause, or simply for a post they made? Isn't that an abuse of the system?"
Well I guess we may dislike whoever we want and noone may tell us who we may or may not like
Comment has been collapsed.
It is for me, cause without this site and the giveaways, i got no way in getting games... im one of the fearfull ones, ive seen it too many times and i dont got the guts to talk, its the best strategy to avoid being blacklisted from no to little reason...
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't be absurd. A couple of users (generally hitherto invisible users with a handful of posts to their names) are trying their damnedest to stir up fear in the community, and a few are falling for it.
The reality is that people are making a mountain out of a feature which will barely affect any users who aren't rule breakers or deeply unpleasant to others on the forums. This hardly registers as a bump on your back lawn, but if you listen to some people on here, they'd have you packing oxygen, hiring a troop of sherpas, and clearing several weeks in your calendar in order to scale it...
Relax :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Even then, is it justified to do so? What is your rationale? How is it appropriate to do so and how is it not an abuse of the blacklisting system? I don't see why you'd go through the trouble just to punish someone by restricting them from any giveaways you might create, even if only for a day, just because they said something which you didn't like. If anything, that reflects insecurity on your part and an inability to handle criticism or differing opinionsβi.e., bigotry.
Anyway, just to clarify, my creating this thread was due to my observations on the forum and how many blacklisting threats circulate within it, along with my own personal experience with the phenomenon. You certainly contributed to it, but don't think this thread was targeting you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel it could encourage a sort of exclusivistic elitism, but it is otherwise justified because it is an attempt to contribute to a portion of the community which has earned the privilege to qualify as an entrant into specific giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are projecting your opinion in this case, mate, which is not to say you're incorrect, merely that you may be...
That is, a temporary (or even permanent) place on Adam's blacklist does not betray any manner of bigotry on his part, as the reaction is not intrinsically intolerant, it is one of preference. He disliked you, that does not imply he is insecure.
As there exists no obligation to allow you, myself or any other community member to participate in a giveaway he sponsored, blacklisting you remains an innocuous act. He prohibited you from participating in a manner that might have been accomplished otherwise (restriction by level, by group, by invite-only).
Comment has been collapsed.
There may not be an obligation to do so with respect to the basic requirements of the site, but I would argue that there are certain moral standards and imperatives which would render such misconduct as wrong regardless of whether it is permitted. Perhaps AdamZombie is not insecure, but at the very least it would seem like an intolerant action to blacklist someone for an opinion with which he did not agree (or a correction he did not care to have).
The restricting me from his giveaways could be accomplished by other means, but no other method of doing so is as personal, as deliberate, and as prone to abuse as is blacklisting. This should be obvious and such comparisons are structurally flawed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, I return to the whitelist example. See my replies below for elaboration...
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklists are not blocklists, and to treat them as such is to misunderstand both systems. Blacklists are intended to block threats to the stability and operation of your giveaways, whereas blocklists are there to block users with whom you wish to no longer interact. They are separate lists with separate functions, and your conflation of the two leads to an abuse of either. Your analogy would make at least some sense if, in fact, blacklisting a user prevented further interaction and removed their posts or activities from your sight, but it doesn't. Blacklists are for giveaways, and therefore users should only be blacklisted for violations which affect your or other giveaways directly, and not for conduct in the forums.
This has nothing to do with me "thinking" I'm "being smart" with my words. I'm just voicing my opinion and you're getting pissy about it. This is why I think you're insecure: you respond to what appears to be an intimidating grasp on the English language with threats of censorship, and it's probably because you are not confident in your own English skills (which are admittedly fairly well). If this is not true, then you should probably cut out the bullshit because your threats are fairly meaningless, especially to someone like me.
That's not what you should take away from this discussion, nor what I intended, so apparently you completely misunderstood its purpose.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've already done my duties and I'm allowed to do what I wish in my free time. Things are managed quite well over there, though thanks for your faux concern. Great deflection, by the way, but I think I'd rather stay.
Comment has been collapsed.
'Blacklists are intended to block threats to the stability and operation of your giveaways'
wut? says who? where did you get this idea?
if I'm giving away something that's mine (games here, but anything really), I have all the rights to choose who I'll give it to. And who not. There is not such a thing as 'unjustifiable or excessive blacklisting'. I could decide to close my eyes and click names at random to blacklist 1000 users, and it would still be just my business, not yours or anyone else's. I'm not depriving anyone of any right, I'm just deciding what to do with my stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
That would be an abuse of the system. My statements with regard to the purpose of blacklists coincide with the functions and purposes of blacklists. Anyone with knowledge of what blacklists are, their various definitions, their uses throughout the Internet, and the history of blacklists would know that blacklisting is a function through which perceived threats and dangers from undesirable parties are blocked and restricted from certain services. Translating this into SteamGifts and its giveaway system, it's fairly obvious what the implications would be.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like I've already explained below, this change in terminology would not work because the terminology holds different meanings and provides different functions. Changing the terminology would not solve the problem, only mislabel a system which is being abused.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you trying to be an asshole at this point, or is this just your normal demeanor?
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe if you stopped looking through your own bigoted perspective, you'd see that I'm not as self-righteous as you may think.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am suggesting what may be the best course of action, I am giving you advice on propriety of conduct, I am trying to help you speak the language in which you're typing, I am challenging your thinking, and I am trying to encourage discussion on how to properly use the site.
Great job on totally missing every point I've made yet again.
Comment has been collapsed.
you got many answers to your question, including site supermod who very politely explained to you what the blacklist purpose is, and you simply refuse to take it. you have taken for yourself the prerogative of defining how it should be used by everyone else. in fact, yours is a false question because there's no answer you're looking for
no need, and most of all no point, answering any further.
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate the input in this thread, and I have tried my best to encourage further discussion and debate, but apparently people are more content with seeing me as a bad guy when I'm just trying to help improve the community and foster discourse. Yes, I know even support has weighed in, and I appreciate that and will thank the moderator once I read their input, but as far as I'm concerned (and with all due respect to the mod), that is only an official statement that SteamGifts Staff can't really do anything about this issue, and that they aren't willing to try at this time. In the end, this is still an issue within the community and I think it's important to continue this discussion, even though the staff has already weighed in.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't say that I endorse the concept of spurious blacklisting, doing so without tangible justification is somewhat cruel, but I do condone the blacklist function itself and would vigorously support the right of any member of this community to add whomever they desire. In short, debate on the issue is nonsensical as --- though it may be malicious or even petty at times --- the right to blacklist an individual is itself an inherent prerogative and hence not open to discussion.
EDIT: For the record, I voted "Yes, but only those who are known scammers, cheaters, and regifters, or who deliberately breaks the rules." which is precisely why mine is so small and, with any luck, will remain that way indefinitely.
Comment has been collapsed.
I only blacklist for the same reason, hence why I voted for that option as well. However, my purpose of creating this thread was not only to discuss the issue but to also discover the reasoning behind those who do excessively and unjustifiably blacklist other users. Yes, I understand that the right to blacklist is something which should be upheld and protected, but I question the motives and rationale for doing so among those who blacklist users without due cause. Although it may be their right and prerogative, I question the justice and propriety of their actions.
Basically, the aim of this discussion is to explore the extent that blacklisting is justified; to poll the community on its thoughts about the matter and what constitutes wrongful blacklisting; and to foster debate on the issue of blacklisting and its value in the community. This isn't so much a matter of whether blacklisting should be allowed so much as it is the extent to which it is justified and appropriate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yet the point remains paramount to the discussion, thus negating it: justified or not, the right of a community member to blacklist is guaranteed. Even if it were removed, alternative means (as I pointed out in my reply to AdamZombie's remark) are available to prevent those the giveaway sponsor deems unworthy of participating from doing so, such as invite-only, level restrictions, group restrictions...
EDIT: Houdini brings up an interesting point, white-list restrictions. The obverse and potentially just as "exploitable." My defense would remain unchanged, yet I ask, why assay merely the value of blacklists when it could be just as simple to create whitelist-only giveaways? Exclusion from the one is the same as addition to the other, no?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think that really negates the discussion. Again, this thread and the discussions therein is intended to examine and explore the extent of blacklisting's propriety and justifiability, and to ascertain the thoughts of the community with respect to blacklisting and the aforementioned. Although alternative means of "blacklisting," so to speak, are available, I think it's nonetheless worthwhile to discuss the issue of blacklisting and its effects as a feature on the community. Sure, other methods of restricting users are available, but blacklisting is a specific type of restriction with appended connotations and susceptibilities to abuse, things which the other methods do not inherently possess.
Comment has been collapsed.
I beg to differ. Would you not be just as "insulted" to find that, rather than being blacklisted, you were excluded from giveaways as you haven't been whitelisted? The connotation is distinctly equivalent, if not moreso an act of exclusivity.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't be just as "insulted" because unlike blacklisting, whitelisting is a privileged position which is earned or allotted for certain conduct. Despite the superficial dichotomy, whitelisting and blacklisting are fundamentally different categorizations which do not strictly contrast each other in function or purpose. Whereas blacklisting is a prohibitory category which restricts its constituents, whitelisting is an elevated or exclusive category which appends further privileges upon the existing rights and available opportunities inherent in a normal category (or uncategorized position).
