Is it cool to threaten to blacklist people if they don't comply with giveaway requirements?
umh I've a mixed opinion about this but it can be solved with:
Everyone does as he/she wishes with his/her own blacklist.
Edit:
Just to point out "the mixed opinion" is due to how op wrote the opening post not on the fact that anyone is free to use their own list as they please :) I think it's ok for a creator to blacklist someone if they clearly asked for something in their description and the user completely ignored/didn't read it. If you just don't like what the giveaway creator asks for, leave and join another one ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Basically this.
For example, I can blacklist everyone with an anime avatar, anyone with animal names, anyone with silly steam profiles...
For the pettiest reason, really! And it's GREAT!
I try not to be petty, but if you're asking for it... eh, what can I do.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not too bad - the bad part is that you, and only you get to decide when a steam profile is silly enough to be blacklisted... I'm not sure you can be trusted with this responsibility!
Comment has been collapsed.
1000 slots of blacklist (which is maximum) won't be enough xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because everyone can do as they please with their own blacklists, that doesn't mean they should. Your proposal solves nothing because it doesn't actually determine how one should use their blacklist and what constitutes as a violation thereof; all it does it affirm the obvious.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should other people decide on something that is not theirs?
The site offers this feature and each one can add to the list whoever they please, you have no right to decide how they "should" use their lists based on your personal opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should it be acceptable for people to do whatever they want, including harming or transgressing others? I have as much a right to express my moral opinions as you do, so while you have the right to claim that I have no right to do so, it is patently incorrect.
Anyway, I accidentally necrobumped this thread, failing to notice the date of the posts before I started posting, so feel free to ignore this thread. If it weren't for my mistake, you wouldn't have to be dealing with the fact that a another person has the audacity to express their opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Would you refrain from entering my giveaways if I ask you kindly?
Comment has been collapsed.
That's more complicated than a simple yes or no for a number of reasons. Unless you want me to enumerate some of them, I'll just cut to the conclusion: if I believed that my answer actually mattered—i.e., that if I refused, you wouldn't simply exercise your power and blacklist me anyway—I would probably agree and even decline to accept any gifts I might accidentally win in the rare chance that I unknowingly enter into one of your giveaways and win. If you explained why you wanted me to do refrain, then I have no compelling reason to refuse.
Even though you give away games I want, no degree of interest in winning games from you (no matter how good the chances) would keep me from agreeing. I think it is wrong to risk putting you in a position of choosing between breaking the rules (and being punished for doing so) by refusing to give me the gift I won and being coerced by the circumstances of my winning to give me the gift.
Is that a satisfactory answer?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it's good to hear that you don't feel entitled to win just every game that's given away here - i've won the impression. I really don't want to go in a long discussion here, as I certainly lack the ability to express myself properly.
But I think you shouldn't take the act of blacklisting as a grave offense against you. It is not meant to be one. At least i don't use it as this.
For me it's just a way of increasing the chances for people I'd prefer to gift a game.
Certainly... not everyone is as open-minded as you about keeping track of giveaways, he/she agreed on ignoring, or agrees on not entering my giveaways in the first place.
So it's just an easy way to restrict people from winning what's ... mine.
Edit: hope it's a bit more comprehensible now
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not entitled to win any game, let alone every game. My problem doesn't have to do with whether people's use of the blacklist system infringes on what I believe is entitled to me (i.e., access to their giveaways)—if that was, then I would likewise oppose the use of other giveaway restrictions, such as private group and invite-only options and level restrictions, and I would oppose the blacklist system in its entirety (I don't).
My problem has to do with whether people's use of the blacklist system is fair, just, or otherwise appropriate. This is because I think the irresponsible and abusive way many users currently use the blacklist system is toxic to the community in a number of ways, such as developing a hostile environment in the forums and stifling free discourse under threat of blacklisting. More fundamentally, I think this abuse of the blacklist system is immoral because it is the malicious use of power to harm or punish other users without proper justification.
I don't think I "take the act of blacklisting as a grave offense" against me. I do, however, take it personally because someone went out of their way to specifically exclude me from their giveaways. That implies that there was something about me or something I did or didn't do that caused them to blacklist me in particular. If it was because I offended or upset them in some way, and I didn't mean to, then I want to apologize for my behaior. If it is because of some misunderstanding I want to resolve the issue. If it because of some arbitrary and untenable reasoning on their part, or no reasoning at all, then I want to hold them accountable for it. If it's simply because they're using the blacklist system as a tool to restrict their giveaways, and it's nothing personal, then why are they using the blacklist system in the first place? There's a number of other, better ways, of restricting one's giveaways.
For me it's just a way of increasing the chances for people I'd prefer to gift a game.
Isn't that just what the blacklist system is, anyway? By definition, anyone who uses the blacklist system is increasing the chances for those to whom they'd prefer to gift a game. In a way, that's also what the whitelist system is for, too.
I appreciate your thoughts, sappyMA. Regardless of whether you respond, I hope I've clarified my position a bit. If you actually don't want me to enter into your giveaways, then I won't. Have a great day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey there, thanks for your reply. Especially the second paragraph clarified a lot and I understand that/your view a lot better.
As i can't really add much to this conversation, I'd just like to point out a case to you where I'd use the blacklist. Maybe that adds a little to this:
For example I make a forum giveaway with zero level restrictions: I want to give a chance to entrants who just occasionally use the forums, and who didn't really gave away something on this site.
I feel that people, who only joined to win free stuff, are invited to win one of these giveaways.
After the giveaway has ended I go through some entries and find someone with an extraordinary bad ratio like... 0given/200 wins. Although I stated that I'd let people (who have that ratio) join this giveaway, I decide to blacklist him/her for further giveaways, I think that special person is not included in that aforementioned list of people I wanted to join my giveaway. Even if this blacklisting is contrary to my initial idea of the giveaway, I feel it's a good way to shape my "entry list" in a way I want.
Where I draw the line is just my personal taste and maybe there were 5-6 additionally people in that entry-list that are of the same "shape", but I just didn't saw them. This way I feel better about making giveaways.
I don't apply any attributes to this one entrant, nor do I feel that this person is in someway bad or horrible. I just think i would feel bad about giving away something to him/he in the rare case he/she win and I don't really know how I could make this restiction in another way then blacklisting.
You mentioned that you want a person to state a reason for their "blacklisting". Just in this case: I could say "has stupid ratio" and move on. I don't know if that really helps, or if I actually want to let someone know about this, as I don't see a bad ratio as a "flaw" or bad behaviour, I just don't want to give them anything from me - that`'s just it. I wanna be happy about giving stuff away. I know that there a lot of other people that don't care about this person and don't mind the ratio, so I'm not restricting this person to use this site, so I don't even "take" something from him/her.
Jeah, well, I just thought I could make up this case, to give you an insight of my behaviour. Don't know. Maybe it's helpful.
Anyway thanks for your reply and have a great day yourself.
Oh and no, you can join the giveaways I make. I was just wondering, why people are so mad about being on someones blacklist.
that seemed to be the topic of the day at that day
I'm reading this again, and I'm extremely sorry about the way I express myself. I hope it's understandable. Don't really know what I should change, so...jeah...
Comment has been collapsed.
That was not about expression of an opinion or about doing whatever you want in a general setting, it was clearly restricted to the use of the blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
In that case, you're pointing out the obvious. Of course it's not my place to decide how other users conduct themselves and use their blacklists, and of course it's their decision in both cases. I never stated otherwise. What I was stating, however, is that your "solution" accomplishes nothing because you only state what people do without explaining what you think they should do.
