Logical?
+1,
If anyone does not understand (as it did for me, took a few seconds),
he means that as we can see our given blacklists and whitelists, but we can't see who whitelisted us, wich would be a great idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
As I told not "who blacklisted me", but only "who whitelisted me".
Comment has been collapsed.
Unfortunately I'm not a beatiful (which all of them are) girl, so "he" :'(
Comment has been collapsed.
beatiful (which all of them are) girl
Are you sure that they all are? xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Cos some of them are down right ugly !!
There.. yes.. i said it :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Please don't. It's "nice" to say, but also makes you appear disingenuous.
There isn't a person on Earth that finds every man/woman beautiful, even if we stick to just physical appearances. You may think the world is a "better" place if we all pretend that we do, but that's out of touch with reality and doesn't hold up outside your safe spaces.
Comment has been collapsed.
16 people have whitelisted me and I have no idea WHY whatsoever. I barely post, I am not very funny. I try to be helpful but dont know if its due to that. I would love to know the reason for that.
So if you whitelisted me and is reading this: Hear me, exalted spirits... Hear me. Be you Gods or Devils, ye who hold dominion here..... why?
(and by the way, a list would be great)
Edit: Now i got 12 more whitelists after this thread. Stop, people! Making me have more people to wonder why the added me is just cruel!
Comment has been collapsed.
I have over 1k comments and most of them are bumps and thanks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Over 5 years. I can find people with 5 times that amount in a few months.
And if THANKS on giveaways counts, most were due to that. I stopped doing since apparently people dont actually like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
apparently people dont actually like that
Did you see my public GAs? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I havent.... it was other people who said those are not appreciated so I stopped doing it. Although I dont really understand this. Why must we have 30 different and lenghty phrases of thanks to be thankful of it? Its just easier to write that instead of huge message.
If i say THANKS i am as thankful as if i say "Hey that giveaway is great, thank you for making it. I sure hope the RNG gods smile upon me". But i think this is a discussion for a different thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you like don't like RNG gods checkout Darkest Dungeon :D
Well, I put that message on my GAs to detect auto-joiners mostly. I don't have a problem with thanking and mostly funny people mock my description with their comments like "beep-boop auto-entered ga", "cloaking mode enabled" etc. which I like them ^_^
Actually I'm ok with any other comments except "Thanks.", "Thank you". which shows description is not read and probably auto-joiner. I mean if you comment a Transistor giveaway such as "Thanks for Transistor, bla bla" I'm ok with that
Comment has been collapsed.
Darkest Dungeon is on my wishlist, problem is that even though its old but they never have a 75% sale*. ;_;
The RNG gods and I have a bad history. I loved to play rogue games in the past. Played shitton of most of the rogues you can think of, and never beat any (besides gearhead, which isnt really a rogue and theres a option to disable permadeath, which I did)
*yes I am cheap, sue me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Beat it before the patch that makes the game slightly easier and adds new content. A really, really nice game. I would love to make a review but I usually dont do them because I am afraid of commiting mistakes (not only typos, but structural\pacing).
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, today someone whitelisted me before I even entered site, who are you and why? :D
Comment has been collapsed.
What I meant by post count is that I mostly lurk, so people dont know me. I figure well known people would have more since they are familiar faces.
I thought that would net me blacklists, not white ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why? Probably one or more of: Good ratio, seem nice and polite, thanks GA creators after winning, no rule breaking, able to write multiple paragraphs. I can see why you are whitelisted by people ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
Awww stop, you! I dont know. I though people most whitelist due to funny\helpful comments, which I lack since I dont post much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe you gaveaway something people demanded so they wanted to whitelist you in return?
Comment has been collapsed.
I whitelisted you after this comment which I thought was really funny. I also generally just think you have a cute name, avi and have been nice and respectful in most comments of yours that I've seen.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I won a game and I get the code, I will whitelist that person, because if I will win a game and the code had not come yet, then I will check if I am whitelisted the person who should give the code. If I am whitelisted the person, then I can take easy, because I know that the code will come soon :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hello. It seems like you have blacklisted me. I'm not looking to start any drama or even blacklist you back (without a good reason). But I would very much like to know why you have blacklisted me? If you can remember. Thank you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you kindly. I've probably done some crude or insensitive jokes in some threads and that's probably why. I hope I can be as gallant as you expect me to be in the future. And yes, a notes function would be nice. one could track wins too, like "this user has won one of my giveaways".
