Is it cool to threaten to blacklist people if they don't comply with giveaway requirements?
If someone is giving you a game and asks you to follow X rules, then follow the rules or don't enter the giveaway. It is free stuff people are giving away to be kind. It is mind boggling that people find a way to complain about things they are getting for free.
Comment has been collapsed.
You get an opportunity to get a game for free. If you don't like requirements of the giveaway, don't enter, it's that simple.
Comment has been collapsed.
My one takeaway from this thread: Leechers shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Comment has been collapsed.
30+ people posting on the thread, and 3 (including the OP) spoke out against it, yet almost half voted against it.
Certainly does support your point. I'm still waiting for even one good reason why people shouldn't be free to blacklist for whatever reason they want. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Problem is, "technically" you can blacklist for whatever reason(unless it at the same time violates any of the rules e.g. advertising). A giveaway is a giveaway. Call it what you want. When you give away a game, you're wilfully(and, hopefully, aware of this fact) giving the game away for free with no expectations of anything in return.
Comment has been collapsed.
And where's the problem with that? It's my money I buy game for a GiveAway - why would let's say lvl 0 leecher have bigger right than mine to decide he should not be BLed and should be able to enter my GA than me myself putting the money on the line? GA creator buys the game, GA creator decides who he don't want the game to go to, GA creator decides how he want to give it away (group? puzzle? private link posted on forums? simple comment requirement?) and who to blacklist. You don't like GA creator or his requirements? Don't enter his GA instead of bitching how he should change it to your liking so you could enter, because you deserve it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I'm assuming you're making the mistake of using "you" when it doesn't apply, unless you're accusing me of doing exactly that. Incorrect, needless to say. You made the argument about "lvl 0 leecher" and... I disagree. Not everyone who is a level 0 is a leecher and to argue against that would only give me the assumed result that you think people need to giveaway on this website to receive. Hell, some blacklists have literally been "I don't like you. What's that? Why? I just don't." It's asinine and ridiculous.Somebody could blacklist me because I don't spell correctly or because I have a "stupid name". Now THESE are examples of blacklist abuse that may or may not have happened before. Even differing opinions completely change the atmosphere of giveaways because it turns into whether not you have similar opinions aka whether not the OP likes you.
I admit that yes, people can do whatever they want in private giveaways. The public giveaways are a completely different matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
first of all - anyone can give away anything. If you are on Sg it means you could afford 100$ value of non-bundled games to register. It also means you can afford a gaming PC. Yet you cannot afford a 0.1$ DLC or game to reach lvl 1? If you'd buy yourself a 1 less beer at the party (or 1 less candybar at school if you're underage) you'd already have enough to buy whole bundle tier 1 with multiple games to Give away. Nowadays - with all the bundles, few cents DLCs avaiable at store, trading cards giving you free wallet money, sites like tremor etc keeping being a lvl 0 is a choice - someone chooses to not give anything at all, even the cheapest thing while at the same time getting free stuff from others. That makes him a leech.
As for your futher part - no, it's not "assine" nor "ridiculous" - anyone has the right to BL anyone for whatever reason you like. You may BL me for having green avatar and you not liking green color. And it's fine. Same as me BLing you back for whatever reason I feel like. It's my own hard earned money i put towards making my GAs - who are you to decide that I must let certain person to enter it? None of the examples you gave are "blacklist abuse" - they are silly reasons for BL, sure - but not abusive. How is the fact that you cannot enter my GA abusing you? Does it change anything for you? Does it take anything away from you? Nope. You just don't get an opportunity to get something you didn't have in the first place.
And the only reason BL or special rules were not allowed in Public GAs in the past, as stated by support, was that rerolls would take too much work. With automatic BL system preventing from entering it is no longer a problem, simple as that.
Comment has been collapsed.
SteamGifts didn't always have a $ value requirement(unless I missed it because I registered pretty easily), so I'm not personally considering that. Even then, they could have gotten the $ value in a long period of time e.g. 10 dollars every 3 months, something like that. Things can change very quickly, too. One day you could be happy and sheltered, the next homeless, depressed, and an alcoholic. Or, less dramatic, you could become very very poor by tomorrow. Who knows.
Sure, you CAN blacklist anyone you want for any reason. I didn't deny that or even say it's not allowed. I'm just saying that for certain reasons, anybody can be judged and will be judged. It's just how it is. As for the abuse part, you're taking that WAY too far and literal. I didn't say it was physical or mental abuse. It's abusing the mutuality of this community. It's not simply a "gift-dump". The community as a whole as a gift-giving culture of sorts. It's actually pretty interesting. I haven't met anyone yet who simply comes here to give gifts away for a higher level simply for their E-peen.
Comment has been collapsed.
SG already had $ requirements over 3 years ago when I joined, so pretty much most of SG lifetime they were here and certainly are now for a long time. And even if you become very poor - you can still pay your electricity bills to join the site, yes? Like I said - 10 cents. Noone able to have running PC and place to use it cannot afford 10cents? o.O Or as I mentioned later - even free - with cards and/or tremor. So they don't need to spend even a penny - just spend 10c less on themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, when I give away a game I expect nothing in return. I even post (most of the time) on my GAs that I don't blacklist for saying thanks. I really don't care and I appreciate the gratitude. I do blacklist for multiple wins and regifting, however, and only because I would rather my hard earned money go to someone who will actually play the game and not trade it, sell it, or regift it solely for CV.
