I don't check who won my giveaways. If I'm giving away is because I don't want or because I already have it. I only hope that the person who won my giveaway really wanted the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, everyone does what they feel is right for them - in that spectrum you are going to have "entitled" - hey I am spending my (free) points to enter so I don't have to gift others" to "Heck, I can barely feed myself much less gift other people".
I think the key thing here is to do what feels right to you and ignore what other people do - there's just no winning when you try to measure life out into equal little teaspoons - the world is just way too disparate to do that. Make sense?
~as an aside, I am inveterate gifter - mostly on GOG but also here to a lesser extent. I am pretty addicted to bundles but my taste is narrow so I end up with a lot of extras. Plus I waver on the drm vs. drm-free debate and that adds to my angst. Plus I really need a second life so I have time to play everything I want/own :-p. Anyway - be yourself, set your own standards and be happy :-p
Comment has been collapsed.
I give to give, not for any other reason.
my ratio is not yet 1:1, but i'm good. and i don't blacklist anyone
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really care as looking up such things requires time/effort better spent elsewhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
I handle those who never created a giveaway in the exact same way I handle people who gave away tons of games. Creating giveaways is entirely optional here and no one should ever be judged by their CV or win/given ratio or whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are alts and fakes even at level 2. For someone who buys regular bundles level 2 isn't impossible. One Happy Hour Indiegala bundle or beat the average price DIG Superbundle could fix that. I once saw a level 2 profile that had all games played 2-5 hours. Totally all games 0 achievements. No doubt that account only farmed cards. And it was on steamgifts winning. I should have bookmarked that account damn.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can kick people out of groups. Like a year or so ago there was a neat little statistic called "estimated wins" and so people made a group for people who were unlucky: http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/IntdU/a-group-for-statistically-unlucky-people
Unfortunately I think this group is now closed. http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/jz54j/cherry-poppers-group-for-the-unlucky-group-closed
Comment has been collapsed.
For me it's simple: I don't care who enters as long as they add the games to their libraries and don't try to sell/regift it.
This is a charity site, after all. Something that seems to escape everyone's mind after they go past level 0. You are supposed to give away stuff, freely, to those who (hopefully) need it and cannot get it.
Once you state that only those can receive who gave, you more or less eliminate the purpose of charity.
Although not as much if you give a lot, but take almost as many. This is why I would love if CV would be a value based on games given minus (or divided by) games won. But if they did that, the overwhelmingly vast majority of level 6+ users would suddenly be at the very low end of level 1. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
See, I disagree that this is charity, the definition being "the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need."
No-one NEEDS computer games, just ask any of the 2.5 billion people who managed to survive Planet Earth in the 1950s...
But what it is, can be a way of doing a good deed and giving pleasure to someone who for whatever reason decides to try and win a game, it might be that they could even afford to buy it, but would prefer not to. A bit like at Christmas, you hope to receive some gifts that are things you wouldn't go out and buy yourself, but you don't usually end up 'better off' because you have yourself gone out and bought gifts for others.
Anyway, if I can give a game to someone who enjoys playing it, my job is done :) And it's just a nice bonus if recipients become gifters, either through a change in circumstances or conscience.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll have to give that one a try in future. Often I just take the lazy 'type into Google and use first result' approach, which can be a recipe for embarrassment at times.
In any case, I can quite see there are many opinions on the definition of charity and that's what makes us all different, so not a bad thing at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
The definition of charity is a bit difficult to ascertain, as is the definition of a "need". A need in what respect? A video game could be considered a "need" insomuch as it is necessary for someone to enjoy their leisure time. Does the charity have to be voluntary to be considered charity? If so, does giving away out of some sense of obligation or guilt (like the OP) even count as charity, since the giver would feel pressured to do so? As some philosophers have noted before, much of charity is a form of self-gratification, a means of absolving one's self of guilt for the suffering in the world (and obligation to rectify it) by providing a pithy donation to a charity. Oftentimes, these charities have their own agenda, so one's charity is not so much aid to those in need as it is funding an organization to pursue its interests and goals (which may or may not align with yours).
I would consider giveaway sites to be charity platforms because they allow users to voluntarily give away a type of possession to others. Of course it's more complex than that. For example, many winners may be able to afford the game, or are more fortunate than the contributor; and contributors are rewarded for their contributions by being given access to higher levels whose content is determined by those within that bracket.
