Why is it the responsibility of the giveaway maker to spam emails, Steam profile comments etc trying to get someone to accept a game they got for free and are actively refusing to get and mark. The winner is clearly using this site and fully able to see the red number of winnings. If they are not using this site, how did they enter to begin with. Rules say wins must be marked within a week, so why can they break the rules and don't even get warned for it.

2 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

What if the key is already used by the original winner (but not marked as received)?

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Only allow a reroll by the GA creator if the GA winner has not clicked on view key?

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh shit, I didn't think about that :)

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you don't need to spam anything. pick one way to contact the winner (email, send the key on sg, add on steam, comment in his profile, etc). if you can't reach him, then ask for a reroll and send proof.

if the key has been revealed, just send a request feedback ticket instead.

If they are not using this site, how did they enter to begin with.

the magic of autojoin ┐(ツ)┌

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I choose the way I get all my wins, red number on top bar. Clearly visible to anyone who uses the site and should be enough clue that you won something.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Autojoiners, bots, extreme leechers that have no basic manners.....
best way to avoid much of them are at least set on lvl2+ by the open for all GA's.
Or, better, use sgtools, the forum, ITH, jigsaw puzzles or anything like that.
I ma sure you know that on your level but i explain it for other ones too :o)

2 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah, that's already more hassle to set up than asking to reroll now and then. :)

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

At my side 90% of the winners of my open for all GA's under lvl2 and at lvl2 around 50% ( much more then now and then :o( ). Running behind people that they take there wins.... not my taste and not make me fun.
So the time with sgtool is, for me, much lesser and i meet much more friendly people over the forum then at the "open for all GA's" :o)

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm personally not really interested in using a bunch of extra tools just to avoid a problem that could be fixed if winners who make no effort to respond to their free gift were penalized. I've been waiting a month (they've been active) for one of my latest GA's to be confirmed and I was basically told too bad for not wanting to add a total stranger to steam, or email them which I am even less interested in. It really should not be my responsibility to chase after some stranger to click a simple button.

So, I'm inclined to agree... winners who don't respond in a timely manner should be penalized and/or gifter's should be able to request deletion without the winner's compliance.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Personally, as I said here, I believe it would be a good change to SG if you were unable to enter any GAs if you have unclaimed (but sent) gifts.

Would help in the battle against auto-joiners
Would help against those in groups with ratio requirements abusing the ratio
Would save on irritation of waiting for a user that's clearly online in SG and Steam from waiting a week to mark as received.

2 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree with this. There's no excuse anymore, especially that now (finally) Steam can have you redeem keys on the site and not through the client itself. Maybe once or twice I ran into an issue where I won a game in the middle of the day, but I was at work and had to wait until I got home to redeem them - that's not a problem anymore. If you can use the internet, you can redeem the game and mark recieved.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But you can't mark as not recieved before 1 week...
If he gave you a wrong key you can't enter any GA for 1 week with your idea ^^'

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ahh ok, I see the flaw in my idea... But perhaps if a bad key is given, you could mark as "not received" prompting the gifter to correct the mistake, and allow the winner the ability to still enter other GAs? The "not received" blemish would only be final after a week perhaps? AFAIK, I think you can change "not received" to "received".

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

We just need 3rd option, "received but not working".

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That would unfortunately stop me from entering competitions though as a user on here did a mass giveaway of a set of keys but used a 3rd unknown game in the collection to set up for cv. Now when I tried to activate the key it wouldn't let me stating I already had the game. Little did I know this game was added to the key I had gotten originally. I have asked for a reroll and never got one and can't do anything other than leave it in unclaimed because admin can't either.

I should probably check game comments to see if there has been an update. Been like it over 18-30 months. (I forget how long ago I got it)

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm with this guy

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This occurred in 2 of my GA's and it took 8 days for reroll , its pretty stressful for the GA creator the way it is...

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This more than ever since saying SG on Steam gets you banned. If people refuse to use SG they forfeit won games automatically, done. No more spam, no more bans, no more giver blaming.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Poor dude over here had faced the issue of his Steam account getting mistakenly banned (Community ban) for trying to notify the winner: https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/LZOKa/steam-account-locked-for-profile-comment-requesting-activation

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I must say I'm quite new on this site but my way to not waste my time with problems like that was making my GAs LVL 3+.

I had many problems with lvl 0 and lvl 1 and some with lvl 2.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

My way is 8+ or WL usually and then nice people like you at low levels get left out just because of few bad apples. This is mostly a problem for me if I get too drunk and make gutter level trains or something and suddenly have 2000 winners I should be contacting since they are taking a months vacation in Siberia without Internet.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you for kind words ;)

That is why I never create GAs when I'm drunk :D

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

People actually do that? Well that explains the low level then :P

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah. I'm only level 6.66 xD

But oh I remember that time when I had to write 5 times and stalk someone for 2 weeks for them to mark the game as received because he already used the key a few minutes after the key was sent... just forgot to click that thing!