Although whitelisting is an act of exclusivity, it holds different connotations than does blacklisting, and they do not correspondingly contrast. Yes, both systems can be abused by adding users who have not earned the right to be in their respective categories, but unlike whitelisting, blacklisting excludes specific users from all the blacklister's giveaways, as compared to all users who are not in the (white)list. This sort of individual specification is the key point of contention: they both may operate as tools of exclusion, only blacklisting excludes specific users by the deliberate and conscious decision. A more apt description of the two systems is that whitelists inclusively excluding, while blacklists are specifically exclusive. The difference is between being a favorite and being a target, not simply a friend or a foe.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's earned? A privileged position? With you, perhaps.
Others, such as Houdini's example below, use it to exclude. Why shouldn't they? It's perfectly suited to the task. There exists no dichotomy as the two are both a means of restricting access.
You conflate the issue by combining both your own moral/ethical values and the function of the lists, mate. You said that, and I quote, "unlike whitelisting, blacklisting excludes specific users from all the blacklister's giveaways" ...yet an individual who creates a whitelist and purely whitelist-only giveaways has done the very same thing: excluded those specific users they did not add. Furthermore, you reached an illogical conclusion in noting that "only blacklisting excludes specific users by the deliberate and conscious decision" as every addition to a whitelist adheres to that selfsame criteria.
It remains imperative that you, yes you, behave more tolerantly and accept that certain individuals will utilize the blacklist to what you deem an excessive degree.
Note, I do not disagree with your sentiment in essence, merely your approach to the subject matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I said the position in a whitelist is (either) earned or allotted, and thus could be interpreted as saying it can be earned, though that is not a requisite for being given a place on the list. I would consider it privileged because it specifically inclusive (cf. blacklisting's specific exclusivity), inasmuch as it gives the user extra access to certain giveaways which would otherwise remain hidden and unavailable for entry. How is it not a privileged position which can be earned?
Assuming he was even serious, Houdini42's use of the whitelisting system would be absurd and irrational because he attempts to use whitelisting for the reasons that blacklisting exists. He is confusing the two functions and did so based on a failure to adequately understand the purpose and point of whitelisting and blacklisting. He would be treating whitelisting as a means through which people could be blacklisted and although some basic qualities of the whitelist may persist (i.e., its principally specific inclusivity), it would be an inefficient and illogical misuse of the system. Doing so would be like listing all the things you don't want to purchase from the store as compared to listing all the things you do want to purchase: not only would the first list likely be absurdly longer (which violates Occam's Razor) and it would therefore be easier to list those who are allowed; but it also fails to identify which items or elements are desired, listing all the undesirables in its stead. Although both methods could achieve similar results, they do so in fundamentally different ways, and usually one method comes to be much more efficient and, therefore, preferred.
Like I explained above, both systems are means of exclusion, but this exclusion operates differently between the two. Whitelists exclude by means of including those which are allowedβit is specifically inclusiveβwhereas blacklists exclude by means of restricting those which are not allowedβit is specifically exclusive. Whitelists include only certain individuals, while excluding everyone else; blacklists exclude only certain individuals, and doesn't impact everyone else. The difference is in its specificity and its impact on those who are not specifically targeted. Hence they are incongruous and do not correspondingly contrast.
I'm not conflating my moral or ethical values with the functions of the whitelist and blacklist systems because although they can be morally sanctioned and structured, they are both inherently amoral systems of organization. The moral and ethical aspects come into play when speaking about the propriety and justifiability of how these systems are used, not their inherent functions or operations.
It is not an illogical conclusion because the operative adverb is "specifically," and the operative verb is "excludes," as in only blacklisting specifically excludes specific users. Whitelisting, as I stated above, specifically includes specific users, while generally excluding all who do are not in the whitelist. This may seem like a rather fine distinction, but it's nevertheless important to this discussion.
I accept the fact that people can and do abuse the blacklisting system, but I refuse to condone or support it. I am not required to tolerate misconduct to the extent that I permit it to continue or condone its existence, only that I accept the reality that it exists. Of course I do the latter; it's obvious I don't do the former.
Comment has been collapsed.
I maintain that my point does negate the need for any discussion and would redirect to your reply below...
"As for the second point, by what standard do you hold the community and what gives you the prerogative to determine and enforce "the greater good of the community." What is the "greater good of the community" of SteamGifts?"
The answer is elementary: because he is a member of this community, in good standing and possessed of his own conscience. It is, in other words, his right to determine what is or is not for the "greater good" of SteamGifts inasmuch as it affects him. This is a democratic system, so long as we all act in accord with the general rules and regulations of its use.
You may disagree with his, mine or any other individual's choice to blacklist someone... indeed, anyone at all. That does not provide you, the administrators of this site or even the community as a whole the right to compel them to change.
Comment has been collapsed.
There nevertheless needs to be some sort of standardization and criteria for even universal rights and prerogatives. Even in a democratic system, the rights and privileges of its constituents are specified and there are usually defined criteria for what constitutes a violation of a given right or reason to disenfranchise the individual of a given privilege. I question ArsenalGunna's authority because, despite being permitting the right to exercise his democratic powers, there is a lack of consensus and standardization of what constitutes the "greater good of the community" for SteamGifts, andβbeing a constituent of a democratic systemβhe alone does not hold the authority to actually define that unless there is consensus and a standard to which the community could adhere.
I have the right, being a constituent of (what I assume to be) a democratic system which respects the basic liberties of every individual, to attempt to persuade and convince other users to change their behavior. Even if there was a standard to which we can hold the community, and even if the "greater good" of it could be ascertained and defined, I still have the right to express my opinion and compel others to change theirs. I do not have the right to force (them to) change, but I don't see how I could be restricted from facilitating, condoning, supporting, and causing (them to) change.
In response to your edit above, I refer to my post above, in particular paragraph two, wherein I discuss the differences between whitelists and blacklists and how one operates as being inclusively exclusive whereas the other is specifically exclusive.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll link back in turn to my response on the issue of whitelisting and both mine and AtomicWoodchuck's remarks below...
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe so, but in the end was that decision justified, or was it simply emotionally charged? The person may be an idiot, but idiocy isn't against the rules and blocking idiots isn't the function of a blacklist per se. Therefore, wouldn't blacklisting that person be abusing the system?
Comment has been collapsed.
Disliking or favoring something can be emotionally charged, but it can also be based in justified rationale. It doesn't matter how you or society defines idiocy when there is no rule, law, or regulation against it. If it is not prohibited, there is as little functional purpose defining it as it would be if it is not permitted. The only purpose in doing so would be in latent preparation for any point at which such a definition may become essential or crucial to a given policy.
The difference is that whereas an "Ignore" button would silence the user's content and censor it from your view, thereby "ignoring" it, a blacklist button functions as a restrictive feature for excluding certain privileges and opportunities with respect to your giveaways. While the first censors their content, the second restricts their optionsβwhich is not "content" and thus cannot be equated to "ignoring" their option to enter into your giveaway. If there was an "Ignore" button which hid the post, I'd click it alongside with you for that thread. Since there isn't, however, blacklisting the user is not a satisfactory analog.
You aren't wrong for wishing to dissociate from an idiot, but one could argue that you are wrong in depriving them of certain opportunities simply due to their idiocy, especially when there is no clear consensus on what constitutes idiocy and no prohibition against it outside of your own preferences.
Comment has been collapsed.
Remove the person from your blacklist if you want. Just because I think you should, that does not mean you are required to do so, even if there is a moral imperative to do so (Kant would hate me right now), because what does occur does not often correspond with what should occur. "Is" is not "ought," after all.
Comment has been collapsed.
With all due respect, you really are a pompous arse..
"You aren't wrong for wishing to dissociate from an idiot, but one could argue that you are wrong in depriving them of certain opportunities simply due to their idiocy, especially when there is no clear consensus on what constitutes idiocy and no prohibition against it outside of your own preferences."
What a load of codswallop. One could argue many things, but maintaining blacklists (and, indeed, judging whether or not someone is an "idiot") are the very epitome of subjectivity.
This may come as upsetting news, but you will not be able to police other peoples' blacklists or sit in judgement over their contents since they are not publicly viewable anyway. Neither will you convince Support to do so, as they have limited time and, so far, have shown a notable reluctance to ride roughshod over the wishes of the userbase in favour of pleasing one individual, even if said individual evidently considers him/herself to have near prophetic insight into some sort of universal morality system that the clueless, uneducated plebs have no hope of either understanding or critiquing.
Seriously - why not stop telling other people what to do, and look after your own blacklist, allowing others to exercise their own discretion in looking after theirs as they see fit.
Honestly, I fail to see what you hope to achieve by this zealous crusade against those who have the temerity to harbour their own concepts of right and wrong, have their own opinions on what is valid usage of the blacklist feature, and who operate using their own moral compasses. As I have mentioned before, you seem unable to accept that your view is anything but a universally "right" one, and it offends you to your very core that other [mentally and morally inferior?] people should be allowed to make their own choices in this area. Really, amigo, you are the very dictionary definition of pomposity.
Comment has been collapsed.
With "all due respect," I didn't expect you to be such a fallacious and poor interpreter of arguments. I assumed you were capable of a civil discussion as evinced by your previous behavior and my interactions with you, but it seems apparent now that the point at which you disagree with someone is the point at which your argumentative cogency begins to unfurl. You obviously completely misunderstand just about everything I've said, and I find it rather pointless to correct you at this time, given I seriously suspect you have left your reason at the door and don't plan on retrieving it until departure. But fine, I'll try to entertain your bullshit.
Firstly, the maintenance of blacklists can contain some subjective elements, but it is ultimately something people do with objective reason and purpose. The lack thereof is typically considered a sign of abuse of the system, not of exercising one's liberties in subjectivity.
