Not too shabby...
Only issue I see is that advertising giveaways for public groups during event/milestone/cakeday in posts. Isn't possible even when these group giveaways aren't main focus. As I do like to include certain public groups at times like this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can you clarify, please? Do you mean something along the lines of...
IT'S MY CAKE DAY
Here are some giveaways to celebrate.
- [LINK] (Private 0+)
- [LINK] (Public 5+)
- [LINK] (ABC Group)
- Perfectly fine
- Also ok
please only do so when there is a greater reason for the discussion, such as including the giveaways in part of an event, cake day, or milestone.
- This would no longer be ok.
Giveaways restricted to Steam groups can only be advertised in giveaway descriptions, the "Group Recruitment" discussion for the group, or in the comment section of other giveaways for the group.
If that does not address your concern, please let me know where I went wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
In this case I'm referring to case where you have all of the above, presented at one time in one post.
So I could do 1 and 2, but not 3. at the same time.
But if I put 3 inside 1 or 2, it's suddenly fine... Which I find bit annoying and rule lawyering...
Comment has been collapsed.
Can we just say "Gray Market sites"?
Strictly speaking, no. The last part of the specific rule is
or in the comment section of other giveaways for the group.
Since 1 and 2 would not be for the group, this would be disallowed.
I will say, however, that I had not previously followed this path to this logical conclusion. I will bring this up internally to see if that's what we really wanted out of this.
Comment has been collapsed.
I fully understand that we don't want posts solely of group giveaways to drive traffic to groups outside recruitment. But if they aren't main content or drive of the post in my humble opinion they should be allowed. Ofc it's very hard to reasonably draw a line here. As many users here have quite long standing groups they like to appreciate in cases of milestones.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, it's Friday, what does everyone have planned for the weekend? PS: Here's a group giveaway to celebrate the end of the week.
If a user created the above discussion, would the group giveaway be the main content or drive of the post? I think they could easily argue it's not, the post is to ask the community about their weekend plans, and the giveaway link is only secondary. Do we want to allow these discussions?
As you said, the difficulty is being able to draw the line and to have it clear for everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
would the group giveaway be the main content or drive of the post? I think they could easily argue it's not, the post is to ask the community about their weekend plans, and the giveaway link is only secondary. Do we want to allow these discussions?
If the rules for a giveaway site are making people question whether or not they're allowed to create a post sharing a giveaway then there's something seriously wrong. Just make a category for group giveaways and then they can all go there regardless of whether the giveaway or the discussion is the primary content.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with this Ekaros here.
There are times when I wish to say
It's My Cakeday/Birthday/Milestone accomplished etc party
Here's a few links to
1) invite only gibs (individual or train)
2) WL gibs (individual WL gibs or train with a WL starting car--which, if I understand correctly, makes it or them essentially invite-only, as the WL person has to click on the discussion to see the link for the WL gib or WL gib train.)
Not being able to link the WL giveaway in the discussion, BUT being able to link it in the giveaway description for the invite-only gib, would be frustrating.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not being able to link the WL giveaway in the discussion, BUT being able to link it in the giveaway description for the invite-only gib, would be frustrating.
Actually, if I'm reading the guidelines correctly, it's worse than that. You wouldn't even be able to put the WL GA link in the description for an invite-only GA:
Whitelist restricted giveaways can only be advertised in giveaway descriptions corresponding to the whitelist, the "Group Recruitment" discussion for the whitelist, or in the comment section of other giveaways for the whitelist.
I think you could only put it in the descriptions or comments of your WL GAs or in your WL recruitment discussion (if you have one).
I agree this would be frustrating because I've also made those kinds of cakeday posts with both invite-only trains and WL GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, I'd have to create a WL recruitment thread for "sign up here for a chance at being added to my WL in the event that I ever make a WL-only giveaway." ARRGH! notlikeblob.jpg facepalm.jpg
What about trains? and SGT? (which adds reflinks iirc) Could we put a WL gib in a SGT-gated-giveaway or behind an SGT gate and link it in a post?
What about the event where one user went through people's posts and pasted an invite-only (WL?) link for a game from that person's WL? is this now banned?
Comment has been collapsed.
Could you please tell me, what is the reason to post a link to WL giveaway ANYWHERE? I mean, if someone is in WL - they would see your giveaway without link, in global listing on site. So, if you post a link, there are two kinds of users: users who already seen it anyway, and users who can't enter it. So why are you doing it?
Comment has been collapsed.
In case I have the game (or hidden it) I won't see it. Some peeps like to chat in WL giveaways
Comment has been collapsed.
Chat! I would never guess. It sounds really strange to me, but at least it makes some sense now. Thank you!
Comment has been collapsed.
I made use of that in the second most resent one of mine. Especially to hide it or krolik 😁
But it would be cool if your could see owned Wl only giveaways or GA you can only access because of Wl in an extra category especially for that reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
So to be clear my giveaway discussion would no longer be valid, unless I removed the link to the group-only giveaways (point 2 in discussion)?
I'd like to understand the intention here. I understand that in the case of whitelist giveaways it is unnecessary to 'advertise' them in a discussion as everyone on the whitelist will see them anyway. And I get that you want to restrict group advertisement to the relevant group recruitment thread. But I see this as an edge case, and one I would like given further consideration.
Yes, I wanted to 'advertise' particular groups that I am a member of (but not in any way responsible for running), and I'm wondering what the preferred alternative is. Would it be acceptable to link to the relevant group recruitment threads (as I did)? Would it be acceptable to state "I've created another giveaway in these groups: ...", but not actually link to it? That just seems a bit silly.
Comment has been collapsed.
So to be clear my giveaway discussion would no longer be valid, unless I removed the link to the group-only giveaways (point 2 in discussion)?
Yes, that would be correct.
I understand that in the case of whitelist giveaways it is unnecessary to 'advertise' them in a discussion as everyone on the whitelist will see them anyway.
The same is generally true for the group GAs. If someone is in a group, they will automatically see the relevant giveaway on the main page. That being the case, there's no need to add the links to your general thread.
If you are linking to other group recruitment threads, that seems to be stretching/bending the concept of group recruitment, and I would say that's not appropriate for the thread as it is.
if the intent of your giveaways is to bring attention to your own group, I would recommend moving the topic to the group recruitment category. If these groups are not owned/managed by you, then adding a link to the main group recruitment thread (if it exists) would be better.
I do understand the convenience of having a single thread to consolidate your information and that it is more cumbersome to move between multiple topics if you are posting giveaways to multiple groups, but this is how it should work under the new rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who Can Enter
- Everyone = Public giveaway, Not for Discussions
- Invite Only = Yes for Discussions: General / Puzzles categories
- Whitelist / Steam Group = Yes for Discussions, only for Group Recruitment category
..
might it be good?
edit: don't know why but felt dumb writing that, so, have sum mercy
Comment has been collapsed.
No need to feel dumb! This is quite clear and understandable.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hopefully, I'm not getting (too) pedantic here, but on first reading of the new guidelines this implication was not obvious to me, until your response to Ekaros.
If you are linking to other group recruitment threads, that seems to be stretching/bending the concept of group recruitment
I suspected as much, it even felt a bit cheeky asking!
If these groups are not owned/managed by you, then adding a link to the main group recruitment thread (if it exists) would be better.
This would appear to contradict the previous point, and that you stated my discussion would not be acceptable. I'm not an owner of any of the groups listed, just a happy member.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was poor phrasing, sorry! I certainly read that myself as add a link to the group thread.
I meant to add your link to the giveaway to the group thread as a comment/update to the main discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't had time yet to read the updated guidelines thoroughly but I think this deserves a sticky so more people can see it. (If stickies are still a thing)
Comment has been collapsed.
I am torn on "running an event that challenges users to collect achievements for a game you're associated with" as I like NB264's events, but I get that it is in agreement with the rest of the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, as far as I understand the new guidelines don't prevent anybody else who enjoyed the Goblins and Coins events from organizing them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I guess that's the end of it.