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You reach me very soon. I am very sure :o)

And yes all the running that the winners, please please please take their wins after 1-2 weeks, are annoying.
Special when you clearly see how much of them use autojoiners and if you contact the support about a reroll with all infos then partly are that users anyway then faster with the activation as the staff with the reroll request.
So then you have someone that are able to activate the game after 10 days + had work with contacting, screenshots, ticket writing for the reroll and so on. [And yes that are own experiences and not fictional "can maybe happen" situations]

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"Few bad apples" = for sure 2k users+ (lvl 0 users aren't calculated in).

Because "only" 1k are possible at the BL, i kicked all below level 4 and my BL is always full -_-
Soon i need to lift to level 5 and stop with public GA's at level 4 too.
And yes it frustrate me.

To see people that openly share that they use 30 accounts + bots at freebie sites to grab stuff, to see users that grab up to 161 copies of a freebie to give it "generous" away at sg.
Such people aren't filtered with only a level filter (because they aren't low level users) :o(

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I never have this problem because of how I gift my games.

  1. I post in the description that the winner will be contacted by Steam.
  2. Once there is a winner, I sent them a friend invitation on Steam.
  3. If my winner does not respond within a week, I am free to file a ticket for a re-roll.
  4. If my winner does respond, I give him or her the game/key/gift link after having received that response, and I now have a chat log of the receipt of my game.
  5. If my winner does not mark the game "received," I file a ticket for it and include the screenie from #4.

I am only giving away a handful of games at one time, so it is not a problem to withhold the gift until after I am in touch with my winners. Some people give away hundreds of keys at a time, however, so they will distribute the keys automatically instead of manually.

Returning to your suggestion, it is not your responsibility to force your winners to claim their gifts. Getting a re-roll is as simple as showing you have contacted your winner, and that is in your hands. Seeing as how SG now has automatic notification of wins via email, it would make sense to allow re-rolls one week after a giveaway ends. (If a winner claims no email notification was received before a re-roll was granted, whose fault is that?) The only sticking point seems to be if you give out your key or gift link and your winner does not mark "received." This may happen for several different reasons.

  1. The key was invalid.
  2. The key was to the wrong game.
  3. The key was never actually received.
  4. The key was received, but the winner simply did not redeem it.
  5. The winner redeemed the game, but did not mark it received.

It is because people give out the key/gift link/whatever without contacting their winners that re-rolls are not automated. So, it could be argued that re-rolls should be automatic in those cases where the Grace Period has expired and the gift has not already been given (e.g. the key has not yet been viewed). In practice, that is the protocol SG Support currently uses.

3 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And I gifted my games mostly to decent levels and WL just to avoid all that hassle. I would have probably given more to lower levels if it had been that easy and automatic to get a re-roll. And I wait a full month before even asking for one.

SG has a very automatic red notification on top. The winner has only to check this site once a week or maybe twice. Takes 10 secs per week for them and they get rewarded free games for it. It takes far more time than that to enter giveaways unless a bot.

Like at46 said above, obviously only allow automatic re-roll if key hasn't been viewed by winner yet. So the problematic cases might still go to support but most of the one-time visitors to SG wouldn't so you would have less tickets and more time to handle the ones that actually need assistance.

1-3. are only an issue if the winner uses SG to get and check the key so doesn't apply here. They have the week to check what they got if anything.
4-5. are solved by automatically marking all seen keys received a week after viewing. I can understand winning so great a game you forget everything else while playing it for 2 weeks, but not forgetting to complain about not getting it.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So nobody still has any legit reason for this crap? We could start by figuring out what the ??? is in

  1. Punish people for making the site work and grow by giving
  2. ???
  3. Profit
2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What about this unlikely situation:

You made a giveaway for My Friend Pedro, but unfortunately your winner walked on a banana before viewing the key, broke they leg and was hospitalized for more than one week. When going out of the hospital, they discovered that your automated re-rolling system did took their win off their hands, giving it to someone else... and filled a support ticket about that matter!

What would you answer to their ticket?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The exact same thing as if the re-roll ticket was made and handled manually: won games must be accepted within 1 week or too bad, you didn't win a game after all. That's how it works but now we just need support to handle it manually for absolutely no reason.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But handling this manually, I wouldn't re-roll it! The winner, even being late, did nothing against the rules: the banana on the street is against the rules, not the winner themself!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh right, then of course SG should return full price of purchase to the winner and call the FBI to make a lawsuite against the banana.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Here comes the Federal Banana Investigators... 🍌
:facepalm:

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Winning is a matter of luck. If someone has that kind of luck, it means that his luck did it on purpose.
The situation you describe is like learning that you won the lottery, only to have the air take your ticket out of your hands the moment you check the last digit.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I disagree about the comparison with the air: on SG, the lottery ticket comes to the hands of someone else!

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The wind is fickle and fey, blowing itself every which way.

