I've highlighted many posts in my OP update that I didn't agree with precisely because they took the issue seriously and provided some rational argumentation supporting their views. Just because I don't agree with a particular view or post, that doesn't mean I don't consider it a serious post. By "not taking things seriously" I mean many people are unwilling to take the time to construct a serious and thorough post that doesn't reiterate previous posts or arguments. Many just post their opinion and leave, adding to the quantity—but not the quality—of discussions in this thread. For example, I consider your post above to be a serious and constructive contribution to this thread because it analyzes the issue in-depth and provides clear reasoning as to why you hold the position you do, all the while attempting to refute mine. I don't agree with it, but I can nonetheless respect it as a serious contribution.

I don't think the blacklist system is "working perfectly fine and doesn't need fixing." There have been a number of issues about the system itself which demand fixing or tweaking, and potentially many more regarding how the system is treated by the community. The system itself is seriously flawed, though that is only one component of my arguments. The more exigent concern is surrounding how blacklisting is treated by the community and what constitutes as appropriate blacklisting behavior. Now, onto your numbered points:

1. I believe there is such a thing as unjustified or inappropriate blacklisting. Do you seriously believe blacklisting someone based on their profile avatar, or name, or sex, or nationality is appropriate? If not, then what about blacklisting someone based on their beliefs or views, assuming those beliefs or views are themselves not discriminatory and harmful? If not, then what about blacklisting someone based on their activities which are not directly (or even tangentially) related to your giveaways? There are multiple layers to this issue and I'm trying to examine and explore all of them in rigorous detail.
   • I would call into question the policies of SGv1 regarding blacklisting as well, though I should note that I support the old system over the new system on multiple points.
   • I don't believe a bad reason should be as valid a reason as a good reason, or even valid at all. That is the crux of what I consider abuse: if there is not adequate reason to blacklist a user, then blacklisting that user constitutes abuse.
   • You claim that what qualifies as reason may differ from person to person, but this is only because there are no commonly accepted terms of fair and appropriate use for blacklisting. Since there is no established policy for acceptable blacklisting behavior, anything is considered appropriate.
   • I argue that there should be some standard of acceptable use, and likewise some understanding of what constitutes unacceptable use (i.e., abuse), of the blacklisting system. This isn't a matter of mere subjectivity, but rather one of community responsibility.
2. That is why I'm hesitant to recommend that blacklisting should only apply to private giveaways.
   • I believe that if the blacklisting system is changed to apply to all giveaways (as it now does), however, some changes in blacklisting behavior should follow to complement these changes in the functionality of the system.
   • At this time, the blacklisting system is still treated in much the same way as it was before, if not amplified, and this poses serious concerns upon the community.
   • The blacklisting system no longer operates as a means by which special rules can be enforced and certain users could be restricted from private giveaways; it now operates as a way of restricting users from applying to all giveaways by a contributor. This change in the impact that blacklisting a user has should therefore follow a change in blacklisting behavior, namely one which is less aggressive and which has some standards for acceptable use.
   • The old system was already unfair to entrants because there was no standard of acceptable use; however, it was overlooked because it did not impact the entire community, only a small portion of it. Now that the impact has changed, the issue becomes all the more exigent.
   • At least if the giveaway is private, I have the opportunity to join if I know how to, have the link, solve the puzzle, or am given clearance to enter. If I am blacklisted, however, I cannot access or enter into the giveaway because I have been specifically restricted. Since I was pinpointed, there should be valid justification for this. Unlike private giveaways, which exclude in much the same way as do whitelist giveaways (i.e., they exclude based on a general set of criteria), blacklisting excludes specific users.
   • Blacklisting users when it only applied to private giveaways was fairer because it only affected those giveaways which had special rules and were restricted to a limited number of users. It's unfair for a public giveaway to hold similar restrictions and even if such a change were to force more giveaways to be private, even that would be an improvement over abusive blacklisting.
3. How many of those users are contributors? How many are serial contributors? How many are major contributors? The total userbase comprises a majority of users who either give away only a few or no giveaways whatsoever (some of whom aren't even active in the community) and a minority of repeat contributors.
   • Many of those who fall into the latter category are also regular and active members of the community, in particular the SteamGifts forums. Thus, the impact is much more significant if one considers who is doing the blacklisting. Even with only 1,000 spots on any single blacklist, that is more than enough to make a significant impact when considering how many of that three-fourths of a million users actually participate in the community and on a regular basis.
4. You may not personally mind it, but others might, including myself.
   • Why should it be appropriate for a user to blacklist another and still have access to the blacklisted user's giveaways? Not only does it seem logically contradictory, but it seems hypocritical as well.
   • Anyway, the suggestion is to establish some sense of fairness between blacklisters and the blacklisted, since anyone who blacklists another should do so at the sacrifice of being able to enter the blacklisted user's giveaways. Otherwise, it's unfair and favors the blacklister for no particular reason, which is doubly unfair when one considers that the reason for blacklisting may have been unjust or itself unfair or arbitrary.
   • In order to combat a circumvention of the system, whenever someone is blacklisted, all entries in the blacklisted user's giveaways by the blacklister will be automatically removed. This seems like the logical corollary for blacklisting bidirectionality, if only to curb potential abuse of the system.

Thanks for your contribution and hopefully this discussion continues, though it's fine if it does not. Happy SteamGifts Birthday, by the way!

"... or because they got drunk and decided to blacklist every second person they saw on that particular night."

My God, stop it already. I told you it was a mistake and I wouldn't do it again. Why must you continue to bring this up???

+1000 :)

Yeah, I started that discussion with "crappy monitor", but still the point of that thread is arguing about what color you see.