Be kind. There's actually talk that SGv2 won't have CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
It currently does not and a persistent few consistently beat down any suggestion to bring it back
Comment has been collapsed.
jatan pointed out that it's also now total CV, meaning bundle games are no longer filtered
Comment has been collapsed.
It seemed like more than a "few." Though, based on the biggest CV/no CV poll during the recent SGv2 beta, most voted for having CV, there was still a significant minority who voted against CV. There were 148 in support of CV and 87 against it. Source
I initially supported the idea of bringing CV over to SGv2, but the arguments brought up during the discussion in that thread convinced me otherwise. No CV sounds more logical to me now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, my memory failed me. There were two separate threads. Here's the one with the good arguments. Just skim to find where I commented and you'll see a few of the arguments.
Comment has been collapsed.
I truly don't see the harm in allowing it in SGv2 as another option included with the other additions, more choices the better right? I also fail to see the advantage of removing it (especially if the argument is there will be less complaining-- it will obv just be replaced by white/blacklist complaining)
Comment has been collapsed.
CV giveaways you can't enter are visible to those who can't enter, while white/blacklist giveaways would be invisible, so that would cut down on a lot of complaining, I think.
Comment has been collapsed.
How many threads/reports would be posted such as, "How come when I click the giveaway link there is no giveaway?!?!?"
Probably the same amount of ones about CV shib
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe if you click a link while you are on the blacklist (or not on the whitelist), you get a message that says you don't have permission to see the giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
The biggest argument is: No more shitload of pointless work for support. Support isn't overwhelmed with shitload of "my CV isn't raising", "my CV dropped", "this guy is abusing CV system", "I cannot enter Contri GA" and so on and on tickets. Support can use their time more efficently on important matters. You no longer wait 2 weeks for answer to your ticket, reroll request, user report etc.
Also no more cheating CV boosters.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get the boosting, abusers obviously blow. But, I fail to believe the workload will be significantly lightened, as the newer system appears almost more complex to a new user. With blatant notices about how CV works, I wouldn't oppose staff ignoring those reports completely-- it's not as if unnecessary complaints are required to be addressed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, my point is that removing CV giveaways won't necessarily remove the workload associated with them. I believe such tickets will simply be replaced by others confused by SGv2's system, you believe they will not.
Both hypotheses have been voiced, and we shall view the result. No one on either side (including staff) is arguing with much hard evidence, I think we're all looking with a pretty narrow scope at the topic. Other ideas include increasing staff numbers, as they certainly haven't kept up with the ratio of active site users.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't forget ridiculous numbers of reroll requests due to some people applying pseudo-CV to their private giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
These are just few people who have voiced for removal of CV for long before even introducing SGv2. And for various reasons. because CV means a lot of unnecessary Support work with tickets, suspensions, abuse preventing, exploited GA deletion adn so on and on. Because CV encourage abusing of system. Because CV is generally against main idea of the site which is gifting. When you gift you don't accept reward. There are many more people and many more reasons. I'm not saying every contributor want CV removed. I now few who does not. but I'm just pointing out that unlike Enverex assumed there are many big contributors on SG who want CV removed - and don't bnother with their few thousands CV vanished with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can only speak for myself. I want CV gone, at least as an experiment, to see if the site can properly function without it now.
CV, like communism, was good in theory but turned out to be quite different in practice.
CV is a one-size-fits-all solution that's easily abused. Price glitches, bundles, free games, feedback fraud, 'developer' giveaways from people who are not developers themselves - all of these skewer the system. Two people have $100 CV. One gave away a bunch of games which cost him $5 to $20 each, another one gave away two Metro:LL which cost him $0.02.
Not only CV as a contribution measurement device is already devalued by various exploits, it also creates drama and extraneous load on support. Tricking a number is easier than tricking a person who's looking at your profile before inviting you to a private or a group giveaway, which will make groups and privates a much more efficient and personal way of rewarding contributors than CV.
How will it work for those who want to improve their odds of winning now?
Make giveaways, don't exploit free stuff or price glitches, be active on the forums. Apply to join groups and be rewarded with group and private giveaway invitations.
How will it work for those who want to reward contributors?
It's even easier now with whitelists and multi-group giveaways. Review people's profiles. Review their site activity. See someone with high CV but lots of exploited games? Well, their CV won't mean anything now. See someone who's active on the forums, solves puzzles, but does not have a lot of CV? Despite all that you can reward him now with a whitelist spot.