View attached image.
2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Breathe! 🍃

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

View attached image.
2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Are you talking about the banana on his face? 😄

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Same can happen with the lottery ticket. XD

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But not each time, and not if I rewind time! ⌚

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nooooo.
Damn it

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I see what you're trying to say with this example however from the perspective of the GA maker/Support this is what that situation looks like.

GA for My Friend Pedro is created -> GA ends -> Key is sent to the winner -> 7 days pass and the winner has not been online on the site -> Ask for a reroll -> Reroll gets granted because of 7 day rule.

Why should GA creators be expected to chase down and get a line of contact with their winners when they should just ask for a reroll and have it granted? It wasn't the GA creator's fault that the winner couldn't claim it, it sucks that the winner in that scenario had a shitty thing happen to them but that's not the GA maker's doing and they would be completely unaware that any of it was happening.

Also we're talking about games here as well, so it's not like we're giving away something life changing or a basic necessity, there are other games to be won and more opportunities if that unlucky user sticks around.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Counter-example no1 (aka. you don't know, dude!):
One of my carts of the community train 6.0 is awaiting feedback since 3 days.
But when I look at the winner profile page on SG, they are currently also awaiting feedback on not only one but 6 of their GA since 3 days...
Thus, if they don't come back in time, and if I ask for a re-roll of my own GA, then what should happen of their GA in your decision flow? Maybe they really had an accident, after all?

Counter-example no2 (aka. laziness does you well):
GA ends, key is sent, winner doesn't come in 7 days. Hence GA creator is allowed to re-roll.
But nobody among the others asks for anything, like if they're not disputing the win...
Why re-rolling something that is not disputed? Is the rule saying it's mandatory? Can't the creator let some more time to the winner in order for him to get informed he wins something and take his win?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ugh... I had a nice long reply written out and I refreshed the site by mistake and lost it -.-

The short of it is that you can't always count on the winner to be a nice person who just happened to have a bad thing happen to them. Sometimes winners are an absolute pain to deal with.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

...Of laziness and page refreshes... 😕
Hence there may be something to investigate, not each time but sometimes : this doesn't look like something easy to automatize.
At the bare minimum, I think no auto-re-rolling should happen if the winner was offline, if they didn't come on SG at least once during the week after their win, because that's the situation were there's no automated way to decide if the winner knows about their win.
Why not 2 different delays? Like 7 days if online at least once ; and twice or thrice if not? (and keeping the ability for the creator to re-roll manually as it is now)

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

For the 1 in a million winner who actually spends 2 weeks in hospital we have the rest who just refuse to use the site to check and claim their wins purely because they are evil. They already got the notification email if they for some reason can only use email and not a browser. That's exactly the situation where autore-roll should happen even without interaction from the creator.

Why punish givers to favor lazy leecher trolls? Can you answer this why the ones who make the site work at all must be punished? And the ones that try their hardest to make the site not work must be rewarded so they will never learn to act like a human being forever staying bots.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

(...) because they are evil.

Void argument because evil people will always do evil things, so you may end virtually any sentence with the phrase "...because they are evil." ; without this ending being evidence of anything! :-P

That's exactly the situation where autore-roll should happen even without interaction from the creator.

What if I prefer auto-delete? Like in: if winner is a troll, delete this giveaway!
Should SG offer the choice between auto-re-roll and auto-delete and auto-nothing when creating a giveaway?
If so, then some creators will ask for auto-rick-roll, that is, sending a video link they choose before! :-P
That's a neverending story !
And then people will voluntarily refuse to take their wins to see those videos :-DDD

Can you answer this why the ones who make the site work at all must be punished?

I don't agree with the word punishment here, but to answer you I think that's because of inertia. If you had a solution addressing defects without creating new ones, it would be easier to defend. I think it's not the case, and people mostly got used to existing defects, and perhaps don't want to change their habits.
Moreover, there's maybe a perceptive bias on your side because of the huge amount of giveaways you made: chronologically speaking, you encountered issues more often than the average gifter! That's a little like the hole in the road you take everyday versus the hole in the road you take once in a decade... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree fully with the word punishment because that's exactly what it is. Nothing more, nothing less, completely useless hassle to punish those that are foolish enough to make giveaways. WTF has auto-delete have to do with anything? You can make up auto-change-the-game and auto-switch-ga-site-to-gleam all you want but they aren't related to anything sensible either.

My solution creates absolutely 0 new defects while getting rid of very annoying current ones. Literally 0 even if people imagine they can make them up with no relation to reality.

Yes I have the bias of a giver who has been punished by those evil people and retarded useless rules meant only to punish givers, not very surprising. You have the bias of someone who has barely even used the site and has very limited knowledge of how it actually even works.