I'm not calling for the policing of others' blacklists, nor would I want to police others' blacklists, nor would I want SteamGifts Support to do so. I would much rather the community police itself and take on the responsibility of properly utilizing the tools of the system in their appropriate manners. Abusing the system is deplorable and a sure sign of a decaying or decadent community, if it was not already as deplorable before the addition of those features which are abused. Proactive change among its constituents is needed, and this can be achieved through the endorsement of healthy habits and the condemnation of abusive behaviors.
As I believe I have stated elsewhere in this thread, this thread isn't about me and if I seriously cared so selfishly about my own wellbeing, I don't think I would have created this thread, which has only invited ridicule, insults, and blacklists from other users. No, I started this whole discussion to help foster debate about the topic of blacklisting. This thread has obviously been a success, and that is all I was hoping to accomplish. You can cut out the bullshit about this being some self-righteous crusade because that can't be further from the truth. Perhaps instead of labeling those who are trying to initiate change and improvement among the community as pompous, self-serving narcissists with messianic complexes, you'd come to realize that some people genuinely care about the health and prosperity of this community and wish to help improve it. Or is that too absurd a concept for such a presumptuous censure such as yourself to conceive?
The fact that I'm challenging people's views doesn't mean I'm trying to replace them with my own. In case you weren't aware, there are contrarians and critics who play Devil's advocate in order to help examine and explore uncharted views in the hopes of fostering a better understanding of them within the community. I'm one such individual, and it would do you well to assume that everything I say is arguendo, and not authoritatively what I believe.
Comment has been collapsed.
I use blacklist for any reason I deem I want to use it...
Comment has been collapsed.
Why? What is your rationale for doing so? Reiterating my above inquiries, what is your justification for doing so? How is that not an abuse of the system? Yes, you may use the blacklisting system to blacklist any and all who you wish to for whichever reason you choose, but that doesn't really satisfy my questions.
If you're willing to elaborate, I'd very much appreciate it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Either those people tempted their fate, or their conduct was unconductive for the greater good of community. Or maybe few of them just can't take the time to read what is written... As such I find them entirely justified to be entered on a list.
Comment has been collapsed.
What do you mean by "tempted their fate"? It sounds almost as if their posting alone is a gamble insomuch as it may earn a spot on your blacklist. As for the second point, by what standard do you hold the community and what gives you the prerogative to determine and enforce "the greater good of the community." What is the "greater good of the community" of SteamGifts? Can you specify it in detail, or is this simply a title for how you think the community should operate?
The third point is rather vague, so please elaborate on it if you are willing to do so.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am truly torn between answering seriously(third with the add-on of people who whine on the forums on not winning and such) or going for the funniest option(first)... I mean really, the way it is phrased is exactly how I would phrase it if I wanted people to go along a joke and in this case the 'joke' is getting blacklisted.
Anyway on to an actual answer, I think people have the right to do as they see fit with their blacklists. Yes sure there will be people using to add people for the most ridiculous reasons but considering just how much stupidity I saw from people just since v2 opened and then adding all the outright rule-breakers I doubt it is a significant amount of the number of blacklisted people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Believe it or not, the first option was intended to be serious because I've seen numerous users actually say something along those linesβnamely, "X, Y, and Z. Blacklisted." It may sound amusing when taken as a joke, but there are people who seriously mean it when they say it. When considering it as a serious answer, it's concerning that anyone would vote for that option.
It may be true that only a minority of users will abuse the blacklist system, but even a minority is a bit concerning, especially when some of those users are major contributors to the site. I respect and endorse the right to blacklist, but only for justified reasons. If it is not justified, I don't believe I am required to justifiably respect it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was going to blacklist everyone save a few on this site until someone said making a whitelist was easier.
I think I got to something like 300,000 or something?
Comment has been collapsed.
I suppose each person has the right to do as they wish,but just because you can do it does not make it right.Blocking someone just because you do not like what they said or did imo is childish but they have the right,is it abuse i suppose so.
You can not bring up the level thing as that does not let you choose who can and and can not enter based on how you feel about them,that is based on level alone,so asking how that is different from blacklisting,well that should be simple to figure out.
In the end no matter what system is put in place people will find ways to abuse it and get around it,i suppose you could return the favor if that is possible as i am still new to the revamped site and still learning it.
From a moral stand point imo black listing someone because you do not agree with the views they are posting or sharing or a reply they made is wrong,but doing because they are being an ass or rude to other or otherwise rule breaking then they deserve it.If i was to run around IRL black listing everyone because i did not like them well it would be a really small world.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your detailed response. Ones like these are what I was hoping for in this thread: ones which explain the user's position, contributes constructively to the thread, and attempts to interpret the problems mentioned in the original post. I don't even care if I disagree with them, I just want discussion.
For the record, I do mostly agree with what you said. My only complaint would be that I'm not sure whether being an ass or being rude constitutes justifiable reason unless the aforementioned could be specified in more detail.
Comment has been collapsed.
If someone bitches about there not being any good games being given away, or bitches about not having won anything when they've entered a whole 41 giveaways, and yes, when people are shown to be scammers/cheats/etc
Comment has been collapsed.
That being said, I have 2 people on my blacklist...one is a bitch and the other won one of my GAs and gave the key to a friend without even saying they received it
Comment has been collapsed.
Gifter's game. Gifter's rules. No doubt people have their own criteria for blacklisting other users, and it obviously means something to them.
Really though, who cares?
There's nothing wrong with adding the option for people who choose to operate a blacklist. In all honesty, I'd feel uneasy about winning a game from someone who I'd wronged in a way that caused them to blacklist me anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if you didn't wrong them, though? What if the reason for blacklisting you was, for example, your post here? Would that really be appropriate or right, in your opinion?
Comment has been collapsed.
As I said, if I'd upset someone enough for them to grant me a spot on their blacklist, I'd have no complaints if they didn't want to let me enter their giveaways.
It's their game, their rules, and their prerogative to use the site's facilities as they see fit. Really, I don't have a problem with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course it's their right, but is it right? That's the question I'm posing here. Is simply upsetting someone when you didn't intend to, didn't mean to, didn't want to, and didn't try to really justifiable reason to blacklist you? What if they simply disagree with your opinion? For example, I disagree with your opinion right now, but that doesn't mean I'm going to remove you from my whitelist and blacklist you as a result. Not only would that be irrational, but that would also be morally wrong.
Moreover, is it really right or even responsible on SteamGifts' part to permit contributors to set whichever rules they want? For example, if I had a rule that you must give me at least one Steam Trading Card, or your street address, or that you must comment on the giveaway, or share it with at least five friends, why should any of those be enforced? Is this not unfair to the winner or other entrants, since the contributor has arbitrary control over who does and does not receive the gift? That defeats the purpose of the site and the randomness of the winner selection if the contributor can reject winners based on arbitrarily set stipulations and rules. By giving away on a giveaway site, the contributor is thereby consenting to follow the rules and guidelines of the site, and to deliver the gift to the winner unless there is justifiable reason to reject the winner's right to receive the gift they won.
I'm a moderator over at SteamCompanion and I've had many cases wherein a user attempts to append extraneous stipulations to their giveaways. Then, once a winner is chosen, they complain that these extraneous rules were not followed. Well, why are we obliged to enforce them? We are a giveaway site and unless the requisites are available to apply through options on the site itself, we are only obliged to enforce proper use of the services we provide. Similarly, there have been a rare couple cases wherein the winner was someone on the contributor's block list on Steam. A redrawing of the winner was requested, and we rejected the request. Why? For the same reason why we allow users with VAC bans to still win games: unless the activities of the user breaks the site rules, threatens the site or its users, or the misconduct is in relation to SteamCompanion, we have no obligation to uphold personal disputes or past events unrelated to our site or its services. Why should we be unfair to the winners just because the contributors are attempting to force their own demands onto the giveaway system?
Basically, I don't see why contributors should be permitted full clearance and control over their giveaways with regard to the rules and stipulations of entry. If they wished to do that, they could give away somewhere else or use a system which provides services that permits extraneous and custom rules. By giving away on SteamGifts (or any giveaway site), the contributor is doing so with the assumed knowledge that they must deliver the gift so long as there is no misconduct from the winner in relation to the giveaway which invalidates their entry or winning of the gift. If this was not the case, what standard is there to rightly call the giveaway site a coherent and orderly system with randomly chosen winners chosen for each giveaway?
Comment has been collapsed.
"Not only would that be irrational, but that would also be morally wrong."
...morally wrong according to you.
There is no objective morality at work here, no all-encompassing right or wrong that defines the acceptable moments at which an individual may be blacklisted. That is what I pointed out, what AtomicWoodchuck is saying, what Bongo, Student, Sisyphus, chrnno, Arsenal and essentially everyone else who has commented agrees: at the end of the day, it is a right we all possess. Disagree, find it reprehensible, silly, nonsensical, protest or do as you wish (that's your right), but it remains their prerogative.
Comment has been collapsed.
Morality can be objectified and standardized, but the question is with regard to the veracity, utility, and universality of that moral system. But fine, if you wish, replace "morally wrong" with "inefficient and an incorrect use of the system." I consider it immoral, anyway, because it abuses the system by improperly using it and doing so as a means to accomplish inefficient goals (in the case of Houdini42's example).