The problem that needs solving is the fact that people are using the blacklist system in ways that many find objectionable, and that this objectionable use of the blacklist system might be in conflict with the site's existing rules and guidelines (this is what thenevernow is pointing out). The solution is determining how to use the blacklist system in a way that people think is acceptable. This entails establishing how the blacklist system should be used. In my opinion, I think the goal should be to encourage people to use the blacklist system more fairly, justly, and responsibly.
If your solution is that we should use our blacklists however we please, and that this should be the acceptable course of action for using the blacklist system, then that doesn't make sense. Using the blacklist system however we please is what got us into this problem; conflating what we should do with what we can do is the problem. The solution, therefore, is something other than that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You think people shouldn't use blacklists as they please.
I think you should buy me a Ferrari.
Your should is no more valid and no less ridiculous than mine.
As for the "fair, just, or otherwise appropriate" ways to use blacklists: who determines what is fair, just, or otherwise appropriate? The only relevant determinant are the rules of this website which we all agree to as users and which do not put any restriction on the use of blacklists.
You claim that there is a problem with blacklists because some users find them objectionable. The only problem I see there are those users and their apparently huge sense of entitlement and frail egos that can't stand the fact that someone else doesn't want to give them things. Well, sometimes that's just how it is in the real world, and they can either throw tantrums over it like children, or get over it and move on with their lives like adults.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except my "should" can actually be justified with argumentation and substantiated with evidence of the real effects of not following it on the entire SteamGifts community, whereas your "should" is either a mere wish with no real validation or a contrived nonargument you're attempting to peddle to undermine my position. I would consider arguing for more moral conduct to be at least a bit "less ridiculous" than you telling a random stranger in a giveaway site's forums that you think they should buy you a Ferrari.
We all—individually and as a community—determine what is fair, just, or otherwise appropriate. Since I'm not the religious type and I'm not fond of fallacies, I have no interest in relinquishing my autonomy to any authority and depending on them as the determiner of my actions. I don't think anyone else should have to, either.
The only relevant determinant are the rules of this website which we all agree to as users and which do not put any restriction on the use of blacklists.
What a ridiculous proposition. Firstly, you are stating that "the rules of this website" is the only relevant factor that determines the outcome of blacklisting a user. Is not the recipient of that action a relevant factor in determining that action's outcome? How about the performer of that action? Might the action itself be a relevant factor in determining its outcome? Or is the outcome of any action on this site, or at least any blacklisting, decisively affected by the SteamGifts rules and them alone?
Secondly, we only "agree" to follow the rules and guidelines of the site (more like assumed to consent to a nonbinding agreement due to our use of its services) in exchange for preventing punitive action against our accounts, which includes account suspension and termination. The rules' function is to control and restrict activities on the site under threat of punishment, not to inform us of the moral status of a given action performed therein. Contrary to what you may be trying to imply, the rules of this site are not relevant in determining the validity of a given action.
Thirdly, the lack of restrictions on blacklists actually implies only that we can use the blacklists however we please, individually and as a community, including in ways that are responsible and not abusive. It does not indicate any position on whether we should (as if that mattered). It does not imply, as you seem to be suggesting, that this omission gives you moral license to use the blacklist system however you please, that you should use the blacklist system however you please, or that everyone must approve of this standard simply because nothing further could be gleaned from the rules.
Fourthly, the proposition does not actually determine how we should be using the blacklist system. It just assumes that if it is not codified into divine law, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that it is allowed. And if you are saying that we should do it because it is allowed, then refer to the third paragraph of the post you responded to.
You claim that there is a problem with blacklists because some users find them objectionable. The only problem I see there are those users and their apparently huge sense of entitlement and frail egos that can't stand the fact that someone else doesn't want to give them things. Well, sometimes that's just how it is in the real world, and they can either throw tantrums over it like children, or get over it and move on with their lives like adults.
I have not claimed any entitlement to anything and, if you cared to do a bit of reading, you'd already know that. This is also not a matter of ego, at least not with me, and none of the statements I've made thus far indicates as much. You are, at best, speculating based on your own presumptions about me. More likely, you're just trying to pigeonhole me (and, apparently, others) into a neat, one-dimensional caricature because it's convenient in furthering the bullshit nonargument you're attempting to push. Similarly, I don't particularly care if someone "doesn't want to give [me] things". What I do care about is whether the system is deleterious to the community, either intrinsically or extrinsically (or both), because many (including myself) are being negatively affected by it.
I recommend you keep your right-wing entitlement conniptions for your local town meetings and news article comments, where people might actually give a shit. If you intend on responding again, I hope it's actually substantive. Chastising me for being such a pathetic child because I have the temerity to criticize a practice I consider abusive and wrong is pathetic and childish, so I'd prefer it if you keep that part out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except my "should" can actually be justified with argumentation and substantiated with evidence of the real effects of not following it on the entire SteamGifts community, whereas your "should" is either a mere wish with no real validation or a contrived nonargument you're attempting to peddle to undermine my position.
The argumentation for your "should" boils down to "some people find it objectionable and that is bad for everyone". I find that irrelevant due to the fact that finding something objectionable can be entirely subjective. I could find the existence of squirrels to be objectionable; the problem would then lie with me, not squirrels.
Therefore, since the argumentation for your "should" is subjective, your "should" is entirely equivalent to my "should", which has the argumentation of "I really like Ferraris", which is also entirely subjective.
I would consider arguing for more moral conduct to be at least a bit "less ridiculous" than you telling a random stranger in a giveaway site's forums that you think they should buy you a Ferrari.
You try to cast this as a problem of morality, but there is no morality involved here. The situation is thus:
- People own property and they are free to do so.
- People are free to give away their property, or not, as they choose.
- Games are property.
- Steamgifts.com is a private website which provides a mechanism for people to give away games.
- The owner of Steamgifts allows people to use it provided they follow the terms of use as stated by the owner.
- Steamgifts provides mechanisms to exclude certain people from the possibility of receiving a game one is giving away.
- Blacklists are one such mechanism as stated in 6.
- The terms of use do not restrict the use of blacklists in any way.
- Following from all of the above, people are free to use blacklists to exclude others from the possibility of receiving a game from them.
- Preventing injury, starvation, death, and suffering in general is a moral obligation.
- No one will be injured, starve, die, or otherwise suffer as a result of not having a game.
- Following from 10 and 11, giving away a game or allowing someone the possibility of receiving a game is not a moral obligation.
- Following from 9 and 12, it is not immoral for one to use a blacklist freely as one sees fit.
If you disagree, please state which point you disagree with and why.
We all—individually and as a community—determine what is fair, just, or otherwise appropriate.
I agree that each person decides this individually for themselves, within the framework set by the owner of the website, namely its terms of use.
Since I'm not the religious type and I'm not fond of fallacies, I have no interest in relinquishing my autonomy to any authority and depending on them as the determiner of my actions. I don't think anyone else should have to, either.
Religion and fallacies aside, you and anyone else using this website have relinquished your autonomy by agreeing to follow the terms of use in exchange for the privilege of using the website. You may choose to disobey the terms of use, and consequently the owner of the website is free to rescind your privilege of using it.
What a ridiculous proposition. Firstly, you are stating that "the rules of this website" is the only relevant factor that determines the outcome of blacklisting a user.