However, that doesn't give me the right to impose my views on others who would request people comment/not comment on their giveaways to avoid being blacklisted from future giveaways (please note the word future, since they can still access the current giveaway). I simply recognize the fact that others are giving away their hard earned money, and therefore deserve a measure of respect, even if that extends to reading a short description and following a simple request. I've yet to see anyone asking anyone to jump through hoops for them to win a free game on this site. If someone asks for a comment -- I comment. If they ask for no comments -- I don't comment. It's not that difficult a request.
Perhaps I was brought up differently, but some people come off as feeling entitled to enter giveaways, completely disregarding the fact that there's a human being behind that giveaway, deserving of at least some small measure of respect.
EDIT: Wow, I'm sorry for the long-winded reply - it didn't look like as much before I submitted it lmao.
Comment has been collapsed.
I respect every giveaway creator as much as the next person. I have a fair amount given away and I've had the "luxury" of not having any problems as of yet but as a current student, I don't have the luxury to constantly spend money on others or even myself. In the end, I DO respect anybody, regardless of relating to them or not. It's common knowledge. Everybody is a unique person with their own experiences and thoughts.
However, I don't respect when blacklisting is used for asinine and irrelevant reasons. That's just me.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Asinine" and "irrelevant" are completely subjective terms, though, too. ;)
I don't find their requests asinine or irrelevant at all -- or I should say -- I haven't yet found one that fits those descriptions. If it makes their lives a little easier or a funny gif makes them smile, or whatever the request might be -- then so much the better -- after all, they're giving me a shot at saving a few bucks for a few seconds of my time.
Obviously, I can't disagree with your opinion -- you're completely entitled to it -- but so am I, and so is everyone else, within the confines of the rules of the site. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, of course! It's always fun to(attempt to) have a civilized conversation and not descend into constant back and forth blabbering as if these were shudders the Youtube comments!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sure if I checked everyone in this thread, they would have at least one giveaway completed. You're assuming that anyone who complains about blacklisting is the same person who only takes takes takes (assuming they have other choices. There are people who can't give away games but still partake in the giveaway community).
The assumption here being that everyone who posted also voted.
Comment has been collapsed.
your assumption would be wrong - if you'd read all posts in this thread you'd find that only 2-3 of them (inluding OP) were giving opinion that can be associated with NAY option. All others were more or less (mostly more) on YAY option. Meaning that most of these NAY voters either didn't bother to read and response at all, just clicked or voted but are hiding with their opinion. If we'd count only commented opinions it would be like 95% YAY 5% NAY ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
He mentioned leechers, as in somebody who only takes takes takes (because leeches only suck your blood and give nothing in return).
Also, I didn't say only people who commented also voted. My main focus was on the leechers part.
Comment has been collapsed.
You got it right. Leechers are those who only enter giveaways but never create ones of their own. The vast majority of users on this site never created a single giveaway and thus fall into this category. There's also a huge number of users who created a single giveaway to reach Level 1, but have been all about entering giveaways and not giving, sometimes winning dozens of giveaways. I don't see why these users should be given a right to vote on polls, especially on ones like this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Whether not you like it, they're part of the community too, that's why. You don't know what's going through their heads, do you? Maybe some of them are in poor households. Hell, maybe some of them are children. In which case, it's just a matter of undeveloped, ignorant(used as the definition, not an insult) people doing whatever comes to their mind. Y'know, children. Regardless, you don't seem to be considering that not every single level 0 is choosing to be a level 0 member of this community. Applying levels to this community is ridiculous itself, anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
People, including children, don't have to be Level 0. The way Steam works, it's pretty easy not to be:
Comment has been collapsed.
That's suggesting that everyone sees that specific thread or that it's common sense. Even further, not everyone is going to think of that specific idea and if they have to resort to using trading cards to make giveaways(which is generally about 15-20 cents max. per stack of trading cards received from each game), chances are they are going to be waiting a while between each giveaway and aren't going to be spending their money, which they would have spent in the first place, to get more games to giveaway. Not to mention, it takes a while to get the cards and even longer to actually sell them. You then have to wait for the sales to get a game that is less than 50 cents.
It's really just a case of those who have and those who have not.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's suggesting that everyone sees that specific thread or that it's common sense.
Good point. I just bumped the thread to increase exposure.
It's really just a case of those who have and those who have not.
I wish that was the case. Many leechers have hundreds of games in their Steam library, including expensive AAA titles. They can give, they just prefer to leech.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, there's lots of people who have an expensive library and make it absolutely clear they CAN participate in the gift-giving community but they don't want to. Honestly, I'm not even sure why I've done it. As a current full-time student, I can't necessarily afford to give away games but I do it anyways. Oh well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure 90% of those 117 votes for Yay are joking, otherwise people enjoy threatening others with blacklists and thinking nothing of it.
At this point, the "personal justice" mechanism that's at work here can be used to effectively lock someone out of this website. It's pretty messed up.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure if you'd bother to read anything from the thread you'd know they are not, because including yours and OPs there is a total number of 3 comments suppporting NAY option and all the rest supporting YAY.