Comment has been collapsed.
That could create some weird politics and have people asking "Hey! Why haven't you whitelisted me?" Then people would feel obligated to whitelist everyone. Or other people would blacklist people who didn't whitelist them, and so on. It's good that it's not visible to anyone.
If anyone wants to explain why they whitelisted (or blacklisted) someone, they can always leave a comment in a discussion or giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can always check one's whitelist giveaway to see if he's whitelisted you. "My whitelisters" does not even easy the process. If you wanna bother someone just check a whitelist giveaway of his/her then bother :D
Comment has been collapsed.
While this seems like a good point, I think most people here wouldnt pester others to be whitelisted. In fact this could probably net him\her a good amount of blacklists for that.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's already some politics here about saying thank you. Some people will (at least claim to) blacklist people who didn't say thank you for receiving a game, or not saying thanks for a train. There have been discussions here before about how saying thanks is kind of meaningless, but everyone does it because they're afraid that if they don't, they'll get blacklisted.
Now, you can say, "Saying thank you is just the polite thing to do." But I think that whitelisting could easily become the next "polite thing to do", especially when it has a major impact on people's ability to win more games. Like I said, anyone can tell a person why they whitelisted them. The fact that almost nobody does says something.
Comment has been collapsed.
People alredy do that, because they can see if you do a whitelist only gib (i have seen some people asking to be on other user WL because they saw some cool gib)
Comment has been collapsed.
Whaaaat? Do you think... do you think people would just go and LIE on the internet?
Comment has been collapsed.
nah, nah, everything on the internet is real, i almost jumped the gun there...
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course not, but was that really worth necroing a 3 year old thread for?
Comment has been collapsed.
You can thank support for a suspension too, since that's the usual result.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where did I say that I was offended? You did a completely useless and rude thing that is generally frowned on everywhere online. And the usual result is support giving you a suspension, not me. Literally that's all there is to it.
And they can of course see who you are even if you try to hide.
Comment has been collapsed.
I only blacklisted one person after I gave him his gift.
His ratio was like gift:0 won: unlimited
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know why people whitelisted me. Some people told me because I found them in my group/whitelist feedback.
For me it's a surprise and a selfsteem bump when someone whitelists me and then I just found them making giveaways. I'm like "who is this person and why added me?"
If I know who they are before they make a giveaway, where is the fun and the surprise and the emotions?!
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep. I like to be surprised too when open giveaways tab and find there a blueheart icon
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if we're able to see something like that, then don't you think that we should be able to see who blacklisted us too? That's because, in both situations, we may want to do a dialogue with them, either positive or negative, depending on the kind of "list", so it's kinda the same thing. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
morikalina, I actually have you whitelisted, but can't remember since when or exactly why. But checking your profile, is probably because you have been generous but won not as much, and don't have many games on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel bad now because looks like I've never entered your GAs before :( I must fix that soon
Btw thank you ^_^
Comment has been collapsed.
Voted No. Why? Because that would encourage whitelist spam, bots would start whitelisting everyone hoping to get whitelisted back.
Comment has been collapsed.
It felt like the wrong thing to do, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why. Thanks for articulating one important use case. I just voted No too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bots should just whitelist the most 1000 generous contributors and focus on those who make low level GAs. (Some) success guaranteed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Somehow I don't feel that demograpgic would be checking thousands of profiles to whitelist back.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why check manually when you can use a script that automates the process?
Comment has been collapsed.
Still, I don't think top 1000 gifters would bother even to install it
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not the gifters who would use this script, it's the users of bots/scripts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems my engrish failed me. All the time I was thinking about bots success rate that depends on gifters to whitelist them back
Comment has been collapsed.
To be more explicit, the concern is that the following will happen:
- Bots whitelist top contributors. They can scan the user list to programatically go through all profiles and find the ones that are active and give to low-level users.
- Whitelisted users then go through their whitelist, either manually or using scripts like rvSGST (which has an option for returning whitelists) and whitelist those bots
- Bots enter whitelist GAs.
- ????
- PROFIT!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
Do people actually use 'return whitelist' scripts? öÖ
Comment has been collapsed.