No, that is not what I have stated. Please reread the paragraph you responded to with that and reconsider your response.
Secondly, we only "agree" to follow the rules and guidelines of the site (more like assumed to consent to a nonbinding agreement due to our use of its services) in exchange for preventing punitive action against our accounts, which includes account suspension and termination. The rules' function is to control and restrict activities on the site under threat of punishment, not to inform us of the moral status of a given action performed therein.
Yes, and I have elaborated on the moral status of blacklisting above.
Contrary to what you may be trying to imply, the rules of this site are not relevant in determining the validity of a given action.
For what definition of "validity"? Any action contrary to the rules is not valid with respect to the rules.
Thirdly, the lack of restrictions on blacklists actually implies only that we can use the blacklists however we please, individually and as a community, including in ways that are responsible and not abusive. It does not indicate any position on whether we should (as if that mattered).
You are injecting subjectivity into your argument. "Responsible", "abusive", and "should" are subjective terms with regard to the use of blacklists, and I do not subscribe to your subjective interpretation.
It does not imply, as you seem to be suggesting, that this omission gives you moral license to use the blacklist system however you please, that you should use the blacklist system however you please, or that everyone must approve of this standard simply because nothing further could be gleaned from the rules.
I have elaborated on the moral status of blacklisting above.
Fourthly, the proposition does not actually determine how we should be using the blacklist system. It just assumes that if it is not codified into divine law, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that it is allowed. And if you are saying that we should do it because it is allowed, then refer to the third paragraph of the post you responded to.
In a free society, laws dictate what is forbidden. This means that one is free to do anything one wants as long as it is lawful, i.e. not forbidden. You seem to be of the mindset that laws should dictate what is allowed, implying that everyone is by default forbidden to do anything if it is not explicitly allowed. I do not subscribe to that mindset.
Speaking within the context of this website and applying the above, if something is not forbidden by the terms of use, then yes, we the users of this website are free to do it. Not should mind you, just free. Should is subjective and falls within the decision of the individual.
I have not claimed any entitlement to anything and, if you cared to do a bit of reading, you'd already know that. This is also not a matter of ego, at least not with me, and none of the statements I've made thus far indicates as much. You are, at best, speculating based on your own presumptions about me. More likely, you're just trying to pigeonhole me (and, apparently, others) into a neat, one-dimensional caricature because it's convenient in furthering the bullshit nonargument you're attempting to push. Similarly, I don't particularly care if someone "doesn't want to give [me] things".
The paragraph you're replying to here was not directed at you personally. It was directed in general towards users who whine about others using their blacklists as they please.
I'm not in the business of personal attacks in my responses, so I'd appreciate you not taking them that way and responding with emotional counterattacks.
What I do care about is whether the system is deleterious to the community, either intrinsically or extrinsically (or both), because many (including myself) are being negatively affected by it.
Once again, the place this community is in is private property, and if something is deleterious to that private property, it is up to its owner to do something about it, provided that the owner agrees about the deleterious nature of the thing.
I recommend you keep your right-wing entitlement conniptions for your local town meetings and news article comments, where people might actually give a shit. If you intend on responding again, I hope it's actually substantive. Chastising me for being such a pathetic child because I have the temerity to criticize a practice I consider abusive and wrong is pathetic and childish, so I'd prefer it if you keep that part out.
I recommend, once again, you not take things personally which were not meant as such, and respond with emotional counterattacks. I also recommend not committing the sin you attempt to call me out on, which is labeling and caricature.
EDIT:
Also, since you brought it up in your response to Pesmerga:
Except I haven't whined once about how you, silverhr, JustArchi, and Rpbns4ever all blacklisted me due in part or whole to this thread because you all are apparently too goddamn immature to have a serious discussion about blacklisting without throwing a tantrum and blacklisting me out of petty spite.
I have not blacklisted you as a consequence of our discussion in this thread. I don't blacklist people who merely disagree with me. I blacklisted you a while ago while reading your forum posts due to the nature of many of your responses to people you disagree with, which I consider emotional, toxic, immature and intellectually dishonest; something you demonstrate in this thread as well.
And yes, the above is a reflection on you personally, but only because you asked for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry but I disagree strongly. As I said, the list is personal and no one should tell me how I should use mine or why shouldn't I blacklist someone. I'm giving away a game and if I don't want you to take part to that event I'm free to do so. Blacklists do not conflict with any rules. The real problem is when people like you can't accept the fact of being blacklisted and having their chances of winning reduced even by a slight chance, that's what causes the whining, 90% of the time users with a terrible ratio are the ones complaining, odd right? I feel like you're one those people who need to control everything, the ones that feel the need with their enlightened wisdom. Making walls of text with refined wording won't make your argument better.
Said so, I'm done with you, have a nice day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why shouldn't people tell you how to use your blacklist or why you shouldn't blacklist someone? More importantly, why should you use your blacklist in an abusive way and blacklist people who don't deserve it? You're essentially defending the practice of doing so, since you refuse to tolerate any criticisms, objections, or advice regarding how you use your blacklist and refuse to conduct yourself in a way that might be contrary to it.
I'm giving away a game and if I don't want you to take part to that event I'm free to do so.
Again, I didn't say you weren't free to do so. If you can't make the simple distinction between whether you can do something and whether you should, then it's pointless for anyone to discuss the matter of morality (or even give you advice) because it's simply beyond your ability to understand it.
Blacklists do not conflict with any rules.
Did I say otherwise? Given the fact that the blacklist system was designed by the very group that implemented the rules, I hope it's not too big of a logical leap to assume that of course blacklists are not against any rules. Anyway, you're deflecting my point. Unless you're asserting that you derive your reasoning and moral considerations from the SteamGifts rules, any rules pertaining to blacklisting, or absence thereof, are irrelevant.
The real problem is when people like you can't accept the fact of being blacklisted and having their chances of winning reduced even by a slight chance, that's what causes the whining, 90% of the time users with a terrible ratio are the ones complaining, odd right?
Except I haven't whined once about how you, silverhr, JustArchi, and Rpbns4ever all blacklisted me due in part or whole to this thread because you all are apparently too goddamn immature to have a serious discussion about blacklisting without throwing a tantrum and blacklisting me out of petty spite. This entire time I have been discussing blacklisting in general terms, regarding the overarching problems with it. I have even intentionally made sure that I have excluded my personal experiences with the blacklist system so that we can discuss it as a system and how it's affecting the community, rather than just me.
My given–received ratio has nothing to do with any of this, but so be it: it seems like most of the people who care about ratios are elitist pieces of shit that think they get to abuse and mistreat whomever they please because their freedom to act entails freedom from the consequences of those actions, odd right? It's almost as if they are morally stunted or emotionally underdeveloped or something, or maybe they have a superiority complex and they're trying to compensate for some deep insecurities by powertripping on an online forum.
I feel like you're one those people who need to control everything, the ones that feel the need with their enlightened wisdom. Making walls of text with refined wording won't make your argument better.
Do you have any further vapid, baseless presumptions about me you'd like to peddle to the world? Since you are already demonstrating your inability to make a substantive point by resorting to ridiculing my diction and verbosity, care to insult me more? It will fit right into the caricature I already painted for you, and you have already aptly verified, above.
Said so, I'm done with you, have a nice day.
Good riddance. You can take your faux-friendliness and shove it. Come back when you actually have an argument, not just weak platitudes and impotent whining about who you mistake me to be.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wish granted :D.