I reiterate what I already stated before and have been stating: the purpose of this thread is to discuss the limits of blacklisting with respect to its propriety and justifiability in response to certain events, and the criteria which constitutes a justified and appropriate blacklisting. It was also intended to poll the community for its opinions on these issues, and to foster debate about the blacklisting feature in general. The right to blacklist is an obvious and rather banal point to make, and if I must I will edit my original post to clarify that this isn't a matter of whether there should be a right to blacklist, since that isn't the topic of discussion. This is, again, a matter of propriety and justice, not of rights and privileges per se.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who is to decide what is right and fair? Are groups fair? Are levels fair? Is it right that people who continually try to cheat the site get excluded from its giveaways? Is it right that cg gets all the nice flavoured cookies?
I'm arguing that it's people's ultimate freedom to choose not to give stuff to folks they don't like. Your "right" isn't someone else's and your morals/morality are not universal. You should be deeply cautious around people who don't recognise this...
Going back to the point I keep making, why should I give an airborne fornication whether someone's reason for not liking me is "justified"? What does that achieve, and really, who cares? I'm glad that if they don't want to give me a game, there is a mechanism allowing them to exclude me from their giveaways with the minimum of awkwardness.
You seem to be getting incredibly bent out of shape at the prospect of allowing people the option to choose who they give games away to. I don't get it. What harm is this doing anyone? I don't expect to be eligible to enter every giveaway on the site. I wonder whether you do?
"Basically, I don't see why contributors should be permitted full clearance and control over their giveaways with regard to the rules and stipulations of entry. If they wished to do that, they could give away somewhere else"
Gifter's game, gifter's rules. They are allowed to choose because they have been given the option to do so. I'm glad the site allows for this, even though [gasp....] it may mean that there are a few people who have used this feature to ban me from their giveaways.. WHO CARES? The obvious rebuttal to your above sentence is the if YOU don't like the fact that people are allowed control over their giveaways, YOU could go to another giveaway site. One where the rules are a little more draconian, inflexible, and more in line with your ideas of The Right Way of Doing Thingsβ’?
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps my inclusion of moral terms was inappropriate. What I meant, as I explained to Graye007 above, was that it was an abuse of the system which incorrectly utilized the features in an inefficient and deleterious way to accomplish goals which are not rationally valid. Hopefully that does away with all your concerns about my injecting morality into this discussion, which although may be an important factor in all this, it isn't necessary to discuss just yet.
It is unfair to you as an entrant and user, and therefore unfair to the community, that you are excluded from certain giveaways without justifiable reason for this exclusion. Regardless of whether you mind, it is still an abuse of the system to use it in this manner. Just because your boss and employees don't mind you eating some of the burgers that were purchased to sell to customers, that doesn't automatically validate your actions as appropriate within your position as an employee and caretaker of the sale of these and related products.
This isn't a matter of whether I'm eligible to enter every giveaway of this site, but whether my exclusion of eligibility is justified as an appropriate use of the system that is utilized to exclude me. Even this gives the impression that this matters to me because it affects me; regardless of whether this affected me at all, it is still important to me because I believe it is wrong, both morally and rationally, and it negatively affects others without justifiable cause. This is a problem that affects the community, not just me and not just you.
Gifter's rules, says who? SteamGifts? Where is it specified that SteamGifts permits and any all extraneous or appended rules and requisites or caveats as is required from the contributor? Where, moreover, does it state that SteamGifts will enforce these stipulations and provisos even if it is unfair to the user or deleterious to the community? I don't believe there is any such place, nor has SteamGifts said any such thing. In fact, I'd argue that it is tacitly implied and assumed knowledge when using the site, and the SteamGifts Guidelines even state that "You cannot ask users to perform any special action in order for their entry to be considered valid, such as liking a Facebook page, or following a Twitter account." There are otherwise no specifications which allot the contributor complete and total control over their giveaway, nor are there any which restrict them. Given that there is no specification on either, however, it is assumed that added stipulations to giveaways are not required to be respected. Any enforcement or attempt to enforce them by the contributors would thus be classified as abuse of the system.
I already do go to another giveaway site, and I even moderate it as well. I also visit numerous others on occasion. That is a cop out and a weak retort, though, and someone of your intellectual strength should know that. Likewise with your strawmen and bullshit, which I suspect is deliberate and not simply lapses in reason on your behalf. And yet, you tell me to effectively excommunicate myself due to my displeasure with how the site is run, when it appears to me that you are the one who fails to understand how the site works, and you have failed to prove how SteamGifts is the laissez-faire Utopia you purport it to be.
Care to prove me wrong?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not unfair to me if a member doesn't want to give me a game. He's entitled to do so under the rules of the site.
"Gifter's rules, says who?"
Are you some sort of fuckwit? Says the Support team who allow people to make their own rules for giveaways. It's been laid down in various topics that conditions for giveaways can be set out, as long as they are pre-approved by Support, and do not involve bulllshit like Facebook likes, fees for joining, nude selfies, etc. I've set up several giveaways with unusual requirements - some for fun, and some for other reasons. Some might think it unfair to demand submission of a limmerick as a condition for entry. Some might think it fundamentally wrong, and an assault on everything they hold dear. Fuck 'em. That's how I roll. And re-roll. And re-roll again...
Anyway, we've been through this before, as have many others on this thread, and you are unable to get it into your head that people who pay for the games have been granted [by Steamgifts] the right to set up their giveaways in this way. Just because other sites don't operate in this way doesn't make it wrong. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it unfair. This thread brings back memories of the classic Monty Python Black Knight scene, where the aforementioned combatant simply refuses to give up, no matter how many of his appendages are hacked away by his adversary. You are him, albeit a somewhat less amusing incarnation...
You seem to be confusing two [or more] giveaway sites here. It matters not a jot how many sites you moderate when you seem to have such a tenuous understanding of this particular one, and the wishes of its users. Many people have made their feelings abundantly clear in this thread, yet you seek to impose your narrow morality upon their wishes. People WANT to operate blacklists without the interference of others. The site allows them to do this. Let 'em. It is only you who is attempting to police this.
"This isn't a matter of whether I'm eligible to enter every giveaway of this site, but whether my exclusion of eligibility is justified as an appropriate use of the system that is utilized to exclude me."
Were you blacklisted as a child? Please, for Gaben's sakes, get some therapy, or at the very least, accept that blacklists are part of this site; their use is entirely up to their creators and you don't have any unassailable rights to enter these giveaways if these people have blacklisted you.
Appropriateness, and rightness are all subjective. So is peoples' decisions on how to use their blacklists. Entirely. That doesn't require "proof". That's just the way the site is set up. Support have repeatedly stated that as long as the reasons are not listed on a blacklist (back in the days when blacklists were stored as online text files), and the user had received permission to use a Blacklist, they would be upheld. Please, by all means, "prove" otherwise, or alternatively just carry on rabidly defending that rotten old festering bone you seem so protective of...
Just accept people's rights to use ANY criteria for their blacklists (as set out in the site's functionality, and many Support posts on the subject, long before SGV2 which, given your apparent in-depth knowledge of the site and its workings you will be acutely aware of). Accept that you can't enter every giveaway, and sometimes the reasons for this will make you sad. Accept that no number of claims of strawmen, intellectual lapses or bullshit can turn an argument that is holed under the waterline into a seaworthy vessel which will stay afloat when subjected to the wild waves of truth and the punishing vortices of applied logic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Appeal to authority! Straw man! Ad hominem! There are so many logical fallacies in your argument that I reject your reality and substitute my own! :D
Comment has been collapsed.
You say that as if that isn't true. The fact is that he is being fallacious. My refusal to accept his complete and utter bullshit doesn't mean I am not accepting reality, only that he is failing to see reality for what it is.
Last I checked, reality is governed by logic. Logical fallacies is an indicator of being unable to understand reality.
Comment has been collapsed.
Welcome to my blacklist.
You sound like a little kid with his fingers in his ears screaming "I am right, I am right"
Are you some freshmen in college who has taken a couple philosophy classes and now wants to 'debate' morality and try to pontificate your take on logic? Cause if so, you are failing at it, badly.
Logic 101 called, it said you need a refresher course.
Lastly, here is some parting advice you may find useful in life:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually no, and you only further prove my point. I never once claimed I am right and others are wrong. This entire time I have been arguing, I have done so with the intent of sparking debate and encouraging discussion. Again, another person falsely assumes my intent and mislabels me as an eristic with specious reasoning when in reality, I'm simply trying to foster discourse.
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong and explain to me the flaws in my reasoning. I encourage you to do so because I'd much rather be wrong than right.
In the future, it'd do you well to not presume the intents and lives of others. It just makes you look like a douche.
Comment has been collapsed.
And your rambling, nonsensical posts may easily be interpreted as an indicator that you are an illogical phallus...
Comment has been collapsed.
Cite where support has stated as much.
I cited my moderation to indicate my experience in these issues and the fact that I'm not just some fucking idiot spouting his ramblings on things he doesn't understand. Of course SteamGifts operates differently from other giveaway sites, so bringing that up is pointless and fails to understand my point.
You are obviously too busy acting like a total fucking asshole to have a civil discussion and you apparently see it more appropriate to deride and ridicule me than to actually debate. If it weren't for my moral views on these issues, and if it weren't for me understanding how to properly use the blacklist system, I'd have blacklisted you by now. And to think, I had you on my whitelist because I thought you actually had a working brain and you weren't just a troll whose specious reasoning rivals that of the most charlatan of Sophists.
