A plea to fellow SGTools GA creators: Don't configure your rules to check for multiple wins

We have no problem processing rerolls. In the long run, this makes the site a better place.

I'd be happy to avoid this, but I couldn't find any other way to get more people to be vocal about the keys they took. Without people being vocal about this, it would be impossible to maintain this thread.

For reference, this is the current version of the thread. Maybe if you read the OP it would make more sense.

I know :) Sorry for using the reply to kind of think out loud

Especially because dev giveaways over X copies are automarked as received and some devs refuse to reroll giveaways. The issue was so prevalent that cg had to change the rules on featured giveaways.

Winners should correctly mark their gift as received or not received within one week of the giveaway closing.

Obviously, neither is a correct option in the case of a multi-win.
Earlier on in my time in SG, staff indicated that leaving unmarked was the best option. Recently they've made comments that either one of unmarked or Not Received would be fine. Personally, I favor unmarked, since NR is, well, lying. You received it, after all, you just couldn't [legitimately] do anything with it.

There's no way for staff to do what you're suggesting, since unless they can be sure you returned a functioning key, marking it as 'solved' would be problematic in its own right. The best option would be what others suggested in the past, of having keys hidden after you win them, and having a short rules blurb reemphasizing that you can't already own the game, and have the user click "I accept these rules and conditions" to get their key.

Of course, if you still go past that.. honestly, I can't say I have much sympathy for anyone in that circumstance, but, for the sake of discussion: As I stated above, unless you can get a completed giveaway in your own right, there's no real way to balance your second win out. So, let's take your idea, and change it to this: A fourth toggle that is "I wish to reroll my win". Unfortunately, people already use unmarking to bypass SGT, so having that fourth toggle really wouldn't affect anything- you can't base SGT filtering off it, and noone'd notice it through SG. And of course, it has no real function, other than saying "staff acknowledged your support ticket, but they couldn't do anything about it". So that idea is out.

So, what about a karmic balance? Have a Not-For-CV checkbox option when making a giveaway, and have the user have to reimburse the site itself with an equal amount of CV to what they took-over-deserved. SGT can just have an "In Karmic Balance" marker then.
Of course, that still leads to potential abuse, in winning a brand new game and replacing it gamemaker bundles :P
So lets go with a "match to exact value"- realCV games for realCV games, bundled for bundled. So if you won a duplicate $20 unbundled game, you could then post that exact same game (not for CV!) and be cleared of your multi-win.
Functionally, for you, this'd be identical to reimbursing the GA creator- meaning that it's a fairly ideal approach to the situation. There's still some room for abuse, but it's fairly small, and the positives actually outweigh the negatives in this setup.

I still don't really get it, but I agree to be won over by your offer of free libations and Mortal Kombats. :3. :D

I am not sure how mine was extreme phrasing after all it is the truth,break the rules and you may suffer for it

Suffer means "to endure a great torment, hardship, or misfortune". Being excluded from someone's giveaways- assuming they even ever make any- is hardly that, especially as you can still freely use your entry currency (P) to enter the same number of giveaways.
It's certainly what I'd consider extreme phrasing.

It may seem on sided and it may be one sided i am still not sure how that matters,i mean if you post a thread about a subject and most people will pick a side and it may even be one sided.It just shows that most people prefer one over the other.

That's nonsense, but I think that's just due to you having misconstrued my intent and meaning.
First off, in regards to your "What i posted it just how i feel about it": I was referring to the OP with the last two paragraphs of my previous post (hence, " the perspective in this thread"), not you.

Second: Obviously, someone will have an angle they prefer, but that doesn't mean blindly insisting on one angle without attempting an even-handed analysis and accounting of matters on the whole. Note, the definition of One-Sided: "unfairly giving or dealing with only one side of a contentious issue or question; biased or partial.".
One-Sided has nothing to do with taking a side or promoting it, it has to do with presenting a side in a manner that is flawed, due to inadequately addressing and misrepresenting all other information involved in the topic.
I'm in no way arguing the sentiments of the OP, just that their points aren't properly presented, since they don't account for their own downsides.

In fact i never needed the F.A.Q. and used commons sense and never broke any rules when i first joined.

Yeah, well, for those of that for whom that's true, it's certainly a challenge to see things from the other perspective, since their approach is completely inintuitive to us. But, still, leeway for mistakes is something that ought be easily granted (even when it's due to their own carelessness- especially so for younger users, who are prone to such without it necessarily being a flaw of character)..
..but when someone has 8, 15, 25 rule infractions, that's clearly no longer a mistake, or at least one they shouldn't be accountable for.

Now how people forgive rule breaking and so on i do feel is up to the person making the GA,and not random member saying to forgive and forget it may seem harsh but i would not like someone telling me how to run my life why would i tell someone else how to run there.

Right! And as with your previous post, I agree to both your expectations of accountability and the right of users to approach the site according to what they feel comfortable with [up to the point where it infringes on any rights of others, or the fair functioning of the site (ie, there's never an excuse for harassment or exploitation)].

I apologize if I didn't make it clear that I was supporting your previous points, rather than arguing with them- for me, it's very hard to grasp the fact that people will assume they're being argued with if it's not clarified otherwise, so I often forget to note my intentions well.

Also i get your more forgiving person and everyone makes mistakes,and so am i but when rules are clearly laid out and you break them that person might not be so quick to forgive.

Right. I was intending to note that I'm (presumably) more lenient in my considerations than you, and yet I still fully agree with you. Likewise, I can't agree with this thread, due to how the OP presented it, even if I do appreciate his sentiments (presumably moreso than you do).
In other words, I want to approach it more generously, but due to how the thread is presented, I'm firmly in your "camp" on the matter.

Or, more precisely: I always want to give leeway for mistakes, because humans are always going to be prone to making them. Giving leeway only benefits ourselves, since we can then hope to expect the same when it comes our turn to mess something up.
But that's not an excuse for people to not take responsibility for their decisions and actions, for people to be intentionally abusive of the goodwill of others, for people to not put effort into recognizing their obligations to a community, or for the rules to simply be able to be brushed aside when it's convenient.

So, yeah- definitely agreeing with you, and not arguing. :)

i got one :3

That's why I said in my experience... I had a user report about my very first GA open for over a year before I closed it myself.
I also checked the profile of the winner once or twice a week so there was no timespan where he could have been suspended on behalf of somebody elses report without me noticing. And this was not the only user report I had open for over a year without it being adressed (the other ones might have gone unnoticed because the culprit was already suspended on sombody elses behalf).

Yea. Exactly what I said in my comment above yours :D

I personally switched to reroll requests.

I rarely use them for less altruistic reasons. I already have a quite high percentage of Invite Only GAs from 3 events last year and using SG Tools would bring that up even higher.

Interesting little anecdote: I filled a reroll this week for a guy who had 15 non-activated wins (out of 24) since this May. Apparently, nobody ever reported him before that. (He got a perma, naturally.)

That's exactly what I am trying to say. Thank you for a clearer explanation. I have always considered a re-roll request the same as a user report because they are essentially going to create the same outcome for the rule breaker but I see that the site actually has a "User Reports" feature too so I got them mixed up.