Honestly, how hard is it to read a gift description? The fella is giving you a shot at free stuff. The least you can do is take 2 mins, read what they have to say, and be on your merry way.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think it is about how hard it is to not be blacklisted but the fact that by threats like this some people actually bypass the rule that you must not request doing stuff from people in order to be allowed to enter their giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
The rule you're mentioning states examples of what actions you are not supposed to ask for. The rule itself is here to prevent using SG for advertising. That's why you cannot ask to click reflink, subscribe to YT/Twitch chanel, Like FB page etc. Asking entrants to perform "action" like use/don't use certain word in comment is not advertising - it's just checking whether entrants read description.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the actions you listed are tied to blacklisting people, then I am okay with it.
But who tells me that people will not start doing something like "If you don't like my facebook page, I will blacklist you".
As far as I can tell that's the point theneverknow is stressing.
Comment has been collapsed.
because the first moment someone sees such a description and writes a support ticket reporting it they will get suspended for breaking rules and GA will get deleted for advertising ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agreed as long as it's within reason. As far as I am concerned if someone give me a chance at a free game that I want, if he want cat gif it is what he shall have. I don't think it's that big of a effort too take two minutes of my time for someone who generously offer me something for free, simply out of generosity. Same think than thanking someone after you've won one of their GA, it's just common courtesy for someone who didn't even have to offer a game but didn't because they wanted too. Really people are just too lazy and entlited sometimes, they want the free stuff but won't make even a minimal effort for it, I mean how hard can it be read a descrition...
Comment has been collapsed.
Giveaway descriptions are usually easy to read if they're in a language I understand. That has nothing to do with it. The problem is whether it is just to blacklist a user for failing to adhere to the arbitrary rules one sets for one's giveaway. It doesn't matter if it is "a shot at free stuff", anymore than it matters that you own the gifts you're giving away; neither gives you the moral license to blacklist a user in an unjust way.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find it annoying seeing "thx 4 gr8 givw4y m9" in all 20 giveaways I've just went and made. I also find people like you annoying, those that find anything to complain about because they've got nothing better to do.
So someone blacklisted you for not doing what they kindly asked of you and now you can't join their Black Ops III giveaway. Sounds about right. Oh by the way, welcome to my blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Making presumptions and auto blacklisting. The irony is pretty strong in this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't lie, you're talking about your last giveaway, and this happened
Description:
No need to say thanks. Any generic spam thank you messages will get you blacklisted.
Please mark as received if you win. Thanks!
1 Comment
thx 4 gr8 givw4y m9
feel free to blacklist me :)
Comment has been collapsed.
The person wrote that comment after I made this post, therefore I wasn't lying. Welcome to the blacklist. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I was going to ask something related, but as I'm not certain about what happened, I will refrain. Just think that what was visible was perceived different by others.
Wow, you're pretty sensitive. Try to take things less seriously, else in RL you will get a lot of problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't know why you're assuming I'm sensitive on such a trivial issue. I'd say that lies more with the people that can't accept my opinion.
I would just rather the people that win my giveaways weren't bots, spammers and complete morons. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
:)The fun part is that I haven't said anything about your opinion or what you said, just put a fact, which seems irritated you. :) Soon you will have full your blacklist. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
:) Foreign????? :) We are on internet, I can't understand you. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
:) Oh wait, you're murican and think the world revolve around you. :) Yes I'm foreign for you, as you're for me. :) And, what's the problem with that appart of you having a short life expectative???? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
You're not even making sense now and no I'm not American. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
:) I assumed as you say you do :) now that I checked it has sense, of course you're from an even more prepotent country. :) still the same apply. :) So what problem you have against those who live outside your borders? :) enlight us peterintelligence :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, you're quite literally the worst troll I've ever seen. We're done, go ahead, have the last word, I'm sure it'll make you feel great.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe am I or maybe I'm having fun feeding you. Or maybe both :D
A pity, I wanted to know your opinion about non English people, it's so important for me your opinion!
I had breakfast with Monty Python, BBC did some great shows on the 70's and 80's
Comment has been collapsed.
Your attitude is just about as ignorant as you can get. All you're doing is throwing assumptions around and interpreting his post to your advantage.
Comment has been collapsed.
To my advantage? I've nothing to gain here. I just find it funny how many people get bent out of shape over someone's opinion. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Uhuh. I'll take your word for it.
Also, as to what you're trying to imply(to my understanding), I'm not bent out of shape at all. I'm just stating what I see your comment as.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I find it annoying seeing "thx 4 gr8 givw4y m9" in all 20 giveaways I've just went and made. I also find people like you annoying, those that find anything to complain about because they've got nothing better to do."
So basically you must be annoyed by your own complaining about annoying people being annoyed?
Oh by the way.. you're implied threats are uncalled for. No one gives a fuck about your blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, threats? If you don't give a fuck, why are you taking the time to reply? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
So instead of providing a substantive criticism, you resort to an irrelevant anecdote (that is effectively you complaining because you've got nothing better to do), insulting the OP for having the temerity to voice their opinion on this topic, and blacklisting him because a criterion for having access to your giveaways is falling in goosestep with your arbitrary views? I agree with Erynion, the irony is incredible—so incredible, in fact, that if it weren't for my good faith I would assume that you're a troll.
Feel free to blacklist me as well, if that satisfies your egotistic power-trip. Alternatively, feel free to respond with a substantive rebuttal and drop the childish insults, in which case I'll gladly discuss this topic with you. Given your behavior thus far, I'm not expecting the latter.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's no requirement to enter a giveaway. If you have the "Join" button, you can join the giveaway, and if you didn't break any rules, giveaway creator is obligated to send you the gift, regardless of what you did do or what you did not do.
But I'm, for example, free to blacklist you and make sure you don't win anything from me anymore, if you're too lazy to let's say read description of the giveaway, and I don't consider it as anything bad. It's your choice if you want to follow my requirement or not, you have free will.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that's the main thing. People are not forced to make their giveaways public to everyone. They can allow to enter it, whoever they feel like, hell, they can even make the giveaway for only himself. But as soon as someone enters a giveaway, and he wins it, the creator has to give the game away. Even the GA the OP made has requirements in them (At least level 1), but the key thing is that they have been set before someone enters a GA. If you want to only allow people who subscribed to your channel, only invite them to your GA. The problem is not the requirements per se, it's the fact that if someone entered the giveaway he is eligible to win it no matter what.
Comment has been collapsed.
nope, the problem is that rules say exactly that you cannot require actionls like likingFacebook page, or following a Twitter account. (and it goes for YT, Twitch etc as well) in order to make GA. Simple as that.
Comment has been collapsed.
thats right, but if they manage a way to check for that after the GA is over, and they game/key is delivered they can totally and rulefully just blacklist anyone that didnt bid their will/rule...
once again WHY cant we have transparency in blacklists/groups/etc ?!
Comment has been collapsed.
I see what you mean, but I can also see at least two reasons for current situation:
1 is to avoid exploitation - Choosing "right" person who should "win" GA - and exploit it to rise your CV (remember case of cetrain someone from SGv1and set up GAs for his "group" with always 1 entry more than copies)
2 is because we don't have enough support force - current rerolls reasons are easy to handle and can be dealt with quickly.. Support doing detective work in order to make your specific reroll takes much more time than checking game activation for example. With our current number of support staff it would make waiting for reroll days instead of hours - and in the end you'd end up with not-received while waiting.
