Uh, I hope I don't sound like a total git here, but how are these guidelines different than the current ones? Is there a changelong or something? It looks like business as usual as far as I can tell.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a general change of tone, from "you shouldn't do this" to "you cannot / must not do this", making these sound more like proper rules that you must abide to, rather than guidelines that you are simply expected to follow.
In the "Giveaways" section, there's a new line about suspended accounts not being eligible to be selected as winners, and a much needed clarification about not being allowed to remove won games from your library after activation (which was just implied before).
Last, but -definitely- not least, the most notable change is the addition of two new sections: "User Content", expanding on rules formerly found under "General", explaining what can and cannot be posted, with provided examples; and "Advertising", a reworking of the old "When posting links or content, that content should not force users, encourage users through rewards, etc..." rule, which was kinda vague before, and sparked a lot of controversy due to multiple different -often wildly contrasting- interpretations.
Comment has been collapsed.
These guidelines don't mean anything if they're not enforced. I opened a support ticket to report a really nasty comment 3 days ago, and the comment is still there and the support ticket untouched.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh. When I heard the name of self professed goatfucker and bestiality advocate Elon Musk I expected a slightly different joke.
See? When he can make such outlandish unbased accusations about other people so can I :D
Also are you sure you got suspended for using the n word and not for begging or a little bit of this, a little bit of that?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok. That seems a bit over the top then. In my opinion when it comes to racism, specifically rastist slurs, it's the intent that matters. But apparently americans tend to see that differently, probably because the opression of POC is more prevalent there.
I once got scolded by one of my ME3 buddies (people I had played with for hundreds of hours and who definetely knew I'm not racist) for quoting the Samuel L. Jackson monologue from Jacky Brown where he gushes about the Steyr AUG and coincidentally also uses the n word. I corrected him that I absolutely can because I wasn't calling anybody that I was quoting from a movie.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the situation is somewhat different there because while several european countries did act as go between in the transatlantic slave trade (and vastly profited from it) we didn't bring large numbers of african people to europe to work the fields. Space is limited in europe and there were plenty of people already here to do that so there simply was no need. (not out of moral superiority as can be seen that they had absolutely no problem acting as slave traders)
It's not one of Tarantino's best in my opinion but it has it's moments ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeeah, but no.
C'mon, not even you can disagree with the fact that the n-word you used it just a write-around for the proper n-word, and as such, carries as much weight as the ''correct'' one. If we are are allowed to randomly insert n-words or equivalents, or their non-direct-substitutes, into any joke or discussion, this site will quickly turn into a bad place.
I have no knowledge of the incident/ban/discussion you talk about above, but I do agree with mods that none of us should not write stuff like that. Maybe you and the direct recipient will see the (non-PC) joke, but others might be very hurt by it.
Comment has been collapsed.
1)
For example, do not ask others if they are interested in buying your leftover keys from a recent bundle purchase, or link to keys for sale on sites such as Kinguin, G2A, or Eneba.
IF the grey market sites are not allowed to be linked here, could they also be removed from the calculations used for determining the lowest price (for determining "bundle, unbundle, or free" status) of an item? Plenty of our users would never use such a website, if linking to such a website by users is prohibited, why should support use the same banned site for calculating a "bundle/sale price"?
EDIT Source: this comment by a super-mod and this thread. It just smacks a wee bit of hypocrisy to say "we discourage buying from there, buying from there is bad, don't buy from there--but we'll assume you did anyway and assign reduced-CV to you as if you did buy from there." This applies the penalty for wrongdoing to all, thus meaning it really doesn't matter where one buys the thing from if one's goal is cv. It breaks the good eggs to catch a few bad eggs.
Perhaps giveaways featuring Giftlinks for monthly games could be treated differently than giveaways with keys? Or, perhaps CV could be retroactively raised by supplying screenshots of the HB page claimed to your HB username (it would help if it is the same username as here) and the giftlink/key--after the giveaway in question has been "marked as received" by the winner. Support can easily check the giftlinks/steam codes used for a giveaway. This way, the legit purchasers who provide proof (easy enough to do, especially if support provides the ability to upload pics in support tickets) have an option to get full cv if the price otherwise supports giving full-cv, while those who don't care or who cannot provide the proof get reduced-cv. Perhaps such a policy should be implemented going forward, not retroactive to previous months, so as to avoid floods of CV-related tickets. 乁( ◔ ౪◔)ㄏ
4)
sharing a GoFundMe to raise money for a family member or friend.
