As long as you activate the copy you win, that's fine.
Comment has been collapsed.
I probably should have put a ";-)" at the end of that, that really was my fault there.
Morality is indeed subjective, but there's no reason to take offense at someone else's definition of it. Some people don't agree that child molestation is wrong and I'm sure that they would think that people who do think it's wrong are just fanatics who are "[trying] to be more perfect than perfect" as you would say. Not drawing a comparison here, just making a point that morality is entirely subjective, where rules are not.
You seem to be taking this issue pretty seriously. Relax, man, if it's not against the rules then who cares what someone else thinks about the morality of the issue?
Comment has been collapsed.
That example with child molestation shows that you didn't understand what I meant.
Most people know the line. Most people have morality, even if they act against it. But some just want to be better than morality itself. Some just push it over the reasonable point. Example? People who won't read Harry Potter because they claim it's wrong and will have tragic consequences on their psyche. I mean that kind of exaggeration.
Comment has been collapsed.
How the hell did we go from Steam games to child molestation?
Comment has been collapsed.
The bigger question is how the guy decided that child molestation was a good example of a debatable topic. Yikes!
Comment has been collapsed.
... Sorry to burst your bubble, but you totally misunderstand the concept of morality. Morals, and a specific sense of morality, are entirely subjective by their very definition. What you mean, I think, is a "common" sense of "decency" in our western world. You have to realise, though, that even the things we find "basic" or "normal" are only that way because we were raised in the place we were, in the way we were, with the surroundings we have.
In old times, in many countries, killing a baby instantly at birth because it was a girl was done just as easily as you and me would gut and clean a fish, as if it was nothing more than a piece of meat. Because girls couldn't work as hard, or earn as much money for the family (or so they saw things). Just as a simple example.
Go study morals and ethics some and you'll see many more such examples that prove that morality is an entirely human construct that is entirely dependant on surroundings, circumstance, and upbringing. That doesn't mean it is arbitrary, or has no purpose. It definitely does have purpose and positivity to it - as long as a sense of it's not a result of purely rational constructs, but rather the result of careful consideration of the world around you.
Comment has been collapsed.
What difference do you see between that and entering a giveaway for a game you own (which is not even materially allowed)? In both cases you want an extra copy of a game you already own. Also he clearly stated he's keeping his copy as "trade stock". It may not be enforceable, but at least it should be forbidden as a principle.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's exactly what it's all about. We have two situations:
1)Having the game in his libraby and not be allowed to enter for the same game(no matter if it's to give the game to a friend, create a giveaway or for trading purposes).
2)Having the game in his inventory and be allowed to enter for the same game(once again, no matter for whatever reason - trading, gifting, CV etc).
I can't understand why 2) is allowed, and 1) not. Or vice versa. IMO they should either be both allowed or both not allowed.
As for the moral point - yeah, it depends on the person. I'm pretty sure I've seen a previous topic on that matter and I think the OP deleted it after he got a lot of negative comments about this practice. It is not universally accepted as moral or amoral, but don't be suprised that you will see people on both opinions :) So my warning is still valid :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe 2) is not forbidden because it wouldn't be enforceable anyway, and possibly also because there's enough wannabe cops around here, inspecting people libraries, playtimes and inventories as soon as they dare to speak.
Comment has been collapsed.
For me, it depends on the reason why someone has the game in their inventory. If they bought a single copy so that they'd have it to give to a friend for their birthday, I would not mind if they entered one of my giveaways to win a copy for themselves. Stuff like that doesn't bother me. I also don't have issues with someone getting a game they don't want and gifting it on this site, and then deciding later on that they'd like to play it afterwards.
But storing a game in your library, and then entering giveaways for it with the intention of giving away your extra copy for CV is a dick move. Shit like that just gets on my nerves.
Comment has been collapsed.
The authority decided that it's not immoral. Since they decided it wasn't immoral, they set up the rules to allow it. Therefore, you're in the less normal place of disagreeing with the staff here. (By the way, "amoral" means something separate from and unrelated to morality, neither good nor bad.)
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to put it like that, the "authority" decided it's not illegal. No authority can decide what is moral. And you're right, the appropriate word is immoral, not amoral.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's almost true, except that this authority can't make laws. They decided to not make a rule against it because they don't see a reason to punish that behavior, thereby implying that they don't find it to be immoral. That's what I meant, but I was too lazy to say it, I suppose.
Comment has been collapsed.
I sent in a support ticket asking about it a while back, and was told that it was okay. Though other members might have issues with you entering their giveaways if you've already got a copy of the game that they're giving away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Different strokes for different folks, eh? I don't see an issue with people thinking either way.
I don't have a huge problem with what OP is wanting to do, though I'm not a fan of it. But it won't get 'em put on some kind of blacklist. lol
Comment has been collapsed.
While I'm thinking about it, Terraria will most likely be cheap during the summer sale, so you probably won't get much for it. But you'll be able to trade it for another cheap game quite easily, I'm sure!
Comment has been collapsed.
Dn't matter who thinks it's adickmove, it's allowed.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is not against the rules. The rule about not entering for games you already own refers to items that are in your library.
Nobody knows what an inventory item is intended for so it's up to entrants to decide. Some members might, indeed, get annoyed as others mentioned but that's not a reason for you to not to enter if you wish to.