There are also elements in giveaway sites, in part due to Contributor Value and Level systems, which can make them operate similar to a casino or gambling den: you host games where others gamble their points and a winner is randomly selected, which in turn rewards you by giving you access to higher and more lucrative gambling opportunities. To treat this site as a place for gambling can be dangerous, however, since it can breed a community and culture which focuses less on giving away (the point of giveaway sites and charity in general) and more on maximizing profits.
I think it's fair to treat SteamGifts (or any giveaway site) as a form of charity because it is a place where people can voluntarily give away to others. This can also foster a much healthier community, since the focus will be on helping others and enjoying the act of giving away (and not just the event of receiving). Treating this community as a place to try your chances and maximize your winnings can lead to a more toxic environment, where elitism among the high rollers (high-leveled users) and disdain for the low-to-no contributors ("leechers") are bred. I'd rather choose "charity".
That's my thoughts on the matter, at least. And I prefer Oxford Dictionary, too!
Comment has been collapsed.
how is it that everyone wins shit?! :l
the only thing i ever won was that dwarfs?! giveaway that was like 100,000 copies and there were only like 90,000 entries (everyone gets one for sure)
Comment has been collapsed.
damn, i dont know what is the problem in the 700 entries in 2 years, But im serious, i know its random but i've signed up to many things while my brother for example signed and on his first entry he won :L
Comment has been collapsed.
Low number of entries (700 really isn't many) in a long timespan = low chances of winning something other than Dwarfs.
Someone calculated that for MOST users the first win happens around the 1000th entry, if they enter only or mostly public GAs (can confirm on myself).
Comment has been collapsed.
I, for the most part, set my giveaways to at-least a level 2 requirement. I just find it rather ungrateful that some people find it acceptable to have won in some circumstances $1000's worth of games without feeling like they should give something back. I don't blacklist them simply because the level requirement does the job well enough.
And I get what people are saying here, that they're giveaways, not trades. But, if everyone did just that and just took took took, it wouldn't be SteamGifts anymore either. I'd feel bad for using such an awesome place to just build my library for free without giving back.
Now and then I'll do giveaways that don't require a certain level, but for the most part they have them (as well as group and whitelist GAs).
Plus, those under level 1 have a higher chance of not bothering to redeem/mark as received.
Comment has been collapsed.
I too used to be a leecher since as a student it was very hard to buy games for me let alone others.
Further in my country India we can't use debit cards in International sites (except those by private banks which are clearly made for corporate and rich people). So if I have to buy bundles, I need to send money to someone else who would charge double the actual cost.
So many people have their own reasons why they can't contribute to the community. Instead of judging them and blacklisting people who haven't contributed much, just use a level requirement as well as whitelist for giveaways. Blacklist only scammers and people who are exceptionally rude to others.
As for myself, I'm here to spread the love and happiness, if a single bundled game can bring a smile to someone's face then the purpose is worth it. Everyone in this site deserves to win something and if I ever get the urge to give the opportunity to only a select number of people, I'll use my whitelist or make a puzzle.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just get a lil bothered when some users have an insane amount of won games but 0 given. I mean come on, you can get 3-10 games for 1 buck, it's not about the money, it's about being a lil selfish. It's give away, not grab as much as you can :p
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm strict about this... I had a son, Jimmy... good kid growing up but he just didn't give anything away even after he won Galactic Arms Race... well, I said to him, I said, Jimmy, son, my only son, Give Away or Go Away. And there he went and I have no son now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think TheNakedBanana said it well on previous page, but....how exactly am I supposed to "handle them"? Am I supposed to somehow think less of them for not creating any giveaways or make positive assumptions about their character if they made plenty (apparently, such are unable to act like asshats). I really miss this place from times before CV and segregation of bundle games.
I'm looking forward to eventually see someone replying on SG with "well your opinion is invalid since I just checked your profile and saw you gave only 2 games". It is the logical next step.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm looking forward to eventually see someone replying on SG with "well your opinion is invalid since I just checked your profile and saw you gave only 2 games"
People use this reply several times a day. Maybe not worded exactly as you put it, but with the exact same meaning...
Comment has been collapsed.