I always tried to have other challenges anyone can participate in, and these to be a special treat for the fans inside a bigger event, but if it's against the rules now, it's against the rules.
Have to add to make it clear for those who don't know about past events, since I am probably the cause for this addition to the rules - I've never asked people to join groups, buy anything, write steam reviews, promote game on social media and such. I did offer an optional newsletter link but never required anyone to click, let alone sign up for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I remember correctly, you were a SG member first and only after being active here, you developed GnC. That is why you are "good" compared to devs who only join SG to promote their games.
Comment has been collapsed.
You remember well. I joined in 2011 sort of immediately after then steam group became a website. Released the game in late 2016 after support from good folks around here. If not for SG users suggesting/encouarging me, I'd probably never even try to release GnC on Steam.
I do understand why the rule like this is to be implemented. Not happy I'm kind of restricted from giving back to the community using this very neutral and trusted 3rd party service for randomizing winners, but hey... Better that than to have rise in abuse of the website.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't help thinking that prohibiting this activity outright is not the right way to tackle the issue (if the issue is even there).
The rule will simply force the devs and PR folks to use someone (pretending to be) unrelated to the game in question to run the event. Possibly by bribing them.
I myself fail to see the harm in (an extreme example) someone from EA coming in and making a few giveaways requiring people to score 10 goals in the latest FIFA game. Someone wants to enter those so badly they buy the game? Well, their choice. Someone already has the game? Good for them. The event fails because no one wanted to play that sh-te? Well, you got what you asked for, EA.
And if it is a problem that needs tackling, make it official. Create a separate Forum category for these events. Make it possible to hide that category. Require the devs to run a giveaway of X copies of their game in question prior to starting the achievement hunt. Make provisions about the allowed frequency of such events (per game developer). Require disclosing the games being given away beforehand to prevent associations with loot boxes.
Comment has been collapsed.
The rule will simply force the devs and PR folks to use someone (pretending to be) unrelated to the game in question to run the event. Possibly by bribing them.
Not really necessary. In theory there's a less creative and faster way to run giveaways for people who already own the game, meaning to reward the existing community and give back -- you just remove the event itself from SG boards to a Steam group and then use invite only giveaway for participants, if you wanna use SG at all in the end.
I don't wanna go into details as not to give ideas to potentially shady people, but it's very easy and not against any rules on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am wondering what would happen if permission from SG Mods was required for each individual event. Using the above example, EA would have to petition SG for permission to post such an event, but would be allowed to post that single event once permission was granted for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am wondering what would happen if permission from SG Mods was required for each individual event
We'd get another 103 posts complaining the mods are too slow because they have a new batch of largely irrelevant tickets to deal with, the mods would take offense and a bunch of them would ditch then we'd have more slowdown as new mods were selected/trained followed by a burst of activity before ending up back exactly where we are now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Never really participated in the last year but always recognized them and found them kinda cool and a quite passive and nice advertisement if I'm allowed to call it so.
Comment has been collapsed.
I realize there's more ways to look at something.
My way was "this is the community that supported the project since its beginning, people then tested it, commented, encouraged me, bought it on steam - let's give something back as a thank you for the support". And I don't mean just gifts, I mean event as a whole, as I have a long experience of making puzzle events here (in a way, that's how I ended up making a game in the first place, but a long story) and know people usually love them.
If you were to go through all the events I've organized so far, you'd realized that some 90% of the participants in the "achievement", "video" and similar tasks were the same people (of course everyone can enter FFA giveaways, Jigidi or even "submit artwork" tasks), who owned the game before events even started, not some "new purchasers" who rushed to buy the game just to participate - as I feel is being insinuated or imagined by some.
I even always told people openly not to buy the game just because of the event if they don't have it already, or at least have not considered buying it prior. I encourage people to refund the game if they don't like it. My logic here is the same as with bundles - sure it can be seen as income, but it's forced and you get an unhappy customer who doesn't really enjoy or want your game.
I like seeing people enjoy the game, even when struggling with some parts of it (that's how "gameplay video task" came to be), not people resenting the game they bought. Imagine selling chilly at a fair and being "haha, people are throwing it away after they pay, but I'm getting money anyway" mentality. It would be ridiculous, to say the least. No one sane wants that with the something they created. You hope people will enjoy it - or not buy it if it's not for them.
At the same time, I do understand someone might see what I was doing, specially now that the rules change is being pushed, as something that's not only positive and can have unpredictable bad sides even in my case - let alone if someone with bad intentions tried to emulate the event form just for profits, let's say push some asset flip. But, even then, you're still allowed to advertise your game:
When creating a giveaway you are able to write a description. In this space you are welcome to advertise your social media channels (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter), Steam games, Steam groups, Steam curators, products, or services.
Soooo... I am a bit confused why forbid such events completely (when I already didn't require people to buy, click, join, like, whishlist... there were links, but links like that are already allowed in the giveaways), instead of saying "for every task that requires achievement or owning the game, you have to include two completely tasks with 100 gifts that people who don't own the game can access too" or something along the lines.
Might be due to that being much harder to moderate and stuff here is shorthanded as it is. And as someone who's been both mod and admin on several online forums in the past, I can understand how sometimes blanket bans can be seen as productive and more acceptable than more precise rules... when you're on that side.
Either way, as a long time member here I always tried to stick to the rules and not cause issues for others, including moderating team, so I'm gonna continue respecting the rules in the future. I'm sure there's a good reason for this change even if we can't see it clearly so far. That said, I am not seeing this as fatal as it may seem- bundled games were forbidden at some point and are encouraged now; free games were forbidden and are encouraged now.
Maybe in the future there'll be a system for events of this type. (if sgtools don't support something already, and I think it does, but am too lazy to look into it now). Also, there are ways to organize events without breaking the rules, so we'll see, maybe it's not the end either way. I'll just need to read more and see what exactly can't be done and what is still allowed before I return to event planning again.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really hope there will be a way to make these community events happen again.
I see there is a problem of a spectrum of things you would like to allow and some you don't but how to write it down.
Exceptions are always bad as it can lead to the feeling of injustice so forbidding everything might seam like the better way. But as you I wish for a system or special support category which would allow such things.
Not sure what you mean/expect by a sgtools event feature but I guess the creator is open for suggestions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I volunteer, as I'm sure 99% of the site would, to post your event on your behalf. It's not my game, the rule gets to stay in place and its an easy work around for something that should be allowed.
You write it all out, make the giveaways, get someone else to post the original thread for you and poof the rule is now virtually useless.
Unless this makes the user "associated" with the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I ran multiple events which were achievement events that I tried to make to promote people to play their games, within that I always hid links and puzzles so everyone could take part. I don't know if the rule covers those kind of events as I was never associated with the games in question?
Comment has been collapsed.
My understanding of above guidelines is that you would be fine.
Comment has been collapsed.
These kinds of events would be great if they would be allowed - but only after accepted by support. While we don't have many active developers in the active community, I kind of think NB264's event should slide - it's been always in good faith. But then exceptions are bad, so back to my suggestion - organizer should be in contact with support and the event accepted by them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, exceptions are bad and SG got rid of "special rules" a long time ago. It just creates division and conflict.
Comment has been collapsed.
Big +1, NB264's events were exemplary. But now killing off even more content, the forums have already lost 80% activity and nonsensical over-regulation causes it even further to die. I hoped for some liberalization in order to boost contributions, and not the opposite.
This is just mind-boggling.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe instead of a blanket ban - It should be more of "on an approval basis" where developers can send in a request to organize said event with Support, and if it's approved, he/she can then go ahead with the event. Support will then need to have another section for developer event applications though
Comment has been collapsed.
This site is not for trading
There's a button named Trades in the top bar of Steamgifts, and that can be confusing for new users... So maybe you should add some words about steamtrades.com in the User Content #11.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
The guideline below is certainly an improvement, but mentioning that ST is a sister site would help undemonize any general mention of trading.
It is acceptable to discuss the general topic of trading, but it is not allowed to use our site to facilitate actual trades.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1. As SteamTrades is under the same roof, it would be good for that to be mentioned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Whitelist recruitment. Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you.