EDIT: Currently, there are some threads about some horrible disease or other asking for donations to some personal or medical website (eg American Cancer Society, a Lyme Disease foundation, BCRF, etc.) from which the OP might at some point get aid for their own medical condition--are these now not allowed? I would hate for people to not be able to have a real link (obviously a fake link should be punished, if intentional) to (or plea for) a worthy cause (which helps humanity in general, especially if medical) just in case the OP has or knows someone who has some dread disease. Again, this could be on a case-by-case basis, but banning all such seems to be a Bad Idea.
6)
Illegal content.
Illegal for which country? What if the winner belongs to a country which is under embargo from the gifter's country? It might be a criminal action for the gifter to send the the key to that winner!
9)
Overall, I appreciate the effort that CG and the support team have put into this, thank you! :D
Comment has been collapsed.
could they also be removed from the calculations used for determining the lowest price (for determining "bundle, unbundle, or free" status) of an item?
I think the assumption that grey market is used to determine Reduced Value is incorrect.
I tend to hear that a game gets reduced value if the price of the bundle/tier causes the game to be "valued" something like 5-10 times less than Steam's retail price.
Example 1: 5 other games are in a bundle for $8. $8/5=$1.60 "value" per game. All those games are highly likely to be given "Reduced Value"
Example 2: 1 game is in T3 of a bundle for $15. It will likely NOT be Reduced Value because at most it would only be 4 times less than any rational Steam retail ($60).
So the (vague) portion of the FAQ that relates to this is:
Games typically receive
no value orreduced value when they're featured in bundles, heavily discounted, oravailable for free in online promotions.
So as you can see, Reduced Value can be determined without ever looking up a grey market price.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dozens of games from old Humble Monthlies that never crossed the "95% discount" threshold in an official sale or bundle were added to the bundled list early this year when they showed up on all the grey market resellers for ~$0.25 prices.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then I do agree that there's some reconciling needed between the grey market rule and mods using the grey market to reduce game value.
Comment has been collapsed.
This may be up for discussion, so don't take this statement to be the final word, but I see it this way:
An SG user may buy whatever keys theywant from whatever source, no matter how reliable, and offer them here as a giveaway. We have no way of knowing what the source of a key is on our end. If said key is procured from a shady site at a steep discount, then they have the ability to potentially abuse the CV system. If a key can be obtained for such a reduced rate, I think it's appropriate to reduce the CV awarded when we identify these cases.
That being said, we still don't want to direct traffic to a possible bad actor and/or encourage dealing with them, hence the rule about linking to them.
Comment has been collapsed.
That makes sense, thanks.
I just wanted to make sure we could reference grey market sites without linking to them, which would be more important for informative threads like "Where are those giveaways coming from?" where we cannot learn this information from other commonly referenced sites like ITAD or Barter.
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate the response. In spirit i agree with you, but....
Many of us have never and would never use a grey market site. This statement makes it sound like it would be a case-by-case basis, not an automatic "it's in a monthly we must mark it as bundled" response. Re-reading TempeteJoachim's comment, that is not how I understood the intention, anyway.
I personally feel that in the desire to discourage all bad eggs, you have (hopefully inadvertently) hurt many good eggs.
Since HB no longer allows the purchase of more than one monthly, perhaps something could be done along the lines of "one copy can be given as not-reduced, but a second copy is reduced" or manually set them to full value if screenshots were provided to support--post giveaway ending--to show "here's the gift link/key i purchased from humble with my email, you can verify it is the same gift link/key I gave away and thus assign Full CV"?
I appreciate all your responses in this thread and have no issues with you personally, just a wee bit of frustration with the way things have been and a hope that by speaking up (loudly?) I can be heard and some concerns addressed while things are being changed anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate your response. That is how it used to be (I believe the threshold is 90-95% off) , but at some point, the value was--as I understand it--changed to include "grey market" sites.
Source: see this and especially this which quotes a super-mod. I would understand and appreciate if it was as you describe, but I fear that it is not
I think the actual events went beyond what the support estimated, as most monthly games are now on the bundled list automatically without checking to see or calculate the individual "value" for RV.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just pointing out a little technicality here:
As "comments" happen in "Discussions", please explain the difference here.