Such a script exists (an option within rhSGST). Whether it's used by anyone is a different question...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that feature was requested by someone, so I'd assume it's being used (I find the option to return whitelists useless myself, but the option to return blacklists makes sense).
Although you raise a good point, I still don't think this should get in the way of the website showing your whitelisters / blacklisters. If people want to whitelist everyone who has whitelisted them back, that's on them.
Comment has been collapsed.
The point here though isn't to show why whitelist spam itself is a problem for users, it's to show why anyone would be motivated to spam whitelists to begin with.
The problems with this extend further than that. If I understand it correctly, whitelists are already limited to 1000 entries. Why?
Well, one reason is because they function as ACLs for giveaways and as such has to be loaded to RAM every time they're parsed, having insanely large lists would impact performance negatively.
Another reason to limit the lists is to limit database usage, each entry in the list requires at the very least a pointer in your profile's database entry which means that for every entry in your lists your profile grows a bit (or likely several bits, heh). The size of the database itself can be an issue but the size of the individual records in the database is much more likely to be an issue as the first is mainly limited by storage space, which is relatively cheap, and the other is limited by RAM, which is relatively expensive or even by stack/buffer/cache sizes which in some cases can be insanely expensive. Not just in terms of $ per byte (economical cost) but in terms of bytes per second (performance cost).
It's possible and even likely that the database already keeps track of the reverse lists so it may simply be a matter of displaying the information for the user so technically it wouldn't have to be very hard to do but while it may or may not be easy to program, it's much harder to predict what overall impact it would have because it would very very likely change how the site is used.
Then of course we have all the drama it would entice.
Of course, much of this can be mitigated by putting in various restrictions but that would come with problems of it's own ranging from having a negative impact on the overall user experience to a different but still negative impact on performance to opening up for abuse.
Comment has been collapsed.
I fail to understand the relevancy of all this talk about the 1000 limit. People can fill that limit with or without this feature. The site already shows the number of whitelists / blacklists you're on, and I assume just going one step further and showing the usernames of those users would be very simple. Support can take care of drama.
Comment has been collapsed.
The limit itself isn't important, forget about that. What's important is the logic behind why there is a limit at all.
The number you see when you look at your profile that show many has whitelisted you is a result of a database query that looks something like this "Get Number of entries in table X where UserID=[your user ID]" (pseudo code...my SQL is very rusty) after which the database counts the entries and returns the number of entries in the table. The database only has to access your profile to get the requested information and the result is a few bytes of data.
Asking for the actual entries in the form of usernames is something very different because the table doesn't store usernames, it stores unique user IDs. When retrieving the list the database has to first look up the entry in the table to retrieve the user ID and then check the profile the ID points at to retrieve the username for that profile. The database has to first access your profile and then every other profile for every user in the list and the results can be several KB of data. (this is what happens when you look at your own whitelist because there you see usernames and not just a number)
So, why are we talking about this limit then if it's not important? Because a change like this would change how users behave and it's fairly safe to assume that the limit is based on current or expected user behaviour. Suddenly there is a point (even if imagined) to whitelisting others which would mean many more would actually do it (that they can do it now doesn't matter because they don't do it).
Note that I'm not arguing against the feature as such but rather I'm trying to show that there are other things to consider than the obvious ones when implementing a change like this and that even a seemingly small change can have a large impact.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I just don't see the impact. Like you said, it would be exactly like looking at your own whitelist / blacklist, and that doesn't have a large impact on the website, so it doesn't make sense to me that having just two more of the same type of list would have any different impact.
The limit could just as easily be reduced, but I also fail to see the problem with that. I'm sure many users already have their whitelist full, and I'm even more sure that the majority of the users have their blacklist full / almost full. If the limit was set at 1000, I would only expect that even if all users had 1000 users in their lists, it would not cause a large impact on the website, otherwise cg would have set a lower bar.
In the end none of this matters, since cg is the one who decides whether or not to go through with it, so let's just wait and see. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
god damned bots :c
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, but you can check the person's profile, you don't need to whitelist her back.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like to be surprised. It is much nicer to simply see a blueheart giveaway and find out that way ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
No to blacklists and whitelists, some people like to remain anonymous.
Comment has been collapsed.
if they actually ever give something away to their whitelisters though they are essentially "outing themselves" and can't remain anonymous. so i don't see much point in anonymity beforehand.
