Do you request a re-roll if a winner has previously broken the rules (as reported by SGTools, and manually verified)?
What is the reason to reroll user who broke the rules in the past? I think it's against the rules. Because it's equivalent to "I don't like this winner, let's try others - maybe I'll like them" but the winner is chosen at random, not by someone else's will or desire.
But, you could make giveaway for groups or whitelists if you want to make GA for special group of users.
Also, I think it is discrimination to create GAs with avoiding users who broke rules once. But it's mine opinion.
On the choice of the winner
How are giveaway winners selected?
All giveaway entries are treated equally, and when a giveaway ends, the site will randomly select a winner. Users that are suspended during the selection process are unable to win, and their entries will be excluded when the winner is generated.
About reroll requirement
The winner has not redeemed my gift, and I'm unable to get into contact with them. How do I proceed?
If you've been unable to reach the winner of your giveaway using e-mail and Steam after seven days 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. When creating a ticket, we ask you to include data that suggests you made an adequate attempt to contact the winner, such as screenshots of e-mails, friend requests, or gifts pending on Steam. If the request is approved, a new winner will be generated by the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason is that not all giveaway creators check and report rule breakers. So many sinners remain untouched, sometimes with dozens of violations over several years. Requesting a reroll is a request to check if suspensions have already been served.
Comment has been collapsed.
SG has access to its entire userbase. Adding extra bit of logic that checks if suddenly 10+ people didn't lose a game would not be a problem, you could easily bring false-positives to the bare minimum that handling would take A LOT less than handling current reports.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is no automatic systems. Someone has to report a person for support to take a look at it and act accordingly.
Comment has been collapsed.
At first, I didn't understand your comment or your point of view. But now I understand better.
You think that SG catches all offenders automatically. But that's not the case. There are automatic checks, but they're not 100% efficient. The community needs to be alert and report offenders to SG staff.
So my question is not about discriminating previous offenders. I believe that nobody should be punished more than once for a single offence. My question is about how strict I should be regarding reporting (small) suspicious cases to SG support staff.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry about it.
Am I understanding you correctly that reports use as checkers sometimes to get additional info about owned punishments?
So it mean SG have 2 database about punishments: first DB about activated punishments and second about not applied punishments? So report-checker checks second DB and apply missed punishment?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I wish we'd be granted reroll even if the user already had their punishment in the case where it was a repeated offence. As it is now, I'd say just wait for the response and then act accordingly ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
What I used to do if someone didn't activate a game that long ago: I checked if he won games after that not activated one and if that was the case, I usually didn't report them because chances are the other giveaway creators already reported them in the past.
Comment has been collapsed.
You put way to much faith in the diligence of GA creators.
Leute, die ich gemeldet habe, hatten teils Verstöße von 2015 oder 2016... und wurden erst durch meinen Report 'entdeckt' und gesperrt. Bei einigen kamen so mal locker ein Dutzend nicht aktivierungen zusammen bis Sie gestoppt wurden. Daher finde ich es schade, dass nicht mehr Leute auf Regelverstöße der Gewinner achten. Aber das muss im Endeffekt jeder für sich entscheiden.
Comment has been collapsed.
Welp... okay, fair enough. Hätte ich jetzt echt nicht erwartet, ehrlich gesagt!
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't get why you should ask for a reroll since the issues you described are not related to your giveaways. If they made a mistake they will get suspended and that's about it.
But let's put it in another way: if someone did a small felony (let's say shoplifting) and served jail time accordingly, do you think it's right to keep making them pay for it anyway?
Comment has been collapsed.
If they've already been suspended for whatever past offense the reroll request will be denied by the mod team. It'll only go through if there are offenses that have slipped through. So there's no repeated punishment, at least on SG's side(they can still be barred through SGTools though if a creator desires)
Comment has been collapsed.
But again there's no reason for the reroll. The punishment for the offense is the suspension, not the reroll.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not trying to debate whether it's moral/logical to reroll or not, personally I don't care either way, just trying to provide a different PoV.
As to why the reroll is granted it has to do with the fact that a suspended user cannot view his/her wins page and thus the keys they won, so for the duration of their suspension they cannot claim them or mark as received/not received, possibly leaving the creator hanging for quite a while. I've had cases of people with so many repeat offenses that they ended up with 2 month suspensions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I ask for a reroll every single time (except non activated wins that are under a week old, then I will go ask the winner whats up with that first). I had to happen before that it got approved and the user suspended on an unactivated win that was over a year old. What you do its 100% up to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is, they will only flag as non-activated if the winner marks as received. It's always a red flag to me when a winner marks something as received, but did not activate it. Maybe the (new) user doesn't understand how the site works and we should cut them a break, sure... or maybe they are trading the key off somewhere else. Case in point are the mass giveaways where winners mark received, then immediately create a new GA for that game. While some of the sneakier/more observant users will leave the win unmarked, the former scenario still happens in abundance.