Comment has been collapsed.
As I said in my other comment, the number of comments doesn't reflect the number of votes. Just because it's the voiced majority, it doesn't mean it is the majority itself. Someone else in this thread also pointed out that the question could have been misunderstood. Also, ever heard of the saying "Assumptions make an ass out of you and me"? I certainly did read everything in this thread, thank you very much.
I also never said I'm supporting either. I have my giveaways opened to everyone except for rule breakers(which is one person so far).
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, but here we are voting about not about something that will affect everyone, but about something that will only affect the minority that gives anything away (over 70% of SG users are lvl 0). It is no longer fair if majority votes on something that doesn't concern them in any way (thjey don't create GAs anyway), yet affects this minority who does contribute.
Comment has been collapsed.
That ignores the fact that the website is for giveaways. Let's say somebody at some point gets locked out of the website? What then? Laugh at him and assume that he's such a bad person that "everybody" blacklisted him? Group mentality is a strong factor and despite the fact that it's unlikely to happen, it can still happen to a certain extent.
Comment has been collapsed.
"locked out" how exactly? You expect all few hundred thousands users doing some big conspiracy and all BLing certain someone? There are thousands of daily contributors on Sg on a daily basis - I cannot imagine someone doing something so horrible to get BLed by all of them and get locked out. Heck - even known scammers, ppl who blackmail devs into getting free keys etc don't get BLed by any big fraction of the community. And someone not being able to win games from few dozens of ppl? It's their choice - it doesn't make this someone "locked out"
Comment has been collapsed.
I said "to an extent'. It is easy to imagine a witch hunt being a result of, say, a thread where someone with a differing opinion gets flamed into the ground. It's a common thing to happen on the internet, so don't call it something that "doesn't happen".
In fact, it's happened a lot on these forums, specifically where a lot of people have pointed out "EL OH EL, BLACKLISTED BECAUSE STUPID OPINIONS".
Comment has been collapsed.
and that's why we have "no calling out" rule on SG and such a thing cannot happen here or there will be consequences. for example I cannot make a thread calling you out on something in order for everyone to find out and blacklist you ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Which is a slight godsend considering what has happened before on these forums.
Comment has been collapsed.
If someone is being a noodoo head, then I'll BL them.
Also, I've started BLing generic "Thank you" messages, since I usually make multiple GAs at the same time.
If you do that, then you do need to announce it in the description, otherwise you're a noodoo head instead.
Although, the requirements like "Join my group and invite all your friends" are really dumb and just push me away from them.
Usually I ask people a question for them to answer, like: "Where to hide a body?", "What game series would you recommend to me and others?" and stuff like that. Good conversation starter. Also, I made into a WL through that and got a good conversation out of it!
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a threat. It's more like a warning. And YES - it's YOUR money so you decide who can enter and who can't. Nothing wrong with saying "comment on my giveaways or I'll add you to my blacklist". No one forces anyone to enter giveways, that's rule one. Second, it's your money so if the site allows it you can have preferences as to who can win the game and who can't. Not to mention blacklist is something introduced by SG staff so everything is 100% official. Let me say it this way - if staff is okay with that then it's basically fine, you don't have to visit the site if you don't like it - I can say ultimately. And if you do you have to accept its rules and features.
I understand your POV, I just don't agree with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am personally fine with anyone blacklisting anyone for any reason but for the sake of discussion I can take the opposite side in this argument (because it seems to lack supporting voice).
OP pointed out the gap between the idea that public giveaways should not have any rules and users still being allowed to make them by the usage of blacklists. Public giveaways have always been kind of free zone with the only exception of contribution value/level. But even that has been equal for everyone so it kinda fits into the idea of public (giveaway). One could argue that lists reduce the requirements of support monitoring who gets to access giveaways but that hasn't been needed in the public giveaways anyway. You either can enter a public giveaway (meet required contribution) or not. Thus we could say that the usage of preventing entry on a public giveaway with blacklist fights against the core idea of the public giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Public GAs have always no rules to ENTER them. And it is still like this. And even before BL integration in SGv2 you could add ppl from public GAs to your support-aproved BL in SGv1 - so I see no difference here either. The only thing that changed is that since SGv2 BL integration BLs became much more popular - so more ppl use them and more notice them (also in SGv2 you instantly see you're BLed while in SGv1 if you didn't check linked BL you'd only find out if you won ang got rerolled). So BL and "threathening" to BL changed nothing in GAs in SGv2 - it only became more popular and visible, so more ppl got aware of that.
And argument for BLs not working in public GAs in SGv1 was only that when BL rerolls had to be made by hand it would require a lot of time from Support staff. That's why they were not allowed in big groups like official SG group as well. And since now BL system is automatic the only argument behind BL not working in Public was gone.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is true but I would say that usage of a blacklist in SGv2 prevents member for entering a public giveaway. Though, I can vouch for lacking the technical details on this one as I haven't had described situation happen myself. Still, disregarding previous (and current) practice, it does not remove practical discrepancy of having public giveaway where members may set rules. Granted, they do not count for that giveaway, but will do for future ones and even public giveaways.