Don't even bother responding. I have no interest in entertaining the stupidity of a troll, especially one who'd rather completely misconstrue my arguments to fit your own petty agenda of mockery.
Comment has been collapsed.
We are not a rival site, and that's not what I've been implying whatsoever. You're only further proving the fact that your ability to reason is as good as the clinically insane.
Comment has been collapsed.
Users have absolute freedom regarding the contents of their blacklists, as they see fit, fair, and just, regardless of anyone else's (including their own) views. A Support member has stated as much in this very thread, not to mention others. Google is your friend. The truth is your enemy.
If anyone is a "fucking idiot spouting his ramblings on things he doesn't understand", it is you. Your previous posts show you are completely out of touch with the community, and the ability of its members to behave appropriately.
Please, by all means, continue your attempts to belittle and batter down anyone who disagrees with you, and I encourage you to continue doing so in the most pompous and condescending manner you can muster. It has truly been an education in the core values of fuckwittery, and in obscuring a poorly constructed argument underneath pointless layers of verbosity...
Provided no other SG rules are broken: Gifter's game. Gifter's rules. The group and level systems reinforce this. The ability to seek approval for custom entry conditions reinforces this. The whitelist reinforces this. The blacklist reinforces this. It is up to individual users to apply their own concepts of "fairness" and "justification" to their blacklists, as is their absolute right. You can't accept this. It hurts you deep down.
I argue for choice and agency. You argue for paternalistic supervision, and the imposition of a single version of morality. Limbless, you rail at all non-adherents to the One True Way:
"Oh, oh, I see! Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off! "
Comment has been collapsed.
I was referring to any statements from Support outside this thread, and I would like to think you'd be reasonable enough to realize that. Perhaps I wasn't clear, though, so I'll ask again: cite where support has stated as much, in particular your statements about SteamGifts Support, outside of this thread.
I lost my cool and acted out because I felt you were unjustly and unfairly disparaging me when I was trying to have a proper debate with you. You appeal to rhetoric and fallacies as if that somehow substantiates your arguments, when it just does a disservice to the exchange. I apologize for my previous behavior, but you damn well know that you provoked me and wanted to get a rise out of me. You should know that what you said was inappropriate and crass, but you said it anyway. You are only exacerbating the problem, you know.
For the majority of this thread, I have maintained my cool and tried to have a proper debate, but there were times wherein I became irate and rude. I admit to that, but anyone who has respect for the debate and their interlocutor would recognize this occurring and take steps to bring the discussion back to a rational standing. Instead of provoking me and toying with me through logical fallacies (which you know would upset anyone who's trying to have a respectable intellectual exchange), you could have shown some consideration and cautioned me to take a break and return, or informed me that I'm becoming irate once you detect it and tell me to get a grip on myself. Instead, you insulted and harangued me as if that would help. What point did you have in doing so, beside taking advantage of my emotional state and troll this forum? I'd consider that a contemptible disgrace on your part, if anything else.
This discussion is obviously leading nowhere because you're being intellectually dishonest and intentionally provocative. If you want to continue this exchange, then I'd advise you change your tone, as I have.
Comment has been collapsed.
This response got you on my whitelist.
You pretty much destroyed him in this debate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you, kind sir :)
I am honoured, but you can never destroy the Black Knight...
He always comes back....
Comment has been collapsed.
I had formerly whitelisted him as well because he seemed to be a reasonable person who wanted to help the community. I have since removed him from my whitelist because of his conduct on this thread, which pretty much goes to show that some users are fickle people.
EDIT: Also, might I add, that this is the very problem with the entire discussion: this was not intended to be a debate wherein someone can win and another can lose. Such eristics are boring and oftentimes leads to nothing but posturing and feigned attempts at change. I wanted to have a civil exchange to promote critical thinking, but instead all I received were rude remarks and ridicule. Such behavior makes me question whether the people in this community are fit for a civil discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ugh gifts won 12, gifts sent 2... dude...
The most sensible rule I'd propose is having a ratio requirement (wins to giveaways ratio, like on any decent torrent site (no I am not pirating games anymore, look at my profile I have 700+ there is no need)), that would make the site more fair and it would get rid of the real leechers.
Excessive blacklisting is something that creeps me out, the mere thought of somebody policing/categorizing and putting a tremendous effort into managing lists of unknown random people on the internet is just weird to me.
Anyways everybody has the right to do whatever they want I guess, but I also have the right to freely express my opinion so excessive blacklisting is... well, weird.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a giveaway site, not a gambler's den or exclusive group with minimum contribution levels to retain membership. I am poor and cannot afford games, so I mainly use this site to win games; I constitute one member of the "entrant" demographic while rarely being a part of the "contributor" part. Although some groups and sites enforce a 1:1 ratio, I see no reason to do so. Giveaway sites function on the basis of providing a platform whereby users can win and give away games, the latter of which is assumed to be out of generosity. For what it's worth, however, I attempt to give back to the community by contributing thoughtful responses, encouraging stimulating discussion, and reporting misconduct or abuse. Sorry, not everyone can afford to give away games; I can't even afford my rent.
The problem here isn't leechers, and I'm not sure why you brought this up. Leeching is a crucial component of a giveaway site; the lack thereof would render the system rather pointless since games could easily be purchased or traded at that point, rather than putting it up to gamble. Unlike torrenting, wherein the ratios are usually between seeding and leeching (neither of which inherently cost money), giveaway sites operate through purchased gifts. (The only exception to the torrenting rule would be with what.cd, which requires users to contribute a minimum number or original torrents as well.)
I pretty much agree with your opinion about blacklisting, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
People have different amounts they feel they can give, and I have no problem with that, so long as they give something, which you have. And, as you mentioned, there are many ways to give back to the community. For example, I let people do reprehensible things with my body. Just no kissing on the lips.
Comment has been collapsed.
Being a leecher is not against the rule. AND putting people to their blacklist for whatever reason is not against the rule too,
Comment has been collapsed.
It only shouldn't be against the rules to put someone on a blacklist without justifiable reason because it cannot be adequately enforced. A rule means nothing if it cannot be enforced, and would thus fall into the category of "honor code of conduct."
Comment has been collapsed.
If the creator doesn't want you to enter their giveaway then why should they be obligated to present a cause for you NOT to enter?
Comment has been collapsed.
You are saying you want people to have a legitimate reason for putting you on their blacklist. Its their giveaways, why on earth do they have to provide a reason to blacklist you and not allow you to enter their giveaways? You mention that steamgifts doesn't have to oblige or enforce it, which is true, but steamgifts isn't creating all the giveaways is it?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, but it is facilitating the means to give the gifts away, provides the services and platform to do so, and rewarding the contributor for their contribution, all with the assumption that he or she followed the caveats of the site. If the user wished to specify their own caveats for entrants in order enter the giveaway, the user should have created a giveaway elsewhere on a platform which does permit that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ooh, wait, what if putting someone on your blacklist means you put yourself on their blacklist as well? That way you REALLY have to be sure you don't want to have anything to do with that person.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if I make a statement like "I like cats" and someone blacklists me because he rather likes dogs, then that is incredibly retarded. However everyone has the right to be retarded. And in the end the number of people who regularly do giveways and who blacklist for absurd reasons is probably quite small anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
With all due respect, that's appealing to infrequency and rarity, and fails to address the issue. Yes, it may be rare, but an uncommon problem is still a problem. Just because crime rates are down, that does not mean there is no crime. If anything, that implies the opposite.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where do you stand on giveaway groups, given that membership of these is often arbitrary, and solely at the discretion of their owners? Are they harmful for the community, given that they exclude the vast majority from access to their giveaways?
Should group owners be forced to supply a proper, fair reason for excluding any given member, or should we simply do away with group giveaways altogether, given the grievous injustices that they help perpetuate?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, and I have already stated enough throughout this thread to indicate my views on this matter. Use your fucking brain.
Comment has been collapsed.
You, sir, are a veritable scrotum.
If you did address my question about groups, you'll have to point it out, as it's like trying to find a brown cork in a roiling sea of excrement with a knife embedded in each eye.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah yeah, let's skip the insults. It's getting nowhere and I was wrong for how I responded, and I responded that way because I was upset and let my emotions get the best of me.
Fine, I'll expound: I alluded to my opinions here and here. I also stated that I agreed with EViLiSLuRKiNG's post, which also spoke on these topics.
In specific, I believe that giveaway groups are appropriate, albeit a bit elitist, but I don't see how that is related to this discussion. They can be harmful to the community when they become a major component of it, and their existence does restrict the access of the public community to many giveaways. It's their right to maintain such groups, however, and so long as it is maintained responsibly, I don't see a problem with it. I would still discourage the use of private and exclusive, invite-only groups, but I can't prevent people from using them, nor do I believe SteamGifts should unless it becomes deleterious to the community.
I'm not sure how to interpret your second paragraph because it's unclear as to what you mean by "should." Do you mean "should" as in whether group owners should be required to supply a valid reason for excluding certain members, or whether they should with respect to the morality of their conduct? I'll assume the former, since you specified "forced," though I'm willing to provide the latter if asked.
No, I don't believe group owners should be forced to supply a valid answer for excluding members, but I do believe that any group which intends on excluding certain demographics should specify as much in the criteria for joining their group. This should be sufficient reason alone to exclude any member which does not adequately satisfy the criteria or minimum requirements for the group, and this would include the removal of existing members who no longer qualify. However, I do also believe that these requirements and qualifications should be fair and comply with any relevant SteamGifts rules. Arbitrary rules, such as "no leechers" without defining what a leecher is in that context, should not be considered valid and SteamGifts should not be obliged to listen to any group which enforces arbitrary rules.
