Should the creators of a puzzle indicate clearly that there's a further sgtools check after the puzzle is solved?
Most 'puzzles' are hosted on external sites (ITH; jigidi), so I don't see the problem using an external tool.
There were a couple of puzzles last year, that required you to download an executable.
IMHO if you want to know, just ask in the puzzle thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't it easier for them to just say "sgtools check" in the description rather than going through pages of replies and spamming the thread with questions? The use of the external sites you mentioned are specific for making the puzzle.. That's irrelevant of a further check which isn't puzzle related.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but it not always practical.
For example, I had a puzzle a while back. There were multiple layers. I used basic SGT filters at the beginning of each way + at most layers. Why did I use SGT after parts of the puzzle? - I did want to prevent leaking or have a direct proof at hand, in case of leaking. It is not exactly your case, as there have been SGT checks at the start.
And I used SGT as part of the puzzle at one point. In cases like that, saying in the thread that there is a SGT check would be an additional hint, that is maybe not desired.
I am all for posting level requirements (although I did not always done that in the past), but I don't see the point of warning of a basic SGT filter (non activations, multiple wins, VAC/trade bans, level). Who will be upset by such a filter?
Edit: Some GA creators also include a blacklist check in their posts. I did so in the past, but nowadays I don't. If a user wants to know if they are on a puzzle creators BL, just click on an old GA of the creator.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are much simpler cases and in particular the jigsaw puzzles that have become much more popular lately. Taking you half an hour or more to put the bits together only to find out that you don't get a straight link is quite the waste of time..
To answer your last question, some people (me included of course) just don't want to go the extra check and I can assure you I pass all (but the last and I think it's everyone's choice to have a private profile or not) of the conditions you specified above, as an example. But I just don't want to put myself through another login site, for various reasons, and also I have debated elsewhere that sgtools can be problematic in certain cases (or exeptional like the recent downtime of sgtools or the "Days Under Custody" more recently, (dis)similar case can happen/arise in the future)
NonEdit: I saw yours already ;) I agree with the blacklist check, just go find the first GA or something. That takes only a few seconds.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, you got kind of a point. I will try to remember to include SGT information in the future. I think if there are a couple of people asking in the comments, any puzzle creator will add the information.
I am pretty sure, I have encountered puzzles with ITHs that did not give anything useful. The "puzzle" was, that the GA code was attached to the ITH URL.
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't it up to the GA creator because they are choosing to give when they don't have to at all? We shouldn't have to make the creators do anything and just be thankful. Have I been burned like this, yeah. But I just move on. If you really don't want to have this happen, ask them before you start
Comment has been collapsed.
I think most people are/should be grateful for the giveaway creators who put time and effort into making puzzles and giving away games. But I also don't think it's some kind of torture or trouble or that much extra effort from them to include a simple "sgtools check" line in the description. Also I think spamming the thread with such questions is more of a burden since they have to read many replies anyway. Furthermore not all (would) reply (in time) anyway..
Comment has been collapsed.
The sgtool check is just another layer to the puzzle if you can't solvepass it then your luck is out. It is the same thing if you did an itstoohard and when you finished you were sent to jigidi and couldn't complete it because you were on mobile. It's an added layer to a non-average GA that is up the the creator choice. Ive seen many times where people have done itstoohard-> sgtools -> sgtools to slowly reduce who they want in the final GA. There is nothing you can do.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's nothing to "solve" in sgtools, you either pass or not. And if they want to reduce the numbers, like you say, then that's the exact case where they should put it up front. Say you will make people pass a puzzle that they need 2-3 hrs to solve just to screen them later (without saying) and only filter those with, say, level 7 or above? That's just mean.. Why put people through various puzzles and make them spend their precious time only to exlude them in the end because they're .. blue? (I opted for a non-existing human colour..)
Being on the moblie or elsewhere where you cannot currently proceed with a puzzle is completely different than not being able to do anything because.. you just can't..
Comment has been collapsed.
Aren't sgtools, itstoohard, and jigidi all the same thing? A third party site that requires a specific input to get the desired output. Sometimes this output directs you to another form of input. All of these are pass fail. There is no reason to warn if one goes into another and in what order. That is part of the puzzle and the user must find the puzzle and pass it just like all the others
Comment has been collapsed.