I have a feeling that the lack of CV giveaways will be good for the community.
We shall see.
Comment has been collapsed.
The CV system may have been abused, but I would argue that the CV system became necessary because at heart the membership changed as it got bigger and more mainstream. A lot of people want to go back to the old days ... but the old days are gone. Taking CV out won't change that.
Like you, I'm curious to see how it will play out, but unlike you, I'm not nearly as optimistic.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not actually entirely a CV abolitionist. I just want what is good for the community, and right now, eliminating the current form of the CV system will certainly erase a ton of problems. I don't agree, however, that having no CV system is necessarily the best option.
For example, I would support a system where you just have two binary values - one value for if you've given away anything and another for if you've given away a non-bundle item.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. Some "price error games" didn't even end up on the bundle list.
And all the discussions, because some game was more than 95% off if you compared the RU store with the US store.
Don't take this as an argument pro/contra CV giveaways, I'm only trying to say that the system jatan describes isn't that simple to implement (not talking about coding).
Comment has been collapsed.
There's no perfect way to handle it, but I don't think it's any more difficult to implement than what we currently have. The bundle list itself is a point of contention, but it's not nearly as big of a negative as some of the other issues imo, especially since there's a decently clear boundary for inclusion. It just takes Shobo a bit of time to update since he has to do it manually.
The thing is, I think one of the main arguments for keeping the CV system is that it helps to filter out "leechers." For the sake of argument, I'll just say that a leecher is someone whose only purpose on the site is to win giveaways. If we really don't want to maintain a bundle list, it would still be feasible to have the "has given away something" requirement.
Comment has been collapsed.
Digression here, I think it's bias to sneak yourself into the list. It's like Jekaterina saying she's going to vote for herself for Queen. Well, we figured, we'd like a list of the other people that voted for you. That said, I have nothing relevant to add to the conversation :3
Comment has been collapsed.
pfft, anyone who fights to have no CV is someone who is either a leech, or someone without CV who is tired of not being able to enter giveaways for games they want cuz the CV is set to 30.01
lets be honest CV is a benefit to being charitable and should be praised, not punished
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but I wonder whether it's because top contributors don't make many public giveaways anyway, so they don't care. I don't think removal of CV will lead to those top contributors making more public giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
ozo does puzzles and hidden links. A few of the others he linked did forum giveaways and other such things. That being said, yes, the large majority of their giveaways are private, in a sense. Many of their giveaways are available to active community members on the forum.
Comment has been collapsed.
The reason a lot of Contributors turned back from public GAs (including me) are the CV abusers. It still depends what you mean by public - I see it that way - a lot of these ppl still give away to whole community - not just to their groups. But because of all CV fraud and ":)" ppl winning their actually public GAs they turned into creating other publicly-avaiable GAs just not necessary Public GAs. Things like Forum events, Forum GAs, Puzzles etc - these are all full contributions to the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
So how would blacklisting not solve this problem? It appears a lot of high-CV gifters have tended towards private due to a small group of individuals. My main fear is that the trend of whitelisting will encourage more exclusivity and the idea of a truly "public giveaway" will be lost. I know both you and I stray from publics for such reasons, but I'd be even less inclined to do one without CV as a restriction.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh and not to talk just out from nowhere - here's some numbers about this "not making public GAs at all" to prove my point. Can only talk for myself, but out of 530 GAs I created and delivered at SG, 302 (~57%) were either public GAs, puzzle/forum/event GAs (most of them) or public group GAs (S.Gifts, DLC Giveaways). Like I said - the sole reason me and many others don't make public-public GAs is because of CV exploiters. It doesn't mean we just stick to small groups and don't give to community at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess my experience is a bit different from yours since I almost never have CV requirements. The main reason I stopped doing public giveaways is because 90% of the time the person that wins is some guy with no activity other than entering giveaways and never bothers to thank me or send any kind of message to me after I send the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do mostly private giveaways (puzzle, regular forum giveaway, and/or events) with no CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
Staff is also only a handful of people. Take it for what it's worth.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is no excuse is justify you attitude. It was a genuine post to see what people thoughts about subject. You were just rude
Comment has been collapsed.
