And this is less rude? I am not a child, nor am I interested in becoming a moderator for another site, especially since recent concerns in my life have prevented me from being as active a moderator on the first one. The reasons why I invest so much time in trying to discuss these issues with the community are that:

1. I believe that this is the least I could do to contribute to the community since I am not able to contribute financially in the way of giving away games;
2. I personally enjoy discussion and I think these in particular are worthwhile to have, and may help me better develop my own views and not just those of others; and
3. believe it or not, I care about the welfare and health of this community and wish to promote a more improved and less toxic environment than is currently manifest on SteamGifts.

I have already done much for the site I moderate and will continue to do more if I'm permitted. I still provide advice and counsel on the decisions made regarding policies and actions taken on specific cases, and I do my best to help promote a healthy environment for all. As a result of the efforts of the team, and especially of the administrator, the site has been a major success and our community is far more conducive an environment than I would have ever expected.

Of course you don't need an answer because you're too busy presuming who I am and standing by that libelous slander to actually consider that you may not be the mind-reading god that you seem to assume yourself as being. Perhaps if you cut out the bigotry and open your mind to the possibility of being mistaken, you'd realize that your view of me is wholly false.

My contributions have helped expose the toxicity, not contribute to it. You are a prime example of the fruits of my labor.

You say you are right and everyone who does not agree with you is wrong.

I say I am right because I believe I am right; if I knew I was wrong, I wouldn't be arguing in favor of it. I do not say that anyone who does not agree with me is wrong, though. I am very rigorous and uncompromising in my reasoning, that much is true (and I don't think that's a bad thing at all), but when I am shown to be wrong I admit it and when I am proved incorrect, I concede. The reason why I have not conceded is because I have not been proven wrong. There have been numerous valid arguments in this thread, some of which have caused me to seriously reconsider my stance on numerous issues. In fact, my views and behaviors regarding blacklisting have changed since I first created this thread precisely because of the discussions therein. Having said that, it's completely and utterly false to paint me in such a bigoted and closed-minded manner, especially when just the opposite is true. An unwillingness to acquiesce to fallacies should not be treated as identical to being obstinate and dogmatic in one's beliefs.

You keep saying this community is toxic because they feel there is no abuse and they will not take your side on why you think it's being abused.

The reason why I think this community is toxic has been explained by me multiple times, yet you still have the audacity (or the willful ignorance) to completely ignore these explanations in favor of contriving your own. Like I've stated before, I believe the community is toxic because it is hostile to criticisms, rude and hateful toward critics, obstinate when confronted, and abusive when its flaws are exposed. Evidence of this is clear within and without this thread. More specifically, the problem lies in the regulars of the forums and the sort of atmosphere they cultivate—namely, one which is for the most part spiteful and bigoted toward any and all opinions which do not conform to an arbitrary, self-conflicting, and ever-shifting set of criteria.

You will not let this thread die.

I am simply responding to responses in this thread, which I stated in my update to the original post will remain open indefinitely in order to provide a platform for people to discuss the issue of blacklisting. I may close this thread at some point, if a moderator or another staff member does not, but only after I believe this discussion has been explored to its maximum. Until then, I see no reason to close this thread, just as I see no reason why I shouldn't respond to newcomers posting in it.

If this community is toxic, then I'd HATE to see your views on some of the other forums out there.

Comparing the stench of pile of shit to another only confirms that one is stinkier. These forums may not be as bad at times, but that only implies that those other forums are even worse than bad. Anyway, unlike those other forums, users here have the power and ability (by virtue of the blacklist system) to fundamentally alter which giveaways are seen by the community based on the most impetuous and unreasonable of excuses. Whereas users of other forums and sites can only block certain users, the users here blacklist them without recognizing the crucial difference between the two functions. (I've already explained the difference between a blacklist and a blocklist on two separate occasions before in this very thread.)

Sure, there are some bad eggs, no matter where you go you are going to have them, but to say the WHOLE community is bad because of that is just crazy! I just don't get it, maybe I am crazy, just don't see it.

I have spoken negatively about "the community" as a whole because the community is best represented by its regulars and they are the users with whom most tend to interact. Perhaps I should have been more specific in stating that my problem is with the behaviors, attitude, and conduct of the regulars of the community, though I have admittedly seen similar behavior by nonregulars as well. Even if this sort of toxic behavior represents only a volatile minority among the entire community, it is nevertheless an issue which can and should be addressed by the community, especially when that minority is as vocal and noticeable as it is.

Also, you used to say that blacklisting for anything other then rule breakers is wrong.

Technically, I specified that the primary function of blacklists would be to blacklist those users, not the only function and certainly not that it is the only right way to use blacklists. In any case, I have since then changed my position (due to the discussions in this thread, mind you).

People shouldn't have a say who they wish to give games away to.

I never once stated this or anything even remotely similar to that. In fact, I've stated the opposite. Your caricatured misrepresentation of my statements only misleads the reader and betrays your bias.