This statement isn't true. Comments can happen in giveaways too and I have had people advertising their own stuff in the comments of my giveaways that's not relevant to the GA/conversation :P
Comment has been collapsed.
That is something I had not considered, and I appreciate the correction/addition.
However, my point was that many comments are like these, in a discussion. 乁( ◔ ౪◔)ㄏ
Comment has been collapsed.
IF the grey market sites are not allowed to be linked here, could they also be removed from the calculations used for determining the lowest price (for determining "bundle, unbundle, or free" status) of an item? Plenty of our users would never use such a website, if linking to such a website by users is prohibited, why should support use the same banned site for calculating a "bundle/sale price"?
"Not allowed to be linked" does not means automatically "not allowed to be used to buy keys for giveaways". And source of the key can't be checked anyway. So I guess everything is fine as it is.
inconsistency in the punishment
Good point. Would be nice to have a table of "violation: punishment". Or even "violation: 1st time punishment : reoccurring punishment".
if I then respond (which copies that link and uses it in my response) is this banned?
Wrong, it does not copies the link, unless you copy it manually. And if you copy it - then it's up to you to make sure it's not with reflink. Or, you can just disable reflinks and you'll never have any issue with copying it)
As "comments" often/usually happen in "Discussions" (and all discussions by their very nature ought to/must have comments in order to be a discussion and not a speech; this section is not called "speeches" but rather "discussions"), please explain the difference here.
Comments can happen in giveaways too. And the difference is - discussion is FIRST post, comments - are all the rest. It's obvious.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) Okay, i agree with you except for one thing--screenshots. Screenshots of the giftlink (being sent to your email or otherwise), a screenshot of the key revealed on a bundlestars etc page with your account name shown (for this your account name should match your steam/steamgifts username), or similar. Perhaps it is more headaches for all, perhaps not.
2) One thing which I just thought of which contradicts my own arguement: how the enduser receives such punishment for a valid offense. Do they 1) argue about how it wasn't them? 2) Accept it with grace and move on? 3) Will a mere warning work on them? etc? This perhaps depends on how often they have run afoul of the rules, whether they understood the rule at all in the first place (due to language or other barriers) or similar. But yeah.
3) I see, thank you. I know SG gets some amount of revenue via reflinks to Humble, Steam, etc; I did not know if this was automatic, only if there is no other reflink, etc. I'm not sure how to turn them off, but I can investigate.
4) Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it. This clears up at least some of my confusion regarding my point 8). I'm not sure I wholeheartedly agree with the rules (if someone made a post about a topic and at the bottom included a link to their steam curator where they mostly review the issue at hand, then I see this as being alright, provided the "curator" bit is not the main thrust of the article. However, rules are rules and I shall endevour to do my best to abide by them.
Comment has been collapsed.
1). And who will check those screenshots? Testing every giveaway manually is not the work any sane amount of moderators can handle.
....
3) https://www.steamgifts.com/account/settings/referrals
Comment has been collapsed.
1) Okay, I see your point. I was just suggesting it, I/m not willing to claim my way is better.
3) Thank you. I had forgotten about that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good point. Would be nice to have a table of "violation: punishment". Or even "violation: 1st time punishment : reoccurring punishment".
There is a table, bottom of the page. Typically, suspension length is doubled for each additional offense, but often seems to be left to the discretion of the moderator handling the ticket.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice, I totally forgot about this table. It could be a bit more verbose though, for example - what is the punishment for using auto-joiner scripts? And maybe words about suspension on reoccurring violation should be added to guidelines.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would appreciate if those things still in this post above could be addressed before the new rules go live.
-
I do understand from other users that screenshots is perhaps not the way to go, but it still seems unfair to punish those of us who only get our keys from legit sites by treating our giveaways as if we purchased them from G2A etc. If some thought could be given to this, this would be appreciated.
-
I do feel quite strongly about my point about posts whose goal is to raise money for legit medical research foundations or to bring awareness about said disease.
-
Some countries are on a US or other country's embargo list. It might be illegal for some users from one of these countries to send a steam key to a user from another specific country. Advice would be appreciated.
-
If there was a time limit for limited-time giveaways (ie "such-and-so game is given away by humble, but the keys expire/are revoked after [insert date]") after which date the game returns to its previous state on the bundled or unbundled list and is removed from the "free games" list. As those keys which were given for free would be revoked after said date, this would be greatly appreciated and would only be fair.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see any rule that adds objectivity or criteria* to the bundled games. Games will still be bundled for any reason.