Comment has been collapsed.
yep and i even busted one of those small groups that were gifting within eachother to raise CV on SGv1
but now since the groups info is hidden we cant check
I dont think transparency of information would help cheaters in anyway, but it would help reporting shady BS that might be happening
Comment has been collapsed.
ahh - now I get it - with that I can agree - groups should be ID-searchable from Steam ID same way users are.
I can see a problem with this as well - big Ga groups getting a problem with "inv me" beggars, butI believe this is small price for dealing with CV abusers.
Comment has been collapsed.
group GAs should have group names visible... or at least private groups, which can be easily abused to raise cv.
Comment has been collapsed.
Small tip, click the winner's profile. ;)
You can't see the group someone made a GA for, but you can see the group someone got a game for. Don't ask me why, but it's true. ;)
From there to clicking on winner's steam profile, to clicking on groups he's on to match steam name to sg name, it's a bit more troublesome than having info fed to us, but still doable. ;)
Small sad example:
That's how i ended blacklisting an entire group of folks - that i wish i could say was small, but wasn't - that were using their group solely to abuse CV. They only made group GAs for the exact same group always, yet joined every GA they could only to hoard games.
One of them had 200+ wins, played exactly 0. Has 1500+ hours spent on a f2p game instead, while sitting on games like W3, etc. since forever. It's one thing to have a backlog and not play everything or being behind on games, or losing the will to play that specific game for a while, it's an entirely different thing to have 200+ wins and not have played... 1.
And yes, i went through the trouble of checking, because he came on my radar after winning one of my public GAs, and i was doing the manual checking i always do (sgtools was down for the first check) of activations to see if everything was kosher and after noticing 0h spent on the first 10-20 games, i kept going just hoping to find 1 he had played... but nope... 0.
There should be an achievement for that. :/
Sadder part... guy was level 6, group had 2 level 9s, 1 level 8, etc. You draw your conclusions. :/
For a second i wanted to give up on public GAs regardless of level. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Small tip (if we speak about the same circle): check private gas and use SG++ tags to see a pattern ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
You see, you are confusing things. The rules saw:
"You cannot ask users to perform any special action in order for their entry to be considered valid, such as liking a Facebook page, or following a Twitter account."
It means that you have no say in whether the entry was valid or not. If someone entered the GA he is in, period. But there is nothing saying you can't select people to enter the GA in the first place. Requirements for GA is common and happens all the time, the minimum level is an example, puzzles, groups, etc, they are all requirements. But they are selecting people from entering it, which, again, is completely withing the rules. The problem is not the requirements. The key point is that you have no say after someone joined the GA. Did he cheat on the puzzle? Did someone send him the link that he wasn't supposed to get? Doesn't matter, he is in. But if you feel like only sharing your GA with someone who liked your videos on YouTube, there is nothing wrong with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
And you are wrong here. If he broke the rules it does matter - not that he got in. Did he cheat on the puzzle? Did someone send him the link that he wasn't supposed to get? - Puzzle cheating and leaking private GA link are both reasons for reroll and suspension as well ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
If I can provide evidence that somebody cheated on puzzle, got through leaked link, or broke the rules, his entry is INVALID and reroll will be granted.
It's upon the staff to decide if entry is valid or not though.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's obvious that you lack a serious criticism or argument because you had to resort to the dishonest misrepresentation of thenevernow's position by claiming that his problem is with being "too lazy to [...] read [the] description of the giveaway", when in reality he was pointing out the fact that SteamGifts' policies are internally inconsistent.
Do you have anything substantive to contribute to this discussion, or are you just here to insult and point out the obvious?
Comment has been collapsed.
Whats's your problem? Did you have a bad day and your butt hurts so much that you have to resurrect threads from a month ago, in addition to that by posting something without any sense or contribution to the actual topic?
Comment has been collapsed.
Firstly, I literally addressed the topic at hand. I can safely assume that you didn't understand, perhaps not even read, my post given that I specifically pointed out that you misrepresented thenevernow's position, and succinctly described the issue he was pointing out. Tell me, what was nonsensical or noncontributing about that?
Regardless, I wasn't aware that this thread was three weeks old (a month is approximately four weeks). I was using the word search filter and didn't notice the dates of these posts, mistaking them to be fresh since the thread was near the top of the list. If I knew that this is an old thread, I wouldn't have responded.
Comment has been collapsed.
Within the confines of this site (meaning they can say "don't spam thanksor you'll be blacklisted" or whatever they want to make sure you're reading the GA description) I'm 100% fine with it.
If they're saying they'll blacklist you for not complying with something that involves an outside site of any sort (i.e. "join this group" or "like my facebook page"), I'd say no. I've yet to see anything like that in 10k entries, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Truthfully, I feel like a giveaway maker should be able to set whatever rule they want within reason since, you know, they're usually spending money to do these giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
This. When someone is spending their own money to make a gift to giveaway to a random stranger I don't see how anyone reasonable could complain about what they set as a requirement (obviously as long as it is within the rules) as you always have the option of not entering if you do not wish to comply.
Comment has been collapsed.
Main reason that rules were never allowed on public giveaways is because 90+% of public entrants don't bother reading the description. So each rule would require hundreds of rerolls.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aside from jatan11t's practical point above, I think the setting of rules conflict with the nature of the site. If rules are permitted, then it is no longer a giveaway, but an investment that is then given away in exchange for the performance of actions by the entrants. It defeats the function of being a giveaway and effectively becomes a trade. This ignores the fact that without even a basic set of guidelines prohibiting certain kinds or types of giveaway-specific rules, users could be exposed to viruses and scam sites—most notably the pyramid scheme referral links—which is also a fatal flaw in your policy.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why you're bothered if people set conditions upon which they'll blacklist. It is perfectly fine for someone to do what they want with their blacklist and whitelist. If you dislike these kind of people, don't enter their giveaways, and if you'd like them to stay away from your giveaways, blacklist them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why you're bothered if people set conditions upon which they'll blacklist.
Having less GAs available to enter I suppose
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, maybe he's implying he always ignore these. And now he made this thread because he's perplexed because, surprise, people did actually blacklist him.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm bothered by the conditions some people set for their blacklists because they are unjust, unfair, or otherwise arbitrary and I think it's irresponsible for them to be using that power in such a way.
It is perfectly fine for someone to do what they want with their blacklist and whitelist.
That is absurd given the nature of the blacklist system. While people can do whatever they want with their blacklists, that doesn't mean they should. In conflating the two, you're effectively condoning any use of the system, no matter how objectionable, as morally equal and ignoring the responsibility that being able to blacklist entails.
f you dislike these kind of people, don't enter their giveaways, and if you'd like them to stay away from your giveaways, blacklist them.
Neither of those solves the issue that thenevernow is having, namely that he believes there is internal inconsistency in SteamGifts' giveaway policy, nor does it address the issue of how blacklists ought to be used.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course you will. It's always easier to coddle your ego by abusing your power to punish those who brought an issue up than it is to actually confront the issue and address it like an adult, especially when there are no serious repercussions for doing so.
If you ever decide to grow up and want a discussion, feel free to send me a message.
Comment has been collapsed.