You should blacklist them asap because it takes a way long time to win 300$-1000$ worth of total games, so the persons saying not everyone has money to gift games away are invalidated by the fact that bundle games are not expensive. I find it hard to believe that during all the time that those kind of SG users win that amount of games OP is referring to ( " Anyways... I saw users who have won $300-1000 worth of games and have NEVER hosted their own giveaway...") they can't even gift one (1) bundle game. My adivise to OP is blacklist them asap and crank up your level requirements of your giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't usually talk about blacklisting anymore, but I'll do my best to answer you. Naturally, this is just my opinion about the matter, so feel free to disagree if you disagree.
I don't blacklist people because of their ratio. This is not a torrent community nor is it a gambling den. This is a charity site, where people give away out of their own generosity to a community where a winner is randomly and indiscriminately selected from the available entries. Some people disagree and blacklist others based on their ratio, calling them "leechers" (a torrenting term) among other things. I think it's inappropriate to call someone a leech of any sort for simply participating in charity. Some people consider me a "leecher" because of my win/contribution ratio. I have even had people question me about my financial status, as if I have to justify myself for being the random recipient of others' generosity by appealing to some derelict state of poverty. For me, I give away when I can and when I want to, whenever I feel like I should. I assume this is true for most people. Anything short of that is extortion to me and I'm not interested in being extorted, or in extorting anyone else. If people wish to blacklist me because of my ratio, then that is their own decision. I'll continue to live my life, help others, and give back to the communities I'm in, even if I can't always afford to give away a game.
My recommendation is to never feel guilty for winning a game. Why should you feel guilty for being the random recipient of charity? You did not beg for it, nor did you force the person to give it to you. That person chose to give the game away and you just so happened to win it. I don't think you should ever feel obligated to give back either. This is a feeling I've had to struggle with as well, but I can assure you that it is an unhealthy way of viewing this site. No matter how many times you win, you are under no pressure to give back. It is certainly appreciated when you do, but don't feel bad if you do not, especially if you cannot. This is a giveaway site, like I said. Being the recipient of charity doesn't mean that you are required to give back as penance for the sin of being randomly chosen to receive a gift, anymore than a homeless person is required to pay back the money he receives from you when you hand him $5.
If you want to give away (or give back), then go for it! But you do not, or cannot, don't feel bad. Why should you?
Regarding your example, I would not blacklist someone even if they had $1,000 in winnings and $0 in contributions. That person might naturally be excluded from my giveaways if I choose for the giveaway to be for Lv. 1+ users, but I don't feel any need to personally target that person and specifically blacklist them. That feels unfair to me, since I'm singling out a user simply because they were somehow luckier than others. I have known users who argue that it's justified to blacklist those lucky winners in order to make sure the less fortunate (i.e., those with fewer winnings) receive a greater chance at winning. I can sympathize with this rationale and I have even been blacklisted for that very reason. If your goal, as a contributor, is to give away to the least fortunate, then you should! There are even Steam groups which attempt to do just that, so perhaps you could join them (or start your own) and give away that way, making sure you can give away to those with few to zero winnings without having to single anyone out via your blacklist. There are alternatives to blacklisting if that is your goal.
The point at which you blacklist out of spite and not consideration for the less fortunate is the point at which you should reconsider why you're on SteamGifts. Are you here for charity, either was a contributor or recipient thereof, or are you just seeking to play your odds and keep up your ratio so that you can win better prizes? If the latter, then perhaps your interests are better suited for a casino, not a charity. I recommend going there.
Of course, it's ultimately your decision how to use SteamGifts (or any giveaway site) and how to structure and restrict your giveaways. For me, I only make giveaways when I want to give away. Why do you?
Comment has been collapsed.
OP is talking about these kind of SG users: " Anyways... I saw users who have won $300-1000 worth of games and have NEVER hosted their own giveaway..." => in other words SG users with a ratio of 300$-1000$ / 0.00$.
""Regarding your example, I would not blacklist someone even if they had $1,000 in winnings and $0 in contributions. That person might naturally be excluded from my giveaways if I choose for the giveaway to be for Lv. 1+ users, but I don't feel any need to personally target that person and specifically blacklist them. That feels unfair to me, since I'm singling out a user simply because they were somehow luckier than others. ""
I can't imagine that by blacklisting said OP users that it would feel unfair to someone. What's unfair is that said OP users don't even contribute a single bundle game aka nothing and have 300$-1000$ of wins. Some people would call that plain and simple leaching. Anyways this can easily be countered with blacklisting and/or upping the level requirement of the giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
OP is talking about these kind of SG users: " Anyways... I saw users who have won $300-1000 worth of games and have NEVER hosted their own giveaway..." => in other words SG users with a ratio of 300$-1000$ / 0.00$.