Comment has been collapsed.
True to a point, I mean arguably you could just click on people and search to find out if you are whitelisted, same for blacklisted. Just as others have said though, it could become a bit of a WL 4 WL fest or devolve into "why has my friend person X not whitelisted me".
Anything to keep petty bickering to a minimum is preferable, the current layer of difficulty in finding the information is a big enough deterrent at the minute.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, fair point. also like said below bots could go on wl frenzies just to try and farm return wl's. that kinda changes my outlook on it a little bit.
if you're interested enough you can run scans using rhSGST and that'll locate a lot of them (approx 2/3's of mine are known to me). ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
I added quite a few people to my whitelist for varies reasons. I've barely or not even spoken to some of them but once people see an unexpected blue heart for the first time it's like an extra bonus for the day and always brings a smile. Everyone loves a surprise and whitelisting for whitelisting takes that away.
I'd rather keep it the way it is I'm not interested in people whitelisting me because I've whitelisted them, it's a nice gesture but in my eyes not required.
Comment has been collapsed.
That IS logical, cause mostly you add people to whitelist to be able to create whitelist giveaways.
And that means they WILL know that you added them.
But i understand cross-whitelist сoncern of fellow SteamGifters, and that's why voted NO
P.S. For now i do mostly forum private easy-puzzle giveaways, and think active members of community deserve to be rewarded more.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd blacklist you for that post, out of context. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
"Bugs/Suggestions: make whitelists reciprocal" coming soon to cinemas near you...
Comment has been collapsed.
I highly doubt that would be logical. It may sound logical with blacklist but with whitelist why do I have to whitelist someone if he/she whitelisted me?
Reciprocal whitelist = Completely not logical
Reciprocal blacklist = Arguable
Comment has been collapsed.
But in the case of whitelist it really makes no sense. I give you something then you're forced to give me back? Eye for an eye is a punishment system from Mezopotamia, it's not applicable for anything "I give, I get" scenario.
Not to mention that it's super abusible and would destroy whitelist as it is (Whitelist is just a fancy SG-only Steam group to give for, and noone should tamper with it in any ways, only it's owner)
Comment has been collapsed.
Neither does for blacklist. Yet, the reciprocal suggestion comes back as boomerang )
It was punishment, but more importantly it introduced proportionality of punishment to the severity of the crime.
The fact it was punishment doesn't mean it can't be applied elsewhere. "Good deeds deserve reward", "returning favor" etc can be summed shortly by eye for an eye.
Comment has been collapsed.
Noooo ;___; you can not say eye for an eye in ANY positive context because it IS a punishment system. Using it in a positive way just proves how people want to oversimplify things without understanding it fully.
"An eye for an eye", or the law of retaliation, is the principle that a person who has injured another person is to be penalized to a similar degree, or in softer interpretations, the victim receives the [estimated] value of the injury in compensation.
No reward. It's essential components are: being a punishment, and having the same value. You just said two different expressions regarding a similar principle on rewards, don't mash up the two, as they are opposites, but on the same principle. Like heads and tails of the coin, they complement eachother but they are not the same. It just twists the concept of the proverb, and in a different concept it's not a proverb, it's just a sentence and it has nothing to do with the original meaning.
Like when the kids want to have cake, and you say "Let them eat cake " that has nothing to do with the proverb originated from Marie Antoinette, even if it's the same sentence. Similarly, eye for an eye in a context not releated to punishment is just a nice sentence, but not a disciple, because it's not applicable to that situation.
TLDR: Using a proverb in a completely different context is a logical error and the meaning can not be applied to it.
Also, blacklist is about not giving. Anyone can "not-give", and similarly, not getting is not a punishment. But seriously, same for whitelist is just nonsense. Somebody hates me, I whitelist them so I forced myself on their whitelist, and if they do a whitelist GA they are forced to give me a chance, despite them not wanting to? Or I don't do WL giveaways, but add someone who does and I just freeload from there? Where's the "eye for an eye" that supposedly works for rewarding as well?
Comment has been collapsed.
That would require removing the 1000 person limit then…
Comment has been collapsed.
well, from time to time I turn off my giveaway filters and look for 'group' giveaways and sometimes I see whitelist only giveaways ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Hide games you manually filtered?
Just noticed this option after seeing your message :O
Comment has been collapsed.
