Which giveaway level do you usually use?
I just weed the forums for people I think they are cool enough to be part of my super secret list of cool people and make giveaways for them. cba to learn how levels work now.
Comment has been collapsed.
But whitelists seem so arbitrary x.x What makes one person more worthy than another of joining a whitelist other than the former person being visible enough to get added? I saw some whitelist recruiting and it just seemed ineffective when used in that manner :/ The majority of people that I would actually want to whitelist probably wouldn't even care to apply.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know I know, I just add whoever I feel like should be there, whitelist recruiting is basically "entertain me for a while to see if you are good enough"
I dunno, it's true it has its flaws but it's worked for me since I came back, so I guess it's good enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually make GA's equivalent to my own level. But now stay in a 4 - 7 range. Sometimes I dip lower with sgtools or a heavily bundled game.
Comment has been collapsed.
2 is usually my lowest, 1 if it's my whitelist. And I won't go over my current level, so it's 6 right now, soon 7. But premium is usually whitelist too.
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually make them the same as my current level. I tried a level 0 GA recently and regretted it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just you wait for the myriad of posts claming that being able to spend thousands of dollars on games for other people does not equal to wealth and that they deserve games just as everybody else does.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will add just because you have a high level, does not mean you have won a lot. And just because you are level 0 doesn't mean you have won nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can both understand your point and ryananimator's. The main reasoning against level 0 is 1) the risk of a user who doesn't know how to use the site and the hassle that could come with it and 2) the entire anti-leech/give-and-receive-karma mindset. However, there are leechers and altruists at all levels so I don't really agree with your point of view unfortunately :3 I personally believe those that give the most and receive the least are the most deserving to win but to each their own ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I think point (2) is unfortunately how this site goes. That's why I keep referring to it as a 'random trading site'. I would rather that it was about charitable gifting. From my point of view someone who gave away 100 games and won 1 and someone who gave away nothing and won 1 are equally deserving for charitable gifting, the one who gave 100 perhaps a little less because he has proved that he has no problem buying games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting that you feel that someone that gave away nothing is more deserving than someone who gave away a lot. How much one gives is all subjective; just because someone gives away a lot does not by any means suggest that s/he has less problems buying games than someone who gives away nothing. A millionaire could hoard every penny whereas a monk could devote and sacrifice everything of worldly value. I wasn't making much when I was active a few years back but addiction (yes, I admit it) led me to spend more than what was probably wise. True, someone with many games is less likely overall to utilize/play a new game they win than someone with little to no games due to sheer options. In that sense, sure the game will hold more value for the person with a small library but how much one gives does not determine how much has for oneself. Yes. Those least fortunate are most "deserving" of charity however, we have no such clairvoyance in the online world to determine that. I could easily argue that anyone who was so unfortunate that they can't afford games shouldn't be spending time on steamgifts much less games in general in the first place. It really isn't easy to make head or tails out of the situation so it is hard to fault the general mindset of the community. Sure, private groups are essentially random trading groups but I can't say the same for the public/forum section of steamgifts. Ultimately, it is easier to say the person who gave away 100 and won 1 is deserving because you can judge that person based on some merit whereas a person who has no history provides no insight.
I hope that was an interesting and enlightening read~
Cheers~ :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people give more and some less. However, if someone gives in order to get, that cheapens the giving. A monk who gives everything to other isn't collecting charity for himself. So As I said before, someone who gives more doesn't automatically deserve to get more, and I see no reason within the context of charitable giving why such a person would be more deserving. Those who give, like the monk, would not want to receive charity to build their fortunes.
(I have some other criteria to judge how to judge who's deserving, however they're not practical to check. For example, someone who plays their games is more deserving than someone who just hoards games.)
There's indeed a problem of managing a glut of games and allocating them to people, which is probably why SG ended up the way it did, with a stress on random trading rather than charitable giving, but people shouldn't frame this random trading as charitable giving. High level gifters aren't 'deserving', they simply are allowed to win more because this is how this site works, you give more you can take more.
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems we agree overall with one another though are speaking from different approaches.
The word charity already severely limits the scope of who should be even entering the giveaway; of course those most in need are most "deserving". However, there are few people who use this site exclusively for charitable purposes.