I was providing some general input on the matters of blacklisting, ratios, obligations, and the functions of a giveaway site, all of which seemed relevant to the original post. I discussed the specific example in the fifth paragraph.
I can't imagine that by blacklisting said OP users that it would feel unfair to someone. What's unfair is that said OP users don't even contribute a single bundle game aka nothing and have 300$-1000$ of wins.
I believe it would be unfair to the person being blacklisted. Why is it unfair that the person is not contributing despite winning? Why is it unfair to be the recipient of charity, but not the contributor of charity? Is it unfair for a homeless man to accept money if he does not give money to another, too? Is it unfair for someone to receive a gift and not give to another? Why must one have to earn a gift? A gift is a gift, not compensation for a past or future action. Or am I mistaken and we, in fact, are we not giving gifts away on this giveaway site?
Some people would call that plain and simple leaching.
And I would say that those people are wrong and fail to understand where they are.
Anyways this can easily be countered with blacklisting and/or upping the level requirement of the giveaways.
What do you mean?
Comment has been collapsed.
Your reply is only one side of a story, the SG rules are primary and top of the bill but after that it's the rules of the giveaway gifter that apply. For example some gifters blacklist if you say thank you, others blacklist if you don't say thank you and others blacklist you if you enter a bundle givaway and you own already one of the titles in that bundle or blacklist you if you have a lot of Steam games. So keeping in mind the SG rules apply the gifter can make some rules for his own giveaways. So yes we gift here gifts away on SG but after the SG rules it's the perogative of the gifter that applies.
Also your homeless man reference doesn't cut it for the specific OP question. There's near to no valid excuse to have a 1000$ wins AND 0.00$ contributions because if someone has that kind of ratio he's been here a while on SG and taking into account that for gifting a game(s) that bundle games aren't expensive and you can trade or sell Steam cards/backgrounds/emoticons/boosters and on any kind of steam sales like on the mondays you can buy a game for like a very litlle amount of cents.
I even know that some off my Steam friends that gifted (decent) bundle games away were won by said OP users and those users said to them things like " that it were shitty games", one even called a friend/the gifter a " stinking Jew " . Talking about gratitude by these kind of said OP users. And that's one of the reasons I said that these kind of SG users can easily be countered by blacklisting and/or higher level requirement of the giveaways. Some people here like said OP users think clearly only off profit and not of contributing, like those my friends encountered that aren't happy with bundle games but clearly wan't AAA games. What gratitude and manners made by this kind of " elite " high win zero zero zero contributors. And if that's not enough to blacklist said kind of users one can also blacklist them for being ungratefull, rude, obnoxious and anti-semitic.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure what "side of the story" I'm telling, or what this "story" is at all, but I'm just giving my opinion.
For example some gifters blacklist if you say thank you, others blacklist if you don't say thank you and others blacklist you if you enter a bundle givaway and you own already one of the titles in that bundle or blacklist you if you have a lot of Steam games. So keeping in mind the SG rules apply the gifter can make some rules for his own giveaways. So yes we gift here gifts away on SG but after the SG rules it's the perogative of the gifter that applies.
To clarify, the post I made above are my opinions on user conduct and propriety, not site policy. It has nothing to do with rules, but with how I think one should behave on a giveaway site and what my response would be in the scenario given by the OP. I didn't think site policy was being discussed at all, since it is easily accessible and everyone should know it by now. That said, I honestly don't see how this is relevant. If you'd like for me to respond to it, I can, but it doesn't conflict with anything I've said.
Also your homeless man reference doesn't cut it for the specific OP question. There's near to no valid excuse to have a 1000$ wins AND 0.00$ contributions because if someone has that kind of ratio he's been here a while on SG and taking into account that for gifting a game(s) that bundle games aren't expensive and you can trade or sell Steam cards/backgrounds/emoticons/boosters and on any kind of steam sales like on the mondays you can buy a game for like a very litlle amount of cents.