I don't see any rule that limits the powers of mods or their free will to act against anyone for any reason.
The basis of this site will remains the same. No problems will be solved.
Nothing will be changed or even clarified. Why care to exchange six to half dozen?
Comment has been collapsed.
I have only ever heard that a game gets reduced value if the price of the bundle/tier causes the game to be "valued" something like 5-10 times less than Steam's retail price. That seems to be the unwritten rule, given that some games in high cost or high tier bundles do NOT get Reduced Values.
Comment has been collapsed.
seems to be
condition number one.
unwritten rule
condition number two over condition number one.
when someone try to put in words to explain what actually happens, this seems worst than actually is. that's the point...
Comment has been collapsed.
the game to be "valued" something like 5-10 times less than Steam's retail pric
It's a bit hard to say what things are like now, given that we've seen a small number of staff members approach site rules with either carelessness or arbitrariness. Since Shobo left and general staff picked up his duties, we've seen at least one staff member approach the list with such an outlook. The main issue with the site's CV reduction lists right now is in their having a lack of any sort of oversight or internal guidelines, along with the risk of certain staff members approaching the lists in a manner that is inconsiderate of past guidelines, of site users, and of their fellow staff members.
In any case, as I recall them, the official Shobo-era guidelines were:
Games are meant to be added to the bundle list if their promotion is likely to be exploited for a CV gain that would unfairly balance against typical discounts. [Note, the bundle list reduction is down to 15% CV and, as such, we can assume that anything at an 85% or higher discount is intended to be within the potential scope of bundle listing.]
If it is proven to not have been exploited to any meaningful measure, it may end up removed from the list later on. List addition is guaranteed at 95+% discounts but, to avoid exploitation of games that just barely miss that threshold, the range is fluid, and based in a consideration of how many copies of the game were given away.
Generally, in practice, anything above 85% has typically been considered mildly at-risk, anything in the 90-93% range has been considered moderately at-risk, and anything above 93% has a firm assumption of being in line for bundle-listing, assuming a high enough quantity was available for exploitation to have occurred.
So, while there are some legitimate concerns as far as to how the current staff members may be handling the list [in an uncoordinated manner with no consistent internal rules], any uncertainty from the previous guidelines was entirely intentional. That's not to say that Shobo did a perfect job, but that he did not, in fact, add games to the list "for any reason" nor could he offer entirely firm guidelines for what would qualify for list addition [as that would defeat the entire purpose of having the primary intention of the list be to combat exploitation].
[Though, technically, you could just consider 85% the cut-off and anything that doesn't get bundle-listed beyond that point as a passing grace by the site staff. May make for a less upsetting outlook for those having issues with the bundle list system than an outlook of "why did this game that didn't quite make 95% get bundle-listed", anyway.]
In any case, by previous standards, so long as one made sure that the game wasn't above an 88% discount in any region, it has been considered as being extremely unlikely that there would be any issues. Though, since Shobo left, there has been an issue with staff setting the start of the promotion date incorrectly, catching sales that preceeded the one which qualified the game for bundle-listing.
It's my understanding that I've lost a good handful of unbundled CV to that, and the staff members involved with thise matters never responded with any sort of justification for the apparent mis-dating. So yeah, I guess that could be something that people could reasonably ask for more reliable handling of.
The general foundation behind the bundle list guidelines seems rather reasonable, however, at least within the structure it is intended to support.
As far as Vini's example of the June 2019 Humble Bundle, it had a Steam retail of $79.44 and a regional price of $7 which, I believe, puts the discount below 91%. Humble Monthlies, due to their mystery factor, have stuck rather close to the 95% margin. As such, I'm a bit bewildered by that situation, myself [especially given that only small handful of regions managed the $7, their inclusion only works by way of treating $5 store credit as a direct discount, and none of the games they received were early reveals].
Thus, despite how this topic was presented, there does seem to be a reasonable enough justification behind the sentiment. That is to say, if such a bundle was bundled solely off its discount (in rather firm rejection of previously established expectations), then there's basically no way to make predictions as to what will and will not be bundle-listed in the future. As such, along with the matter I mentioned above, there are certainly some things staff could make more reliable or, at the very least, be willing to accompany with explanations in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
don't see any rule that adds objectivity or criteria* to the bundled games. Games will still be bundled for any reason.