Alternative point on this: I've picked up a very small handful of wins where the giver gave the wrong key. Whatever the motivation for marking without activating, this gives the bad giver a positive mark. All the more reason winners should at least attempt to activate before marking.
Comment has been collapsed.
Did you reply to the right person? Because I legitimately might just be having a dumb moment, but I don't really see how that is relevant to my comment o.o
Comment has been collapsed.
I was replying specifically to this:
except non activated wins that are under a week old
I do any non-activated wins (reasons already stated above), and <1 week seems irrelevant to me.
Perhaps we have a different definition though, leading to confusion?
I consider a non-activated win anything a user has marked as received, yet is not on the account. On the other hand, if a winner has not activated the key, but they have also NOT marked it as received, then I don't worry about these.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ahhhh I see. Yea we have the same definition. I just go by the "you have 7 days to activate the key" thingy a bit differently. Yes it is incredibly stupid to mark something as received when you didn't activate it, but I like to give some people the benefit of a doubt, especially if they don't have any other unactivated/multiple wins, because you can get distracted and shit happens. 3/3 users that I had this happen with so far have then activated the missing games and I think that is a better outcome than them being suspended for a couple of days.
Comment has been collapsed.
In a perfect world.
I have reported users with multiple unactivations (some of them 2-3 years old) and had reroll granted - some rule-breakers have a lot of luck with people who doesn't bother to check them.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I wouldn't see that the reroll ticket number is almost always over 100 nowadays, when we had times where it barely reached a few dozen at worst, I would do the same. As it is, it is a question of whether it is worth it to check old infractions, and unless the site gets another 10+ moderators, I'd rather not increase the workload with so little-chance tickets even more.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's another thing. SG needs more support members.
We need either 10 new staff members or somehow convince Pete to come back xD
Comment has been collapsed.
If there are not enough support members (and this was long ago clear) cg should search for more (it give enough members that are here many years and should be known as ok/good/friendly/whatever....). Very easy.
It can't be the solution to slow down rulechecks and such stuff to avoid work for the support.
In the end that don't make lesser work because all that autojoiners, bots, bad script users and extreme leechers will raise to a bigger and bigger part from sg. For my taste it give MUCH TOO MUCH of this people... and they make a lot of work for the support (only from my DLC GA's i can tell that i needed normaly 3 rerolls to bring the DLC to a real user... -and that is disgusting and not bring me in the mood to give stuff away...-). Killing the autojoiner accounts would help to lower the tickets and work for the support. cg need to do this (as promised months ago....).
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 to this. Over a year ago? I know support is very busy, and the penalty was probably already served. But if it's a good/unbundled game, I may still consider it, just in case.
I have never used sgtools to filter out anyone who has ever broken the rules, but maybe I should.
Comment has been collapsed.
Only within a month isnt true. If they havent served the punishment the user will be suspended and reroll will be granted. But if it was over a year ago I wouldnt bother because most likely the user has already served the suspension.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was asked what i'd do, not what was true or not, people with non activated gifts from years ago could never have been suspended, and people with something from 3 months probably already had.
Someone here said that staff said to report nontheless, i dunno why they bring themselves up alot more tickets, useless ones if people already served their time and getting reported over and over, and when they are already swamped enough with tickets.
Some auto check or show a suspension served warning, plenty of techinical ways to avoid all this.
I always thought there was something about 1 month though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Make a reroll ticket every time in both scenarios, that is what I was told by the support, no matter how old the rule breaking is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. You are not to blame that you can't check if the rulebreaker had already been punished. Thus you don't have to feel pedantic. Furthermore you are not to blame that there are only few moderators. And you help the community to find these rulebreakers and let them either learn from it or get sorted out if they repeat these things.
Oh, and welcome to SG! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I always check my winners for rulebreakers, already owning the game, and being a part or not of a specific group (when it applies).
And I always ask for a reroll when the offence is recent. When the user has been using steamgifts for a long time and has only broken the rules years ago, I assume they have corrected their ways/served suspension and let it stay at that.