Comment has been collapsed.
You Sir, are an a-hole. Plain and simple. You are greedy, and you should not be entering the contest. The rules here might force me to give you the game if you won a contest I held, but I would hate giving it to you, and it would ruin the satisfaction of giving a gift to someone.
Comment has been collapsed.
"You don't know if he wants to give this game away or not. You have no idea what his agenda is and you're talking like you knew about his every intention."
He said in his post that he's saving it to trade away. lolz :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Allowed and not even a dick move, people here think gifting and receiving is a sacred sport and only the ones who 'truly' need the games should be entering contests. If you create a giveaway on steamgifts you condone to its rules and you accept that someone who can afford the game more than others is also eligible for winning.
Entitled fucks.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you have the game in your inventory, you don't really need another copy. So while it's not technically against the rules, IMO it is rather bad form since there are other people who may need the game who, unlike yourself, can't get it any other way.
Comment has been collapsed.
But you easily hold the finance to enter the competition and surely there are others who 'need' the game and can't get it 'any other way'. You're a hypocrite, in other words. Not the worst kind, but you're still a pot calling the kettle black.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're comparing apples to oranges. In one scenario the person already owns the game they're entering a giveaway for. In the other scenario, they don't. You can try to construe words all you like, but that's the short and skinny of it as far as I'm concerned.
Comment has been collapsed.
At pretty much any time, as long as you have the money or other assets and Steam's store or one of its users is willing to give you the game in exchange for what you have, you can make that trade. The only difference between owning a game and being able to own a game is a few minutes. Works the other way around too as long as the game is in their inventory.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm storing like 3-4 games I do have and 1-2 games I don't have right now just for a summer giveaway festival (at least that's how I call it =D)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it's not against the rules but a dick move IMO. It's not like you're strapped for cash since you're just holding it to trade away.
There was another thread about this where a support moderator said it wasn't against the rules and allowed I remember, so go on ahead.
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems silly that some people complain about the idea of someone winning a game then giving away a copy from their inventory, yet most of the same people would probably be quite happy with someone who won a game and then bought and gave away a new copy, even if the first person might have gone to greater expense to do so.
To me, one of Steamgifts' strengths is that it's not a charity, it's a competition that treats everyone (almost) equally. The one exception to this is the rule that someone who already has a game in their library can't enter to win it - for fairness, it would be better to allow everyone to enter, with a rule that someone can only win any particular game once - but this would lead to some other minor issues and given my fairly average account value it's not something I feel particularly strongly about either way. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This is exactly why it's ok for him to enter giveaways for games in his inventory. Also he was not planning on giving away the extra copy in his inventory, he will sell it for profit, as it says in the OP.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was just talking generally and not referring to the OP's situation, not that what he or anyone intends to do with their own property should really be an issue to anyone as long as no rules are broken. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I have a couple that I'm entered in right now where I actually have a copy in my inventory. I was entered in the GA before I got the copy and figured if I don't win it I'll just redeem the copy I have. Or I may still give the copy in my inventory away in a GA.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see a difference between having it in the inventory or in the library. You have the game. And you can play it. If you want to give it away on Steamgifts for free, fine. But if you want to trade your spare copy, then what is the difference between entering for a game you already have in your library to trade the extra copy you win? There is no difference. People get all upset about other people not activating their won games and play Sherlock Holmes all the time to denounce them, but this is ok? Weird.
Comment has been collapsed.
People who don't trade or can't trade seem to have a real problem with it, but there are no rules against it. If there was a rule, you could switch to a private inventory or just buy everything in key form so no one could whine.
There seems to be a notion that if you trade, you're wealthy and can afford anything anyway which I can say is certainly not the case. Buying multiple bundles when they first started and before they were well known because you knew they'd increase in value doesn't prove that you're rich. nor does taking advantage of IG's Happy Hour and received 20 bundles for $20 rather than 1 bundle for $5.
Comment has been collapsed.
tl;dr version
Unless your morality's against it AND/OR the giveaway-er is against it, YES- it is okay.
Comment has been collapsed.
3 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by WaxWorm
34 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by 538UL84
21 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Mitsukuni
898 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by InSpec
704 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by JJJ7
1,036 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by sensualshakti
1,942 Comments - Last post 11 hours ago by MeguminShiro
418 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by wormmayhem
110 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by lindax
27 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by JMM72
9,460 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by afa1425
142 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by Lironezzz
82 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by NoYeti
9 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by xxxka
I currently have a copy of Terraria in my inventory that I got in a trade, but I'm saving it as trade stock. I do want the game to play and it's hard not just adding it to my library, but I'm saving it to trade during the summer sale. So, would it be ok if I entered for Terraria giveaways still?
Edit: Yikes, wasn't expecting to get this many posts in my thread. I got the copy of Terraria in a trade with other stuff I already had, that was being saved to trade with for later. There's a game I want more than Terraria, so everything I have now I'm saving to trade for it. I only traded for Terraria, 'cause I thought I was getting a better bargaining chip for later trading than I had before. Hopefully my plan A works and I'll be able to just activate it on my account. Thanks for all the posts, some of them were pretty entertaining. :D
Comment has been collapsed.