I think this is the kind of situation where it would be handled on a case-by-case basis - if I remember correctly, suspensions are based on the notion that a user is intentionally creating "fake" or misleading giveaways. In the case of creating a giveaway when you aren't 100% sure they key works, technically you're creating a giveaway which you were initially aware may be effectively "fake" since you cannot deliver the gift being offered.
In terms of giveaway deletion, I think that the general reason people prefer an agreement to deletion is because it won't leave a "bad" mark on your profile, but I'm not sure if receiving many "not received" can result in a ban unless there is suspicion of malicious intent. The more likely outcome would be to gradually run out of giveaway slots due to creating failed giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Have you seen any cases where this has happened?
Would you guess there's a threshold that, when surpassed, can get you in a "danger zone" no matter your level?
Only if someone create GA(s) without the intention from delivering it OR if he decide "this winner isn't worth to get my game" and don't deliver the key/gift, will something happen from the mods side.
And for both you need evidences, which are hard to get/bring up.
So in nearly all cases happen exactly nothing, besides the "X GAs not send" mark in the user profile stats.
I seen a user with 32 "not delivered" marks with only 120 GAs made. My report dn't lead to a suspension.
My reports for "notorious" GA deleters, when they don't liked the winner (of course they don't wrote this and came up with excuses about the key) brought only positive results when they done for the same game then again a GA, without to change something (like the region restrictions).
In the end, only when someone done it really stupid he got punished.
Comment has been collapsed.
I imagine having giveaways marked as not received is a quick way to find oneself in a bunch of blacklists, so it makes sense that people will try to avoid that as much as possible. Then again I try to exclusively use group giveaways for keys that have a chance of not working for whatever reason, even if I've only had to actually ask for deletion a few times (I counted and it's a total of 7 over a decade+ of using this site) it gives me some peace of mind that those entering have already implicitly agreed to the deletion if it's needed, although in reality they could refuse and I wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I imagine having giveaways marked as not received is a quick way to find oneself in a bunch of blacklists, so it makes sense that people will try to avoid that as much as possible
Fair enough but none of the contributors I've asked presented this argument.
Leveraging group GAs for potentially bad keys, when one wants to keep a clean ratio, is a great idea, IMO.
Comment has been collapsed.
Friendly people accept a deletion, if it is visible that the gifter don't started with a bad intension.
But the a$$holes will not accept it, whatever the group rules are.
In my group it isn't listed as rule like "you must accept a deletion" but because it is/should be normal human behavior we had only one case, in all the years, where a member don't accepted the deletion (and got blacklisted for this from the gifter and a few other ones...).
As example my 2 "not delivered" stats came because one, low level, winner in one of my, public, cakeday threads not reacted on my question if he would allow the deletion of a GA were the key wasn't ok (if i believe his words). I wanted to offer him a other small game as replacement but he never reacted on 2 messages from me and marked it as not recieved after 7 days.
The second one gave me a winner that told me, after 4 days, the first key isn't ok. I replaced the key a few minutes later and wrote him that he can test the next key, he done this and wrote me again 4 days later. I replaced it with a third key and he wrote me, again, after 4 days that the key wasn't ok and that he don't want to try more keys (i still had 4). Nearly all other keys from games that i had from the same source and gave away at the same time were ok, so it isn't 100% sure that all 3 keys weren't ok but if so, i would had be able to replace the key 4x more, so the chance for a working one was nearly 100%. And that this user needed always 4 days to test the next key and to write me, i replaced each key only minutes after his messages, let me extreme strongly assume that he was a multiaccounter.
The marks frustrate me because i had still keys for the second and got a bad cakeday "present" from the first (i don't do cakeday threads and GAs anymore as result from all the negative stuff that i had each year with the majority of the winners) but i learned to ignore it and don't care anymore if there is a 0, a 2 or a 30.
Comment has been collapsed.
16,362 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by herbesdeprovence
577 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by CalamityUP
120 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by adam1224
5 Comments - Last post 37 minutes ago by CalamityUP
16 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by OsManiaC
230 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by DeliberateTaco
211 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by BlazeHaze
108 Comments - Last post 57 seconds ago by WaxWorm
1,019 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by JTC3
17 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by Fluffster
41 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by Fluffster
66 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by Fluffster
82 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Ninglor03
110 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Ninglor03
More and more people seem to request deletion for GAs which were the key ended up being invalid. For region restrictions I understand that it makes sense, since the contributor can create a new GA with the proper rules.
It should be well known to most users by now that the GA creators cannot establish rules regarding "mandatory agreement for deletion".
I've asked some high level contributors who state they will (kindly) ask for deletion on their GAs if the key ends up being invalid, over the past few months.
Apart from the "having a nice public profile" argument, I've been hearing the "I can't afford a ban" argument as well.
Found some relevant old threads on this:
https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/Nm5bs/what-does-not-received-affect-you
https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/Pwu4f/how-many-not-received-gets-you-banned
I would think that the moderation team is not going to take such extreme measures as banning high level contributors in this context.
Have you seen any cases where this has happened?
Would you guess there's a threshold that, when surpassed, can get you in a "danger zone" no matter your level?
Comment has been collapsed.