What do you think benefits the site more, getting only leechers who will never give anything because they know that their kind will make it as annoying as possible OR getting more givers who will give a lot because the site doesn't punish them for it? Which site would you prefer being on?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Auto-delete is related to the moment when a winner is drawn: by requiring auto-deletion of a giveaway if the first drawn winner overlooks its win, the giveaway creator says it's only at that precise moment in time-space that the giveaway ends that a winner may arise, and at no other moment in time-space a new winner may be drawn. That's the principle of a single-draw giveaway, which is not always giving a winner.

Your solution creates at least the defect of changing something – that's not I'm against it ; but I can live without it.
Plus, I think the giveaway creator should be the one to decide, first if a re-roll should occur ; then when. You want this automatic, but it would need to be optional in my eyes... There's a caveat: imagine auto-re-roll is implemented, you are happy with it, then someone tells you that since there's auto-re-roll, there should be auto-join also, along with auto-activation... then site dies out of automatizing everything. First question asked to the coroner: "but why did they implemented auto-re-roll before auto-activation when it's crystal clear that auto-activation solves all matters better than auto-re-roll ?"

That mantra about leechers is a cheerless scarecrow, but auto-re-rolling would only hide (a little) the leechers from givers' field of view instead of scaring them out of SG – plus, it defers more work on support team (like tickets from first winners being re-rolled). Obviously I can't tell you what is better for the site, because we don't know what is its critical mass : more givers looks better at first sight, but only up to less than that mass, not more or it will collapse like a super-nuclear-nova™.

Sorry if your sensibility makes you feels it punishing to have to contact your winners sometimes (did you compiled stats about how often it happens?), but even after reading your other post I'm still asking to myself if and how your auto-re-roll idea is better – that is more fair to all site users – than the auto-activation idea. And yes, I know auto-activation is technically out of reach, but my inner questioning is about fairness, mostly. In other words, it's easy to say the giveaway creator should be able to auto-re-roll to get another correct winner each time ; but on his side no winner can auto-activate to be a correct winner in each situation ever possible (including improbable) : that situation doesn't seems to be equally fair, do it?

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Are giveaways deleted for that reason now? No? So why would something that doesn't happen need to be automated? Please stick to reality. I'm talking about automating a task that is already handled by support manually for no reason.

Change is not a defect when it's for the better and nothing is worse after it. First at all learn to read and second at all learn to read again. I want the handling of the re-roll ticket to be automatic. Wanting to re-roll to get an actual user instead of autojoiner leecherbot is purely voluntary, for it to be fully automatic was just my response to you imagining it should never be automated because you absolutely love autojoiner leecherbots.

Blah blah blah how about you first use the site please and only then come to tell me what absolute fun it is to chase down a ton of autojoiner leecherbots just because they are actively refusing to use this site for anything other than autojoining giveaways. If you feel like it's the best thing ever you can do it on your own time and leave others wtih SG out of it.

It's fair that the people who actually use this sit right here, SG, win games instead of the ones that never even come here. What fucking correct winner? The one that actually uses SG and is here to claim the win? Yeah that's the correct way to do it, your fair way seems to be going to Siberia for 2 months to hide...

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Are giveaways deleted for that reason now? No? (...)

To think about some suggestion, there is two ways: (1) stick to the suggestion to tell about its pros and cons, and (2) open the debate to include neighboring suggestions in order to make comparisons. You want me to stick to the (1), not to the reality.
The purpose of my auto-deletion suggestion was to show there are other desirable features that are not implemented. The fact you personally doesn't desire it is not my point (I don't even myself) : it's about the complexity of thinking features, then implementing them in the site, writing working code, designing usable ergonomics, writing understandable guides & FAQs, pushing all those informations to existing users, etc.

(...) I want the handling of the re-roll ticket to be automatic. Wanting to re-roll to get an actual user instead of autojoiner leecherbot is purely voluntary (...)

You are only supposing this idea to be better, ignoring side-effects like the ones I told you about ; or in other words: automating this precise task will lead some people to ask for automation of other tasks, including those you don't want to be automated: then, would it be fair to refuse?
For example, having auto-deletion makes it possible to give more easily keys with expiry dates ; when auto-re-rolling is of course of no help about that. Other example, you want auto-re-roll mainly to ease your giving experience ; but what about automated checks of activated games like "integrating" SGTools checks? It would also ease your life, wouldn't it? Of course, that's not what you're asking for here, but maybe someone else would prefer that?

(...) tell me what absolute fun it is to chase down a ton of autojoiner leecherbots (...)

At your service, master, you requested and I will obey: Yep, it would be somewhat fun for me to have that much money and time to spend giving games here. 🤑 Are you jealous of the free time people less wealthy than you can enjoy not giving away games?

It's fair that the people who actually use this sit right here, SG, win games instead of the ones that never even come here. (...)

No, that's not, someone's luck is not linked to the duration or frequency of their visits on the site ; and fairness is not about luck.
If someone enters a giveaway right before going 2 months to Siberia, that's maybe because one misread the ending date... only a little human error, and you're jumping in calling out an autojoiner leecherbot!