I have mentioned that those least fortunate shouldn't be playing, in regards to priorities. The caveat of course is if you're talking about children who are too young to have a job. This along with other thoughts running through my head led me to an odd conclusion. Any game used for charity gifting should have low graphics requirements unless you broaden your scope of what charity entails. Would giving away tons of bundle games or indie\pixel games be the best way to be charitable then? I certainly don't expect a person in need to have a computer that can run DOOM. Huh, maybe I should just gift more bundle games ._. I've been doing it wrong all along~ x.x
I honestly think the benefit of being a high level gifter is fairly marginal. Sure, you are able to enter higher level giveaways that a majority of others can't. But, there are low level people who receive relatively far more than what they give too. I came across a user with a real cv sent of $20 and a real cv won of $835. When put into perspective, I don't think there's a level 10 person with even close to $205,000 real cv won. High level people with high amounts of wins are most likely winning a majority of their giveaways in groups and that's where "random trading" really occurs. Everywhere else, I feel that the term trading really doesn't apply.
Do people really frame it as charitable gifting/giving? I would call most people generous or altruistic at best but there are far too few people I would brand as charitable.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ratio is a bad measure. You're sticking to a measure that's mired in the 'random trading' school of thought. A level 10 who won $1000 has flat out won more than a level 0 who won $835. And a lot of high levels have won a lot more than that.
As for PC's, I just helped a co-worker buy a PC for his son's 13th birthday. That will likely get an RX 480 once they're more readily available (and at $200). (In the mean time I lent him a GeForce 750 Ti.) This kid can't buy games, although his father buys games for him occasionally. I can't imagine this being out of the ordinary. That kid might have enough games on his account to join SG, yet can't easily get games (although granted he can get free / sell cards, ...).
So I'd say that giving AAA games certainly will be appreciated by these kids.
And BTW, Doom is pretty light on resources compared to other modern games. CPU is not a bottleneck, and if you drop resolution and quality level, even pretty weak cards can get 30+ fps easily.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just accidentally refreshed and deleted my response. RIP T_____T
If you can afford a dedicated GPU that costs over $100, you should be able to buy your own games. Charity is subjective when it comes to gifting games. How poor do you have to be to considered worthy or deserving? As poor as every typical kid that doesn't have a job? Or one that has a poor family? A child with lunch money or chore money can easily get to level 3 or even level 7 (most giveaways are either sub-2 or 5-7 from a quick look) if they're shrewd about obtaining it, not that I condone it.
An adult that can buy their own games may be even less able to afford games than kids. A child with a rich daddy that doesn't want to buy too many games shouldn't be more deserving that an adult working 2 jobs to barely make end's meet. Someone who gifts 100 bundled games that cost him/her $10-20 shouldn't be branded as less deserving.
And as for the other 80% of what I would've said, my hungriness doesn't care anymore I just want to eat D:
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really brand high level gifters as significantly less deserving, they're just correlated with people who already have a huge number of games, which I do brand as less deserving.
As I said, my criterion is simply the number of wins. It's an imperfect criterion but the best I find practical.
Charity is subjective, but I still think it's obvious that you don't give charity to someone you know has a lot of money, or in this case a lot of games.
And the arguments of 'they can give' is totally irrelevant, except in the sense that yes, if they can give then they can get games for themselves and are therefore slightly less deserving of winning. I imagine that the only reason you keep arguing this kind of line is because you're so mired in the random trading mentality that you can't separate it from giving in general.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand why you continue to suggest that I'm mired in the random trading mentality; in everything that I said, what supports that suggestion? If I was arguing for a random trading mentality, wouldn't I instead say things along the lines of "if they can't afford to gift, why do they deserve to get"?. If anything, I'd argue that such a mentality doesn't exist, only the practice does (granted, such a mentality was never defined). I have no intent of persuading you against your own stance. Rather, my intent is to clarify and understand your view.
The large majority of this conversation spun off the 100 vs nothing example and had nothing to do with the 1 win which is used as your criterion. A large part of what I said is regarding how you can't effectively judge someone based on games sent.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess I took the talk about kids being able to get to higher levels as you thinking that validates levels. Sorry.
1 win isn't my criterion. It was just part of an example. I gift at Unlucky-7, where max 7 wins in the criterion, but that's also not my criterion, it's theirs. I don't have a well defined one because this functionality isn't part of SG, but I think that I'd go for something like 'max 1 win a month'.
Comment has been collapsed.
As someone is level 6, going on level 7, I don't have a lot of money. I am in grad school paying my student loans, rent, etc, But, I haven't spent much on my GA's, just looking around to score deals on sales, trade my cards, earn points for various things, etc. It can be done with all bundled/extremely discounted games. There is even a thread for how to get to level 1 and beyond by not spending much/any money.
These are just my thoughts and experience, everyone is different.
Comment has been collapsed.
You might not be rich, but you obviously could use the deal, trades etc. for getting your own games. And checking your account, you have close to 1000 games, so apparently you do buy quite a few games. I think that there are few people here really starving for games, but I'd say that in general, even in your case, someone who gifts a lot is also someone who can get games.