This rule is exist, and it's pretty clear. But I agree the it should be written.
Comment has been collapsed.
If anything is sold anywhere with a price less than 5% from US price - it's added to bundled games list.
Comment has been collapsed.
June 2019 humble monthly bundle was valued as $139 for $12, but Call of Duty Back Ops was there taking almost 30% of the price. Same goes for May, Feb, Oct and Jun that raises the price even more because other DRM. Also, almost them all are around 7%~9% US price, but they all ended up bundled. Same happens when non-official stores set low prices by resellers due region price benefits. They set low prices and those titles end up bundled (and SteamGifts bundler doesn't even know how many copies are being sold at lowest price, which makes things even more arbitrary)*. This doesn't seem "pretty clear" at all. Actually, the "rule" doesn't even seems to exists.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same happens when non-official stores set low prices by resellers due region price benefits.
is sold anywhere
Just like I said.
June 2019 humble - 6 steam games for $12, so $2 per game. it's 5% of us price. It works.
Comment has been collapsed.
I made a guess above how it was counted. I'm not a support member though, you can file a ticket and ask the exact reason for bundling in this case. I did it before, it works.
Comment has been collapsed.
rule
pretty clear
made a guess
ask the exact reason
pick one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't see why I have to pick one, there is no incompatibility there. There is a rule. It's pretty clear. But exact reason, while it must follow the rule, may not be so obvious. But you can ask for exact reason, if you doubt that it follows the rule.
Also, as I said, I do agree that rule should be stated in guidelines. And, btw, on previous sg version, there were a page where all reasons for bundling were stated. Dunno why it was removed in new version, it would be much more transparent with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I won't go any further if you insist to refuse math and congruence. Sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Inappropriate content. Do not post pornography and other material that may be inappropriate for a general audience. If you are posting anything that may be considered NSFW (not safe for work), please prefix any links or images with a NSFW tag to warn others.
this can be read as "i can post porn if i put a NSFW tag on it". i suppose that isn't the intent. 🤔
Avatars need to be appropriate for all ages. If you have a NSFW Steam avatar, please change it prior to using the site.
what if someone keeps it, do they get an unlimited suspension till they change it?
User Content
...
18 Whitelist recruitment. Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you.
do rules like this one apply site-wide, or only in discussions?
i've seen a lot of whitelist begging demands in giveaways and reports are being ignored. same with trades in giveaways (ie: posting to a user's barter profile).
btw, you may want to add suspension lengths to the rules/guidelines. it makes support actions look more transparent.
great initiative with these reworked guidelines. 👍
Comment has been collapsed.
┐(´Θ`)┌
Does the Japanese look like an elfYoda?
A foreigner looks like an elf.
Even if the countryJapan itself is called pornography, it's a problem.
The daily lives of the people in that country were pornography for people in other countries.
What is the standard of pornography?
Porn values of each country starting there
I don't want to think honestly.
However, it is appropriate to attach a NSFW tag to an “image with extremely exposed skin”.
I feel that way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do not post pornography and other material that may be inappropriate for a general audience.
That's it, period.
If you are posting anything that may be considered NSFW (not safe for work),
This is if it's questionable, but not explicit (as covered in the first item). More to the point, there are things that may be possibly NSFW, yet not be full on pornography. For example, an image of a gruesome (non-videogame) death.
what if someone keeps it, do they get an unlimited suspension till they change it?
As per normal procedure for most rule infractions (excluding more egregious things like multi-account usage), a user starts off with a nominal suspension, with subsequent (ongoing, in this case) infractions incurring longer extensions up until a permanent suspension is leveled.
18 Whitelist recruitment. Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you.
Site wide.
i've seen a lot of whitelist begging demands in giveaways and reports are being ignored.
Up until now, some rules were "unwritten" and/or inconsistently applied, much to the chagrin of many community members, and rightly so. The changes being made are in part to clarify when there's been one of these grey areas, for the community to better understand what is allowed, and to help keep us calibrated in our enforcement. Once these new rules go fully into effect, we intend to more consistent enforce them.
Comment has been collapsed.
other material that may be inappropriate for a general audience
I really hope gore is included in this category. Beheadings and gruesome deaths, etc, are hopefully just inappropriate and not left up to the poster to be considered NSFW.