Yea but it's a different type of abuser. When everyone says "abuser" I naturally assume the "within rules" ones that buy 90% sales from steam and along with bundles, boost their CV. The friends-only-group abusers are boosting CV in a way contradicting the rules set out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Easier way is just to use whitelist giveaways for those 2-3 members. You have to manually add people to the blacklist. For 500,000k+ members - good luck with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most giveaways don't have CV or they have low CV, so this probably won't be a concern.
Comment has been collapsed.
Was this straight or was it sarcasm? I can't tell :P The internet has trained me to expect dissent before agreement.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, that's why I was hoping you weren't being sarcastic :P It was just that the sentence structure of many sarcastic comments are repeat statement you disagree with; then say some variant of: "Yeahhh, suuuuure that's how it is."
It's early :P Please forgive me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I concur. If CV dies a death, then group and private giveaways will be where many people who can't be bothered piecing together extensive whitelists, but don't wish to feed the rump of catatonic leechers who make up a chunk of the userbase, will give away games.
Comment has been collapsed.
They just count total GA's and mostly no one cares, very few contributor GA's Why? no differentiation between bundle "junk" and other games. You will almost never find anything except people's bundle left overs there. Same with GameMiner's non-paid (gold) GA sections.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know that there was a time when CV giveaways didn't exists and Steamgifts was doing just fine. I would say, let's wait and see what really happens.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bundle games also weren't allowed to be given away so I'm not sure why you think it's appropriately related
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would that matter? Just because a new category of games are allowed to be given away now doesn't mean the other category just ceases to get contributions. People who, at present, wouldn't make non-bundle GAs probably wouldn't have made non-bundle GAs if bundle GAs were still not allowed so I'm not sure why you think it matters.
Comment has been collapsed.
It matters because it's a poor comparison to analyze the differences between the site today and over a year ago (with a much smaller population and inability to give away approx. 90% of what's given away today)
Comment has been collapsed.
But that's the point...? If the site was able to have a good number of public giveaways going when it had a much smaller population, only the ability to giveaway X category of games (non-bundled), and no CV, then it must follow that since the site now has a bigger population, the ability to giveaway X AND Y category of games, and will have no CV, the public GAs will not die out.
Comment has been collapsed.
That isn't the point, the point is that the site has always had some form of encouragement to give away non-bundle titles, the new system removes this completely for the first time in intention. Time will tell, but I'm betting public GAs will resemble gala's frontpage.
Comment has been collapsed.
At any rate, I'm fairly certain that CV giveaways could be reintroduced at a later time if ever it proves to be problematic.
As much as I like the ability to make CV giveaways, I'd be in favor of trying it out without CV and see from there how it goes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shrug. I guess we're just operating with a different definition of what "die out" means. I personally like entering bundle GAs (most of my wins are bundle GAs) and don't see the site having lots of them as a bad thing. The site doesn't just hinge on non-bundle GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've gave 53 games to public. If I will not be able to set CV on my public ga's - i will not give games to public. I understand that some people don't have money and blablabla. I have few steam friends in that situation, sometimes I give them games just becouse. But where is these people on sg.com? I can believe in that if i will see 30 cheap games on account. But most of 0 CV people here had a lot of expencieve games on their accounts, even with games without sale and released less then week ago. I don't beleive that they have no spare few dollars. Sorry for my bad eng.
Comment has been collapsed.
obviously its your own decision to do so. All Im saying is that the whole elitist idea needs to stop. Nothing more, nothing less
edit: sorry for the typo
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup, I know. I was speaking of a possibility of no CV in general. That would be harsh.
As for Contributor GAs, I only use them for promotion of the group. Since entry CV is X, I set Contributor GAs to X. That allows me to target people who can actually join. As for SGv2, I guess I will have to switch to private GAs with "CV x" rule ( if that would be possible ).
Comment has been collapsed.
Just keep in mind that the CV value displayed in your profile does not filter out bundle games on sgv2 because there is no bundle list.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 however we don't look at CV only since there's a rule in the group saying that any game that's been on 90% + sale is considered by us as a bundle game. We look at CV yes, but we also look at the games said person has given away in the past.
Comment has been collapsed.