To satisfy the ideological reason and aim of public giveaways, it would be good to make it so that the blacklists would not work in public giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
To satisfy the ideological reason and aim of public giveaways, it would be good to make it so that the blacklists would not work in public giveaways.
Why? I want to create public giveaways and to also give to people I don't know. I assume that by default they are good, unless proven otherwise. But if they turn out to be complete leechers or rule breakers, why not allow me to remove them from my future public giveaways? Would it be better that I only give to those I know? Public giveaways are exactly where blacklists are most needed to keep things sane.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would draw the analogue between public spaces and public giveaways. The emphasis here being on the word public which defines certain expectations. Public giveaways would also provide an area where any member could keep entering giveaways, which is the main purpose of the site anyway (in the sense of gifting). People who could utilize such activity are e.g. those that have broken rules in the past but made a redemption. Other members would still have the option to blacklist them on more restricted giveaway types but public ones would be left as open.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I'm in the public space and I'm giving gifts to strangers, I have every right to refrain from giving more gifts to specific strangers who I behaved badly in the past.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand your analogue but more fitting one would be that you are giving gifts to strangers in public space while being blinded. To point being that you are not being (that) selective when using public giveaways hence the name and idea of public. Public enforces the idea that it is equal to everyone, in a sense. In mechanical way of thinking it, any rules or restrictions that are governed strictly by the site itself. They affect directly the same to everyone. To my knowledge there are but two that work this way at the moment. First being contribution level and the second is the state of being suspended. Both restrict access to the public giveaways while being enforced by the site. Blacklist on the other, are defined from member's perspective, even if it is automatically checked by the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
So let me rephrase - If I'm in the public space and I'm giving gifts to strangers, I have every right to refrain from giving more gifts to specific strangers who I perceive to have behaved badly in the past, or for every other reason in my discretion, and without running background checks on them. I have every right, even if some don't like it. This works in public space, as well as on this site.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are kinda describing the situation where the winner has already been decided and it is the point of checking and sending the gift. It is already governed by the other mechanics, mainly by the ability to demand a reroll if user has misbehaved in the past. I feel that the discussion is more focused on the ability to enter giveaways which is a different situation. Though, one could argue what is the point of entering if there is no chance of winning.
Comment has been collapsed.
mainly by the ability to demand a reroll if user has misbehaved in the past
Actually, as of now SG has no automated checks, and only warns botting resellers and regifters if they're ever caught, even after months of this behavior, they're completely forgiven after their warnings, and they don't even notice their suspensions. That doesn't even cover how it's not against the rules to be a leecher and how most people want to set ratio limits to their winners, and other reasonable rules. Some Level 0s have won 30+ gifts, and gifters want to block them.
Blacklisting isn't enough, gifters need the ability to re-roll their own winners, or bans need to be handed out liberally to persistent unrepentant rule-breakers.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would leave speculation of rule effectiveness outside of this as people do get suspended. Neither of us knows exactly how often or how hard the punishments are overall. But caught regifters do get a penalty in the form of suspension. Non-severe ones rarely cause permanent.
For there to be a rule against leeching, there would need to be a rule enforcing gifting. The site does not and should not enforce anyone to give a gift. It certainly encourages for it, as it is the primary function of it after all. Thus on public giveaways the ratio should not be a matter of significance. If the value of giving is required to be higher, one can always use contribution level requirement. Ratio in general is quite dubious measurement. Is it the number of gifts or their value? Both perhaps? And does bundle game match newest AAA game? How does one calculate ratio so that is fair and does everyone agree to calculate it the same?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not speculating about the rule effectiveness, I've seen bots go on after a month suspension as if nothing happened. The fact that someone even gets a warning after regifting or selling the gift for a profit makes my blood boil. And people who've regifted multiple times definitely don't deserve to be treated as first-time offenders.
As far as ratios go, look at my example, a new person might have won 0 games, that's a lot different than having someone who has 30 wins and no gifts. I don't worry about the luck or personal wealth/greed of my gift winners, but I understand why someone would make that a rule in their own game giveaways. I'm a proponent of allowing all giveaway hosts complete control over their GA re-rolls. If they break the quid-pro-quo rule, they'll get reported.
Comment has been collapsed.
How have you deduced that they are bots? Many of the task that common user here does repeating few simple actions thus making many look like a bot.
Creators should have lots of control over their giveaways but not total control. Once it has been made, the member agrees to certain rules. There still exists the possibility of deleting the giveaway, but lets leave that one out now. I would wager that even you would not want the creator to have an ability reroll for any reason. It is quite clear how such power could easily be misused. Rerolls are required to be accepted by the management for a good reason.
But as with zelghadis, this course of discussion is parting from the original one. We are not arguing whether people should be suspended or not. The question that the OP presented was about whether is was fair that with current system, giveaway creators could make arbitrary rules on public giveaway by the usage of blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Multiple wins mostly, joining DLCs like OSTs and then regifting them, as if they don't know for what they're entering or that they have it. Very consistent overall frequency of wins, they're either at their computer putting in the same number of entries each day, or they're automated.
You're right, I could be mad at someone who's an accidental dirtbag who happens to work very diligently every day to scam us. Or it could be automated. They don't change either way.