I really don't understand why we shouldn't see our blacklisters.
Comment has been collapsed.
then everyone will gain "stalkers" asking "why you blacklist me?" all over every single thread.
there's already quite a lot of that question as it is, we don't need a reason for more of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok. I think people should be responsible for their actions. There's also quite a lot of bullshit blacklisting, if you ask me.
Comment has been collapsed.
There may be bullshit blacklisting to you but at the same time people can blacklist for whatever reason they want. If you blacklist someone they may find your reasoning bullshit.
While I disagree with some people's reasoning to blacklist others I can't fault them for it as it is what they want to do and they're the ones paying for the gift they're giving. At the same time I expect them to respect my reasoning for blacklisting others.
Comment has been collapsed.
People can blacklist for whatever reason, true, and this is probably the problem. Also, I'm sure some people find my reasoning bullshit, as proven by my blacklist score of... let me check... 92.
Maybe the blacklist function just shouldn't exist, maybe it should. My point is this website was born with the idea of giving away games to random strangers, but its users seem to do everything they can to counter that idea. Levels, SGTools, rerolls and then blacklisting: aren't all these things going against the spirit of just giving? I am also a bit pissed off when I see a winner of a GA of mine having a ratio of 0.1, but... whatchagonnado? The way I see it, it's the nature of the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even better, people should just stop worrying so much about blacklists and simply enjoy joining whatever giveaway is available to them.
I'm on 78 blacklists, I have no idea who any of them are and couldn't care less. I'm not running out of giveaways to join, at least not from blacklists. (But owning 7k+ games and only joining for things I would actually play is a limiting factor.) I prefer to spend my time on things I enjoy instead of worrying about maybe not being able to join some hypothetical giveaway that I would most likely wouldn't have won anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you wrote makes a lot of sense. What annoys me, though, is not the missed opportunities caused by being on many blacklists: it's the general attitude of many users around here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Zomby2D certainly made some strong points. I also start from the wishlist filter, but I cleaned up my list after is became a "vaguely interested in" list, so... there's usually not much there. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Mine still has some "vaguely interested in" entries but I tend to just ignore those and not enter unless I know I've got the free time and am in the mood type of thing :)
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a wise and mature approach... but there's that 300 points cap whispering "Use me, use me..." in my ear. :) Joking apart, I think the cap is too low and incentivates us to use points not to lose them, so to say.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't say I have the same issue, I rarely get below even 250 points unless there are a ton of giveaways for something I'm dying to play (or some point heavy giveaways).
I don't personally think the cap is too low, if anything I think people should instead prioritize their points for what they want most and let go of those that they only "kind of" or "might" play in some distant future.
That being said, I'm sure some people do enter a lot of giveaways and run out of points and are planning on playing what they enter for sooner rather than later.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can only speak for my brain, but I guess I'm not alone.
Free games are cool (and they usually drop cards); many people here are collectors or halfway there and a +1 in the library is always welcome; there's no obligation to play the games you win, so you're off the hook if they end up in your backlog.
All this said, the 300 points cap gives me the feeling that I'm missing out on the opportunity to win something, so I end up joining GA in the "vaguely interested in" category, or worse. I still don't join GA for games I wouln't touch with a ten foot pole, but this is not ideal.
Without a points cap, or with a cap high enough to mitigate this feeling, I wouldn't feel I'm wasting chances by not joining GAs and I would certainly be more selective.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure, I do know when I first joined I was a lot less selective but now I just pop in and out a bit :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I come here too often, that's the thing. I'm easily bored. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, and this brings us back to the main topic: people think the official rules are too loose, so they make and enforce additional ones by means of SGTools, blacklisting and groups. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I would say for the overall 'health' of the system, small groups that exist for their users to boost each other's CV are sure something you can complain about, but the only effect the group I linked had on me is that it makes me do GAs I otherwise would not have made.
Don't see what's wrong with SGTools and blacklisting :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't mean to criticize that group at all. About the rest... you know my opinion, by now. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Police state is what we have. Reporting, blackisting, sgtools... If at all, I am advocating a vigilante state, which I prefer to a police one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well you're already on my police state's whitelist anyway...
But what we have is a vigilante state? Reporting, blacklisting, SGTools....
Comment has been collapsed.