Can this be a little clearer? I know some users write in their GA desc for example: Whitelists are appreciated, and from this rule its not allowed.
But am I allowed to create a thread where Im loking for people to join my WL? And if Im looking, can they say yes?
I know there have been some mods/support that stopped some threads where they looked for people to WL. Even if the rules where the same as before when others did it without a problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
But am I allowed to create a thread where Im loking for people to join my WL? And if Im looking, can they say yes?
Yes, you can look for people, to add them to your WL. In it's core it's not much different from recruiting people for giveaway group.
But you can't have as an requirement "I will WL you, if you WL me firstly". That was a reason why some threads were closed.
Comment has been collapsed.
From what I understand, saying things like "Whitelistis are appreciated" is (already) considered begging from whitelisting, and thus is forbidden.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are some users that have that kind of statement on every giveaway they create so thats why I asked. Dont think whitelist recruitment was actually written down as a rule before.
I remebered vaguely that there was at least one user that did a normal WL recruitment thread and he didnt ask for WL back, and Im sure it was shut down by someone. But I might have remembered wrong because MSKOTOR said it was because they asked for WL back.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's indeed not written anywhere at the moment. Yet it's still being enforced. So I'm pretty sure writing this on your giveaway is against SG rules.
The definition of "begging" here is used very broadly. So even writing things like "You can whitelist me if you want to" is considered "begging for WL". I know from experience - I got suspended for writing this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is it ok to say in giveaway descriptions that whitelists are appreciated?
I personally don't see a big issue with it but it's so obvious is it even necessary to say it?
Make nice giveaways and be friendly / helpful on the forums or create good content and people will whitelist you for it. That's how it has always been. For me is feels a bit like saying I like breathing air and drinking liquids to keep my body hydrated.
But obviously that is just my gut feeling and I am not the one to decide what is appropriate here and what isn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
True. I just had the feeling those people who need encouragement to whitelist somebody probably aren't the same people who create whitelist giveaways in the first place but maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah, I get that :D I have habits like that as well. Like wanting to say Copy instead of Got it (despite not being in the army) or Tango down when playing games on voice chat with friends. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, same here. I hardly ever enter WL gibs because my PC can't handle most AAA games so I play them on PS4 instead and also I'm a bit picky but it still somehow feels nice to get WLed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Naw, it's ok :D You didn't come off super-passionate about it anyway like that's the hill you intend to die on defending if necessary ;)
(not completly sure if that idiom exists in english)
Comment has been collapsed.
Seconded. There are plenty of people who say something along the lines of
I appreciate WLs. if you WL me, and I see WL giveaways coming from you, I will be more inclined to WL you.
Is this now against the rules?
Support's input would be appreciated here
Comment has been collapsed.
I would call it differently, for example whitelist solicitation.
Comment has been collapsed.
- Begging. Do not ask game developers or users for keys or games, unless they are offering and searching for interested parties.
Begging is something which lead repeatedly to discussions. Especially by people saying it was a joke. In the past moderators said that the rule is "absolute" so even as joke it is not allowed. For clarification and for shutting down future discussions I would recommand to add the part: "Not even as a joke" or "not even jokingly" or similar in reasonable english.
Comment has been collapsed.
And dont forget. You cant use threats, harassment, discrimination, or negative comments or slurs against race, sexual orientation, or genders. Even as a joke. Dont forget to add the part: "Not even as a joke" or "not even jokingly" or similar in reasonable english.
Why would you break the rules as a joke? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Now I wonder if being positive of some group is counted in that...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, negative comments should be removed. (from the rule) Just because you dont agree its concidered negative and not allowed. So why should being positive be allowed in that case. Just because somethings sounds positive doesnt mean its right.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol, the logic is good, even if the outcome is...not what one customarily expects or thinks.
+100
Comment has been collapsed.
China: You're not allowed to reincarnate without the government's express permission.
Is the law, so must be something good
Comment has been collapsed.
Some nice additions and clarifications. My english is not the best but this line sounds not correct for me:
Scripts are not allowed be used to automatically enter into giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not a native speaker neither but I think the better phrasing would be: (Changes in capital letters)
Scripts are not allowed TO be used to automatically enter
intogiveaways.
The into is redundant as far as I know.
or (more organic sentence structure)
Scripts that automatically enter giveaways or enter multiple giveaways simultaneously are forbidden.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your response. I read the original comment and still didn't see anything wrong with that, but clearly there's a typo we all missed when creating this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Products or services can be advertised if they are add-ons, extensions, or tools for either Steam or SteamGifts. If you are promoting your Steam group in the "Group Recruitment" category, or if you are managing a giveaway event, you are also allowed to link to relevant products or services.
So... can we get the issue from a few months ago resolved now, then?
I'm of course referring to a member of support forcing a user to remove links in a recruitment thread although none of them broke any rules (see Archi's ticket /lRZ5J/). I'm now in charge of said recruitment thread, so I'm also, if not more, eager to get a response and be able to restore the recruitment thread to its former, more convenient state.
All I want is a straight answer - Can we restore the links from previous recruitment threads to our current recruitment thread? These include multiple links to our website (rules, introduction, features, etc) - The website is not monetized, and the features are not accessible by non-members. Said features do not include prizes, monetary benefits, or other incentives (other than the Steamgifts giveaways) that are intended to "bait" people into joining the group. For example, we have a "shop" on our website, but the "shop" only unlocks group specific features using an in-group currency, and therefore serves no other purpose but to entertain group members (this specific link is what caused the whole mess in the first place).
I'm not here to start additional drama, I'm just really tired of waiting on you guys for a clear answer to a problem that shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. Please give us a straight answer at least, so I can leave this whole thing behind (it's been going on for months, now). If one or more of the links in the thread linked above are not allowed on SG, please do point it out so I can make the proper changes when I'll edit the new thread.
Looking forward to a response.
Thanks!
Comment has been collapsed.
This would generally open up these threads, yes, provided it doesn't slip into an explicitly excluded activity. (e.g. collecting money)
Although I see not much difference personally, I would think it best to not re/open threads until this discussion phase has settled and the guidelines are more "written in stone."
Comment has been collapsed.
Good to hear, thank you. We don't plan on re-opening the threads, but I do feel like the current thread is missing some very important links, so I hope to be able to re-add them in soon. I'll wait it out for now until the new rules are set in place.
Thanks for clarifying/confirming!
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, those links will be perfectly fine because they're relevant to the group.
If you are promoting your Steam group in the "Group Recruitment" category, or if you are managing a giveaway event, you are also allowed to link to relevant products or services.
And yes, those links could be monetized, so the group website could have advertisements, a link to a Patreon, or it could sell group t-shirts or swag.
This content can be monetized, but there cannot be any content blocks preventing users from freely reaching their destination.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you responding to my enquiry, this is much appreciated!
Much respect as well for taking the time to review and update the guidelines, as I've been saying for years how they needed clarification - Seeing them being revamped, taking the community's suggestions and feedback in mind while doing so, is very nice to see. Hopefully, this is a step towards reducing the amount of misunderstanding, especially when it comes to the community moderation.
Cheers!
Comment has been collapsed.
Just wondering, were those links permitted with the current/previous guidelines too?
Comment has been collapsed.
That'll depend on who you ask because the previous guidelines didn't seem to cover this situation with enough clarity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Under "Personal attacks or hate speech", one of the examples is simply "negative comments". This seems very broad and I think it will lead to problems. Some people are very touchy and may consider a lot of comments "negative" while others do not.
This seems like an oversimplifying blanket rule that will give mods the ability to silence certain opinions if they want to. This will probably cause disagreements between mods about what does or doesn't violate this rule.
With "Threats, harassment, discrimination and slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender" already against the rules, I don't see why there needs to be a blanket ban on all negative comments.
Edit: The "negative comments" part was only meant to be when it is in reference to race, sexual orientation, or gender. CG cleared this up and responded here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yea this sounds WAY too touchy for me, I'm not close to PC nor do I desire to be.