So if someone looks at gifting as a charitable act, not random trading, that gifter isn't more worthy of charity than others.
(Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate people who give a lot and win comparatively little, like yourself, I just don't feel we are more worthy of winning.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I never tried said I was more deserving, but thank you for the talk.
Comment has been collapsed.
From my experience the lowest level for public GAs where there's a clear reduction in the number of rule breakers is Level 4. For invite-only it's Level 3. Personally I just prefer to use Level 0 + SGTools filter for anything remotely good, and do Level 0 + lecture (example) for badly reviewed bundle games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I tried 4's, still getting rule breakers, even ones who openly admit re-gifting.
Comment has been collapsed.
I used to make public giveaways mostly level 0 to 3.
Now I do mostly level 0 WL giveaways, level 5 group giveaways and level 2 SGTools giveaways.
No more winners with one or more of the following: unactivated/re-gifted/re-sold/re-traded games, multiple wins, Trade bans, Vac bans and Game bans.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh right... that's not a dish of food in his hand.... I blame the fact that I haven't slept yet :3
Totally not Marshall and Barney at a strip club. I forget how Barney dragged Marshall into it. I think he was tricked?
And there is no such thing as winning, just playing~ O,,O
Comment has been collapsed.
I certainly wish that SGTools could be used for public giveaways. All I've ever done with SGT is to weed out rule-breakers. When I create a larger SGTools protected train, I create a few public GAs that link to the SGTools check so that non forum-dwellers are aware of the train.
It's a way to make my SGTools trains available to everybody (except for rule-breakers, and I suppose people with private profiles).
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, exactly...including auto-joiners (if those folks still exist).
Comment has been collapsed.
At first I did all level 0. Let everyone have a go!
Then I realized if you don't have higher level GAs, there's no incentive/reward for leveling up. If I level up, I want to have a better shot at winning something. Now I scatter all my GAs around 7-10.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do all kind of giveaways for all levels public, invite 0-8 (never create a GA above my own lvl, no reason for it)
I prefer to do wl giveaways mostly no lvl
Group GA between 0-5
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, this is an education.
I choose the level of the giveaway based on my subjective rating of the game. Better games = higher level. Bundle games = low level.
A lot of clever people use puzzles and other barriers instead of just raising the level. I'm lazy and not creative. Same for SG Tools. I think they are great ideas, I just don't have the time.
I do think worrying too much about who is winning your giveaway is bound to cause you anxiety and make your experience of the site less fun. So, whatever you do, do it to make it more fun, not to try to enforce some idea of fairness.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well the new level system doesn't mean as much to me seeing as I don't know what each level stands for. I can assume the levels have exponentially higher requirements but it was just easier in the past to have stuff like $1337 CV requirements with the decimal placed wherever when I felt like it :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Statistically speaking, it is not really good that you use the classes "0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-7, 8-10" in your survey.
Comment has been collapsed.
perhaps, but I assumed after 5 the levels started getting too steep to really separate them. Like, what's the rationale for people doing 9 vs 10? If it's merely their own level or the expected entry pool size, the two answers still represent the same general answer of "I prefer very high CV requirements"
Comment has been collapsed.
Then, what's the rationale for people doing 2vs3 or 3vs4?
In this current system you'll have biased information if you just take a quick look at the data. Common SG User will only see "Oh, 5-7 is highest" and does not check he actually has to lower that answer, because it includes more options than the others.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure you could say that, but I could always combine lower data points as well. I'm not looking for a poll to analyze, I already have an idea of what I consider low medium and high. The question then becomes how often do people do low levels vs medium vs high and what is the most common low level people choose. The poll of course will never be able to capture that correctly but I've already addressed that the poll is a standalone question and how I and anyone uses or deciphers that data is up to them.
Comment has been collapsed.
16,470 Comments - Last post 32 minutes ago by shandyseggs
22 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by 86maylin
109 Comments - Last post 43 minutes ago by cynnix
47,206 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by fomi
21 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by FluffyKittenChan
185 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by vlbastos
194 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by E4R0R
16 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by Vampus
100 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by xurc
25 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by Microfish
83 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by FateOfOne
126 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by VinD3
103 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by GeoSol
3,514 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by actuallySIG
So bundles used to only get you so far in terms of CV but obviously CV calculations have changed. So my question is what in your opinion are good level(s) of entry (like what's a good general level, moderate gifter, heavy gifter, etc) so that I may better tailor giveaways assuming the system isn't just skewed and broken? :o Poll is an extra standalone question~
And no there aren't any giveaways incoming so don't bias your answer ahem x.,x
Comment has been collapsed.