Who's morals? I asked this once before, you posted a link to it on the front page, yet you never bothered replying to it.

The morals themselves are up for discussion. When I condemn something based on moral principles, however, I am doing so based primarily on the general ethics of fairness to all sides, and respect for the basic rights and privileges of every individual. I am not attempting to espouse any particular moral doctrine; I'm calling into question the morality and ethics of the conduct itself and demanding an examination of them, if only to discern what precisely are the ethics surrounding blacklisting. It is irrelevant that morality itself is a controversial subject and damn near every person has a uniquely different set of morals; my criticisms are based on general moral and ethical arguments which are commonly accepted in most moral or ethical systems.

The reason why I haven't responded to you is because I've been extremely busy and have for the most part avoided any major debate or post. Your post was thorough and thoughtful, so I have avoided it since I realize that your post demands some serious thought and consideration, and may result in another long discussion like those before. I have been mainly focused on picking off easy targets in this thread (no offense to those who I have responded to in the past week or so) since they are fairly easy and simple responses, and often won't lead to any lengthy exchange like would one as intensive as yours. That's also why I highlighted your post in the update to my original post: I briefly skimmed over your post and found it to be something thoughtful and even though I didn't really agree with it, I felt it was a worthwhile contribution to the thread and thus deserving of being mentioned.

If they want to just block random users, they can. [...] If they want to add people they disagree with, they can.

Why should this be appropriate? On what basis should this be considered acceptable behavior, and why should this sort of behavior not be condemned—or at least discouraged—by the community? Again, I am not arguing for the right of users to do this, so pointing out the obvious that it is their right leads us nowhere and fails to address the issue. This is a matter of propriety and what is best for the community, not what it is permitted to do as stated by the Rules & Guidelines.

Who are us to judge why and how anyone should use the blacklist feature?

Any and all people have the right to judge. The issue is whether that judgment is correct, valid, appropriate, or justified. Who are they to judge that someone with a certain type of profile avatar, or certain opinion, or certain color or religion or orientation, should be prohibited from entering into their giveaway based solely on these criteria?

You use the blacklist system as you want and stop telling people how right and wrong it is how they use their blacklist!

I will once people begin to think for themselves and start to make informed, rational decisions. Guess when that will happen?

By the way, reply or don't, I will not reply back. I said it before and I'll say it again, just let this thread die already!

And I will not let that occur so long as I have the power to prevent it, not until this issue is resolved or all arguments have been posited. But so be it, don't reply. It's a pity, too, since you at least articulate your arguments better than most.

Justify your horseshit or wallow in it.

You don't decide whether an argument is invalid. Logic does, of which you apparently have none.

I'm just pointing out that your legal concerns don't really apply here, so it's unreasonable to pursue that line of argumentation. I cannot find any information indicating that it is illegal in Brazilian law to discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, or nationality on the Internet, so I cannot confirm those statements. If you have any information you could cite verifying that, I would very much appreciate it. At least in the United States, I don't believe it is illegal to discriminate for any reason on the Internet. I doubt the laws are much different elsewhere in this respect, though I encourage anyone reading this to prove me wrong, since I admit I am ignorant on the topic of international law regarding discrimination on the Internet.

I understand that you may not blacklist someone based on any of those forms of discrimination, but what about others? As far as I know, there is no rule prohibiting such discrimination on SteamGifts, and especially none which pertains to blacklisting. Anyway, my point was: why should contributors not be allowed to blacklist for those discriminatory reasons? My purpose for asking this was to illustrate that the reasoning for not allowing contributors to blacklist for those reasons can also apply for all unjustified reasons for blacklisting a user.

I hope this makes sense. If not, I can explain further.

And I countered them. I already have the experience. Your turn.

Fortunately, it's neither.

How was it not debunked? I showed that contributors should not and do not have complete control over their giveaways and that providing that would upset the balance between giveaway contributors and entrants.

We're going in circles because people won't read the damn thread and choose instead to posit fallacious arguments which have already been shown to not withstand a rational analysis.

I've already explained what my "agenda" is multiple times, in case you didn't notice throughout this this thread. I seriously doubt I need to explain yet another time, especially when all of these results can easily be found by simply searching for the keyword "thread".

I don't hate group giveaways, CV giveaways, and blacklists. I encourage the use of all of them and value them as important aspects of the site. What I don't like, and that with which I have a problem, is the abuse and misuse of these features, in particular the blacklisting system. My being a "freeloader" has nothing to do with this, and that isn't even what I am, and your accusation only exposes your complete failure to comprehend my position and intent.

I totally understand that, but I don't think that is a valid argument, nor is it supported by SteamGifts. As a contributor, you have to follow certain rules and guidelines as well, and when you create a giveaway certain restrictions are not permitted. Whether you "like" me is unimportant and if I were to win one of your giveaways, I have no problem marking it as "Not Received" if you refuse to deliver it for whatever reason. The same would apply if you won one of my giveaways.