Does this include saying anything that can be contrived as an insult Putin or Trump? I'd have to think so, after all, what if Putin is a member here?
I think this is REALLY going empower weak, "sensitive" types and be a total pain in the ass for support.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1000000000
@support
I could say, "burning amazon forests is bad" and have someone take it as a negative, especially if they are someone who benefits from those forests being burnt.
Having members (support or otherwise) decide, based upon their own worldviews and unconscious biases, which comments are negative and which are positive would or could be total chaos. If I see something as negative, but the facts contradict me, is it negative? positive? What if the facts are subjective and could be positive or negative depending on one's viewpoint? As someone who enjoys playing "devil's advocate", I can often see some good in various incompatible statements. If both of these incompatible statements are true, who decides which viewpoint or statement is false, not allowed, negative, etc?
Also, you cannot have positive beneficial discussion without an exchange of ideas; such exchange by its very nature must contain negative comments ("dude your ideas are nuts and here is why; there isn't a shred of evidence to back them up") which could be seen as a negative comment by the (hopefully not offended) recipient. Is their original comment, which required correction, negative? Is the comment with nothing but constructive criticism "negative" because it disagrees with someone else and attempts to show them why and how they are wrong? Basically anyone can take any comment as negative, ie "you claimed mice are smart, well I have a mouse and it is dumb; I take your comment stating that "mice are smart" as negative or offensive because I know better" (or the recipient of such a comment could take criticism of an incorrect idea as "negative" or "they hated on my idea")--right or wrong, people can be offended by anything and everything. Leaving this window open invites a deluge of annoyances--for people who are wrongly criticized or condemned for firmly held convictions which are not offensive or negative, for people who perceive any comment made which shows a flaw in their viewpoint to be a personal attack (I know of a few of these), for support in dealing with all these trivial comments and tickets, etc.
Being able to shrug off comments is a part of growing up and being an adult. The ability to complain about "you hurt my feelings by stating what you perceive to be facts" is, frankly, shortsighted.
Also, if one of these threads came up in the future we wouldn't be able to respond with any sort of criticism, as nearly all of these comments on this page are "negative comments" which would be banned in the future. Just thoughts to think about. Do you really want to become a dictatorial website which only allows "correct speech" through in the face of what is recognized as truth?
If I said, "automobiles are foolish" someone from the automobile industry could complain. If I said "cars are the only method of transportation for me" others could say I was being discriminatory against bicycles (which I also like but didn't say in the sentence in question).
FURTHER: If I said "stalin (or dictator of your choice) was a bad guy, history backs me up", and someone who adores him complained, would my factual comment be disallowed?
Since viewpoints and worldviews vary from person to person, and since a large amount of the user feedback to the existing rules was over ambiguous wording which was interpreted this way here and a different, contradictory way there, please do not invite or create more ambiguous wording in the new rules!!!
In short, please leave "negative comments" out of the guidelines, those words are merely inviting headaches.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate Ginger... ale
I hate mondays
Orange man bad
Biology explains this...
I don't like your avatar is confusing
Suspended....
Agree could be nice to they can define "hate speech"
Comment has been collapsed.
Do we want to allow "negative comments" against "race, sexual orientation, or gender" as long as they are not "Threats, harassment, discrimination"?
I understand the concern that it could result in more support tickets. I dont envy the mods weighing that concern against the added potential to decrease bigotry.
Here is the guideline as a whole:
Threats, harassment, discrimination, or negative comments or slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender are not allowed
I had to reread it as:
[Types of comments] against [types of identity]
...for me to better understand the intent
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. "Negative comments" out of context sounds vague, but the full guideline makes sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not exactly sure what is meant in this guideline because it is not worded correctly. The word "or" is used too many times.
I think each thing is meant to be it's own category. The site doesn't want any threats, any harassment, any discrimination, or any negative comments. The site also does not want any slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender.
That is how I interpreted it, but I could be wrong because it is not worded correctly. If this entire rule is just about race, sexual orientation, or gender, then I don't see a problem, it just needs to be worded a little better.
Edit: The "negative comments" part was only meant to be when it is in reference to race, sexual orientation, or gender. CG cleared this up and responded here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Examples of "negative comments" that should not be considered hate speech, and should not be censored:
"X people tend to..."
Especially when this ends in a negative people will take it as "hate". Some people might take it as "hate" even if the pattern or trait is something positive because it generalizes. However, generalizations are not bad, and people from the average joe all the way up to scientists make generalizations every day. It becomes a problem only when people judge INDIVIDUALS based on a presumption based on a generalization.
If discussion of social issues, politics, and similar are going to be continued to be allowed, it should not be out of bounds to point out generalizations that hold true and may be relevant to an question / issue.
"X is unnatural / gross."
Statements like these convey a personal belief or personal taste. They do not convey "hate" except to the overly sensitive. All they denote is disagreement with a claim or belief, and/or a personal taste. And yet many would group any such failure to 100% endorse someone else's belief to be a "negative comment" or "hate speech".
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree on both counts, but I will acknowledge that further negative (con)text around that can become hate-type speech
Comment has been collapsed.
The original intention was...
- Threats
- Harassment
- Discrimination
- Negative comments or slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender
It was definitely never intended to imply that any negative comments are not allowed, as that would be very absurd. Even so, I think I agree with some users that it's still too broad of a term to use, so I updated the guideline to the below...
Personal attacks or hate speech. Neither threats or harassment is allowed, nor is slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender.
Comment has been collapsed.
One suggestion, you could also add to that list that such comments against someone's country of residence or birth are also not allowed.
(Or is that contemplated within race discrimination?)
My English is not very good but I hope you will understand what I suggested.
Comment has been collapsed.
A few tweaks for grammar are needed in the updated version, like so:
"Personal attacks or hate speech. Neither threats nor harassment are allowed, nor are slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender."
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for the clarification and update. I support this and also recommend the minor grammar tweak of replacing "is" with "are".
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate your listening to us on this and other matters.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personal attacks or hate speech. Threats, harassment, discrimination, or negative comments or slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender are not allowed.
Interpretation is too different depending on “country” and “region”.
Will definitely cause misery.😰
I saw a similar problem in the real world.
It is better to regulate “responsibility of reply”.
"I don't reply because I think it's irrelevant"
I hope there will be no reply after this word.
That's enough for general communication.
If there is still a situation where you are forced to force a reply, report a user report to support.
Do not pursue on the spot.
Comment has been collapsed.
When you disagree with a user in the community, do your best to explain your viewpoint rather than attacking the individual.
If this implies that attacking the individual would be against the rules, it should be worded as such. Right now the guideline sounds like more of a piece of advice rather than a rule to be followed.
In the same vein, is attacking the individual whilst explaining your viewpoint also against the rules? What constitutes an attack? Threats, harassment, etc? Then it's already covered by the Guideline 4 in the User Content section. Something else? Could that lead to an individual expressing any kind of opinion regarding another individual's viewpoint, instead of only stating their own viewpoint in response, being interpreted as an attack? (E.g. starting your comment with 'That's silly.')
negative comments or slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender are not allowed.
What does 'negative' mean? Any kind of criticism regarding a generalised trait of one of these groups? Meaning, the rule prohibits generalisations pertaining to any of these groups wholesale?
Incidentally, does that include 'negative' comments regarding in-game content involving any of these groups? Perceived agenda pushing, personal game developer bias, comments about in-game articles of clothing on characters of a specific sex?
Threats, harassment, discrimination
Regarding the 'discrimination' part. The only way I see for a Steamgifts user to discriminate against another Steamgifts user is to deny them access to specific giveaways. Meaning, a whitelist is already a form of discrimination. As are blacklists. A French-only Steam group can be viewed as discrimination. An LGBT-only Steam group can also be taken as such. And if this guideline is there to specifically prohibit explicit blacklisting or denial of access to groups/whitelists based on race, gender, etc. - is that really a thing on Steamgifts to warrant a specific guideline?
Could this possibly lead to people monitoring their Blacklist stats and reporting people they recently interacted with for - allegedly - blacklisting them solely on the basis of race/gender/etc.? What would be the criteria for deciding on such reports?