The site functioned fine without CV in the days before it was implemented; it's going to do fine with it gone. Sure, some people might feel they don't want to do pub GAs anymore but as time goes on new members will come in who don't even know what CV GAs are and fill the spots those members left. Shrug. I don't see it as an issue at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1. I almost always put $0.01 on my giveaways just so I know the person at least knows how the site works and is a semi-active member. Nothing against new people, but too many of them don't even bother to read the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel it would be great to just have some groups that represent the typical usecases of CV.
0.01 aka "has given away anything", 30.01 aka "has given away something unbundled" and then a few steps that indicate "a lot"... But I would not want to be the one to curate those groups ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, if there is no CV anymore I think about stopping, giving games away for free anymore…
… the CV animated me to push it for the chance to enter higher valued CV-GAs…
Comment has been collapsed.
It appears a lot of users, including new ones ^, feel this way as well.
But hey, if it makes you feel better, all those exclusive giveaways will still be going on but you won't even be able to see them now at all, and it will be even more difficult to discern how to gain access to them. >_<
Comment has been collapsed.
I keep seeing some people (one in particular) talk about CV requirements being elitist. It's not. I think you'll find that many of us "elitists" just want the games to go to people who better deserve them. It's not a charity; it's a community.
Also, anyone saying they don't have the funds to make a giveaway is a liar, period. We may go through ups and downs, financially, but no one here can seriously say that he / she can never make a small contribution to the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 to the no-funds thing. Especially anyone who happens to have useless badges crafted from cards. If one can waste steam wallet that way, one can give something to the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's possible that it would affect things.
From a personal pov, I must admit that I like CV, or at least the number. Watching it grow is fun, (insert mandatory e-peen reference here). As an entry requirement for public giveaways they don't really affect me as I'm not checking or entering public giveaways very often anymore.
As far as making them goes, I've not been making too many public giveaways lately either. I did do a largish batch of 60+ giveaways games leading up to my birthday 3 or 4 months back as private giveaways for forum readers which was pretty much as good as making it public in my eyes, and do throw in the occasional public one but I don't do loads. Anyway, some of these have or had CV requirements to enter. Whether or not a game is bundled, and whether or not it is a key or gift affects my thinking on whether or not to put CV on the giveaway. If it were scrapped as an entry requirement it might make me stop giving away a non-bundled key in public or as a forum-wide private giveaway. It wouldn't change my thinking as far as gifts (bundled or not) or bundled keys go, would still happily give them away to anyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. It's confusing that people complain there are less people making public giveaways, when the new system seems it will encourage less public giveaways and more private/whitelist/blacklist special rules and exemptions, all the more confusing to a new member.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, for me getting the number up was part of the fun and the motivation. Without the CV system, I don't think I would have given away as much. Interesting how it means different things to different people. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry Nerka, but you base your opinion on what? Other than your own feeling and the fact that "I HATE THIS IDEA! SO IT MUZZZT BE STUPIDS!!!"?
On the other hand I did a little bit of research. I took the data of 5 first unfiltered pages of SG using clean browser to view all public GAs. I divided results to 3 categories. Category 1 - GAs with no CV rtequirement. Category 2 - GAs with Low CV requirement (under 99.99) and Category 2 - GAs with actually medium-high CV requirement actually being the ones you're talking about, the ones being motivation and the sole reason of CV system. The ones we will all lose when CV is removewd and there will be no other GAs on SG, as noone will contribute without CV reward. Here are the results:
Seems to me that even without CV system as a motivator to giving awat more and more we wouldn't lose so many Public GAs as you may be suggesting. Especially keeping in mind that if person XYZ isn't allowed to create his 400CV GA it doesn't mean that he/she will surely not create this GA at all.
Also as it was mentioned coutless times before - b4 introduction of CV system there were no Contributor GAs. And SG was somehow working just fine.
Comment has been collapsed.
I already said something similar, but in hindsight, many of the non-CV public giveaway makers might be doing so in order to gain CV. Also, SG has significantly grown since then and there are absolutely a number of people who will leave when CV disappears. Whether those people are good or not, I can't say.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Just a food for thought, since i myself dont do that many public GA so it does not concern me personally that much."
:P
I don't care that much about public GA rarelly enter them, rarelly do them, wanted to known community opinion; but i must say some answers really suprised me (and in turn i got really engaged in this conversation)
Comment has been collapsed.
If it's such a small percentage, then why does having the choice hurt? Certainly an even smaller percentage if people utilize a blacklist currently, what's the rational for adding one uncommonly used feature and removing another? Seems more sensible to have the choice of both.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tickets that, if they post info in blatant places explicitly, they shouldn't be required to answer.