I would wager that even you would not want the creator to have an ability reroll for any reason. It is quite clear how such power could easily be misused. Rerolls are required to be accepted by the management for a good reason.
Haha, you just lost that wager. I've been adamant in my position this whole thread. Why don't you explain how this power could be misused since it's so clear? What is this good reason?
Comment has been collapsed.
Such occurrences increase the likelihood of bot usage but it could be other reasons as well. People not understanding how site works or its rules. Quite many people try to maximize their number of entries as that increases the chances of winning. So it is not surprising if some member has as many entries as possible or the rate being quite constant over larger period of time. I don't think it to be uncommon to use the site with a mobile device. Makes it easier to keep entering giveaways all the time.
Allowing creators to reroll completely freely would likely have two negative consequences. First would be the rise of contribution frauds. People could create giveaways and then cherry pick collaborator as the winner through rerolling. The second would be allowing creators to reroll for whatever reason. Some examples of such rerolling reasons could be e.g. not liking the avatar of the winner, username having letter 'w' in it, member being from specific country. Note that the possibility of rerolling is not the same as having the ability to be selective of entries by the usage of giveaway type, requirements or such.
Comment has been collapsed.
cherry pick collaborator as the winner through rerolling
You are aware that there are whitelist, invite-only, and group giveaways... right? Colluding with 5 people is a lot easier than rerolling 300 times.
Why would it be bad if someone didn't want to give away a game to someone with an anime avatar? You seriously haven't thought this through, have you? Do you think I care if some Canadian says, "Only true hockey lovers can have my extra copy of Eastside Hockey Manager", and then proceeds to blacklist entries which don't meet his specific wacky criteria? Would it matter if some proud Ngāi Tahu decided that only people who could speak Māori language should get the gift he is giving? It's not as if he could whitelist everyone who fits the description. These are cases where you might say it's discriminatory, but I don't see this as a public service, we're giving to charity to whom we want or feel comfortable with helping. There's nobody here I know of who would want to help a regifter or a reseller.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aye, I am aware that there are other giveaway types than the public.
There is a big difference between deciding who gets to enter (giveaways is running) and who gets to win (giveaway has ended). Allowing giveaway creator to limit entries through different means e.g. giveaway type is good as it increases flexibility and creates more possibilities.
Allowing creators to decide who gets to win is bad because it destroys core functionality of the site that has served as basis of mechanical theme. That being that each entry has equal chance of winning. It would be no longer true if creator may choose the winner by the means of rerolling. If that mechanic would be broken, it would be better to just have no giveaways at all as their sole purpose is to give you a random winner. Just skip creating a giveaway and pick the winner right away for more simplicity.
If you are using charity to describe the site and not just using it as general example, I will disagree. I consider charity to incorporate the help of those in need. This site is for gifting entertainment products. No one should have a need for such item. Desire, certainly, but no need. If someone needs entertainment, the problem is bigger than simply missing some item at hand.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're saying that the core function of this site is to help people win things randomly? I view it from the opposite way, it's to gift things conveniently. It comes with a random number generator, yes, but it's a tool to help make giveaways.
I'm saying "charity" as a general example, I give to kids and people who can't buy tons of bundles and have excess games like I do, as a charity, because I'm not asking for anything in return, I'm just giving it away. So call it what you will; let's not argue semantics anymore. I'm aware that there are other reasons people make GAs, the point of that comment was to explain that people have every right to be discriminating on who gets a gift, and if you think everyone should have a fair chance, why? What incentive is there for a person to give gifts to someone that annoys them?
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess it is how person views the functionality. My view perhaps emphasizes the basic necessities of a giveaway: the people, the contributor and random number generator. All the rest are merely extra that make life easier.
I fully support the rights of the contributor to choose whom and how the giveaway will be made. When a giveaway is created, everyone participating in it agree to abide the rules of site. This includes both the entries as well as the contributor. What I am asking is not for people to start giving gifts to people who they dislike. I am asking why public giveaways, which are intended to be open for everyone, do not work as such.
Comment has been collapsed.
ok, so let me rephrase Yirg again - I'm in public space and there are some people asking me for money to buy themselves food - I give to these strangers, poor ppl, homeless etc - sometimes I will give to guy A, sometime B, C, D etc. One time I see guy C taking the money I gave him for food, going to the nearest liquor store and buying himself a bottle of Vodka, the next time I go through this public space if guys A,B or D ask me for money for food, I may give to one of them some spare change. But I will never again give it to guy C even if he asks me. Should I be forced to, because refusing just guy C from ever again getting my monies I'm making it unfair to him?
Comment has been collapsed.
Food is a bit poor choice here as gifts that we are discussing about are entertainment products, not resources required for survival. So in your case person C is getting a football but goes and trades it for bowling ball. Such behavior is certainly against rules and person C agreed to abide by those rules. There are penalty system in place that will punish C (as long as someone notifies management). But this goes slightly on a different track that the OP wanted to discuss. It was about blacklists being used to enforce arbitrary rules in public giveaways. Giveaways that are defined to not have any rules allowed.