It was an analogy to illustrate the absurdity of expecting a recipient of charity to necessarily give back. The act of charity is to give, not to give with a stipulation that the recipient gives as well. That is preferred, of course, but preference is not requirement.
There are plenty of valid "excuses" for such high winnings with no contributions. For example, the user could have no money and uses SteamGifts to acquire games in order to pursue his or her hobby of playing video games. That is the entire purpose of a giveaway site, after all: to give to those who wish to enjoy their gifts. It could be that the user is giving away games on another giveaway site, but simply doesn't believe (or understand) that one should give back to the community that allowed one to receive so much. Since there is no obligation to give back, the user may simply believe that so long as one is giving back anywhere and at all, that person is paying the kindness forward. Another possible explanation is that the user simply has no interest in giving back. There is no obligation to do so, and the user is both following the rules and fulfilling a vital function in the system (being a recipient), so the fact that the user is not giving back is not an issue, especially when so many others are.
In other words, the user doesn't need "a valid excuse" for their winnings because that user is lawfully using the site as a recipient of others' charity. What is needed, however, is a valid and justified reason for blacklisting a user, any user, in order to qualify the blacklisting as fair and just. The onus is on the blacklister, not the blacklisted, to justify the blacklisted user's place on the blacklister's blacklist.
It seems to me that you're trying to argue that a user is obligated to give away. That is not the function of a giveaway site and that sounds like extortion to me: either give away games (demand), or you will be blacklisted by me and possibly others (threat for refusal to perform the demanded action). Regardless of how easy it could be to acquire gifts to give away, nobody is required to do so. If we are discussing policy (like you cited above), nowhere in the SteamGifts rules are users told to give away or required to do so. There is no obligation and any obligation imposed by the community is not enforced by the administration.
I even know that some off my Steam friends that gifted (decent) bundle games away were won by said OP users and those users said to them things like " that it were shitty games", one even called a friend/the gifter a " stinking Jew " . Talking about gratitude by these kind of said OP users. And that's one of the reasons I said that these kind of SG users can easily be countered by blacklisting and/or higher level requirement of the giveaways.
If a user behaves like that, then I would consider that toxic behavior and therefore worthy of blacklisting. The number of wins and contributions (the ratio) of the user should have no impact on one's decision, however, since it's completely irrelevant to the issue. Anyone, no matter how many wins or contributions, can misbehave. Why should it matter how many wins the misbehaving user has, or how many times that user has contributed? Are you more likely to blacklist someone acting like that simply because the user randomly won more than (s)he gave away? Conversely, are you less likely to blacklist someone acting like that just because the user gave away more than (s)he won? I don't know about you, but I would blacklist the person regardless of their ratio. Their winnings and contributions don't matter to me.
With all due respect, your reasoning is fallacious because you assume that a user's number of winnings, or the difference between a user's winnings and their contributions, is relevant or influences one's decisions. You even go so far as to prejudge those individuals and characterize them before even knowing them—something antisemites do toward Jews. How is that appropriate at all? If a user is behaving inappropriately, judge that user based on their inappropriate behavior. If you blacklist the user, you don't need to factor in their ratio at all because their misbehavior is sufficient reason alone to blacklist. I'd say that you shouldn't factor in their ratio, anyway, since that implies that their ratio is a meaningful or accurate reflection of who they are, which is absurd.
The issues you have about certain users has nothing to do with their ratio. It has to do with the person behind that ratio. It is fallacious to use user's ratio as a valid metric of measuring a user's worth or character because it is neither accurate nor meaningful in determining who the person behind it is. A person with a "positive ratio", such as yourself, could be a very generous person who's trying to help others enjoy games for free; or you simply don't care and you use this site as a disposal for any game you receive from another site, or through a trade, or from a bundle, that you don't want; or you're a horrible, selfish individual who is using this site to maximize your profits by giving away gifts you got for cheap in order to win expensive gifts. Is it right for me to assume you're any of those things, even if one or more of them might be accurate? Perhaps more importantly, should I blacklist you under the assumption that you're the latter? No, because I'm not going to presume who you are based on numbers on a screen.
In short, your complaints are about users who are "being ungratefull, rude, obnoxious and anti-semitic". Blacklist people for that. Their ratio has nothing to do with it.