Comment has been collapsed.
because of this small % you have much greater number of ppl who will try to abuse system (look at commonly known CV boosters, or at infinite flood of multiple copies GAs every time there is exploitable-free-game-promo). Dealing with it requires a lot of support work each and every time - just because of this small percentage which makes people go crazy over their CV and they will do anything to boost it even if just for getting these few% more GAs avaiable.
Comment has been collapsed.
infinite flood of multiple copies GAs every time there is exploitable-free-game-promo
I feel that this will happen no matter if CV is here or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd be curious what percentage of each category are non-bundle games. That makes a difference.
Comment has been collapsed.
FRONT PAGE:
3/12 CV giveaways are non-bundle, one is a DLC
7/28 non-CV giveaways are non-bundle.
THE FOLLOWING IS MY OWN BELIEF: two of those non-cv non-bundled are fake. One actually says it is a humble bundle link and I don't think that game was ever bundled.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont think fake giveaways are as common as you think o.o
Comment has been collapsed.
there's a humble bundle store where you can buy games, not bundle games, games :v
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, let me clarify: it isn't and has never been in the humble store. Also, the other fake giveaway was from someone who registered a week ago with no history giving away an AAA when he didn't even own it. In fact, he only owned fifteen games and most were bundled or free.
Comment has been collapsed.
Number of non-bundle GAs
Non CV - NB 27 = 18,75%
Low CV - NB 6 = 12,5%
High CV - NB 1 = 25%
Generally most of GAs are just bundle GAs - doesn't matter what level ;p Also keep in mind that especially in Low CV bracket quite a few non-bundle GAs are cheap few cents DLCs for games that's been recently on sale ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like to give my games to people I think who deserve it. I always, or mostly, put high CV in my public giveaways.
No CV means less public giveaways for me.
Call me elitist if you like, I dont care. I just prefer to give my games to non-leechers. My games, my call.
A cool addition is you can add people to your ban list, thats one thing I'm surely gonna use when creating public giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, and the idea of requesting a separate special CV rule for each and every giveaway is a bit silly
Comment has been collapsed.
I imagine it won't be multiple requests. Just one single request with the allowance of that cv figure to be flexible and changing based on your needs applicable to all future group/private GAs.
The only downside will be the reroll requests. Poor staff will be rerolling forever in those semi-public private GAs that are posted on the forums.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, just like having CV giveaways, right? :P
Edit: yes, loads of rerolls -_-
Comment has been collapsed.
Lina already confirmed that you only need a single request for this. The bigger problem is that sgv2 doesnt make use of the bundle list, which means the CV requirement can be fulfilled even if all giveaways are bundled.
Edit: and of course the rerolls as mentioned already :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Something that hasn't been discussed:
I liked the CV system as providing a data point for group applications. I never look at only that, but as a data point, it's nice to have.
Comment has been collapsed.
CV is currently still in place. It's CV restrictions on giveaways that are under contention.
Comment has been collapsed.
Noted. Thanks, dojo. And you're welcome for the new nickname.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like it's been said before - it's easier to trick a number than to trick a person ;) If you think that group recruitment should be based solely on Cv than you live in a dream world. One can have thjousands of CV earned solely for example on Crazy Machines back in a days or on priv-group GAs always won by same ppl with "private profiles" ;) I guess he'll be such a grear addition to any group!
You will still have CV number on your profile. and any serious group will still not only look at CV but actually review whole profile to see where the CV comes from.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, that's why I said as a data point. But as everyone's mentioned, it's a non-issue, as CV is still reflected in the profiles.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually Crazy Machines giveaways were backdated-bundled from when they first were 95% off, so they don't give non-bundle CV. It seems 95% was the unspoken but official cutoff for bundle status.
Comment has been collapsed.
I highly doubt you'd be suspended just for pointing out that something was deleted. I also highly doubt the mods deleted it. It's much more likely that he deleted his own post. There was nothing in that thread of comments that merited censoring.
Comment has been collapsed.
then he probably did since he was contradicting himself in his posts, first stating that i am "the main reason why this site is going downhill" for not wanitng to give away games to people that dont activate em etc. and and im evil for trying to erect barriers and not make my giveaways avaliable to everyone, and then writing in diffrent post:
"if you cannot appreciate little things...
well anyway thanks for reminding me not to give away 60 dollar games for ungrateful people
People seem to forget that they are esssentially getting free stuff here."