Holy shit, almost the half said 'yay', gotta leave to other sites
Comment has been collapsed.
noone's forcing you to stay. if you don't like the way the community is feel free to find yourself a better one :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I do blacklist people in some of my giveaways where I request them to post something in the comments. I think that's a fair requirement, because since I'm giving away a free game, the least I can demand from people is that they read the descriptions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering 90% don't in my tests, I suppose your BL is already full (^_−)☆
Comment has been collapsed.
People are rather bad at reading text... Too bad there is limit for size of blacklist...
Comment has been collapsed.
yep, min level needed then too considering lvl2 already rules out ~700k users
Comment has been collapsed.
I know! Those that don't know my native language are the worst. Learn my native language already people or you're gonna get blacklisted. How dare you be on the Internet and not know my native language! I HAVE SPOKEN!
Comment has been collapsed.
Every person has the right to their blacklist or whitelist, since they're spending money to give you free stuff. I don't see what the big deal is. Take out 2 minutes from your life, read the description, do what it says and move on. Sounds easy enough to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
the reason specific rules are not approved is only because they were generating too much work for support (you could have special rules in SGv1). So it's the same as it's used to be only you cannot reroll and blacklist instead. And you can blacklist for whatever reason you feel like - nothing against any rules here.
Comment has been collapsed.
whatever feels nice to you ;) Blacklist whoever you want for whatever reason you like - in the end you're the one who pays his own real monies for game to give away - you should have diciding word in order who may enter it, not entitled little brats who "have right" to get freebies from you ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
i guess writing all these was easier than checking out if i actually did it. #ZelgLogic
Comment has been collapsed.
I think people have more of a problem with those who feel the need to go out of their way to tell people they're being blacklisted, and trying to use it as pseudo-power over people. I agree, people are free to do what they want with their blacklists, but if you're going to do it, just do it, no one really cares, all it does is start drama.
inb4 people start replying to me that I'm blacklisted now, you're not clever.
Comment has been collapsed.
On the other hand - you don't inform them - and when they find out they jump to conclusions, call you out, spam your steam profile or post false claims you cannot respond to because of "no calling out" rule. I've had a person I BLed for cheating in my puzzle claiming I BLed him for having different opinion - and I couldn't tell that he's BLed for being a puzzle cheater, because I would get susp for calling out (asked a mod about it back then). IMHO there's a difference between writing a comment "blacklisted" and "change your opinion, do as I say otherwise you will end up in BL". Second one - sure, can be seen as you described. Simple "blacklisted" may be just informative. Also it informs that he was already BLed - you don't require them to apologize, do anything - you just avoid future drama.
Comment has been collapsed.
"you don't inform them - and when they find out they jump to conclusions, call you out"
"you cannot respond to because of "no calling out"
wat?
What does it matter the reason was that he claimed you blacklisted him for? You don't need a reason, if you wanted to blacklist him because he had a different opinion, what does that change? Even if you had told him the reason, he still could have jumped to conclusions, spammed your steam profile and posted false claims irregardless.
On one hand, you don't tell them, and most times they'll never even notice and there's no confrontation; or you can be up front with them, and risk getting into an argument over some nonsense on the internet that no one gives a toss about.
I'm sorry you had that experience with someone, but I don't think it's representative of the majority of users here, most would see they're blacklisted and simply move on, not start attacking you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just gave you a one example. You'd be amazed how often does QQing about being blacklisted or being unfairly BLed happen over SG, especially in event / train / puzzle threads.
and as for 1st paragraph - 1st "call out" is used in literative meaning - just as an english language phrase. He calls you out on sth. Not specifically "call you out" in meaning of SG rules aka rulebreaking. I go to your thread for example and call you out on blacklisting me. Will it get me suspended? Nope, because it's not "calling out" in the meaning of SG rules. 2nd line "calling out" means SG rules "calling out" :>
Comment has been collapsed.
On the other hand, if folks don't do that QQing, trying to stir up drama in the entitled way they do, even after folks doing trains/etc. kindly ask folks not to... i can't BL them for it. :(
Life of Brian philosophy, zelg, i've been reminded of it as of late, and yeah, we gotta look at the glass half-full. ;)
inb4 "you're mean by BLing folks for being dicks trying to ruin someone's b-day thread, train-thread, etc. with BL-drama QQ" from someone entitled enough to QQ about this comment of mine. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Since this is cliché day, what goes around comes around...
Comment has been collapsed.
save them for the next time I run a puzzle.
Donate them then.
I'll gladly accept and hand you a hint :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Cause the tears of puzzle solvers are like my nectar. They keep me immortal :D
Comment has been collapsed.
If this is true and specific rules are not forbidden by principle, but because of practical reasons, I rest my case.
Comment has been collapsed.
that's exactly this - mentioned topic: http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/ELLi0/psa-support-no-longer-accepting-special-rules-for-giveaways. Support member is even saying himself that we should use "Do something on get on my blacklist" descriptions instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
To all those advocating the right to manage their blacklist in absolute freedom: then why not change the rules and also allow users to manage their giveaways in absolute freedom (read: set requirements for partecipation to public giveaways)? The way things are now, the blacklist threat is used to circumvent the ban on giveaway requirements and the way I see it, routine circumvention of rules means something's wrong - possibly the rule itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
No its not. Someone can't say "If you don't subscribe to my youtube chanell i will blacklist you" Plus if you blacklist someone while they're in your giveaway they can still win.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course I can say that, I can as well blacklist you for not showing me your nude pictures, or for any other crazy reason if I want to. Everybody has freedom in blacklisting and whitelisting, and stating that I will blacklist for X, and whitelist for Y is my own damn choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
because it would require to many rerolls or too much work from cg to code all requirements ppl can come up with. Simple as that - we had already in the past user-made rulles accepted as reroll request (in non-public GAs) - but it is discontinued ONLY because it generated too much work for support to make rerolls. And support THEMSELVES advised to blacklist ppl who don't follow your GA rules instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
The "Blacklist" is confined to this site and this site only. Period. It affects nothing outside this site. Even then it only affects your being allowed to enter someone's giveaway ... a giveaway that came out of their own pocket, mind you. As far as I can tell, blacklisting is relatively harmless -- there are 1000's of GAs to enter.
Changing the rules to allow for *other requirements" allows for a whole lot of unsafe activity, up to and including spamming emails, stolen Steam accounts (requiring adding or visiting a site that steals your login credentials, etc), malware, downloading keyloggers, artificially inflating twitch/twitter/facebook views/likes/etc, and probaly 100 other things I've missed here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because nothing is being circumvented, quite the opposite.
Everything is working as intended.
Meaning, the sole reason people can't use those same rules to exclude an already participating entrant of the GA is solely because it's unpractical for support, which we must agree and accept that it truly is.
This way, it's the GA creator's prerrogative.
Just on the subject of rule-breaking (not activating gifts, etc.) i've seen users say they had to ask for 5-6 rerolls on same GA.
I had to request for 2 once because entrants already owned base game and etc, except for one cheap dlc, and ignored description telling users who did to stay away, etc., etc.
And those are still valid re-roll requests, as they should be. Imagine if there were more.
Get it through your skull. Nobody here owes anybody anything.
You don't owe nobody, nobody owes you. I don't owe nobody, nobody owes me. Period.
The day they remove BLs, i'll stop making public GAs. That simple.
So, no, it's not you who feels entitled that are being deprived of anything, as you never had that right to begin with. Don't mistake a right with a privilege.