Thinking again, my list is not a perfect match for my "police state" point. Reporting, rerolls and the general attitude of investigating users is search of faults to report is very much police state material; blacklisting is more vigilante per se, but the fact that blacklists are secret strongly weakens the point; finally, SGTools seems comparable to a parallel, harsher legal/moral system like the Sharia in certain Islamic countries.
All this said, did you mean I actually am on your whitelist? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
So we live in a Sharia vigilante police state! Out with the pitchforks!
(The reporting and investigating done on SG is very much vigilante style, as it is the people themselves who are the informers, and unlike in an actual police state, the regime does very little persecution without enough informants demanding this. There is no autonomous Spanish Inquisition at all!
Vigilantes don't have to act, uhm, out in the open, as far as I'm informed? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was under the impression Batman is a vigilante, even though nobody knows his secret identity.
SGTools is what you make it. It support anything from Anarchy all the way to Sharia, passing by Social Democratic help-the-poor and whatnot. The working class neither necessarily is oppressed nor is the oppressor on SGTools.)
You've been there forever, yes. Unfortunately without a note explaining it to my future self. :)
Link as 'proof' LOL
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting. You have a point about the relative absence of the regime; one might say the investingating and the reporting represent a wish for a bigger police state, but I would say they're still the opposite of vigilante style since they're the equivalent of calling the cops (hence the wish for a police state thing).
Vigilantes don't have to act out in the open but they usually take matters into their own hands, much like Batman. The bad guys might not know he's Bruce Wayne, but they know it's Batman punching them and he's doing it with his own fists (and toys).
SGTools is many things (including a friend of the much-despised Kinguin), but you can't deny it's always used to restrict access to a giveaway, to enforce rules which aren't in the law (of SG) but are perceived as morally just (e.g. give/win ratio). It's designed to support the righteous and punish the guilty. I stand by my Sharia analogy. :)
Finally, thanks for the whitelist! Reciprocated, for what it's worth.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm practicing my SGTool-GA skills nowadays :>
Indeed my uBlock install does not attack the Kinguin adverts there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :P
Also, custom ads require custom uBlock rules. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I just wish uBlock did it by itself. Maybe we should make a Better SGTools addon that removes all of the price comparison and Kingureferral.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's like with the group. Without the group, I wouldn't be making the giveaways for the group. Before I 'discovered' SGTools I wasn't making the giveaways I made with it.
The freedom to control, limit, blacklist, and SGTool-filter is a freedom too :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This is becoming a matter of semantics. But yeah, one can argue SGTools provides choice and freedom of choice is a freedom. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
No. It does seem nice at first, but when you dig deeper there's so much place for machinations and politics and... well, we already have steam groups and levels, don't ruin this too.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont really want names. But reasons for bl/wl are actually welcome, purely annonymous.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can often deduce the identity from somebody's poor/unpoor use of whatever language.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to know badly enough you could always try creating your own steamgifts scrapper that goes through and checks which of the sites members have whitelist-only giveaways you can enter. Could be a lot of effort though if you've never written something like it before.
Comment has been collapsed.
It already exists with rhSGST, but not a feature I'd want to use personally. Scanning 1 million users is not something anyone should do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I'd hope that anyone who creates something like that would limit it to certain user levels (to avoid stressing the SG servers).
Comment has been collapsed.
well hell no, scanning 1million users would be just dumb as hell. it's not intended for that type of usage. doing something like that would probably run you a risk of getting suspended for wasting server bandwidth. it's intended for groups or checking your sent games, or even scanning your whitelisters. but not intended to scan the entire userbase.
Comment has been collapsed.
It don't think it does...
https://github.com/revilheart/rhSGST#whitelist--blacklist-checker
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it would be bad. If you whitelisted someone, and make a giveaway for whitelisters, currently they would know they are on the whitelist: no problem. Now if for some reason you de-whitelist them, normally the person wouldn't know, unless they stalk you and see you made a whitelist giveaway, and they can't view it. In the proposed system, you would immediately know that you are de-whitelisted. More possibility for drama.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, more possibility of private white-only-list giveaway circles (not saying this is totally bad, but it is bad for the community as a whole).
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand the reason why we shouldn't see our blacklisters but what about our whitelisters? It won't hurt anyone if I see the lovely people who whitelisted me, right?
Pls no potato ^_^
Comment has been collapsed.