Comment has been collapsed.
hopefully they will also include animals getting dismembered in this category, i reported some comments long ago and no action was taken (those images are still in the forums).
Comment has been collapsed.
what if someone keeps it, do they get an unlimited suspension till they change it?
As per normal procedure for most rule infractions (excluding more egregious things like multi-account usage), a user starts off with a nominal suspension, with subsequent (ongoing, in this case) infractions incurring longer extensions up until a permanent suspension is leveled.
Don't users with temporary or even permanent suspensions still have their existing content appear throughout SG in forums, group listings, etc.? If true, existing procedures would adequately penalize the user, but would not decrease visibility of the user (and their avatar) - The latter of which I assumed is the ultimate goal of the avatar guideline.
Comment has been collapsed.
CG has the ability to remove avatars and change usernames if they're inappropriate.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's it, period.
No, I'm with Mully. My first impression is also that the second sentence is intended a clarification of the first. While Mully and I may have the awareness to interpret the rule properly, that's not going to apply to every user taking it under consideration. The presentation should be changed to be more clear. Like "If the content is not explicitly inappropriate but could still be considered NSFW", or something. At least, if the intent is to be clear and informative, rather than just having the info there to cover the bases.
Site wide.
Once these new rules go fully into effect, we intend to more consistent enforce them.
Which is to say that that staff will now be taking action on reports made on whitelist requests within giveaway descriptions, correct? And what exactly constitutes "hinting"? Will all mentions towards being whitelisted be covered? Because I've seen a fair number of "I appreciate whitelists and reciprocate them when I see that I'm whitelisted" posts, in addition to the more straightforwardly pushy ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not writing these rules, I'm part of the process (so are all of you at this point), but I'm not sure I can easily define a line that puts content into the "acceptable" category or not, let alone a definition that even have of the user base would agree on. I think the best plan is to allow for some interpretation, as much as that can cause its own problems.
My first impression is also that the second sentence is intended a clarification of the first.
Not sure I agree. The first sentence is an absolute restriction on some types of content.
Do not post pornography and other material that may be inappropriate for a general audience.
The second sentence is a rough description of possibly could maybe be interpreted by some people some of the time to be NSWF-ish, in which case the content may be allowed, but the poster should submit with caution.
If you are posting anything that may be considered NSFW (not safe for work), please prefix any links or images with a NSFW tag to warn others.
I know it's not an ideal answer, but I (speaking for myself only) think this is a better way to approach it.
Which is to say that that staff will now be taking action on reports made on whitelist requests within giveaway descriptions, correct?
That's the idea. Honestly, I see a bit of a ticket backlog forming as it is today, let alone once new rules go into effect and new issues are raised and/or improper tickets need to be weeded through.
While I say that we should be more consistent, I can't say that everything will be addressed immediately, unfortunately.
And what exactly constitutes "hinting"?
That may need to be better fleshed out. Your example here strikes me as mostly innocuous, but we should be clear. Similar to discussions about trading, hints/jokes on the matter conflate the issue. Unlike trades, we can restrict this more easily than WL, because whitelisting is an integral part of the current site functionality, whereas trading has a distinct, separate space.
Thank you for the feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, the post I was writing explaining the related language syntax rules and clarifying the other various associated matters was getting rather lengthy and tangential, and that's probably unnecessary for the present context. While I can theoretically still offer that to you if necessary, you can instead choose to just take it at face value that, according to proper language syntax, you need to adjust the guideline in question from
Inappropriate content. Do not post pornography and other material that may be inappropriate for a general audience. If you are posting anything that may be considered NSFW (not safe for work), please prefix any links or images with a NSFW tag to warn others.
to
Inappropriate content. If you are posting anything that may be considered NSFW (not safe for work), please prefix any links or images with a NSFW tag to warn others. Do not post pornography and other material that may be inappropriate for a general audience.
if you want to avoid any misinterpretations. That is to say, swap the order of presentation of the two guidelines. Again, I can go into everything in more detail; However, even if you don't fully grasp the reason or need for it, there still shouldn't be any issue arising from you making the adjustment in question, so it's theoretically unnecessary for me to do so, as there shouldn't be any reason for you to have any disagreement with the suggestion to begin with.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a good suggestion. I adjusted the guideline below. I also revised the phrase for "other material that may be inappropriate for a general audience" since it overlaps NSFW content which is confusing, and it's fairly vague (is a GTA5 gif inappropriate for a general audience?).