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Automating something still requires for it to be happening manually now. Otherwise you're not suggesting automation but a new feature for which you are free to make your own thread where it's somehow related. That's the reality, not your 1 or 2.

No I'm not supposing anything but I fully well know both from long practice and well thought theory. You on the other hand are just making things up. So now it's a slippery slope? If we automate something trivial that is happening manually for no reason now, then we're going to have to make murder legal and then automate murder of all people. Yeah nope, just stick to the reality please. Automating 1 manual feature does not mean in any way or form that we must get all other new features and then automate those too. If you still stick to your silly theory about the slippery slope you're just pro-murder.

Is it somehow fair to make everyone else wait weeks and spend time on hunting you down just to give you a free game you first wanted and then decided to run away from? Is it polite to imagine the most important thing is you getting the free game that you actively refuse to get? Wouldn't it be equally fair to give wins only to people who actually use this site ever? Try to think about someone else too? The winner didn't make the giveaway, they didn't spend any time with their autojoiner script and then they have some superhuman right to make others work even more for them when they are the ones refusing to accept a free game.

How about you stop coming up with silly crap that has no relation to reality based on your very limited experience of this site? I'm still talking about people who actually use this site and want to give and win games. If that doesn't include you then you can just make your own suggestion thread to favor leecherbots even more and make everyone so annoyed that they will stop giving anything at all. You do realize that the givers are the ones making the site work, not the leechers? There are always 1000s of new leechers in line if one doesn't want the free game, but where are you finding 1000 more givers?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm suggesting nothing, and I don't know what is precisely the available workforce to implement suggestions. I was previously saying I'm not against your proposal, but I can live without it. You said your experience told you your suggestion is trivial, but it is not implemented yet? Either it's not trivial, either there's no workforce at all, either there's a caveat you can't see from your point of view, either <insert other idea here>... I'm not making things up but trying to discuss about caveats, but I'm quite alone there because you're stating again and again similar points of view with the intent to defend your conclusions (that's a reversed reasoning, from the conclusion you are defending to the ways to come to it). I'm clearly not pro-murder, because my avatar is a flower I am pro-flowers, that's obvious. The slippery slope is of course not real, I was providing ideas of other things because sometimes when a problem appears and an idea to solve it easily shows up ; there's in fact another better way to solve it, less obvious, but worth enough to look for it : there you're not really openly sharing your long experience about it. About fairness and waiting weeks, you're looking at the re-roll like if it's meant to be a lawful right of others when in reality they didn't won the giveaway the first time! Again, luck is not fair: for example there's people just going to buy a game after they didn't won, so when you re-roll, there's clearly nothing trivial at all to do behind the scene! (either by code, either by support team!) What fairness is about is not the draw itself. Listen, you can create giveaways lasting one full month, that is, the giveaway creators can come here and actively use the site only once per full month ; and you're willing winners to come more often, else punish them, and you feel punished yourself when they're not punished... hey, but why so much hate? If you want users to come at least once per week, then it is in my opinion 100% fair to ask creators to make only shorter giveaways! (but I'm okay with the one month duration) Even if I'm quite inexperienced here, I feel all my silly crap is worth enough to post it, even if that is looking unreal to you, your questions about the givers making the site works are for me enormous blinking red lights you overlooked something real: listen, in a family, that's the parents that makes its living, not the children ; but no way that would give parents right to dispose of their children: things are more complex, much more, and children's voices are to be heard also, I think that's fair, don't you? So now you read this previous line, try to read again my previous post about no-auto-activation and being equally fair... aaannd, then tell me what you think about that! Is your presumably-trivial solution solving the problem you want to solve the correct way to fairly solve the said problem? And in fact did you correctly described the problem? Is it the site design? Or your feeling of being punished? As of now, I've read no explanation showing that your feeling of being punished, even backed by your valuable experience, is any evidence of a defect in the site design! Maybe you should just try not to feel things the way you're now feeling them? Or maybe you're right, and I'm only posting silly crappy posts backed by my invaluable stupidity, and the site is being invaded by leecherbots like an army Zerglings from Starcraft genetically modified with ADN from insectoïds from Starship Troopers... Tell me, please! I've already asked if you compiled stats about that? how many re-rolling tickets did you had to make over years? For example, about myself, I had to make 2 re-roll tickets right after my first 3 giveaways here, that's a mere 66% tickets over giveaways ratio, very high ratio for sure... and I did more giveaways since (19 total), not more tickets, so it decreased to about 10,5%. What's about you? How many tickets? Tell me! 🌸

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wall of text based on not using the site, no thanks. Nothing you have said has been worth reading and now I'll just stop doing it. Have fun making your own suggestion threads based on your ideals of making life easier for leecherbots.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

MEOW !

View attached image.
2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Dude... Chill out. You're getting too worked up, here, and you're sliding into insult mode. (Which is not a good thing.)