Some people here like said OP users think clearly only off profit and not of contributing, like those my friends encountered that aren't happy with bundle games but clearly wan't AAA games. What gratitude and manners made by this kind of " elite " high win zero zero zero contributors.
And what makes you think that all users with such high winnings and zero contributions are like that? Or that the hypothetical user in the original post is? Why do you think gratitude and manners are related to a user's ratio? It seems to me that you're making a lot of assumptions about a user based on the personal experiences you've had with other users. If it would be unfair for someone to do to you, why are you doing it to others?
Comment has been collapsed.
Your reading between the lines and making your own assumptions about me and said OP users. This is a giveaway site of Steam games. So it's no rocket science to think that 1000$/0.00% SG users activate their Steam games on their Steam profile and at the very least drop cards of those games that can be put on the market or exchanged for bundle games (card/game trading, the SG trade section is full of those). So even without funds you can obtain bundle games.Also every week on the Steam market there are atleast a dozen games that sell for less than 50 cents. You make assumptions that said OP users are totally broke without 1 cent to spare and that they don't drop cards, get items from crafting or that they don't/can't trade those items for bundle games. I'm not buying this nor the moral of this. If one has the will to do something but to really do something and puts in the effort then there's a good chance to succeed. In the threads in the SG discussion sections you don't have to search long for SG users that say/admit themselves they were leachers but now they wan't to contribute.
Also keep in mind that I'm talking about OP SG users: 1000$/0.00$ SG users and not all the SG users.
But at the end of the day you have your opinion and I have mine and I don't think there will be remotely any change soon from either side.
So I'm following SG rules, my experiences, experiences of people I know and my gut feelings and I stand by my opinion/advise to the OP to blacklist said users asap and/or too if and when he does other SG giveaways to up his level requirement.
Comment has been collapsed.
What assumptions have I made about the hypothetical user? In fact, I would venture to say that I have made none, and that you're the only one presuming who the user is and how they act in this conversation. I'm simply saying that I would not blacklist a user based off their ratio, no matter how many wins or how few contributions that user has made. You, on the other hand, appear to be assuming that the user is "being ungratefull, rude, obnoxious and anti-semitic", and that the user is like those your friends have encountered, all because of a similar ratio to the hypothetical user mentioned in the original post.
You appear to be basing your entire judgment of the user on their ratio and relating your experiences with other, completely unrelated users with this hypothetical user simply because they share similar ratios. Would it be fair if I presumed you were a rude and inconsiderate person simply because certain people I've met with ratios similar to yours were rude and inconsiderate? Of course not, firstly because I shouldn't be presuming anything about anyone, and secondly because I shouldn't be basing my judgments off users' ratios.
So it's no rocket science to think that 1000$/0.00% SG users activate their Steam games on their Steam profile and at the very least drop cards of those games that can be put on the market or exchanged for bundle games (card/game trading, the SG trade section is full of those). So even without funds you can obtain bundle games.Also every week on the Steam market there are atleast a dozen games that sell for less than 50 cents.
I did not deny that. I said that it didn't matter because the user has no obligation to give anything away. That user could collect those cards, sell them, and purchase games for his or her self for all I care. There is no stipulation that whatever one earns in Steam Trading Cards or emoticons must be sold and used to give back to the community from which he or she won the related game(s). The only stipulation for winning a giveaway and receiving the gift is to redeem it on the account which won it and to mark it as received. What the person does with whatever drops they get is up to them and comes with the game.
You make assumptions that said OP users are totally broke without 1 cent to spare and that they don't drop cards, get items from crafting or that they don't/can't trade those items for bundle games.
No, I am not and have not. I am pointing out that it is possible that this hypothetical winner is poor and unable to afford any games. I posited this possible explanation (among many) to counter the demonstrably false notion that there are no "valid excuses" for having such high winnings with zero contributions. I did not assume this to be the case of the hypothetical user. I only pointed it out as a possibility which you are either neglecting or refusing to accept. As far as I'm concerned, I am not making any assumptions about the user, nor have I. Knowing the user's ratio is meaningless to me because it is not, never is, and never should be a reason to blacklist someone—at least, when it comes to my decisions and how I use the blacklist.
If one has the will to do something but to really do something and puts in the effort then there's a good chance to succeed. In the threads in the SG discussion sections you don't have to search long for SG users that say/admit themselves they were leachers but now they wan't to contribute.