As it now stands, you can now ask persons A to D to do cartwheels. Those that have no desire to do so can be prevented to ever enter in the future giveaways. This gives the creator of the giveaway an ability to set direct rules on the giveaway, even if such rules should not be present in public giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
But the thing is blacklists are not enforcing anything. User-made rules are not valid reason for reroll. If entrant choose to not follow them it's his choice - he can still win GA and game will be delivered. BUT - it's also my choice not to want this person in my GAs ever again.
As for your "he got punished" exaple - real life counter - you run a business. Let's imagine one of your workers steal from you, or one of your associates gives you fake supplies. You report it to authorities - they get fine and justice is served. One month later this thief comes to work or this unfair trader offers you trade again. They already got punoished for what they did - does it mean you have no right to refuse to employ the thief or not to trade with the cheater? No. It is your choice who you want to have anything to do with. And if you don't want to employ a thief you may do so. Same you may not want to give any more games to someone who you don't want to deal with anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree on your statement that blacklist does not enforce anything. Entry on it prevents entry to any giveaway from that member. If I am incorrect, please correct me. There are quite clear parallels with public documents in SGv1 to hidden blacklist in SGv2. The first mentioned were not allowed in public giveaways. Even if the reasoning behind it was mostly of practicality, one can still argue that there is a difference between previous and new and it allows members to have rules in public giveaways.
I agree with your example but it describes usage of private giveaways. Usage of blacklists and rules in such giveaways wasn't of question and there is an agreement that people should freely be allowed to do so. The question was whether it was fair that members could use rules on public giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
While i respect your opinion and your right to it, i wholeheartedly disagree with the vast majority of it.
Read all of this, not gonna quote all bits and pieces to not make a big wall of text... just gonna touch on the few minor points that i most disagree with.
-
If BLs were only enforceable on private/group/etc. as you suggest, i for one (and i'm sure i'm not the only one) would stop making public GAs alltogether. How many more entrants would be deprived of entry then?
-
What would even be the point of BLs, if they were not enforceable in public GAs? Don't take the exception as the norm. I'm quite positive 95% of whatever reasons someone chooses to BL someone else is precisely to exclude them from a public GA as much as i'm quite positive a big portion of the reasons are rule-breaking and alike. Why do i have to take the risk of going through the trouble of asking for yet another re-roll on a guy who has already re-gifted 4-5 games he won? Or on the user that has had some other serious rule broken, but action on the user itself is still pending because of the long queue in user report tickets (which isn't getting thinner anytime soon considering some ridiculous reasons users submit tickets for)?
-
Gifts aren't food, you're quite right - thank god you didn't use the charity analogy, tired of hearing that one - but doesn't that make zelg's example even more pertinent? I mean if it stands true for something that is indeed charity, it doesn't for something that per your own words (which in this case i agree) is a luxury item?
As an aside, of all things to complain for, or if you will, strive for improvement... i think there is far bigger fish to fry than how someone uses their BL at their own discretion, just saying...
Comment has been collapsed.
I somewhat disagree on their most common use. I think private giveaways are the ones where blacklists mostly matter. Public giveaway will have hundreds of entries so it is unlikely that specific member would win. Also, the number of members using public giveaways vastly outnumber the ones that keep reading forums and accessing private ones.
I am not arguing that punishing rule breakers is bad. The point I am focusing is that do members have the right to have special rules on public giveaways as they have now? There is disparity in stating that such rules are not allowed while at the same time making it possible through the usage of blacklists.
While I think I understand the example you each keep focusing on, food or not, I still think all of you have kinda mixed view of public and other giveaways. Their usage is not the same. The one thing that has separated public giveaways from the rest is that they are open for everyone. Having means to bypass this removes part of their idea.
And lastly, I agree your last statement. My personal opinion on the matter is that I wouldn't think current state to be something dire. As mentioned in my first post, I am merely debating from (or for) this viewpoint for the sake of having debate and hearing different opinions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Starting from the bottom just to say... like i said, i may disagree, but respect your opinion.
I may feel somewhat strongly about the issue, as can be noticed by my 1st point where i'd probably consider not making public GAs alltogether, but that has nothing to do with having a different opinion than yours. No worries, just debating myself here. ;)
As for the rest, custom rules (strictly speaking) were abolished, even though it stemmed from a more pragmatical/feasible standpoint than anything else... and i just don't think i can consider BLs a form of special rules.
It all stems from the standpoint that they're not excluding more than the private links/groups/whitelist are to a sense, and just as long as you're not exploiting the system, namely to exploit CV (which believe me, if it happens, i in no way agree that it does because of BLs), i don't see how anyone should be forced to give to anyone.
As i've said countless times, it goes both ways though. It doesn't phase me to get BL'ed. I don't go out of my way to try to antagonize folks, but if someone BLs me for some petty reason, i really wouldn't want to win from them anyway, it's a bit like Mullins said, even from a self-esteem standpoint, i'd just prefer not to.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aye, I think you are right in that many of the factors in this topic are caused more from feasible standpoint than anything else e.g. the reason why blacklist rerolls were not allowed in SGv1.