But if i and tons of other users stop making public GAs, the thousands of users who still bother to be polite enough to waste 5s to read a damn description for a game they really want, etc., will be deprived of the majority of what's given on this website.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thread is clearly hard to follow, but I made a second post acknowledging that it's not a circumvention but an approved method of imposing rules. My mistake. I always thought GA rules were forbidden for a matter of principle, but it seems it was never the case.
Comment has been collapsed.
And they are forbidden. Rules that is.
Asking for something that isn't forbidden to even ask isn't forbidden. Asking is not the same as forcing.
Complying or not is entirely your prerrogative... but then, it is the prerrogative of the GA creator to be bothered by the fact that you were willing to comply or not. And nothing wrong with that unless the request is unreasonable.
And if it is unreasonable, GA creator has quite the high chance of landing in more blacklists than the people he's gonna end up blacklisting.
I've never done a "don't write thanks or get blacklisted" GA, so i'm completely unbiased in this. I've asked for folks to post gifs instead if possible, but haven't BL'ed for it if they don't comply to this date, but put yourself in the shoes of someone that does 50+ separate GAs at the same time and gets his inbox filled with 50 auto-thanks from the same guy and multiply that by 100 guys and you might relate to their sentiment.
That said, I always thank in GAs... unless GA creator specifically asks me not to.
If they're asking and they're giving away a game, it's not like i'm hurting myself not to write, it's even less work, why would it bother me?
The only real question that would stand is... how does that affect script-users/bots, because they're obviously not having less work. ;)
As a sidenote, i also don't buy into the "i don't thank not to spam", if i don't want to spam and have nothing that meaningful to say/post, i might thank in one comment and write something the likes of "Thanks, entered for X, Y, Z" or post a gif, something like that. If someone made that many GAs, doing that is the least i can do.
Also try not to make a biased poll next time you really are interested in fairness and all that.
Like Fnord said below, nothing cool about BLing anyone for me, i for one take no joy in it, but i don't hesitate to do it either if i feel it's warranted. Again, my prerrogative... same as anyone else's.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was a biased poll, I have an opinion on the matter which I made clear in my post and I wanted to hear other people's position and start a debate. I guess it's fair to say it worked. :) I can't disagree with everything else you wrote.
And once again, about the rules thing. Asking under the threat of blackisting is not just asking. My main concern was that GA rules are forbidden but the BL threat is allowed and works as a GA rule. I then realized that rules are forbidden only because support can't/won't/are too lazy to deal with all the tickets that would be submitted and BL threats are an approved method of implementing rules in a "private justice" way. I then officially rested my case. :)
In a few words, I deeply disagree with the dominant mindset of this community, in more ways than one. Still, I got far more than I gave and I can't really complain. What I can do is leave or live with it, I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cool? No, but I think it's up to each and everyone to decide who they actually want to give games to, and if they don't want to see a flood of generic "thanks" messages, and specifically ask people to not write any generic thanks messages, then I think it's in their rights to "punish" anyone who is not even willing to take a glance at the description.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, I find the whole concept of mass-blacklisting people because they don't comply with your rule childish and pathetic, so if you disagree with that, please blacklist me.
i actually find people complaining about blacklists childish... creators have all the rights to decide who can and who can't enter their GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
This one is also very fun, cause the laugh is so contagious :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This. I'm not one to bash complaining on most sites, but complaining about someone's standards when it comes to them giving away free games is poor form, IMO. You don't have to agree with someone's standards, but they have the right to them. And worst case scenario is you don't enter their giveaways, or they don't enter yours.
Comment has been collapsed.
couldn't agree more. GA creator pays his own money (aka he spent minutes-hours earning it depending on game and his salary). GA entrant spends 2 seconds clicking green button and cannot be even bothered to spend 5 seconds more to even take a quick look if there's GA description maybe having some rules in it not mentioning reading it.
Which of the following two should have the right to decide who can and cannot enter creator's GA and who creator can and cannot Blacklist?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, just like children have all the rights to cry if they don't get their candy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Absolutely. My point was just that "childish" and "well within your rights" are not mutually exclusive.
Comment has been collapsed.
Another point is "within your rights," with regards to following the rules, is objective, whereas "childish" is entirely subjective.
Comment has been collapsed.
Answer me this.
If you paid money to do something for someone, and you said "Now, here's a thing I spent money on just for you, please don't do X" and they did X anyway, would you be upset?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if you want to get technical, children have no rights. The parents have the right to let the child cry, to quiet them and/or to discipline them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, but you DON'T give any free games to people you blacklist, so shut your hypocritical patronizing back into your stinking lying mouth, mr. High-on-your-throne-one$-spender. You're nothing but a little sick prick who gets turned on from ordering people around for a bit of change.
Comment has been collapsed.
try to be polite next time you reply to me if you don't want to be ignored.
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklisted and reported
Mullins or mu11ins gg i deserve to be beat
Comment has been collapsed.
This was one of your most fitting gifs ever. :P
And you've had quite a few good ones. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklisted!!!
Edit:
What the hell is a blacklist?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not threatenining, I'm just making a promise :)
Comment has been collapsed.
No, please... don't remind me about any easy puzzles...
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for linking this. I never did see the announcement of the answers.
Now I get to cry.
Comment has been collapsed.
And you complained about the complexity of my puzzles... O.o
At least mine were logical. How 23 brave and effin' lucky people managed to solve that, is truly beyond me.
The only thing about the 1,564 number of non solvers that shocks me... is knowing that many even tried. O.o
Max participants i had on any of my puzzles didn't exceed 300... Q_Q
Comment has been collapsed.
So zelghadis pointed me to a mod post stating that what I described is an intended, appropriate use of blackists and a means to implement requirements without having to the staff involved to enforce them. Private justice, if you will. At this point, I have nothing more to say.
Just one thing: not counting Potato, 51% of all voters, as of now, didn't pick the Yay option. Food for thought?
Comment has been collapsed.
Most of the users on this site have never created a giveaway, either.
Think that might skew the vote some? ;)
http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/XaCbA/list-of-all-cv-levels-and-their-corresponding-real-cv
Comment has been collapsed.
It is invalid due to that question being suggestive and the poll containing 2 negative and only 1 positive answer, whereas one of the negative answers is again highly suggesitve...
Comment has been collapsed.
Food for thought?
yes, like:
- they think this is a charity site
- blacklists are bad because they want to leech all the GAs
Comment has been collapsed.
See my post above LOL.
EDIT: all this posting has made me forget to leech GAs! :O
Comment has been collapsed.
great minds think alike, look at my post below ;p Just like usual it took me more time because I had to write freaking wall of text with reasoning, arguments and examples -.-"
Comment has been collapsed.