Comment has been collapsed.
You brought up a good point regarding discrimination, so I tweaked the guideline the other day to remove that part.
Comment has been collapsed.
Holy shit this is amazing. Can I just get clarification on 3 rules please.
URL shortening. When posting links, make sure you are not using URL shorteners as they obscure the destination of links and make it difficult for users to know what they are clicking.
Inappropriate use of comment formatting. The intended use of comment formatting is to improve the readability of your posts. An inappropriate use of formatting would be writing all of your content with headings, or using all caps for your comments.
Whitelist recruitment. Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you.
Does this include using specific formatting or your whitelist for events/puzzles etc. I always used my whitelist to allow people to "join" once specific criteria had been met, eg, "if you have X achievement I'll whitelist and you can enter the giveaway" always made it easier to control people sharing spoilers or answers to puzzles/hidden links. After the event was over, I'd remove the parties from my whitelist. Would this be seen as trying to get people to whitelist for me? I was always open about removing people. Additionally I have never been associated with the games I've asked for achievements to be completed for entry, is this now fully not allowed?
Like my 15th edit here, but this is amazing, well overdue but could actually see some older heads want to come back. Good job!
Comment has been collapsed.
Does this include using specific formatting or your whitelist for events/puzzles etc.
Formatting as a puzzle or for highlighting specific elements of a post/comment would be "appropriate", yes. Ugly/unwieldy formatting for the sake of trolling, no.
Would this be seen as trying to get people to whitelist for me?
Asking to be whitelisted is against the rules. Recruiting for your own is fine, provided reciprocation is not part of the offer.
Additionally I have never been associated with the games I've asked for achievements to be completed for entry, is this now fully not allowed?
Based on the new exclusions (see item #14), this would not be allowed if you are associated. If you are unaffiliated, you would be clear to do this.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I got too excited and skipped over most the rules, just wanted to clarify before I made any boo-boo's.
Sometimes the puzzle/event has got ungodly bad formatting simply because hiding codes in links require it.
The whitelist thing I was just worried people may see it as an attempt to get people to whitelist back, however I was always very clear the whitelisting would be for a short space of time and then removed.
Thanks for the clarification.
Comment has been collapsed.
Quick edit to the above, just to be clear:
Recruiting for your own [WL] is fine, provided reciprocation is not part of the offer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Avatars need to be appropriate for all ages. If you have a NSFW Steam avatar, please change it prior to using the site.
I think it would be nice to have the option to disallow transfer of our Steam avatar rather than having it sucked in automatically.
- When a giveaway has ended, the gift is required to be sent to the winner within one week.
- Allow the giveaway creator one week to send the gift. Please be patient and do not contact them during this time. If the gift is not received after one week, you may contact the giveaway creator on Steam to follow-up.
I've never been a fan of those 2: basically, it says that the GA creator could send the key on day 6 + 23h59, then request a reroll one minute later on day 7, while the winner is not allowed to politely ask what's happening with the key until day 7. Not that I believe this is something that should ever happen, but... apparently it might happen indeed. It should be okay for winners to make a comment asking what's up a few days after the win IMHO (even if the giver still has plenty of time left to send the key).
Winners will need to correctly mark their gift as received or not received within one week of the giveaway closing. It is also necessary to keep this feedback up-to-date if the status of the gift changes
And to continue with strange timings, it means that if the key is sent on day 6 + 23h59, the winner has 1 minute to mark the gift as received or not. There's room for big wording improvement on those timings. Something along the lines of "X days after the gift was sent"
Illegal content
In which country? (or countries?)
Untagged spoilers
Sounds pretty unnecessary. Plus some research has shown people who got "spoiled" actually enjoyed the movie more. Not sure if it applies to videogames too, but I don't see why it wouldn't (and no, I haven't kept the link)
For example, linking to your Patreon in your giveaway descriptions
I've seen a bunch of those not that long ago, didn't really find that shocking, but I understand this POV too
Whitelist recruitment. Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you.
[...]
Whitelist restricted giveaways can only be advertised in giveaway descriptions corresponding to the whitelist, the "Group Recruitment" discussion for the whitelist [...]
That's a bit confusing. How about renaming the first "Whitelist recruitment" into "Whitelist begging"?
Also, I remember seeing a lot of GAs with a description along the lines of "My WL works like this: whitelist me and if I see a WL GA by you I'll add you to my WL". Is it no more okay? (it's only in a GA description, a place where significantly more annoying advertising - IMO - is allowed)
we encourage users to be patient when waiting for help
More a feature request than feedback on the guidelines, but... I think it would be nice to be able to view the ticket's position in the queue
Chat
:o :o Where the hell is the chatroom? Never noticed it before
Comment has been collapsed.
The winner should be expected to mark giveaway received in 7 days from it being marked send.
Comment has been collapsed.
The link to chat is kind of hidden at the very bottom of the page with some of the other useful links like archive, stats, and roles. I don't use it, but I think it is through Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
Chat is in the footer, redirected to the SG Steam group's group chat
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a mix of suggestions and questions here, so forgive me if I don't address everything immediately. I'm trying to get some rapid fire answers out to as many questions as I can for the benefit of all. I may edit this comment later with more detail.
"My WL works like this: whitelist me and if I see a WL GA by you I'll add you to my WL". Is it no more okay?
That is correct, this would no longer be allowed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with the X things, I've had keys sent 6+ days before
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the post. I added a few revisions...
Before
Winners will need to correctly mark their gift as received or not received within one week of the giveaway closing. It is also necessary to keep this feedback up-to-date if the status of the gift changes.
After
Winners will need to correctly mark their gift as received or not received within one week of the gift being marked as sent by the giveaway creator. It is also necessary to keep this feedback up-to-date if the status of the gift changes.
Reason
- Adjusted the time frame to one week after the gift was sent to provide the winner with adequate time to leave feedback.
Before (this refers to the FAQ)
If you've been unable to reach the winner of your giveaway using email and Steam after one week of your giveaway ending, and they have not yet activated or redeemed any keys or gifts you attempted to send, please contact support to request a new winner.
After
If you contacted the winner of your giveaway on email and Steam over one week ago, and they have not yet responded or redeemed any keys or gifts you attempted to send, please contact support to request a new winner.
Reason
- Technically, in the past a giveaway creator could first contact their winner one week after their giveaway ended and try to immediately request a new winner. The change means they need to allow the winner one week to respond after making a reasonable effort to contact them.
Allowing users with NSFW avatars to disable their avatar on SteamGifts, so they can continue using our site while maintaining their NSFW avatar on Steam makes sense, but it's not a feature I'll have time for in the near future.
I think tagging spoilers is important. This way each user can decide whether or not they would like to view them. We're not going to chase people down because they spoil who shot Mr. Burns, but if it's a big release with a lot of people still in the process of watching or playing, try not to the spoil the big twist or ending for people on the way to the cinema this weekend.
You're right, "whitelist recruitment" is a poor choice of naming. I think someone else mentioned "whitelist solicitation", which might work better. I'll think about changing it shortly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Spam. Do not repeatedly post content to increase visibility. This also includes creating multiple discussions for content that could be more appropriately consolidated into a single discussion.
In the "group recruitment" threads, it's a common practice to "bump" inactive threads for visibility.
Is this still allowed?
Comment has been collapsed.
Some amount of bumping a single thread is acceptable. The specifics may vary, and I think this will have to be left as a grey area (but we're here for input, so please speak up if you disagree) wherein each situation will have to be judged on its own.
The rule here more applies to multiple similar discussions being created.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't mind, I'd like a bit more clarification in regard to the "dos and don'ts" of bumping a post.
I'm assuming bumping a thread due to updates (such as adding new carts to a train/ new giveaways or a last-minute bump letting people know that the invite-only GA is ending) is allowed?
What about asking participants of an invite-only giveaway to bump a post if they participated? Most threads in the Puzzle section are also pretty frequently bumped by users who managed to solve said puzzle. Is that alright?
