Do you think it'd be useful?
They shouldn't be able to enter giveaways even after the end of the suspension if the game wouldn't be activated.
Not sure how I feel about that. If they were suspended for it they have been punished enough in my opinion. Maybe on second time this would be good, but not on first time (even though it isn't hard to fix).
Other then that though, great idea. I'm all for.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think activating the won game is mostly a sign of respect to the giveaway creator thanks to whom this site is working :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed. The current rules always seemed a bit odd to me. Just take that wee bit of suspension and everything is a ok for you to continue winning stuff. I guess there's always the possibility that they just create a new account if one were required to activate their wins before entering more giveaway but that would take a bit more effort at least
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, but some new users are not aware of the rule (which is really their own fault) and already get punished by the suspension. Again, I'm fine with the second time having to activate it, since there is no reason why you'd not know about the rule than (first time also not really a reason).
I'm all for offering a second chance, but after that, it's really not acceptable at all anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
Please remember, all games you receive need to be activated on your corresponding Steam account to remain in good standing. Users failing to do so will receive a suspension.
Since we have this warning on the won page I think there are no more excuses now. But even if it would be your way I'd say it is a huge progress and I'd have nothing against it :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never seen that warning before (at least not noticed it). How long has that been there? In that case, after the first time would be fine (as long as the warning is obvious).
Comment has been collapsed.
ye I agree completely, so it's kind of a dick move not to activate what you were given for 'free' if you intend not to ask for a reroll
I think the only thing worse is using an expensive 'free' win for your own profit, but it's a mixed opinion. It just is kind of lame, though. It's just an abuse of goodwill ._.
Comment has been collapsed.
that number system be totally effed up. :P
1) no! yes? maybe? depends which portion we be speaking about.
2) i think i'm for it, sounds kinda good so far
3) no, i think automated system of reporting would cause complications, however it should have a great big warning and the suggestion to report them
4) this is already a thing in existance
5) also already a thing
6) another also already a thing
7) true, and again a thing
xD
Comment has been collapsed.
1) no! yes? maybe? depends which portion we be speaking about.
Just checking activated games. Maybe multiple wins too (but since there's this new feature that giveaways are automatically quit after the win, it's not obligatory IMO) :)
3) no, i think automated system of reporting would cause complications, however it should have a great big warning and the suggestion to report them
Why?
Comment has been collapsed.
no, i missed the edit, but on part 3)...
well i could be wrong and works out fine, but i just think if they won several GAs in the same day and had 6-8 automated reports from something that was suspension time served back in 2013. times that by the thousands of rulebreaks caught per day would be insane on support. but if it has a warning and suggestion to look into the rulebreak and determine if they have likely already served their suspension time or not on the other hand i think would be great. xD
edit: also, mass giveaway of 10,000 copies ends and support gets slammed with 3,485 automated tickets all at once. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not an expert but I think it could check only wins from last month (or any other amount of time) for example to avoid this situation :) Even if it'd be just a suggestion to report such an user it'd be way way way better than now, where people find users with tens of unactivated wins...
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, if it has the correct filtering in place then i guess it could work just fine too.
but if it's not accurately setup, that's where it could create more chaos then it helps. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
SG knows who was suspended or not, so automated system would not flag people who already were punished.
You know, such massive automated reporting would be quite nice. We could call it a Suspension Day and we'd know we don't have to check people with unactivated wins from 2014 to learn if they did served their punishment or not (yup, happened to winner of my giveaway, after nearly 3 years and 20 more wins I was the first person who checked their activation history...).
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah i'm done with suggestions. everything ever thought of by anyone can be exploited in one way or another.
Comment has been collapsed.
++++
Also, suggested many times (button for winner 😊)
2.1 There should've been a "View a code" button that would unlock steam key for the winner.
(same system was in SteamCompanion.com)
Comment has been collapsed.
2.1 There should've been a "View a code" button that would unlock steam key for the winner.
Can you explain it a bit more to me? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
"click here to receive the key/link" button
once clicked it won't allow for a re-roll to occur
take it one step further and allow for a "reject this giveaway" button, it automatically re-rolls it rather then going thru support since the system knows it hasn't been viewed.
Comment has been collapsed.
once clicked it won't allow for a re-roll to occur
Hmm, how it would help though?
Comment has been collapsed.
so people can't view the key, activated it on a side account, then request a re-roll. if it's been viewed, there's a large risk it's been used also. most users will force a feedback in such situations.
edit:
to clarify, i don't mean it would never allow for a re-roll. i just mean it would disable the second portion of my suggestion. in those cases where it's been revealed, they'd have to go back to the old fashion "request a reroll request on the GA for support to see", and it would be upto the creator to submit a re-roll or a force feedback request.