may be food for thought, but also consider this. If you are a person who don't contribute a thing to a site, who don't read descriptions, even better - who runs a bot or script for auto-entering - what would you vote for and should your vote count as much as the persons who is actually buying the games and paying for them? In other wpords - if person not donating a game gets upset - worst case he gets angry and don't enter GA. If person buying games for GAs gets upset - he doesn't create any more GAs. You decide to g with the majority - and what? Most of contributors are upset, leaves and you are left with your majority noone's left to make GAs for ;p
And just as an example - cannot find the topic now, it was an old one and I don't remember a topic, but in this topic there was this entitled little brat crying over how there should not be group/private/puzzle/lvl GAs because people like him have no money and all GAs should be avaiable for them, because all the guys with levels, in groups etc already have money to buy the games themselves. Heck - he was even claiming that ppl who create certain amount of GAs should not be able to enter any GAs at all, because they can buiy games themselves and should leave winning to the "less fortunate". And his poll got like 2X-3X% of ppl agreeing with him. Why? Because people tend to vote for thing that is profitable for them, not for the thing that is just. And same can go here - ppl may be voting on the "Nay" or "No rules at all" (aka "No BL at all") options simply because it means they have better chances to win GAs if it was like this - not because it's right thing to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
One more thing to note --
Not a single person on this thread, outside of the OP, spoke up and stated they're against "freedom of blacklisting" or making blacklisting rules for GAs. I think that speaks volumes in itself ... ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
may be also because of the the combination of reason I wrote and BL fear ;) If most of "No" voters or "No rules at all" voters are ppl who give the reason to be blacklisted - like have regifting history, extremely poor ratios etc - the moment they take a stand in this topic ppl may go to their profiles, see their ratios for example and while voicing their opinion against BL (for their profit - they are on a lot of BLs, they want better chances) they end up on even more BLs instead ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Also they just really have no good reason that won't simply sound like whining about not being able to get free stuff. :P
It still amazes me that there are almost 7x as many people on this site who have never given away anything. I mean, come on -- everyone gets a spare key at one time or another, or can sell a couple cards to buy a cheap game ... and then you go to their profile, and they have 500+ Steam games. >.<
Comment has been collapsed.
you underestimate the power of the leech side...
Comment has been collapsed.
JustArchi's thread about 4 re-rolls for the same GA opened my eyes a lot this morning. O.o
Comment has been collapsed.
i think i did 3-4 consecutive rerolls once, it's nothing amazing considering it was a lv2 ga. -.-
Comment has been collapsed.
That's discouraging. >.<
Guess I'll have to check my winners from now on
Comment has been collapsed.
yes you should - especially making public and/or low lvl GAs - but better just check anyone you don't recognize - there's been even lvl 5 users who turned out to be massive regiftewrs - just hiding behind private profile ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
it just delays your GA by a few hours at worst, but it's worth taking extra time to check users.
and if you don't like them, you just add them to your blacklist :3
Comment has been collapsed.
^this^
Also consider adding ppl to the BlackList as form of fun. Think about it like of Collecting Pokemons :D: And suddenly it becomes fun instead of discouraging :D:
Comment has been collapsed.
yup - heck - few cards? you can buy some DLCs/Games for a total amount of 1-2 trading cards sold. Most of ppl are simply greedy. Recently I had a guy spamming my Steam profile for 2 days, calling me names etc because I have "no right" to BL him for his ratio (1:35 back then, 1:200 value wise) - too busy to quote all his B4 - if you want you can still some msg on my profile - but the fact remains - there are loads of entitled leeches who go all berserk the moment you deny them their sancted right to enter your GAs ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
Due to how you worded your question, there are no appropriate answer for me. But if it helps, you can imagine a +1 for the "pro blacklist camp" from me.
Comment has been collapsed.
So from skimming this thread, have you changed your mind now after reading the responses?
I only have 20 people on my BL, mostly rule breakers and rude people. But I'm curious about your opinion now with all the feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really give no fucks if someone blacklists me. There are a lot of people on the site, and thousands of entries for any worthwhile giveaway. Some butthurt asshat blacklisting me is going to have a completely negligible effect on my chances of winning a game anyway. I think it's funny that people use it as some kind of hardcore threat. "I'LL BLACKLIST YOU!" Come at me, bro.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some butthurt asshat blacklisting me is going to have a completely negligible effect
People just blacklist you and your kind to avoid giving to rude people. They don't announce it to let you know about it, but to implicitly encourage others to follow suit.
Comment has been collapsed.
In the past couple of weeks I've run 100+ giveaways.
I stipulated one simple rule, which if broken resulted in blacklisting: no generic thank you messages (because I didn't want to be spammed).
In a single day I blacklisted 30+ people.
Some, I suspect, were using bots.
Some, wrote 10+ thank you messages before I could blacklist them.
Many of them hadn't created more than a handful of giveaways in their time at SG either.
One even 'blacklisted' me in retaliation (boohoo - I'll miss out one of his 2 regifted giveaways which I couldn't enter anyway).
But anyway, I find it bizarre that you'd have a problem with people setting minimal conditions to avoid being blacklisted from future giveaways.
It's also a bit whiny creating a thread complaining about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
just out of interest, would a gif/video or a text taking your desc in context be non-generic enough? Or do you prefer no comments at all
Comment has been collapsed.
The occasional gif is not to be sniffed at.
But I'd be quite happy with zero comments.
Comment has been collapsed.
I loved that bug on SG, when comments didn't come out on message icon ;__;
If I can be honest - I never (once or twice happened xD) write "thanks" or anything like that in GA - only because most of the people don't like it, but if I have chance to say thanks privately to creator of my win, I'll just do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Of course, I find the whole concept of mass-blacklisting people because they don't comply with your rule childish and pathetic"
Pretty much yeah. Blacklist is for tools.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dont know the problem. I for myself always say, that ppl should add me via steam if they want the giveaway which normaly is a gift and not a key. If ppl dont add me in the periode of time, I give it away to someone else and the person is blacklisted for being dumb. I dont care if I get a negativ feedback because I am generous and give away something for free and all the winner has to do is to add me. If that is to much for some free stuff - not my problem!
Comment has been collapsed.
Unfortunately the site doesn't leave you the option to just not deliver in those cases. It's apparently against the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
And? I dont care about this stupid rule. As I said: If i get a negativ feedback - shit happens!
Comment has been collapsed.
Well... Actually... I'm pretty sure you'd kind of get in trouble with the mods for not giving the game even though the person attempted. Even if they didn't you should still reach out to them. It's not a one-sided coin.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's not about negative feedback, if you do it constantly you will get suspended and after than banned. it's not worth the trouble.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only reason you can't have special rules in giveaways (not just public anymore) is that it's too much work for the already overworked support staff to handle a bunch of re-rolls based on those. Blacklists are the next best thing.
In the end, the person making the giveaway is doing it out of their own free will and generosity. If you can't be bothered to follow their rules, you don't get to participate in that particular person's giveaways anymore. That's their prerogative and, quite frankly, there is more than enough giveaways being made every day that people should stop making a big thing out of those blacklists. If you can join a giveaway, fine. If you can't for whatever reason (group, level, blacklist) then move on to the next one and stop bitching about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
yer 2 late Zomby :D:
http://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/xBNtlAv and below :>
Comment has been collapsed.
I blacklist anyone who insults me or any participants of my giveaways, no one messes with my bro's and sist's, NO ONE!
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you blacklisted me too, so, i dont see what is the fun, mabye because im from other country and i dont understand that reference or joke.
Comment has been collapsed.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail from 1975. By the way then, do you often blacklist people for reasons you admittedly don't even understand?
Comment has been collapsed.
I removed the blacklist for you. No, I don't usually do that, but your comment took me on a really bad day and i simply understand it as an insult.
My apologies for that.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, it's forbidden to set conditions for public giveaways (do this, post that, visit this page) but it's cool to set conditions in giveaways under the threat of blacklisting? Doesn't make much sense to me. It's basically "you can't enter this giveaway unless you do what I want" vs "you can't enter any of my future giveaways unless you do what I want" - the second seems even worse to me.
Of course, I find the whole concept of mass-blacklisting people because they don't comply with your rule childish and pathetic, so if you disagree with that, please blacklist me.
Comment has been collapsed.