Again, though, I'm not sure what your aim is in bringing this up, though you're free to continue your line of inquiry.
Comment has been collapsed.
If group owners are allowed to get away with deciding who gets into their (and their members') giveaways, and who gets excluded, on the basis of unregulated, subjective and potentially illogical/unfair reasoning, why are blacklist owners not entitled to the same perks?
Honestly, insults aside, I don't think we're on entirely different pages here:
Essentially, we both agree that Steamgifts would be a better place if people exercised the sort of judgement we ourselves might find agreeable. I just think that the whole thing is getting blown out of all proportion, to the point of paranoia. We don't necessarily agree about the rights of people to exercise absolute freedom over who they blacklist, or even whether blacklisting should be a thing at all, but I think that (with the odd exception) this community is one of the best around. There are few other places where so many people come together just to give stuff away to strangers.
Quite aside from the formal giveaways that appear on these pages, the generosity of this community's members has, on more than one occasion, been astounding. I will not name names, or incidents, suffice to say that there are some really awesome people on this site, and the community deserves a lot of credit, which I don't feel it necessarily gets in your assessment of the situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd say its a useful means of enforcing our social norms as a community. Before, people could say whatever they wanted without any real retribution. Being a horrible person or saying deliberately terrible things isn't really against the rules, but Blacklists were cumbersome to use with any real regularity, and even then, only in private giveaways.
People don't have a right to enter giveaways. Its something we do to support our community, and we manage that community both by rewarding behaviors that promote it, while putting negative pressure on the things that harm it.
Considering Blacklists are done by each individual, its actually quite a democratic way of censuring negative elements, and those negative elements will vary wildly from person to person. The compounding effect will mean that the things/people we find most harmful will be hurt proportionally to the amount the community finds disdain.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've observed many people use blacklisting as a threat and not as a constructive, proactive form of encouraging healthy behavior. Moreover, it does not work well, especially when it appears to be rarely announced anyway (most people blacklist without mentioning that they did or why). If we're talking about establishing and enforcing social norms and healthy communities, even a voting system like reddit would be more helpful than blacklisting: at least then, users can silently voice their approval or dissent for a thread or comment and enough aggregate votes can lead to further actions (such as being a featured or top comment, or automatically hiding the comment below all the others).
Nowadays, people can still say whatever they want, and still do, without any serious repercussions and without even being corrected. I could cite any of the hundreds of shitposting threads and pointless polls which have been created only since SteamGifts v2.0 was released. Blacklisting doesn't change anything, and is insufficient and ineffective reinforcement for normative or acceptable behavior, nor does it provide adequate pressure to function as an impetus for change.
Entering into giveaways may not be a right, but it is a necessary function and requisite for the very existence of the giveaway site. Frivolous or unjustified blacklisting is effectively undermining this.
Blacklisting is a means by which threats can be quarantined from being able to enter into giveaways. It does not and should not apply to forum conduct. Blocking is a means by which negative content can be avoided and unwanted interactions can be prevented from occurring. Both are ineffective at censuring or censoring negative elements. One which might be effective would be proactive conduct from the community and perhaps a feedback system wherein such content and users could be voted for their contributionsβboth in giveaways and in forum contentβto the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
The presence of whitelists and blacklists is a form of voting, and the fact that its effectively by secret ballot means that its likely to be much more honest and less driven by herd mentality. If people become disruptive enough, they'll run out of giveaways to enter and have little reason to return. Likewise, being a positive part of the community will likely lead to being on more whitelists, and thus have more giveaways to enter. Its a system that will take time to sort itself out, but one with great potential.
I think it would be more beneficial if people could see a counter of how many blacklists they're on, although rising counters tend to drive certain types to increase the counter, even if its for some bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's an ineffective and structurally flawed form of voting which fails to produce any worthwhile results which aren't deleterious to the community. Assuming there was a feedback system, couldn't voting results be hidden until a vote has been placed (and that vote cannot be changed)? Could there not be an option for a user to hide their feedback from all but specific individuals (e.g., the user and the individual being evaluated)? Bandwagon voting could become an issue, but is that issue more disastrous and problematic than the issue of an abusive and dysfunctional blacklisting system? At least with voting and feedback systems, there is more ways to combat abuse.
Given the sheer immensity of SteamGifts, I seriously doubt they'll ever run out of giveaways to enter and to even get to that point, a user would have to be a deliberate asshole all the time and do their best to get blacklisted by every contributor (or major contributor) on the site. Even so, a genuine asshole like that would likely continue returning than simply leave, if only to complain, and will only be silenced by a total ban.
People can be positive, constructive parts of the community and still get blacklisted. I can almost guarantee you that at least one person (if not all 35+ who voted on the relevant poll option) has blacklisted me for even initiating this discussion. Would you say that was justified? Was this thread such a horrible and harmful contribution to the community as to warrant blacklisting its creator? You cannot feasibly rely on this system to work as an adequate method of voting and feedback, especially when it is covert and when it is so prone to abuse without any feasible way of combating it. Broken systems don't "sort itself out," anymore than does a broken pot or vehicle. They break, and things get worse until someone fixes it.
Comment has been collapsed.
You keep saying that blacklists are abused or broken. What exactly is being abused or broken? They way I see it, it works exactly as it should. There is no harm being done to anyone, except perhaps to egos and self-righteousness. People may indeed be positive and constructive, but not everyone has to see it that way. If someone doesn't like what you say or who you are, it's quite reasonable for them to blacklist you from their giveaways.
You lose no investment, noone has painted 'leper' on your forehead, you're free to post as usual. You just get possibly less free games. Is that so horrible and harmful?
Comment has been collapsed.
The blacklisting system is being abused by being used as a tool of retaliation and punishment for crimes which do not fit it (if they're even crimes at all). The purpose of blacklists is to exclude threats to giveaways and prevent problematic users to become liabilities through their misconduct. It's essentially a tool to combat troublemakers and those who break the rules or cheat on puzzles/quizzes. It's broken because there is no mechanic to prevent or combat this abuse, nor are there any policies which prohibits abuse of the system. I'm not sure how to combat this abuse in a blacklist system, but it is fundamentally flawed precisely due to its susceptibility to abuse.
It's unjust and an abuse of the system. In that extent, yes it is horrible and harmful, though obviously not to the degree you're implying. Just because something isn't as wrong as murder, that doesn't mean it isn't still wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
People can use blacklist for whatever reason they want. It's people rights.
And for me, the reason I blacklist people is if he won more games than he gave. Like 12 wins ($200) but only gave 2 games ($3).
Comment has been collapsed.
Doesn't really matter. He still have the right to blacklist for any reason he chooses and chose that one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nobody missed your point. Everyoby understood you think it's unfair, as in if we aways let people solve things with fights like before there would be the ones who would be around punching strangers in the street.
You are the one missing reality entirely, because this is exactly what people want. To use their strenght as they see fit. In this case, to control who is out of their gifts, even if it's for the pettiest of reasons.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, perhaps so, but is that right? Is that healthy for the community? Does such a precedent and norm foster a constructive and enjoyable environment for users, or the contrary?
Comment has been collapsed.
Does not matter. Free will is naturally a case of entropy. You either allow people to control and let them do it at their own discern, even f it's for the evil, or do not allow them control at all. You can't have it halfway and have anyone say wich aspects they can and cannot control, because this is not allowing them control at all.
And if you don't know much about human interaction: "comunities" will regulate themselves if they think something is not working in their best interest. They will either change the behavior over time or simply leave to another place wich works more in their interest.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course it matters. You may not value it or recognize its value, but it is nevertheless an important issue. Of course there is a midway and for you to deny that only belies the fact that this is not a dichotomous issue. You are trying to pose a false dilemma where there is none. Why must there be only anarchy and totalitarian oppression? It's absurd to deny that the powers and control of contributors cannot be limited or restrained while still maintaining their relative freedom within the system. That is the very foundation of social contract, of government, of any organized hierarchical system wherein two or more parties and their respective rights must be balanced in order to maintain the healthiest and most conducive environment for all.
Communities can self-regulate, but that does not mean they necessarily will, especially if the community in question is as toxic and volatile as SteamGifts' is. No matter your idealistic expectations of how every community and ordered system must necessarily be self-sufficient and regulatory, this simply isn't the case. Need I reiterate your red herring that "[f]ree will is naturally a case of entropy"? That implies that any system, even a community, will naturally undergo "entropic" decay, and thereby fail to self-regulate indefinitely. When there is more disorder in a system (i.e., toxicity and volatility of the community), the decay will increase and accelerate.
Communities cannot sufficiently self-regulate if they are unstable and internecine. Moreover, no change can be made in a community if no problem is identified. If your absurd predictions were the norm, then dictatorships, totalitarian governments, and corrupt and scandalous organizations would have either never existed or would have been easily stamped out before they became problematic. Basically, your assessment of how communities work is so fantastical that I can't find any reason in it.
Maybe you have an idealistic faith in humanity, but I'm a bit more realistic about all this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha!
Seriously though - who bumped this car crash of a thread.
//looks up a couple of posts//
Aha... the Black Knight returns... Β¬_Β¬
It's dispiriting reading the OP's near inpenetrable drivel, slating the community as "toxic" when he himself seems the be at the very hub of all things poisonous, as his legacy of fearmongering posts goes to show.