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I am always chill, but why shouldn't I get annoyed when people keep telling me completely made up scenarios and results of a very simple change only because they don't seem to have used this site that much or know how it works? That's insulting if anything. Not me telling them that their made up stuff is just that, silly made up stuff. Or would you consider it a good thing if for every one of your messages I would come in and tell you that whatever you said will lead to something completely unrelated?

And even you can't argue that the unformatted wall of text wasn't the very definition of TL;DR.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

TL;DR ---> gimme numbers :)

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

While I can see how you might be annoyed, the points he was raising are valid. To you, they may seem to be "made-up scenarios," but to those of us in Support, we actually see such scenarios all too regularly.

As for the wall of text, I actually read it and therefore know what was in it. Granted, it could have been summarized, but people have a tendency toward verbosity when they do not feel "heard." You are not the only one feeling frustration, here.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You see allowing automated re-rolls for winners who have been AFK for a week lead to scenarios where the creator is allowed to either re-roll or delete giveaway just to choose a winner they like? Doesn't sound very regular to me but I guess I must've missed something then...

I didn't read it and never will, which is why it's only polite to inform the other party of it instead of them imagining it was read and more of the same is needed. Expanding the same made up non-existing stuff to a million pages of text doesn't still make it real or anyone want to read it more. So if people feel a need to be heard, they might first come up with something interesting and well thought of to say and then just say it. If they refuse to do that it must mean that what you wrote to me will lead to the complete destruction of SG at midnight GMT on new year's eve. Since you know from your experience in support that such scenarios always come true you must now either delete your post or accept that nothing of worth was said, your choice.

Or at least show me 1 valid point anywhere in that?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I do not know how you are intending your reply, but it is coming off as sarcastic, condescending, and stiff-necked. Setting aside all of that, you made a request:

Or at least show me 1 valid point anywhere in that?

I will therefore limit myself to one.

I was providing ideas of other things because sometimes when a problem appears and an idea to solve it easily shows up ; there's in fact another better way to solve it, less obvious, but worth enough to look for it

My reason for pointing this out is to encourage you to focus more on seeking solutions and less on defending yourself. You seem to be taking the constructive criticism of others as a personal attack rather than an exchange of ideas.

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ending of 2nd paragraph was fully sarcastic to further make my point if you missed that. You argued that completely irrelevant and made up problems are valid points and I provided you my own just to illustrate how pointless it actually is unless based on reality. I fully know problems can arise but I'd imagine I would be far better in creating them if that was somehow my wish. It usually is quite obvious to me if something can be abused and how unless it requires some specific technical knowledge. Of course I can be proven wrong by coming up with actual and only actual problems that might happen. Hasn't happened yet in this thread.

The "valid point" you picked is either so generic it has no value or defending points that made no sense. So there was nothing constructive in it because it wasn't based on actual experience using this site but rather making up things. There is still no mass deletion of GAs or choosing the winner you want coming if my suggestion goes through or are you really arguing otherwise? Those are the points you seem to be defending, not some metatalk about the point of the points.

I'm the one seeking a solution here if you missed that point while some others are trying to make up silly problems. I don't see it as any sort of personal attack unless you count spamming me with walls of text I already know are so boring and void of content that I'm never going to read them as such. They are attacks on common sense and basing your opinions on actual experience if anything. And those are also the things I'm defending instead of myself. Everyone is still completely free to prove me wrong and I'm the first to admit it.

Here's a perfect example of what you seem to imagine is a valid constructive critical point: "If you as a mod tell anyone that they should act nicer, it might create the problem that then SG support will have to solve all the world's problems." Now will you act upon that point or even think the point makes any sense or just tell me it's a silly point that has nothing to do with reality? And where are all these criticisms in your version of the 2 buttons below? Suddenly when you said it they became pointless but for me they are valid for the exact same thing?

I have absolutely nothing against exchanging ideas like you see here every time someone who has actually used the site and knows how it works says something instead of creating imaginary problems. If you want to support everyone's imaginations on top of the actual site, feel free to do so but don't assume everyone is even remotely interested in that.

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If I understood correctly, you're arguing for giving the GA creator the power to auto-reroll the winner after 1 week, without showing proof of contact. If the gifter does not like their winner for whatever reason, this rule can be abused by gifters to just wait a week and reroll. (Although gifters do risk report from the winner.)

Another potential issue I see is people use this to gain level by gifting gifts to their own account. Have 5 bot accounts, reroll a few times (taking weeks) and ensure the game goes to your account of choice while earning the level for whatever account they use. With the current system, to achieve this, the number of reroll requests would raise a red flag to support.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Who does like people who go away for weeks and make you wait? But how can it be abused exactly? Re-roll happens after a week of them playing AFK no matter if it's automatic or manual. So are you suggesting they somehow take out the winners internet or beat them up so they'll spend a week in a hospital? Abuse would requite some way to prevent them from claiming the win during the week.