Before
Inappropriate content. Do not post pornography and other material that may be inappropriate for a general audience. If you are posting anything that may be considered NSFW (not safe for work), please prefix any links or images with a NSFW tag to warn others.
After
Inappropriate content. If you are posting content that may be considered NSFW (not safe for work), prefix any links or images with a NSFW tag to warn others. Do not post pornography, or explicit content, such as real life images depicting severe injury, gore, or death.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, a dev has recently been stating in giveaway descriptions for this and other games:
"please check out this game which we recently released on steam. if you wish, and like the game, please consider putting it on your wishlist."
Legal or not under the new rules?
Comment has been collapsed.
Acceptable since we allow promoting your own Steam games in giveaway descriptions...
When creating a giveaway you are able to write a description. In this space you are welcome to advertise your social media channels (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter), Steam games, Steam groups, Steam curators, products, or services.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you.
Just so it is clear, while I have been asking a lot of questions, and perhaps complaining a little recently, I greatly appreciate all that you and your staff here do. I have been mostly trying to get concrete answers on questionable issues (or issues which are not clear to me) while the new rules are still under discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Giveaways
When creating a giveaway you are able to write a description. In this space you are welcome to advertise your social media channels (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter), Steam games, Steam groups, Steam curators, products, or services.
Shouldn't a gameplay video on YouTube, even if it's one of your own, falls under this rule and hence, is allowed?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it would be allowed. If it's your game, It would be considered advertising a Steam game you're associated with, meaning you could promote the gameplay video in a giveaway description, but not a discussion description.
Comment has been collapsed.
- URL shortening. When posting links, make sure you are not using URL shorteners as they obscure the destination of links and make it difficult for users to know what they are clicking.
Are these prohibited within the context of a Puzzle thread or giveaway?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, this would not be allowed, regardless of the destination. Point being, the user clicking the link would have no real idea about where the link ultimately leads. If you are obscuring a giveaway link, then there should be ways around that without using a link shortener.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Whitelist recruitment. Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you."
Eeeh...I don't think this should be a rule. Sure the handful of people that purposefully do this can be annoying (and rightfully will see some blacklists for it) but at the same time it could easily stifle discussion on whitelists/blacklists. The problem is "hinting" can be interpreted in such a broad way that simply mentioning whitelists or blacklists could be seen as breaking the rule, and even if that's not the case it'll give users pause as to whether they're allowed to say anything on the subject or if their intention will be misconstrued.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1000
I think leaving the "or hint" out makes this rule easier to not accidentally break--again, as mentioned elsewhere, what if my intention is to not hint, but someone assumes my intention was to hint and they file a ticket. Now it is up to support to judge my intentions; it is is difficult to judge the intentions of another, and especially difficult to do so correctly. Let alone knowing beyond a doubt what they meant. Just look at cases of media twisting statements to create headlines which are nothing like the original intent of the statement, especially in context.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, I usually just hide these discussions using ESGST but I don't think they should be banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much all I can agree with, but Tzaar has a point regarding suspensions (and doxing). I have seen people suspended over stupid things - including myself, while others might get a warning or whose infractions are completely glossed over. Most of my experience with moderators have been pretty decent, however, there are some that are rude, dismissive and abuse their power... In one case, there was participation of a heated argument in a user's discussion thread that went from a difference of opinion to their suspension. (This was years ago and I honestly don't remember who it was with or what the topic was even about. Sorry.) Moderators should also be subject to rules that are clear for them to do their job, as Tzaar pointed out, instead of stepping over one another with conflicting/mixed messages to users about the guidelines.
I would also like to point out that the proposed guidelines for referral links and advertisements are contradictory. The message that I am getting from this is that one is perfectly acceptable (as long as there is no referral link embedded) while the other is completely frowned upon. I can see this in regards to Amazon sellers... for example. But what makes refer-a-friend links to games - mostly MMO's - intolerable? I can understand it if there is goods or services being exchanged for money (hence the Amazon example), compared to something like Neverwinter or FFXIV where both sides get in-game benefits and/or goodies. Can't this be better defined, and hopefully a with little leeway in regards to referral links (specifically for game related refer-a-friend ones)?