In regards to group recruitment threads for open groups (open to the public that is), bumping for special events/giveaways is allowed as well? Because I do that from time to time when there are some exciting (this can be subjective, I know) giveaways in the group that may attract new members, so a bit of clarification would help a lot, thanks!
I also make it a point to reply (usually not just a mere "Thanks" or "You're welcome") to most of the comments on threads that I create as I care about the topic being discussed (hence, I created the thread in the first place). Would that be considered as bumping my own thread?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm assuming bumping a thread due to updates (such as adding new carts to a train/ new giveaways or a last-minute bump letting people know that the invite-only GA is ending) is allowed?
What about asking participants of an invite-only giveaway to bump a post if they participated? Most threads in the Puzzle section are also pretty frequently bumped by users who managed to solve said puzzle. Is that alright?
In regards to group recruitment threads for open groups (open to the public that is), bumping for special events/giveaways is allowed as well?
Yes, yes, and yes, this is generally fine. Again, some cases may require more attention, such as a user bumping the same thread 30 times in as many minutes, or bumping every thread they can find on a specific topic (particularly when necroing). We have not explicitly defined a limit, though, and a necro bump may serve a purpose (like when an old bundle is reopened), so in some cases it's just fine.
I also make it a point to reply (usually not just a mere "Thanks" or "You're welcome") to most of the comments on threads that I create as I care about the topic being discussed (hence, I created the thread in the first place). Would that be considered as bumping my own thread?
This last point can be a little fuzzier and I don't have a definitive response. In your example, you are replying to someone, though it may not add something significant to the discussion. Some of this I would say is fine, but keeping your thread at the top of the list arbitrarily should not be the goal. Repeating: some cases may require more attention. If it seems someone is acting in bad faith, we're more likely to address it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gotcha, thanks a lot for answering! :) I have two more questions in a new comment since they are unrelated to bumping that maybe you can help me with as well?
Comment has been collapsed.
I made an addition to the guidelines. Feedback is always welcome.
Unreasonable Bumping. When bumping a discussion you should try to ensure it is in the best interest of the community. If you notice our community is not engaging with the content after it has been bumped a couple of times, then you should stop bumping the discussion unless important new information or updates would make it appropriate to do so.
Comment has been collapsed.
Appreciate it, cg, thanks! It's still a bit vague but as long as the punishment isn't an outright, no-warning suspension or ban, it should be fine :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This was a big point of conflict in the past, some of our favorite former members were banned for (as I saw it as an interested bystander) being annoying in the pursuit of showing the unregularity of the application of the rules--they obeyed the rules as written, and then the interpretation of the rules was changed seemingly "on the spot" by a support member, they showed "hey, that isn't what you said earlier, and this is allowable by that earlier statement", and the support user in question then got quite annoyed and suspended them for following the rules!
Anyway, if some rules as to frequency of bumping (without other people commenting in the meantime) or type (ie announcing adding new content, event ending in X (few) hours, or even thanking users for a comment, etc) could be added, this would help.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can give my own particular group (QGG) as an example.
QGG is a small group (below 100 members), mainly because of our many (strict) rules. And we're fine with that. Other groups don't have as many rules (or are open) and obviously get much more attention and posts.
There are also new groups appearing, or people doing whitelist recruitment, which also adds threads to the "Group Recruitment" topic.
If I don't touch my group's recruitment topic and never bump it, within a couple of days/weeks (depending on traffic on the site) it may become buried so deep in old threads list, no person looking for a group to join will be able to find it.
So I occasionally bump our recruitment thread for visibility. But I try to follow etiquette rules enforced by most other internet forums - don't bump your thread more than once per 24 hours. I think a similar exception would be a good idea for us here too. For example:
Spam. Do not repeatedly post content to increase visibility. This also includes creating multiple discussions for content that could be more appropriately consolidated into a single discussion. The exception being bumping "Group/WL Recruitment / Puzzle / Giveaway" threads for visibility, but even then it should be done in moderation. No more than once in 24 hours.
24 hours is just an example. Any period the community finds reasonable is fine with me.
EDIT: Or we can just leave it as a grey area and hope people don't abuse it...
Comment has been collapsed.
If posting spoilers in chat, include a spoiler warning before and after your message to warn users.
I think this should be changed as Steam introduced a spoiler feature to the chats - anything after /spoiler is being blurred out
Comment has been collapsed.
You cannot ask users to perform any special action in order for their entry to be considered valid, such as liking a Facebook page, or following a Twitter account.
Saw (and even had it myself) some discussions about this point. I think it would be wise to add some more examples. Something like: You cannot ask users to perform any special action in order for their entry to be considered valid, such as liking a Facebook page, following a Twitter account, adding a certain comment or visiting a website.
Comment has been collapsed.
It may be better to just shorten the rule to "You cannot ask users to perform any action for their entry to be valid". This type of blanket statement will cover everything without having to list examples.
Maybe add another sentence saying something like: If you want to create additional rules, do it through group requirements or invite only links, but never in the giveaway description.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like that idea a lot especially with the additonal sentence.
Comment has been collapsed.
and we ask users not to add support members on Steam for help.
"we ask ... not to" might be polite, but, in my opinion, really not enough.
zero tolerance for comments on their Steam profiles and Steam adds: file. a. ticket.
Comment has been collapsed.
do not /.../ link to keys for sale on sites such as Kinguin, G2A, or Eneba.
Can we just say "Gray Market sites"?
Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you.
Today, the SG discussions saw a loss of 80% of its threads. I think the idea's solid though.
Inappropriate use of comment formatting. The intended use of comment formatting is to improve the readability of your posts. An inappropriate use of formatting would be writing all of your content with headings, or using all caps for your comments.
This will probably never be really enforced, but it's a good idea.
Great stuff overall! I like it! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Inappropriate use of comment formatting. The intended use of comment formatting is to improve the readability of your posts. An inappropriate use of formatting would be writing all of your content with headings, or using all caps for your comments.
No more are you angry on Humblebundle? jokes D:
Comment has been collapsed.
"sites such as Kinguin, G2A, or Eneba."
Where is the line here?
Is a "look at barter" okay? A link to it?
What about "greymarket" that not let you sell your own keys (like cdkeys, MMOGA HRK...)
Comment has been collapsed.
gg.deals also just added a tab for key reseller site prices.
Comment has been collapsed.
Based on the text, a link to G2A is fine, but not a link to a particular listing, specifically, if it may look like you're the one selling it.
Comment has been collapsed.
with this line: "and do not post offers from stores which allow third parties to resell their keys or gifts."
it says that all offers from stores wich allows third parties to resell their keys or gifts are forbidden and not only links to "my listing"
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but if you read the whole paragraph you can see why I said it sounds particularly interested in forbidding self-promotion.
Comment has been collapsed.
All giveaways must be for Steam redeemable gifts or Steam redeemable keys.
Hmm, I was just thinking about whether it would be possible to start a closed group (or even an open forum topic) that would allow people to give away games purchased directly on Steam without region restrictions. Ofc it would be a bit convulated and would require a kind of gentlemen's agreement among the participants. The rule would be that if you can gift the winner directly through Steam then you do that and if not then you send them the funds through Steam wallet or highly marketable items for the winner to make the purchase themselves.
What got me thinking was finding 90% off coupons for some unbundled games. It would be great if we could somehow use these and the generally more broad Steam sales for giveaways. Would help with variety quite a bit. But maybe it would be too much hassle anyhow even if it was allowed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sending the winner a digital gift card as a workaround for Steam region restrictions is already kinda allowed at the (normally rather unlikely) risk of the winner taking the gift card and still marking the gib as not received. I don't think highly marketable items are such a good idea (maybe TF2 keys but even that is problematic since CS GO keys have been kind of volatile lately) otherwise we'll sooner or later face the situation: Here. These 300 trading cards and emoticons should suffice to cover the costs of the gift in your region.
Also I don't think this is something we should advertise in the guidelines but rather as a workaround for rare problem cases with gifting restrictions or we'll inevitably open up the can of worms
Why would I pay 60€ for a german / US copy of Cyberpunk 2077 if the winner lives in russia and can buy the game for slightly under 28€?