Same thing here, running 5 bots just in case 1 of your winners goes MIA and after a week the re-roll happens to hit your bot sounds quite farfetched. And not just 1 but each and every winner you get re-rolled to has to be away for exactly that week one after another until you hit your bot. And even if by some win the lottery twice type of luck they get through, what's stopping the automatic system from raising red flags for the support if it happens several times in 1 giveaway.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

......... uhm.... I think there is a pretty big misunderstanding here.....

The first case does not involve an AFK winner. It's the case where the winner is ready to accept the gift but the gifter does not want to give it for whatever reason.

The second case does not involve anyone else at all, with an invite-only or group GA with no one joining else except for the main account and 5 bot accounts entering GA. The person gets to pick who the winner is among the 5 bot accounts, given enough time.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So in the first case nothing happens since the winner checks daily if they got a game yet or not instead of disappearing for weeks. And after a week of getting no game they will mark it as not received.

And the second case first there are only your bot accounts entering and then suddenly you need to wait weeks so you can pick another of your own bot accounts to win the game for some mysterious reason.

Neither of those make any sense really and they aren't in any way prevented by the current system either.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Since new users with no idea how this site works are coming up with scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with my suggestion, let's make it as simple as possible:

1) GA ends and winner is picked
2) Winner doesn't even log in SG for 2 weeks (this is required and the whole point, people who don't use this site at all)
3a) Creator waits a week and then has to spam their Steam and email for absolutely no reason at all and show proof of it and wait for the ticket to be handled manually.
3b) Creator waits a week and presses re-roll button
4) Creator gets a new winner who accepts the game right away (or we go back to 2 with more bad luck)

Literally the only difference is in step 3 where a is the current model and b is my suggestion and it doesn't suddenly give you a mystical power to pick any winner unless you have some guaranteed way to keep every winner until that one in a hospital for that exact week.

The winner has got 2 notifications already about their win, both a red number here which they would see if they ever used the site for anything other than autojoining bots and the email they get about it if they want. So why aren't those notifications enough for everyone?

Bonus question: how does the current system exactly prevent the evil creator who doesn't want to give the game away after all from doing this: spam a notification on winner's Steam and still refuse to give the game to them? How is that spam proof of them giving the game and not just exactly what it is: useless spam?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I suspect that this mostly happens with newcomers and low-level users but out of curiosity, do you guys commonly get this issue with people that are level 3 or higher? From a data perspective, it would be very interesting to know what level this kind of thing mostly plateau's at (if at all)

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well I kept my GAs usually at level 7+ to avoid hassle. And yes it happens even at higher levels but of course less often the higher you go. But it hardly matters who it is, unlike some noobs seem to imagine that this suggestion some how mystically leads to being able to choose a winner, when it will annoy you the exact same amount when the winner goes AFK be it level 0 or 10.

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think it makes sense to allow an automated re-roll if the key has not been viewed by the winner after 7 days.

*

Here's a question about the current system:

For key giveaways (as opposed to actual "Steam gifts" of course), does clicking the "send key" button count as "proof" that the winner has been contacted? Or is a separate form of "proof" required?

*

Also, just for the hell of it, I checked my own experience on this topic, because this has not been an issue for me, and I was curious to see the actual numbers.

Total giveaways = 3,967
Total re-rolls requested because the winner did not view the key and could not be reached = 1

I've had have maybe 6-8 winners who didn't redeem the key within 7 days, but I sent them a message and they eventually responded. A couple of them were on vacation with no access to Steam, not sure about the rest.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No it's no kind of proof that you actually sent a key since support can't see if you did or not without you making a screenshot of it. But then you can just spam their Steam profile without ever giving them a key and it's suddenly valid proof.

I don't really know about numbers since I've almost always waited a full month for the winner to accept a free game. But even that is not enough for some on a level that made me get annoyed by them.

The whole point is that it shouldn't be the creator's responsibility to send any messages at all outside of giving the game of course. If the winner has any access to the Internet they can read the email or come here and see they won a game and then they can send the message that they will be unable to redeem the key for x days more or whatever. If they don't have any access it's completely pointless to spam them more.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

As far as moderation goes, this site has relied heavily upon our users to police themselves and take personal responsibility for their interactions (both with the site and with each other). With the introduction of "bots," some users have attempted to shift the burden of interaction away from themselves, and whether or not they succeed in doing so, the burden of responsibility remains. The creators of the giveaways have things they need to do, and the entrants/winners of the giveaways have things they need to do.

Up until now, there have been good reasons why the process of re-rolling has not been automated, but most of those reasons are no longer applicable. It then becomes a matter of what responsibilities each user has, and to what extent the required interactions should be automated. Specifically, ...