I'm also a lot more lenient on multiple wins, particularly for games that were massively given away during a short period. Nowadays you can't win multiple times so it's one less thing to worry about :)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's your choice, but I always request a reroll if those sgtools checker things find anything... Yes, it's a waste of everyone's time, but since we can't see who's already been punished, I don't know of an alternative...
Often old problems have been dealt with, but not always. Sometimes every single giveaway creator over a period of years has assumed someone else must have reported them by now, but nobody did.
Oh, one thing - you may be frustrated by the long delay in having your reroll request answered, and decide to give up... But please don't... That long delay for reroll requests is probably the fastest support thing you'll experience here. Check the graph at https://www.steamgifts.com/stats/community/support - if you just give them the game and decide to write a user report instead, ain't nobody ever going to read it...
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would I punish people for past mistakes? Doesn't appear to be very humane to me. So, no.
Comment has been collapsed.
So where do you draw the line, how long someone needs to hide before you give him a free pass?
Comment has been collapsed.
Really its up to you, but if it were me I would report. If its been reported already and they have served their punishment, great, time to move on. If not, its time they learned to follow the rules of the site. Even if it was only for a trash game, perhaps the next infraction is that AAA game you entered and they sell it to someone, maybe even to yourself through a 3rd party.
By getting away with it once they may think they can do it again and again. One report of mine was for 13 unactivated wins.
In a perfect world we wouldn't even need rerolls.
Comment has been collapsed.
i would say:
if you want to get rid of some trash games you get from bundles, i would say its not worth the time to check every winner... the game might be not worth the time (also for the support, checking and answerering your ticket)
if you create an expensive game you bought just to make somebody here happy: please invest the time and check your winner^^
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't check every winner, honestly, there are games from really cheap bundles that I just give away to anyone who wins. When I check and I find and infraction, I usually ask for a re-roll only if it's in the last month, or if there are a lot of infractions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Support told me to ask for a re-roll every time I find an infraction. They'd check and if the user has already been punished.
But really, I think it's up to you. You're the one giving the game, and if you want to give it to someone who broke the rules a long time ago, you should be allowed to do that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wrote a few tickets about re-rolls for old non-activations and multi-wins.
Sometimes the re-roll is granted and the offender suspended and the support thanks me for the check, sometimes the support tells me that the user has already served a suspension and the re-roll isn't granted.
If you don't report the offenders, they will not be suspended.
I'd like to thank every support member for taking from his free time and working for our better experience <3
Comment has been collapsed.
I used to not do it, but since giving more games, and having plenty of giveaway slots, I decided to check everyone with SGTools, and osmetimes manually (depending on the amount of hits on SGTools, less means manual check).
And, as others have said, sometimes old infractions are not yet punished, but sometimes those from 2 weeks ago have already been served.
I, for one, think it is on us as the community to keep the community nice and good, especially because you can't check everyone (1 million users now) with a small support team (15 people). I also believe more support members would help in making this whole run smoother, and I personally wouldn't mind spending some time on that. I think there are plenty more users who wold liek to help out.
On that note: thank you to all support members! You are awesome.
And thank you to the community, you are awesome too!
Comment has been collapsed.
641 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by Deleted2137
57 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by mourinhos86
255 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by XfinityX
285 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by CapnJ
863 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by DaveFerret
30 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by TinTG
902 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by InSpec
521 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by ChaosWyvern
10 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by Yamaraus
33 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Noxco
9,761 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by elysium1988
28,922 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by dewdkorn6969
94 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Aoryl
150 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by windows10hacker
As I'm a newbie on this site, I'm still learning the ropes around here. Now, after finishing a few GAs, I have a few questions: Are the rules about activation and multiple wins absolute? Should I enforce them with a pedantic attitude?
I understand the need for the rules, and the philosophy behind them. After all, it's like I wrote them myself. Still, in my GAs so far, there's been a not-so-insignificant number of winners with small offences on their record.
There are two scenarios standing out:
According to the rules/FAQ/general community consensus, I should report these and ask for a re-roll.
I tried that.
After three days, and the re-roll ticket still pending, I became aware of the fact that winners may already have been punished by SG for previous misbehaviour, but there would be no way for me to know. So I had to choose, should I be pedantic and bother SG support with every little misbehaviour (which may already have been punished), or should I let the small fish slip through. I chose the latter, mostly because I couldn't create more new GAs since unfinished GAs held up my available spots, causing a queue to build up. Now, I'm allowed to have more simultaneous GAs, so I can reconsider my choice.
In a perfect world, I'd report and re-roll any offence against the two rules. But I'm not sure if the world is perfect enough.
What do you think? What do you do?
Comment has been collapsed.