Even if I do not personally vouch for any change in the current system, I still agree that blacklists working on public giveaways tend to drop in gray area. While OP may have not presented the case well, it is still a valid point. I see the site having two different sides. The public and the rest (group, private etc.) and I feel that it is good that they work differently both in mechanics and ideological wise. Perhaps my worry, if such term could be used here, is that blacklists reduce the functionality of the public giveaways. Not perhaps in any sensible numbers but in spirit.
There are reasons why I do not personally do that many public giveaways. But even with my negative view for them, I still do one from time to time for the spirit they represent.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe i can at least relate entirely to the last bit, that's for sure.
I'm willing to wager our reasons are not that different for not doing them often... suffice to say it's sometimes a chore for my reasons and probably yours. But i still like to give something back to the entire community from time to time, which is i'm guessing what you have in mind in terms of the spirit they represent. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
gonna be a bit blunt ... xD
if users had a minimum of self-esteem and respect, they would open those giveaways and instantly close them...
for example, if i'd ever found a ga saying "if you enter, post a selfie or i'll blacklist you", i would just close it and move to the next, even if it's a AAA game. i just don't agree with the requirement.
but of course, leeching is like an addiction for some people. also add the 100% sense of entitlement they think they have to enter everything.
people need to understand that this isn't a charity site
Comment has been collapsed.
Aye, this is not a charity. That is agreed on. The question that the OP brought up is why people are allowed to use rules on public giveaways with the usage of blacklists if they are not otherwise allowed?
Comment has been collapsed.
if that was the question, it was poorly presented, because the post looks like a rant specially the last part about being childish and pathetic...
anyway, this has been discussed to death here and as usual no one will change his mind. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
It might have been such. I personally took this viewpoint for the sake of a debate. Though debates in the internet rarely move anyone's opinion and many end up in pointless poop throwing. Still, it is nice to have some discussion from time to time.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was both a rant and a question. :) Like I wrote elsewhere in the thread, I didn't know that using blacklist threats to enforce rules in public GAs is an approved method and not a circumvention of rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, but still it can't be used to break sg rules like advertising or asking for donations (so no "pls donate to this organization or i'll blacklist you").
it's just to give the creator a bit more control over the next GAs he makes.
Comment has been collapsed.
True, all true. At this point, I'm starting to think it's the no ads/referrals rule that's out of place in the general frame.
Also, I agree 100% about that self-esteem bit from your post above.
Comment has been collapsed.
This vote reflects how I've interpreted the most active users on this site pretty well. I too find the blacklist threats far too common an a bit... weird. I voted nay btw
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah.
"your ratio sux, I blacklist you'
....
As if I needed any game from giveaways.
But nevermind, people apparently take pleasure into blacklisting, because it gives them illusion of power.
I do blacklist, but only for obvious trolls so I can troll them back because with the script their names are marked/bolded so I can know. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
but
i did like you asked, master ;_;
i ran 40km today and skipped both meals ;_;
pls don't whip me ;_;
Comment has been collapsed.
I spent my money on this shiny new game and if I ask you do dance like a monkey for it you will. Otherwise you're just gonna have to deal with the disappointing red X.
It's not unreasonable to ask for someone to do more than pressing enter. If you can't be assed to do something as simple as reading the description then maybe you shouldn't be entering at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole blacklist/whitelist thing goes against the concept and principle of 'giving gifts', making people jump through hoops to get said gift is even worse. Feel free blacklist me if you so wish.
Comment has been collapsed.
So if it's all about 'giving gifts' and nothing else matters I assume you don't mind that your winners regift or sell the games they get from you?
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 Most have to be reminded to mark it received and if you really check you will find multiple wins, regifted and so on!
Comment has been collapsed.
Yirg, i actually dont give a fuck what winners of my giveaways do with the games i gift them, ive never even checked so its entirely possible thats happened and i dont know about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have yet to see anyone asked to "jump through hoops" to enter a GA. By that same reasoning, would you say that requiring someone to complete a puzzle is "jumping through hoops", because I don't see anyone complaining about that. ;)
The worst I've seen is people asking for people not to post comments. I'd hardly call that jumping through hoops.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tzaar, i was making a comment based on the op and neither they or me mentioned puzzles :p
Comment has been collapsed.
You did say "making people jump through hoops is even worse".
To which I replied -- what "hoops" has someone had to jump through to enter a GA?
I find the meager requirements -- usually the "don't post comments" or "no generic thanks" occasionally posted -- on public GAs to be completely harmless.
I'm curious what these "hoops" are is all. I only brought puzzles up to point out that those could be considered "hoops" as well in the same regard. ;)
EDIT: in point of fact, and from a certain perspective, one could say that invite only and puzzle giveaways are a form of "blacklist". ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmmmm interesting point about invite only and puzzle giveaways.
Hope he doesnt notice that im completely ignoring the rest of the post coz i cant be arsed answering.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nahhhh, no problem. I get where you're coming from, which is why I tell people post whatever they want on my GAs. It takes me longer to create the GA than it does to hit "Mark as Read". The only time I blacklist is when someone is openly rude to someone else or flagrantly breaks the site rules -- I just don't want to be buying those people a game.
I just accept the fact that others should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own GAs as long as they're not breaking the rules -- whether public, invite only, puzzles, or ... gasp ask people to post/not post on their public GAs. Everyone has their preferences. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
You are acting very childish! The giveaway creator has every right to set whatever he wants for his giveaway. If you don't like it nobody forced you to enter!