The community has done a very good job of regulating itself under the current system of rules for several years, and with very little forum intervention from the moderating team, except on rare occasions when things (or, more often, individuals) get out of hand.
It's clear the OP has very little understanding of the community, What is less clear is why he is still around, when it's evidently such a terrible place to be.
Personally I think it's rather nice to be part of a community where people are given freedom and treated as autonomous adults instead of errant schoolchildren, in need of direction and tutelage, but I guess not everyone sees the world in the same way...
Comment has been collapsed.
But...but... I am an errant schoolchild!
Seriously though, Nokkenbuer, lay off will ya.
Comment has been collapsed.
Read the second part that says that if they don't regulate they will fall apart. That is what has become of societies through all history. If they won't behave people will simply leave steamgifts. Maybe open another website based only on invitation, or anything like it, maybe they'll stay here and endure abuse because of some free games. But by the end of the day it's their option.
I know "I" won't be using this here aymore if they intrude in who I can blacklist or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course only i blacklist people that do wrong things(i mean rules). People that enter giveaways are just people like we are. Some are rich,some are mediocore,some poor,some are whatever. It also depends on country you live in. By the way its people's choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont see any problem with the Blacklist. Why is it concerning to you that you might get blacklisted by some people for your post?
I completely disagree on
"It appears to me that many people are abusing the blacklisting system, which is really only intended for rule breakers and those who share puzzle answers, by blacklisting anyone and everyone who doesn't completely flatter them."
That what BANS on SG are for, not the Blacklist. From my perspective, when i give something away, and i dont want XXXX to give anything, thats my choice, whatever reason i may have, its up tp me. I am the one spending money. That has nothing to do with abusing the Blacklist, thats exactly what it is for.. This way i can still make public giveaways without worrying about XXXX. Otherwise i would have to make a Group, or a private giveaway and only invite people i know, or maybe just wont do a giveway at all.
And if someone doesnt want to give something especially to me, well, i guess i have to deal with it, but that doesnt mean i will kiss anyones A** to have a 1 in 2000 chance to win a game. Lets assume im desperate for games, then there are still about 1000 other giveways open at the same time. Why should it "concern" anyone to get blacklisted by 1, 2 or 20 people?
EDIT:
My reasoning for blacklisting people: I dont want to give them stuff. Why? For any reason i want.
Blacklisting someone for their posts: Any reason is fine. Its up to the Gifter.
"unjustified blacklisting" : no, there is nothing like that. Its the contributors money,they may include or exclude whoever they wants.
is excessive blacklisting a problem? : i didnt recognize any. I dont read all threads, only those with titles that interest me.
Impacts on community: i didnt see any.
how to fix those issues: what issues?
Comment has been collapsed.
How on earth would you enforce 'justifiable blacklisting'? Support has enough to deal with as it is, and to check up on everyone's blacklists to make sure the people on it satisfy certain criteria would be impossible.
Besides, there are already penalties for rule-breakers which preclude them from entering giveaways, ie suspension or banning. I don't see any indication that the primary intention of blacklists are for the above purpose. While they have been used to augment or effectively fast-track support rulings, at the end of the day if someone breaks a rule, reporting them is more effective and appropriate.
Gifts are also personal and free to enter. If there was an obligation for users to make or enter giveaways then sure, having to justify a blacklist might be reasonable. There are no such obligations because the site is merely a tool for users to give away gifts, not a democracy. The freedom to enter all giveaways is not a basic liberty. SteamGifts provides the service, but it's the gifters who provide the gifts. So while it would be wrong for SG to censor participants, the ultimate authority over where the gifts can go should lie with the gifter.
Think of this as free speech - anyone can say what they like within the rules in these forum discussions, and anyone can disagree. Gifting games and specifically excluding others using a blacklist is simply a way of disagreeing, whereas specifically including people with a whitelist would be someone's way of agreeing or approving of them. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, everyone can have their say.
Personally I've never used a blacklist, but I am glad the option is available. If some users want to use blacklists as a 'threat' in a debate, who is going to take them seriously? It can easily be ridiculed; noone gives so much through this site that being prevented from entering their giveaways would leave you browsing SG without purpose. Unless, of course, you manage to tick off every person with significant contributions, in which case you probably deserve it! Thus, there is no threat to the "very existence of the giveaway site" because there are simply way more entrants for giveaways than (potential) blacklistees.
Edit: Feels like you're just stirring up doggy doo trying to spread your views here just because you have moderator powers on a different giveaway site. You say you won't blacklist anyone, well that's pretty generous if you don't contribute here anyway. Nothing wrong with being poor, but then again poor people don't usually have such high horses. There are many ways to contribute, not just by creating gifts but also constructive participation in forum discussion, puzzles, or chat. It's even ok to do nothing but enter giveaways.
What I see from your post is "I got blacklisted and I don't like it so let's exaggerate the impact of blacklist(er)s so they are shamed and/or forced into stopping their evil practices". Nobody goes around SG picking random forum posters to put on their blacklist. If you are fearful of getting put on one for an innocuous post, then it's because you rankled someone enough on another post or comment for them to care enough to remember and possibly blacklist you.
Blacklists are for people deemed unworthy by the gifter to receive their gifts through SG, a quality that should be 100% subject to the gifter's opinion. Why butt in?
Comment has been collapsed.
The only reason the blacklist exists is to allow the gifter to choose to exclude certain individuals from entering their giveaway for whatever reason they want. There is no such thing as abusing the list. I am allowed to refuse to give anything to anyone.Whether you broke a site's rule, you did something I consider immoral, you wrote a post that deeply offended me or I simply dislike your avatar. It could very well be a childish reason but the choice is mine and mine alone.
The blacklists existed long before they were integrated into the site. The only difference is they now apply to every single giveaway I make instead of just private and group giveaways and that they are automatic and support doesn't need to handle re-rolls for a blacklisted person who wins. This has the advantage of people making more public giveaways. Having private and group/whitelist giveaways is a lot more restrictive than preventing a handful of people from entering one person's giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm so glad I came across this thread! I was going to write something similar, but I'm not good with expressing my thoughts in words, so thank you for doing it!
When I found out about blacklist feature when SGv2 was still in beta I thought that this is good and will help community to "self-moderate" itself from abusers, regifters, cheaters and such, and maybe even lower load on support. And some members was already using blacklist on private giveaways and was have to maintain them manually, so it's good that there will be more convenient way to do so. But now site have been live just for few days and it's already turned into a mess of emotional childish behavior. I've missed this site for its community and forum when it was offline, but now I don't have that urge to open forum and see what's new, because in many threads you come across this "blacklist trains", where discussions turns into chaotically blacklisting each other. I prefer milder measures of old forum: if you ask dumb repetitive question or new on site and too laze to read faq - you getting trolled but also answered, if you break rules - you get reported and someday banned, if you are being an asshole - you get disliked by community and treated that way furthermore, if you just have different opinion - you have debates that are interesting to read and participate if you can argue you position. But now all that and a lot more turned in just blacklisting. I don't want to even open most threads because of it. And not because of fear i might get blacklisted myself - I honestly don't care, it's just sad to see.
ThereforΡ I'm for making it so blacklist will apply only to private/group giveaways, as it was on old forum. I think it should not affect public giveaways. If you want make your own rules and punishments - welcome on forum. If you are just want to contribute to community - put your crown aside and make it available for everyone.
I'm sorry for long and maybe messy post, I just needed to put it out. I miss my fun community.
Comment has been collapsed.
While the blacklist trains are quite childish, the public giveaways are where it's affecting the least people. Even if I had dozens of users on my blacklists, my public giveaways could still be entered by thousands of people. And the giveaways you are blacklisted from do not even appear in the main page so you don't know you're missing out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just so you know, as a friendly bit of advice, the word you're looking for is "thread", not "tread". I noticed that was an error you kept making, so maybe it's more than just a typo. It may also help to add two spaces in-between paragraphs to be easier to read. Just some suggestions, feel free to ignore.
I definitely concur with your sentiments, though, and think your blacklist modification suggestion is a great idea. My only concern is that there may be people who don't like it and may refuse to give a winner their gift if he or she is on the contributor's private blacklist (which is rare, but possible).
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, thanks a lot! I often confuse words that are sounds or writes similar. Probably should start to check up with translator before posting, but I'm too lazy to do it on regular basis. So I'll be grateful for your corrections if you'll came across my mistakes again!
Yes, but they deal with it on old site. And I think that most people won't even remember why they blacklisted that particular person a couple of days later, so won't care enough if he'll win their game. Besides they would be aware of that possibilities, so if they make giveaway public they are accepting it. I mean that's basically why there is public and private giveaways - you want to contribute to community or simple give some games away - do it public. If you want to reward some people or host an event without seeing some unwelcome members - go for private giveaways. And if you want some special rules applying - confirm it with support first. But now everybody just want to be kings of their own kingdoms and apply their own rules to public giveaways. Rules for not thanking in GAs, rules for empty thanking in GAs, rules for being rude, rules for being smarter than oneself, rules for grammar mistakes or even some random "I'm not in the mood" rules, that don't need to be approved anymore and extend to public GA instead of being private preferences.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll gladly do so, if you wish! Thanks for your contributions to the thread, Lifedreamer.