It would quickly become the preferred way of gifting (for expensive games) and make things a lot harder to check.
Comment has been collapsed.
All very good points. Yeah, I was thinking about the keys traders typically use and gems. Definitely not trading cards.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam gifts have regional gifting restrictions, so it is best to either just restrict the giveaway to your own country/region or look at SteamDB's price comparison gift it to countries where the price is equivalent to or cheaper than your own.
Also need to ensure you have enough time to befriend the winner on Steam and buy them the game before the sale ends (or coupon expires). There is a 7 day grace period after winning so it can be a little tricky to get the timing right.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've done that before in a closed group where we trusted each other enough to exchange Steam wallet for purchases when region restrictions caused issues. As long as the end result is the winner getting the game on Steam, the specifics can be worked out between the giveaway creator and the winner. This should probably be something that's only done in a closed group though where everyone agrees with it. For general giveaways, winners shouldn't be expected to have to jump through hoops to obtain their win.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like to voice my support for DingDong2's concerns regarding the prohibition on contacting giveaway creators within the week. I've seen some giveaways that specifically request the winners contact them, and while this might be an obvious exception to this rule, I'd like to see this amended to take such instances into account. Too, I don't see any harm in, as DingDong2 says, allowing winners to contact the creator after a reasonable time frame still within that seven-day period.
I'm also a bit confused by this bit:
Winners will need to correctly mark their gift as received or not received within one week of the giveaway closing.
This seems to contradict the requirement to allow the creator up to a full week to send the gift, and to further contact him after this time if it's yet to be received. It's been a while since I've had cause to do so, but I also seem to recall that the site doesn't even allow you to mark 'not received' within a week of the giveaway closing. I'd suggest this guideline be amended to allow the winner to leave it pending until such a time as they reasonably believe it to not be forthcoming.
Comment has been collapsed.
Winners will need to correctly mark their gift as received or not received within one week of the giveaway closing. It is also necessary to keep this feedback up-to-date if the status of the gift changes.
If you cannot mark it as not received within one week, you would leave it unmarked completely until a week is up and if no response after you can then marked it as not received. I agree the wording could be better and suggest to change it to something like this - Winners will need to correctly mark their gift as received within one week of the giveaway closing or not received after a week of the giveaway closing.
Comment has been collapsed.
suprised not to see something about disclaimers, ie "by entering you agree to delete if it's a bad key"
things like this need to be spelled out not implied or inferred
Agreed. These clauses on GA descriptions should not be allowed. A GA creator should have to receive explicit permission from the winner to delete a GA.
Comment has been collapsed.
suprised not to see something about disclaimers, ie "by entering you agree to delete if it's a bad key"
To clarify, are you wanting these statements to be banned from GAs, or are you just looking for something that says these statements are not enforceable?
I interpret The FAQ to say "a creator directly or indirectly can ask for your permission to delete the giveaway".
FAQ currently has a few sections that reference deleting a GA, the last of which says "If the giveaway creator is not able to provide a replacement gift or key, they may ask your permission to delete the giveaway."
I agree that what is acceptable or not acceptable when it comes to requesting GA deletion after it has ended could be clearer for non-region related reasons.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that some clarification would be nice. If I have a key that I'm not sure about I'll say something along the lines of "This key may not work, if so please allow me to delete the giveaway" but I know that it's not enforceable.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree on this one (even though I am guilty of this myself).
Regs today clearly says we cannot force winner to allow deletion, but over the last period these types of comments have gotten more and more to be the norm, placing undue pressure on winners to allow a deletion. There's an unspoken thing where this is OK, as we all want to be friendly, but it leads directly to winners feeling bad about exercising their rights to the win.
For users that have been here a long time this type of deletion is probably OK, as most of us know each other/know of each other and know it's not done to wreak havoc, but for a new user it must really seem like an unspoken the higher ones can do whatever they please-rule.
Comment has been collapsed.
-Whitelist recruitment. Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you.
-You cannot ask users to perform any special action in order for their entry to be considered valid, such as liking a Facebook page, or following a Twitter account. (Under Giveaway -> Creating)
Not calling anybody out here, but I've seen "some people" asking users to do "something" in order to get into their whitelists. Let's say hypothetically, you are asked to follow their Twitter account (and letting them know once you've done so) in order to "qualify" for a spot on their WL and hence, access to their whitelist giveaways. Is that allowed in the description of giveaways/ discussion threads? These people don't ask for WL in return though.
Winners will need to correctly mark their gift as received or not received within one week of the giveaway closing. It is also necessary to keep this feedback up-to-date if the status of the gift changes.
What about the giveaway creator contacting the winner when the winner is/was obviously online after the key was sent? I usually do that because I thought the winner might have missed the notification, which does sometimes happen I guess, especially when they have a won giveaway that's pending a reroll (usually due to region restriction) and they missed the pop-up for some reason. Probably because they are checking the site on their phones or something?
Comment has been collapsed.
Not calling anybody out here, but I've seen "some people" asking users to do "something" in order to get into their whitelists. Let's say hypothetically, you are asked to follow their Twitter account (and letting them know once you've done so) in order to "qualify" for a spot on their WL and hence, access to their whitelist giveaways. Is that allowed in the description of giveaways/ discussion threads? These people don't ask for WL in return though.
That's not allowed anywhere on SG, not even giveaway descriptions. If you see that, hit "report" and explain the issue so we can take care of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I should have sent in a report then >.< Spotted this incident last week but I thought it was allowed in the GA description.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a slight difference here in that there's an external requirement (Twitter follow) that is in other circumstances not allowed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cheers for the clarification Gaffi. I am assuming an internal requirement is fine then within the SG site itself like on my thread where I asked this: For the whitelists, I may open up a few extra spots so if you can tell me why I should add you in less than 20 words on this thread, you may get lucky!
Comment has been collapsed.
-
I'm actually about to step away from the site for a bit, but this seems like it needs more attention than a quick reply. Can I ask that you open a ticket on that so we can more discreetly discuss the details in this case? I'm not asking to know where to swing the banhammer, but just so I can better understand the scenario you're outlining.
-
This has been brought up elsewhere in this thread, and I've already brought the topic up with other staff, but too soon to have an answer yet, sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for this upcoming update to the guidelines cg which is definitely warranted and asked for. I think the clarification will make it much more clear what is and not allowed on the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
Any criticism can be deemed as "negative comment" by critiqued person. This should be removed as it's too broad and can result in too many disagreements.
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment is so negative I must inform to the autorithies
Comment has been collapsed.
Your report has been thoroughly examined, carefully rejected, and you are now considered to be a troublesome element.
Please report to the nearest detention facility at your earliest convenience for questionning.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
I feel that a discussion without any disagreement is no discussion at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe a rule against dox'ing should be added. I wish it weren't necessary because it should be obvious, but with a community of this size, I believe it just might be needed.
I also agree with Veebles (above) that something needs to be addressed about the "by entering, you agree to let me delete this giveaway" clauses that are all too often added to giveaways.
My biggest issue with the rules here is how some people are warned for infractions while others are simply suspended, both depending on the moderator and who the person is. There needs to be more consistency and objectivity to avoid user backlash and mob action against the support team. When one moderator warns users for something, and another moderator suspends for that same action, it sends mixed signals to the community. A short suspension is a warning in itself, and users are informed why they have been suspended in the suspension ticket, so I don't feel it needs to be left open for discussion (or vehement defense/argument) here on the forums. It's caused some pretty serious disruption in the community in the past.
Anyhow, thanks to CG and the mod team for taking the time and putting effort into doing all of this.
Comment has been collapsed.
thank you so much i go read,and not worry i not care wiki really thank
edit: i finish read,very thank you very much very useful link
Comment has been collapsed.
Wikipedia does nor want to open for me at the moment...
Yeah, it was on-and-off all day. Well, at least it wasn't due to anything on Wikimedia's end. [Imagine life without wikipedia! :shudder:]
..rather, it's nothing more than the usual anti-social display that's almost always the basis for a major site being down.