Moreover there is just 1000 slots in blacklist. There are more than 1000 people like you!
Comment has been collapsed.
sigh I feel you, OP, and agree with you completely. But after a few banging of heads on this forum I learnt that it's no point trying to convince or argue with people about this. Just sigh, wave a hand, and accept that it's the more common opinion of the forum-goers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep. Sometimes you just don't really belong, I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh, once you train yourself to filter out all the whitelist/blacklist drama, avoid the topics that are obviously about them, and a few people's comments here and there… it's decent. Think of SG forums like an office: it you avoid the obvious elitism and try to steer clear of the overabundance of petty internal politics, it can be a pleasant place to hang around. (Frankly, I love the Deals subforum. No drama, just talking about the games and sometimes facepalm over the quality/price of some bundles, like the new Humble monthly one.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's funny. Before it was "If you don't say Thanks, you're a bot and I'll blacklist you!" Now its "If you say Thanks, you're a bot and I'll blacklist you!"
Um..... bots can do either way.... How about you just say "If you enter, type 1a2b3c to not get blacklisted. So you know who reads! ... Easy?
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what happens when rules are made without thinking them through, you get yet another non-enforceable rule which is dead letter: story of Steamgifts' life.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes! It is obviously cool! Where else those miserable pathetic clowns could have ordered people around for a buck or two?
Comment has been collapsed.
i blacklist ppl who blacklist me :( (and i dunno why they BL me....)
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklisting is a personal prerogative; people can blacklist for whatever reasons they want, whether or not the reason is "good". I have created giveaways where people can get blacklisted. However, simply reading the description would save you from it, because I ask people not to comment with a generic thanks, so it's actually less work to not get blacklisted and I always give an opportunity (well, usually, sometimes I forget -_-) to get on my whitelist because I think that's fair.
On the other hand, something like "Give me a game or get blacklisted" or "Like and subscribe to my youtube channel or get blacklisted" violates rules against advertising/begging
Comment has been collapsed.
Think about it as something like a raffle in real life. Those are pretty easy to get into but if you don't meet requirements, you don't get to enter and don't win. Even if you do win, they also have requirements that you still have to follow and not be able to get the win ex. "For US residents only".
cries about his lost Game of Thrones goodies from HBO
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think you made a good comparison: "US residents only" is a practical/legal condition. A better fitting comparison would be orlygift, where you have to like this, follow that and join another to have a chance to win a game.
But again, I created the post thinking that this blacklist thing went against the spirit of a fundamental rule. Now I know that it's an approved way to implement what such rule forbids, so... I got my answer: yes, it's officially cool.
Comment has been collapsed.
The current poll results are interesting and fairly telling. Fragmentation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Another one of these discussions? I find it weird there's a lack of comments from people who voted no, my guess is that they are avoiding getting blacklisted.
Well, ill share my opinion once again, only because this discussion is way too one sided. The answer is no, i dont think its right to add specific rules for not to get blacklisted, only because i think a lot of those people feel they are way to self righteous for giving a game in a site thats all about giving, + some of these people are overly serious and cant take a joke. Its even worse when someone asks for a quality comment
Its seems these days everyone is overusing their black/white lists anyway
As for me I've been here for almost 2 years now, and generic comments have never bother me, nor do i care about people not reading the description
Do i care about those rules? No, i can just ignore those giveaways, plenty of other games around
But you could ask for people not to post spam comments without bringing blacklists to the mix, that would be perfectly fine and just as effective
On the other hand these discussions are usually open by people who where blacklisted for a reason, not saying this one in particular but thats usually how it goes
Comment has been collapsed.
The ones who are comfortable enough to have their opinions posted are usually ones who don't mind NOT getting gifts from other users.
The ones who don't agree but say nothing are usually the ones who still want to take their cake and eat it too. Most of them have a skewed ratio towards wins over sent. Generalizations on my part, true but most, not all, of those who are against BLs in general or even cv requirements usually have that skew.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, like i said, most that are not in favor would rather stay away, avoid being blacklisted as they are here to win or just guilty of something, usually, not always the case
Im glad those havent joined the conversasion, but i still think its misused, by some
You dont want spam just ask, no point bringing blacklists
A quality comment, make a quality driscription
And since im at it, some giveaways rigged to catch bots usually end with someone accusing them in public
Comment has been collapsed.
I honestly dont have a (public) opinon about this, more precisely Im trying to steer clear from finding myself betwen two fires as usual it happens
if you are so keen on BL-ing everything that moves : good for you, nobody is taking away your indeniable right to play the king of the hill.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, it's forbidden to set conditions for public giveaways (do this, post that, visit this page) but it's cool to set conditions in giveaways under the threat of blacklisting? Doesn't make much sense to me. It's basically "you can't enter this giveaway unless you do what I want" vs "you can't enter any of my future giveaways unless you do what I want" - the second seems even worse to me.
Of course, I find the whole concept of mass-blacklisting people because they don't comply with your rule childish and pathetic, so if you disagree with that, please blacklist me.
Comment has been collapsed.