Comment has been collapsed.
My reply disappears too >_< I didn't know that when someone delete their post all replies disappear too. So maybe this is reason why in SGv2 after deleting post it is just greyed out, not deleted completly?
Comment has been collapsed.
^ and this is exactly how SGv2 will devolve into pettiness.
"You're a punk, I blacklist you!"
"You blacklisted me?! I blacklist YOU!"
"Everyone in this thread is dumb, I blacklist you all."
"^ that dude's a dick lets blacklist him!"
"..."
Comment has been collapsed.
That's one major concern I have with public blacklisting. I think there should be securities put in place to prevent that sort of thing. It could be useful, though easily cheated, to require that users include a public reason for every blacklist entry. Also, in zelghadis's defense, Mr. Z was kind of acting like a dick.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't BL Mr. Z for his personal opinions. I BLed him for being offensive and when pointed out instead of accepting the fact and apologizing in civilized manner - deleting all comments and pretending nothing happened.
As for BL abusing - I believe that a GA creator, being the one who's paying for the game has a full right to exclude/include whoever he feels like for entering Ga for game he paid for.
Also as much as I'd love to include reasons for every BLed person I have on my pown list (this way I wouldn't get shitload of spam "OMG WHY U BL ME! U NOOB!") it would be considered calling out.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what being a dick translates to, being offensive. Also, he did apologize
Good point. The petty sort of blacklisting that doctor portrayed is the sort of blacklisting that I find to be just dumb, but it does not represent your specific case regardless, and it ultimately boils down to personal choice.
That's a dumb definition of calling out. Well, not really, but it'd be more satisfying to both the blacklister and the blacklistee unless the blacklistee did something that would pretty much get him universally blacklisted.
Comment has been collapsed.
He only did apologize over 2 hours later on when caught red-handed and (not directly but still) called out.
And as one may agree or disagree with calling out rule - trust me a lot of Black Lists would call out users for things like you said "universally blacklisted" - hence "destroying his reputation" what is strictly against site rules. For example I am a puzzle maker. I did a lot of puzzles and quizes for SG. And I have blacklisted over 70 people for cheating at puzzles. I mean things like posting puzzle questions outside of SG asking for answers, sharing Private GA links or even using alt accounts. Other commor reason I BL for is regifting. I'd gladly post all these reasons, but again this would be really 100%-by-SG-definition calling out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hence I did not BlackList him with my personal mark of "BlackListed forever" - which is reserved to basic SG rules violators. If I see him proven himself he'll be out. A lot of users used to be blacklisted by me because of them being idiots, yet later on they proved themselves to be good community members and got out.
Like I said in other post - I believe than me buying a game gives me a right to decide that "I don't want person XYZ winnig a game I paid my own money for".
Comment has been collapsed.
not really. I disagree with your opinion strongly, yet I still respect you and don't blaklist you. The reason for his BlackListing is that when he was given counterarguments he started being offensive to other members, when it was pointed, he went full r-tard rage and in the end decided instead of clarifying the whole thing deleted original post including whole discussions of other ppl and pretended nothing ever happend.
Comment has been collapsed.
look, I was wrong, sorry. I did apologised for it and removed those comments
What else do i need to do so that I can clear my name out?
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure that already happens. Just not as frequently as it will happen in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
2 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by Berion83
43 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Krizader
14 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by IronKnightAquila
15,461 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Channel28
8 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Axelflox
19 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Foxhack
52 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by zenarcher
133 Comments - Last post 23 seconds ago by xxxka
35 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Masafor
844 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by cami666
127 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by Alaskaa
20 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by CRAZY463708
201 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Mahry
47 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Chris76de
Just thought about it, but wont SGv2 will be basically bundle bonanza on public. Because when people doing public want to give away something decent they set CV requirements and call it a day... now there will be no Contributor giveaways, so many potentially will stop doing them.
Just a food for thought, since i myself dont do that many public GA so it does not concern me personally that much.
[edit] Seeing as this topic evolved more apropriate topic name would be "Are gifters allowed to exclude people from their giveaways". Never thought someone would take offence in group/private giveaways :/
Comment has been collapsed.