Well, other than with Alienware. They seem to just find it entertaining to see their site destroyed in various ways. >.>
Wikipedia @Wikipedia [Twitter] Sep 6, 2019
Wikipedia has been experiencing intermittent outages today as a result of a malicious attack. We're continuing to work on restoring access. #wikipediadown
As far as the main topic of this nesting, currently the rule against doxxing is in the site's Terms of Service:
the Content is not pornographic, does not contain threats or incite violence, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party
Even if the ToS remain as-is, with this update to the Guidelines section, it does seem appropriate to include specific mention to the privacy violation [and even with specific mention of doxxing] within the Guidelines page, especially given that pornography is mentioned a second time there. Inherently, pornography is a lot less harmful than doxxing [assuming the pornography was made and distributed with consent], so that redundancy suggests that privacy violations should also be given explicit mention in both sections.
As noted in other comments within this thread, it may also be beneficial to make explicit mention of gore/torture/threats/violence within the guidelines (nevermind that currently the site doesn't have any mention against gore and torture and, according to a comment in this thread by Mully, staff has thus far refused to take action against such content). :S
Comment has been collapsed.
Good point regarding doxing, I added a new guideline...
Private or Identifying Information. Users in the community have a right to privacy. Do not post their private or identifying information without their consent. For example, their name, address, phone number, photos, or private messages.
Comment has been collapsed.
Something that lingers in the corner of my mind for a while, concerning private information:
By gifting a game you gain access to the email address of the winner.
I know this was discussed once before but I can't remember the extent.
It's sad to say but that can lead to misuse of information be it by the user itself or worst case scenario a compromised account who puff has access to a lot of SGters data. Chances are low but I see the probability. Fake email, fake site, fake login, repeat.
And I would guess some people just don't like it to have to share their email.
Some ideas of mine:
- Option to not show your email.
- Sent email via a SG contact form, so SG acts as a middle man and the email addresses are not shared directly.
While both options restrict the current gifting progress in a certain way.
I still think this should discussed if it should be kept the current way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi everyone,
We've been working on new guidelines for SteamGifts to help clarify some questions raised by the community, and to help users better understand what type of content is allowed and not allowed on the site. I'm sharing the proposed guidelines below so the community can read them over, ask questions, and provide feedback that can be taken into consideration before the new guidelines are put in place. I would like to leave this discussion open for 10 days for review, and then have the official guidelines go live with any revisions.
I imagine people will have different viewpoints on a number of guidelines, neither of which are right or wrong, so please try to be considerate and constructive when commenting. Thanks!
General
Giveaways
Creating
Entering
Winning
User Content
The below is a list of content that is not allowed in our community. Content consists of any material you post or make available through our site, such as discussions, links, comments, usernames, or Steam avatars.
Illegal content. For example, sharing links to pirated content, or to services that assist in illegal activity, such as torrent websites.
Inappropriate content. If you are posting content that may be considered NSFW (not safe for work), prefix any links or images with a NSFW tag to warn others. Do not post pornography, or explicit content, such as real life images depicting severe injury, gore, or death.
Unsafe content. Products or services that are not credible or potentially dangerous, such as those that could lead to a user's Steam account being compromised, or their financial information stolen. Please do your due diligence prior to posting content or links, and if we have concerns about the safety of a product or service, we will try to remove it from our site or close the offending discussion.
Personal attacks or hate speech. Threats or harassment is not allowed, neither are slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender.
Referral links. If you choose to post a link, please be sure all referral codes have been removed. For example, by changing http://www.example.com?ref=12345 to http://www.example.com. Also, do not attempt to circumvent this rule by adding referral links through intermediary processes as users try to reach their intended destination.
Spam. Do not repeatedly post content to increase visibility. This also includes creating multiple discussions for content that could be more appropriately consolidated into a single discussion.
Private or identifying information. Users in the community have a right to privacy. Do not post their private or identifying information without their consent. For example, their name, address, phone number, photos, or private messages.
URL shortening. When posting links, make sure you are not using URL shorteners as they obscure the destination of links and make it difficult for users to know what they are clicking.
Inappropriate use of comment formatting. The intended use of comment formatting is to improve the readability of your posts. An inappropriate use of formatting would be writing all of your content with headings, or using all caps for your comments.
Untagged spoilers. Refer to our instructions on comment formatting for learning how to add spoilers to your content. A spoiler is content that reveals important plot elements of games, movies, tv series, or other types of fiction released in recent years.
Unreasonable bumping. When bumping a discussion you should try to ensure it is in the best interest of the community. If you notice our community is not engaging with the content after it has been bumped a couple of times, then you need to stop bumping the discussion unless important new information or updates would make it appropriate to do so.
Begging. Do not ask game developers or users for keys or games, unless they are offering and searching for interested parties.
Trading. This site is not for trading, so do not attempt to directly trade games or other items with users in our community. If you attempt to indirectly trade or express a willingness to trade with an unusually high frequency, it will also be viewed as trading. If you would like to conduct trades, refer to our sister site, SteamTrades.
Reselling keys and links to reseller stores. Do not use our site to resell keys, and do not post offers from stores which allow third parties to resell their keys or gifts. For example, do not ask others if they are interested in buying your leftover keys from a recent bundle purchase, or link to keys for sale on sites such as Kinguin, G2A, or Eneba.
Collecting money, items, or games for giveaways, lotteries, or group access. For example, asking users to donate a few dollars, with the promise of giving away a valuable game once adequate funds have been raised. Or, asking users to personally send you games and items for an event. Or, requiring users to send you annual fees to participate in your Steam group.
Third party giveaways that require or reward users for performing profitable actions. For example, linking to a giveaway on another service that requires or incentivizes users to click a referral link, like a Facebook page, follow a Twitter account, join a Steam group, complete a survey, sign-up for a newsletter, or make a donation.
Gambling. Do not post content or links to gambling related sites, such as those to bet on the outcome of gaming matches, or those that collect money or items for a chance to win a prize.
Whitelist solicitation. Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you, unless they are explicitly asking or searching for such users and you fulfill their requirements.
Advertising
Advertising is when you are promoting products or services you are associated with, or when you are posting content that is paid or sponsored. Directly naming or linking to an associated product or service will always be viewed as advertising. General references (e.g. referring to your "website", "YouTube channel", or "Steam group") may also be viewed as advertising when we believe their purpose is to bring attention to an associated product or service for publicity or sales. Below is a breakdown of when advertising is allowed in our community. Remember, the above rules regarding user content still apply. For example, we might allow you to advertise in giveaway descriptions, but that does not permit you to post referral links or link to your website with illegal content.
Giveaways
When creating a giveaway you are able to write a description. In this space you are welcome to advertise your products or services, including social media channels (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter), games, groups, curators, or other giveaways.
Discussions
Our forum allows you to create discussions for engaging in conversation with our community. In these discussions you are able to promote your SteamGifts giveaways, but only when there is a greater reason for the discussion, such as including the giveaways in part of an event, puzzle, cake day, or milestone. For category specific advertising, please refer to the below.
Add-ons / Tools
Game Showcase
Group Recruitment
User Projects
Comments
This refers to comments throughout our site, such as those contained within giveaways or discussions. You are able to advertise in your comments, but only when it is both relevant and valuable to the conversation. For example, if a user is searching for a giveaway group only available to users that have not yet won a game, and you are the owner of such a group, it would be appropriate to post a link to your Steam group. Or, if a user is searching for new strategy games, and you have a Steam curator page highlighting your recommendations from that genre, you could share a link since it would be helpful to those reading.
Support
Chat
Changes based on community feedback below.
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before (this refers to the FAQ)
After
Reason
Added
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Added
Reason
Removed
Reason
Added
Reason
Removed
Reason
Added
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Removed
Reason
Added
Reason
Removed
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Rethinking this section a bit. Similar to the above, the community events aspect might be better covered in revised advertising guidelines.
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Removed
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Added
Before
After
Reason
Added
Before
After
Reason
Comment has been collapsed.