Comment has been collapsed.
The 'reject this giveaway' button is the best suggestion I've heard yet. +1
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, it depends on the "reveal key/link" though really. but with that in place the other just makes perfect sense. xD
gifts would still require a manual support ticket and supports approval, or if it's revealed and the creator doesn't mind the gamble re-roll they could submit a ticket then too. but it would cut back on a few of the clear case re-roll tickets. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
If automated, it could be easily abused for CV farming in a small group.
5 people start a group, one has a game/key he wants to buy/activate, asks someone else to make a giveaway for it, others reject the win until the one who purchased the game wins. No real giveaway happened, but someone got free CV. If you open a support request 2-3 times for the same giveaway in a small group, a human will certainly see something is fishy and investigate further, a machine might not be able to see the fraud.
Comment has been collapsed.
damn f'n exploits always ruin a good thing. :/
fine.. add a stupid 50 minimum user limit for all i care....
Comment has been collapsed.
Such offense could easily be spotted by admin though, after a single case. (Automatically handled support tickets would just update a reroll counter per giveaway and/or per user)
Followed by several bans.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, and honestly i don't see what the difference is.. even if it's not automated, users can already re-roll as much as their heart desires without the automation with a simple "re-roll please". they don't have to give a reason why they are rejecting the gift.
Comment has been collapsed.
Winners with private profiles would have to set their profiles to public for a little while or it would be automatically reported to support too, so they could check standing of the winners' account manually.
Clarification: Are you suggesting that if you win a game, you're either required to make your profile public or create more work for support? 'Cause this is just going to create more work for support.
Edit: My bad; my misunderstanding was clarified.
Original post continues:
I have a private profile because I don't feel it's anybody's business what I play, what I spend money on, or when I'm online. I value that privacy. I've said all this before and it's resulted in blacklist spikes (lol), but I don't really care. I'm not ashamed of valuing privacy (again, lol).
Now, I of course make exceptions for specific services, like SteamGifts, that have a privacy policy I feel I can trust, at least to some degree. If a system like this could be automated (and with the exception of DLC wins, it probably could—is that not what SGTools does?), then sure. The rules say I need to activate my wins, it's obviously a good rule, I abide by it and others should, too.
But being forced to make my profile public—not just to the giveaway creator, but to everyone else on the internet and every website or service that uses the API to crawl Steam for whatever purpose—is quite frankly beyond the Pale, and equally undesirable a plan is forcing more work on the support staff, who already receive thousands of reports a week.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's been suggested by support to file a ticket for a re-roll so they can check the users activations thru their support tools information they gather thru sync. that's one bit of work they do want submitted.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would stay the way it is now: you change your profile public for the time that is needed to check your wins. If you'd refuse, support would take care of it. Not really a change, it works this way already :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, okay, I misunderstood; I thought you meant it'd have to be public for the giveaway creator to manually check existing status before sending the game. Thanks for the clarification! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with this would be that there are multiple games or DLCs that do not report their API correctly, so SG has no way of knowing if you indeed own it or not. These cases would have to be manually whitelisted, but then you can't know if the winner activated his win.
Comment has been collapsed.
I cannot say whether it would be useful or not. I feel like it would create a lot of hassle for Support Staff if the users in question had already served their suspension.
I say this only because I requested a reroll recently and the user had already served their suspension.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why complicate things so much. Just change reroll rules to: reroll is granted if suspension for non-activation is older then 1/2/3/whatever months and leave it to each gifter conscience decision whether reroll or gift
Comment has been collapsed.
There were similar discussions here so not sure why it wasn't implemented yet to be honest. To the point:
1) I think that we should have a feature like sgtools implemented on this site (EDIT: only activation thingy. MAYBE multiple wins too).
2) There should've been a check the winner button that would unlock sent button. There would be no other way to unlock sent button.
3) Winners with not activated wins would be automatically reported after the checking (EDIT: it might check only giveaways within one month or so). Winners with private profiles would have to set their profiles to public for a little while or it would be automatically reported to support too, so they could check standing of the winners' account manually.
4) Confirmed rule-breakers should be suspended for a specific amount of time and they shouldn't be able to enter ANY giveaways until they'd activate the missing game. They shouldn't be able to enter giveaways even after the end of the suspension if the game wouldn't be activated.
5) If the same person would break the rules again, the suspension should be longer. I think it is how it works already anyway
6) After a specific number of suspensions the rule-breakers should be warned that next time they will be perma-banned. Such information should be clearly visible on the won page in the place where actual information about the obligation of activating won games is placed. It should be highlited in red color.
7) If they won't care and would break the rules again they should've been perma-banned.
Just an idea. Thoughts?
Comment has been collapsed.