Ironically enough, I came across one user who blacklisted me for complimenting them! When I added them as a friend and told them about what happened, they didn't even remember blacklisting me! Their rationale for keeping me on it anyway was: "I must have blacklisted you for some reason, so I guess you belong there." When I finally jogged their memory, they cited a compliment I gave them in one of their threads (he probably didn't understand what I meant because he may have not been very adept at English, to say the least), I explained what I meant. He then simply deleted me as a friend and blocked me, without even responding back.
It's saddening that so many people are so unwilling to just talk things out. They perceive confrontation as threatening and automatically label the inquirer as a troublemaker. Oh well, c'est la vie.
I totally agree with your sentiments, though. Shit sucks, man.
Comment has been collapsed.
I blacklist people if he won more games than he gave. Like 12 wins ($200) but only gave 2 games ($3).
Comment has been collapsed.
Refer to my previous post. Fortunately, I have no interest in the games you've given away thus far, so your petty and childish threat means nothing to me.
Blacklist me if you want. You'll only prove my point.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, whatever.
I can use it however I want.
You can use your blacklist for whatever reason. i.e: don't like my username, don't like the country I come from, don't like my profile picture, etc etc.
And I don't mind
Comment has been collapsed.
That still doesn't make it right or an appropriate use of the blacklist system.
Comment has been collapsed.
The lack of rules either way means that it should be assumed that the blacklisting system could be used however one wishes, since there are no penalties for doing so. However, that does not preclude it from being wrong or an abuse of the system, and those are my points of contention. You're appealing to authority, and authority only plays a complementary role in this issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not wrong or abused the system if it's not against the rule the system set itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, appealing to authority. The site and its rules only establishes what is permitted and acceptable behavior, not what is right or appropriate.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, you want to change the blacklist rule?
Ask the support or admin! Maybe they will approve your reasoning.
Comment has been collapsed.
There aren't any established rules for blacklisting, as you've already alluded to above. Even if the administration or support approves of my reasoning, that does little to help combat this issue because there is no way for the administration to prevent such abuse without removing the feature altogether. It is up to the community to change, and I was hoping that by creating this thread, I could encourage more responsible behaviors among the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
"What could be done to fix this issue besides removing blacklists or enforcing rules which prohibit unjustified blacklisting?"
Nothing. You can either give people the right to blacklist others (including abuse) or not. Giving them the right to blacklist and then limiting it to a certain amount of 'blacklistings' within a given time isn't going to fix the problem. Moderating blacklists (as in checking the reason for each blacklist addition) isn't going to work either. It would simply require too many people to only check those additions and the reasons would still be subjective to the moderator.
Probably the only thing you can do is to encourage people to not abuse blacklists, but then again at the very same time you become a target to those who do (what this thread pretty much proved ;)). So it's pretty much a black and white situation: Either accept the abuse or remove the whole system.
Comment has been collapsed.
For what it's worth, I'm getting awfully tired and may have to respond to everyone else tomorrow. At least you aren't blacklisting me for what I say anymore (I think), so that's an improvement. I wasn't really being a "condescending butt" the entire time I've been on here, actually, and only started to be that way toward you because you're an insecure bigot who's intimidated by long responses.
I really wish we could get along, but you seem hellbent on hating my guts.
TheCyberDruid, I'll respond to you (and everyone else) tomorrow, if you don't mind. Thanks for replying!
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry about the delay; I've been pretty busy recently.
I agree with what you say, though I'd like to propose an alternative: amend the blacklist system itself to be less abusive. For example, blacklisting could function bidirectionally, as some have already suggested, and could only work for private giveaways, as many have already suggested in this very thread. These two changes could alone drastically improve the blacklisting system while still retaining it for those who wish to use it. It may not curb abuse per se, but it can at least detract from the scope and influence of that abuse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for my late reply too, but I don't really see how those two changes would improve the situation. The first one is a sensible change, but it won't change the fact that abuse can/will happen. Some people might think twice when the system is bidirectional, but most won't. The second change would simply increase the number of private giveaways, but again it won't deal with the initial problem. Most 'power users' here only create private and group giveaways anyway, so only people that care about their blacklists enough would use more/only private giveaways then. Not sure if that would be a positive outcome of this thread.
Personally I think you overestimate the actual issue and propose changes to the system for the sake of it. I also think that general (as in for all giveaways) blacklists are a good way to deal with exceptions (people who create several fake giveaways, trade away won gifts etc), so I don't want to get rid of them. Any artificial way to limit the system (I agree on the bidirectional change in general, but don't think it'll have any real influence on the 'abuse') will just take away its initial purpose.
Comment has been collapsed.
It may not curb the propensity for abuse, but it can improve the system to be more fair, in that blacklisting a user could affect the blacklister's giveaway opportunities as well. This in turn could dissuade some users from blacklisting, since it could negatively impact their own chances of winning certain games. It may not be a majorly influential change, but at least the system would be better overall. Likewise for the second change, though I admit that it won't really change much in terms of user behavior.
I don't think change in the blacklist system would itself be conducive to combat abuse, since (like you said) any artificial limits imposed on the system will just detract from the value of the system itself. I think the change need to come from within the community itself, in its attitudes toward blacklisting and treatment of the system. I completely agree that any external restrictions or enforced changes won't really accomplish much if anything (I disagree with my foolish suggestions earlier in this thread recommending as much). That's why I think there needs to be a shift in perspective within the community itself. If the community doesn't begin to discourage such abuse (and encourage proper blacklisting habits), no change will be made, even if artificial rules are imposed on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
" Yes, but only those who are known scammers, cheaters, and regifters, or who deliberately breaks the rules. "
my black list has Zero(0) entries. why? because i don't care how stupid someone acts/reacts, how childish question they ask(unless troll), they still deserve chances to enter the GA's, whatever my beliefs are, especially in a public GA's.
i wasn't in anyone's blacklist as far as i know, and in V2 its still 0-0, so far its good.
yes i agree somewhat with your post that its being abused and i would prefer if its only used in private giveaways or may be a bit improved.
eg, if someone blacklists me, i can't see his giveaways.
but, he/she shouldn't be able to see my giveaways either, nor my post/topics. now that would be good.
i wonder how someone with 1000 blacklist entries will feel when he/she opens discussions....
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly I have no opinion about it really, however I must say that it is indeed ridiculous that people are using the blacklist in such surreal way sometimes
Then again, their giveaways-their rules
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no intentions of using the blacklist. I feel for giveaways, everyone should have a fair chance at it. And if the person is a rule-breaker, then ignoring them isn't going to solve the problem. Reporting them will. I just think that the blacklist can be used with no questions asked, and I generally don't like blacklists because it promotes one-sided ideals.
Comment has been collapsed.
TL;DR β What is your reasoning for blacklisting people and what is your opinion on blacklisting someone for their posts? Do you think "excessive blacklisting" is a problem, or whether there is such a thing as an "unjustified blacklisting," and how do you think this impacts the community? What could be done to fix this issue besides removing blacklists or enforcing rules which prohibit unjustified blacklisting?
I'm initiating this discussion after seeing multiple frivolous and unwarranted blacklistings occur. Even I have been blacklisted without justifiable cause (I won't name names, but you know who you are), and I've come across a number of times wherein I cannot view the giveaway due to being blacklisted by the contributor, despite how I don't recall ever encountering or interacting with that person in my life. It appears to me that many people are abusing the blacklisting system, which is really only intended for rule breakers and those who share puzzle answers, by blacklisting anyone and everyone who doesn't completely flatter them. I'll probably be blacklisted for this very thread, and it's a concerning thought.
This is ultimately a giveaway site and blacklisting seriously restricts the user's ability to use it. The site has a forum, but I feel discussion and conversation is being stifled out of fear of being blacklisted for anything one might say. I usually voice my opinions and speak my mind even at the risk of negative consequences, yet even I have given a second thought to posting even the most innocuous of things out of fear that I'll be blacklisted from giveaways for it. Is this the sort of community we wish to foster? One in which users are afraid to converse due to idiots who treat blacklisting as the same as blocking, while only really restricting their chances to enter into certain giveaways? Even once blacklisted, you can still see the user's posts, so why are people blacklisting based on posts? What is the rationale?
Feel free to weigh in and voice your opinion below. For what it's worth, I won't blacklist you regardless of how much I disagree with your post. I encourage discussion, not stifle it.
Important Update (February 3, 2015)
This thread has sparked a lot of debate (which is a good thing!), but has also led to some rather distasteful arguments between users (which is a bad thing), and I'm guilty of this as well. Although it may be wise to lock this thread in order to prevent more conflict, and so that I don't get blacklisted even more than I probably have by now, I've made the decision to keep this thread open in order to provide a place of discourse about the topic of blacklisting for the SteamGifts community.
I will continue to monitor this thread and do my best to respond to everyone over time, though I'll be posting less frequently from hereon out. For those of you who'd rather not sift through all the shit and spats below, here is a highlight of notable posts and comment chains throughout the thread:
(This list is by no means exhaustive and there were many worthwhile contributions throughout. This list simply summarizes notable exchanges in this thread that incoming users may wish to peruse. For those of you who'd like to see the full range of opinions and arguments, feel free to scroll down and read them all below.)
Other notable posts: EViLiSLuRKiNG, Pizzaice, omnitau, Zomby2D, Lifedreamer, TheCyberDruid, Sinovera, nlspeed911, GauRocks, Rhahael, jbondguy007, Thexder, naps420, Aquillion, ZooZoV, SSteve, RedCoats, Jekaterina
Thank you to everyone who's participated! The above lists may be updated as more posts are made.
Changelog:
Comment has been collapsed.