And that is their decision. They are acting as recipients of gifts and are under no obligation to give back. I believe calling them "leechers" is offensive and inappropriate because one should not feel shame for being the random recipient of charity, and one definitely should not shame others for being that. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that distorted and coercive worldview. If someone wins one of my giveaways and never decides to give back, I do not mind nor should I, nor do I think anyone else should. Why should you? It was your decision to give away and it is their decision to not give away. Neither of you have any obligation to give away. Neither do I, and neither do the winners of any of my giveaways, past or future. It is each of our decisions to choose whether to give away. Why do you want others to not be given the same opportunity to decide as you?
Also keep in mind that I'm talking about OP SG users: 1000$/0.00$ SG users and not all the SG users.
It doesn't matter if you're speaking about one user, or a group of users, or all users. You are doing the same thing regardless of the number of targets. By pluralizing "users", which you have done multiple times, you're implying that you are treating anyone with that specific ratio as a distinct class of individuals who all behave, act, and think the same. That is absurd and fallacious, since they all have different personalities, pasts, and beliefs; they are all unique individuals and are equally capable of exercising their free will to behave and act however they please. Why do you think they're all the same? You seem to be prejudging an innumerable amount of users based solely on their ratio. In my opinion, that is a far greater injustice than any user who wins $1,000 worth of giveaways while contributing $0.
But at the end of the day you have your opinion and I have mine and I don't think there will be remotely any change soon from either side.
I have no problem changing my opinion if it is shown to be flawed or if I am convinced of an error in my thinking. I had no interest in convincing you of anything, and if I do, I do so through the logical rigor of my arguments rather than the emotional appeal of my rhetoric. You replied, seemingly in an attempt to justify blacklisting a user based on their ratio. I defended myself and my position, believing that doing so is not only inappropriate but unethical. Thanks for your input, but I respectfully and earnestly disagree.
So I'm following SG rules, my experiences, experiences of people I know and my gut feelings and I stand by my opinion/advise to the OP to blacklist said users asap and/or too if and when he does other SG giveaways to up his level requirement.
I prefer to judge people based on their actions and the merits of their character rather than presuming who they are and what they'll do by my previous, unrelated experiences with others who coincidentally share similar traits with them, especially when those traits have no impact on their character or behavior or personality. The latter is the same reasoning racists, sexists, homophobes, and antisemites use—and I am none of those things, nor would I ever subscribe to that rationale. I also prefer to use reason and logic to make decisions, not "gut feelings" and its accompanying generalizations which follow as informed by my anecdotal experiences. If you wish to use these methods to justify your position, then you are free to do so. I prefer a different methodology.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't blacklist people for having a negative ratio, I don't know their economical background, so personally I can only hope that a game that I wouldn't play EVER found a place when someone will enjoy it instead of laying there on my library.
If I could only manage to play 10h of each of my games... I would need 1820h, that's pretty much 76 straight days X___X so yeah, I've become more of a game collector (or hoarder if you prefer), but I rather don't activate keys of games that I'm not very interested in, I'm also on a tight budget nowadays.
Comment has been collapsed.
18 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Zepy
2 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by DanteOP
768 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by grimfandango8888
37 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by GarlicToast
49 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Chris76de
11 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by PoeticKatana
154 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by LeLecherousLeech
556 Comments - Last post 50 seconds ago by DrTenma
12 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Lugum
176 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Slide95
35 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Zepy
41 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by ELGADO26
28,504 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by stlpaul
2,212 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by Mayanaise
So, I joined only a few weeks ago, and as soon as I won something I was excited.
AT THAT POINT, I had never hosted a giveaway. So I get being new and that being a good reason for level 0 Giveaways.
My question is, how do you handle people if you ever bother to check out who joined your giveaway?
About 2/3's of the people who join mine, seem to have contributed back to SG, but 1/3 of them, have never hosted a giveaway.
I was astounded because it only took me winning 2 giveaways to NEED to do some of my own, or I would feel guilty. (Yes, my games currently have been all left over from bundles, but I'm a new sub teacher, and I'm very tight on funds this summer... I managed to get called ONCE for summer school... yay.)
Anyways... I saw users who have won $300-1000 worth of games and have NEVER hosted their own giveaway...
Do you let them continue to join your Giveaways or do you Blacklist them?
Curious cause I'm new and am looking for feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.