  • Creation of a desired giveaway is upon its creator. (A manual process, but there are tools to help facilitate it.)
  • Entering a particular giveaway is upon its entrant. (Supposedly a manual process, but a "bot" would make this automated.)
  • Handling of a particular giveaway's ending (deletion or delivery of gift) is upon its creator. (Can be an automated process.)
  • Contacting the winner of a giveaway is upon its creator. (This has been automated by the site.)
  • Accepting delivery of the gift is upon the winner of the giveaway. (Still a manual process as automation is complicated.)

Looking at that list, the creation of a giveaway requires an active creator, and the ending of a giveaway requires an active recipient. Those are the two "sticking points." The suggestion of automating re-rolls after expiration of the Grace Period is a request for a tool to help with the process of handling the giveaway's ending should the process become "stuck" at it's final stage. We have a precedent of such tools being made available to both parties, the giver and the receiver.

  • The automated email sent out to notify a winner helps the creator by removing the burden or contacting the winner.
  • The toggles of "sent" and "received/not received" were added to track the status of the gift for both creator and winner.
  • The addition of a field for "game key" in the giveaway's creation removes the burden of manually distributing keys and tracking whether or not those keys have been "viewed" by their winners.

All of the above being true, it would make sense for two more tools be available:

  1. A "button" for the winner to request a re-roll. Such a re-roll should be granted automatically if there is a key entered for the giveaway and that key has not been viewed by the winner. Otherwise, the re-roll should be handled by Support.
  2. A "button" for the creator to request a re-roll. Such a re-roll should be granted automatically if there is a key entered for the giveaway, and that key has not been viewed by the winner, and the winner has not marked the gift as "received/not received," and the Grace Period has expired, and two additional days are given for the winner to mark the gift "received/not received." Otherwise, the re-roll should be handled by Support.

While there will be situations which result in a legitimate winner being unable to claim his or her gift in a timely manner, it seems to me that 95% of all cases would be resolved fairly if implemented as detailed above. Support would still handle all cases not resolved by automation, and the burden of creation and participation would still remain on the respective parties.

That is my current opinion on this matter.

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

it seems to me that 95% of all cases would be resolved fairly if implemented as detailed above. Support would still handle all cases not resolved by automation, and the burden of creation and participation would still remain on the respective parties.

Well said. So less hassle for both the givers and support at the expense of people who aren't using the site not winning a game. No nightmare scenarios leading to deletion of all giveaways or anything, just a better site for people who use and support it.

For the 5% who have an acceptable reason to be offline, it's not like Steam or any other site out there occasionally handing out free games will give it to you 2 weeks later no matter how sick or unfortunate you have been. Nor do they give the same sale prices later or accept expired coupons. So there isn't any reason for SG to support that either. If you're in a hospital for 2 weeks you have quite a bit bigger problems than losing out on 1 free game.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I like your suggestions for the extra tools. I'm actually cuurently facing the situation you mentioned in your first suggestion. It is hard to get a re-roll when the giveaway creator is ignoring you and has blocked you. Finally had no choice but to open a ticket with support asking for a re-roll as I haven't even revealed the key. All of this would have been simpler if the winner had the chance to request re-rolls. Maybe we can have such a feature in the future.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

why not make the button available for any participant of the GA?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Because the burden of action should be limited to the creator and winner of the giveaway. Those two should be the ones to resolve any issues which might come up.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Let me just give you an example
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/uOUS0/lewdapocalypse-hentai-evil/winners/search?page=3
The GA ended more than 4 months ago. In what way SteamGifts and its users could be harmed if those 2 winners were automatically re-rolled or any participant had a button to re-roll them? (I didn't take part in the GA)

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Participants asking for a reroll is not something that should be implemented because of abuse. Sometimes a GA can be left in awaiting feedback because the key was bust and the GA maker is getting a hold of a new one, or maybe the game is an unreleased game and there is nothing to be gifted. These are 2 examples that I have had in both GAs I've made and GAs I've won, in both of those the number of days has been longer than 7 (sometimes a few months or years).

I understand the point of using a cheap game as an example but... if the GA creator is happy to not chase/reroll the winners and the winners are happy to not mark the game as not received then there's nothing to be done in this case.

The decision for a reroll should fall on the creator of the GA only (with a supporting message from the winner depending on the case), they should choose when the reroll happens, aside from them refusing to provide a key/gift to the winner and wanting a new winner for the sake of it.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Let's assume a giveaway, like in the case above, ended more than a month ago, keys were sent, but not viewed by winners. The re-roll button appears If all these conditions are met. What kind of abuse could happen?

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The wnner can ask for a reroll at any point, the business of delivering is solely between creator and winner, and involves the site support of needed.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

In what way SteamGifts and its users could be harmed if those 2 winners were automatically re-rolled or any participant had a button to re-roll them?

If you give other participants the ability to re-roll a giveaway, you are: a) taking control of the giveaway away from its creator;
and b) denying agency of its winner in any resolution of the win. An analogy would be Amazon contacting a customer to negotiate delivery of a package, and someone else stealing the package.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Good idea with the 2 new "buttons"

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.