Well..I thought I answered that just before. They just aren't the same thing unless you use some very odd rules about the definition of puzzle.. Although I see what you're trying to do, as much as you twist, turn and paint it, sgtools just isn't a game in that sense. Yep take input give output, but that's not the definition of a game or a puzzle which is what itstoohard and jigidi are.. Plus it's not fun..
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's a good practice to mention any requirements for a forum-based giveaway, especially if it involves solving a puzzle, whether it involves SGTools or not. It would be very frustrating to find out after solving a puzzle that you don't meet the CV requirements to enter any GAs...or the real CV / ratio / etc. requirements enforceable via SGTools. I take it a step further and think it's good practice to characterize what's on the other side of the puzzle-- whether it be listing the game(s), saying "a 10-car bundle train," etc.
That said, I don't think any of this should be legislated by the site or "required." Participation in a puzzle is completely optional. And like somebody said, you can always ask in the thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you should indicate anything more than just basic requirements - no unactivated wins, no duplicated wins. Because, seriously, rule breakers be damned I'm also ok with level 1 being unannounced, because the bar is so low.
Anything else, it should be a matter of respect to announce a high level or other requirements. It would be nice to announce the game(s) in advance, but I don't think it should be a hard requirement.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be nice if they mentioned the SGTools, the rules, and the games in train, but it's probably never going to happen. How are you going to do it? Ban everyone who don't mention it or...? It would be so confusing to people who make their first puzzles, as if the whole site and how it works isn't confusing yet...
Comment has been collapsed.
That's my basic point. It's nice to mention requirements (CV reqs, SGTools, etc.), but I don't think it has to be required by SG. You get suspended for not mentioning "SGTools" in a puzzle?? Participation in a puzzle is completely optional.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not cool indeed, but should it be required by SG? Should you get suspended for not mentioning SGTools? I think that's what the OP's getting at.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wasn't.. I really wanted to push it a litle and make people aware of the issue, more than anything. Although it is posted in "suggestions" I don't really think it would ever make it to a rule-breaking thing for sg..
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, that's good...but you did say "and perhaps it should be included in the rules" and put it in the Suggestions forum. But yes, I agree that it's courteous to mention entry requirements, whether SGTools-related or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aye, wanted to make it more scary! People tend to give more interest in clear and present danger ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
If the requirements are very strict, like "ratio 1:1" or "200$ CV" yes it would be nice if they should include them. But they are not required to, as they are the ones who put all the work into the GA/Puzzle. However, if the requirements are simple, like "activate all wins" and nothing else, I don't see if it as a big deal if they don't include a warning.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's because you're assuming everyone who want to take part in such a puzzle would be ok with an external tool like that. It would be a different case if sg had this option incorporated. My issue is with an external to the site system and it's why I raised this for people to talk about and get reactions..
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the whole point though.. for some things common sense should prevail and we shouldn't consort to needing rules..
If at some point SG incorporates such checks within the site, that'd be another thing to talk about. But as long as it's an external site that needs yet another login.. well there's the issue..
Comment has been collapsed.
395 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by seaman
75 Comments - Last post 43 minutes ago by SauronJhoJonh
15,414 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Zolivv
11 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by OneManArmyStar
13 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Chris76de
1,341 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by devotee
2,067 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Wok
68 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Swordoffury
24 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by ObsidianSpire
417 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by TwixClub
15,151 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by cpj128
102 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by Peiperissimus
15 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by FranckCastle
706 Comments - Last post 55 minutes ago by JMM72
Times and again, recently more often than not, people have made puzzles where after the solution is reached there's a link to an sgtools check that they don't even mention in the original thread. Since this is an external tool to the site, I think it should be stated clearly in the thread that the link given would not be a direct SG link and perhaps it should be included in the rules. Whether someone wants to use that site or not, it's up to them since SG is allowing it, but the users should also have the information before hand rather than spending/wasting time only to find out that the end link..isn't the end link..
Comment has been collapsed.