Comment has been collapsed.
The rules for discussions are a little more complex than giveaways, so please carefully refer to the below when writing your discussion descriptions.
Advertising Steam games ... is not allowed.
What about threads like Retro games on Steam, Unique upcoming games, Always free and so on?
These threads can be seen as advertising games. Will threads like these still be allowed because there is no association between thread creators and posters and the games linked to?
Comment has been collapsed.
a boring and unuseful discussion.
really hope i'm wrong but you could leave this open even for an entire month, you (admin and support) still won't get much from here/us.
Comment has been collapsed.
The guidelines have been outdated for a long time where some rules where just implied.
Now it has been updated and they want to have feedback, and there has already been discssions of it and some minor changes to clear some uncertain things up.
I wouldnt call it totally necessary, but its not totally worthless either to come to some mutual agreement to what the rules actually mean.
Comment has been collapsed.
Respect the privacy of invite only giveaways[ , ] and[ , ] if you are invited to a private giveaway, do not share the link with other users unless given permission by the giveaway creator.
Comma is in the wrong position [first bolded/bracketed comma above, while it should be in the position of the second bolded/bracketed comma].
If you are taking part in a puzzle, do not leak or hint towards any information that is intended to remain private, such as the game being given away[ , ] or the URL of the giveaway.
Bolded/bracketed comma should be removed.
Scripts are not allowed to be used to automatically enter into giveaways. This includes scripts that enter multiple giveaways at once, or scripts that enter giveaways while you are away.
The current phrasing makes it seem as though one-click-entry scripts are now being firmly included along with bot-scripts [and that's something which'll have my approval], but doesn't state such outright. This should likely be more straightforwardly clarified.
If your account is suspended your giveaway entries are not eligible to be selected as a winner until the duration of your suspension has completed.
"Been completed" or "ended" would be more appropriate here than "completed". "Been" sets the topic to <existence>, which "completed" then modifies. [While not quite the same structure, you can consider it similar to putting "it has been blue" in place of "it has blue".] The current phrasing is trailing, suggesting there should be something after the "completed", such as "its duration". To that effect, the sentence could also be phrased as "until your suspension has completed its duration".
If you are selected as the winner of a giveaway and then your account is then suspended, the giveaway creator has the option to request a new winner.
The "then" should move its position from the earlier location to the latter, for better sentence flow.
Personal attacks or hate speech. Threats or harassment is not allowed, neither is slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender.
Excuse me? If that phrasing is intentional, it'd be extremely insulting, to say the least.
I'm assuming it isn't, however, and with that in mind the phrasing should instead be:
Personal attacks or hate speech. Engaging in threats or harassment is not allowed, nor are slurs (eg, such as towards a race, sexual orientation, or gender).
Specifically, the issue is in you specifically highlighting those three [race, sexual orientation, and gender] as being the exclusive basis for the rule violation, when sex, disability, religion, and other factors have all been issues which attracted hate speech and harassment on the forums in the past. They should only be used as examples, or the list should be exhaustive and complete. Else, the entire rule just ends up being hypocritical and nonsensical, in a "You can be a bigot, but only in the ways I approve of, okay?" kind of way.
I've also improved the flow of the first part of that sentence.
I'd also like it if you'd clearly note that bully-stalking is against site rules, in the vein of "Note that frequently engaging with a specific user in a manner that is clearly intended solely to confront, criticize, or belittle that user can potentially also be considered as harassment." Y'know, in consideration of the fact that you all have let a specific user stalk me around the site for ceaseless off-topic harassment for years on this site now without taking any action on the matter whatsoever.
There should also be something specifically included to limit "blacklist-whining", given how disruptive that behavior typically is. This is especially true when the behavior is presented to an excessive degree, in a hostile manner, or within inappropraite contexts [such as whining about blacklists towards the OP of a thread made to grieve over a recently deceased relative].
Spam. Do not repeatedly post content to increase visibility. This also includes creating multiple discussions for content that could be more appropriately consolidated into a single discussion.
I don't see anything against necroing, despite that being the most frequent form of spam we've had to deal within the most recent years.
(Note that this would in fact properly fall under "spam", given the broader, top-level application the term has taken on since the earliest days of the internet. Rather, the behavior you've currently exclusively specified as spam would instead specifically be referred to as "flooding", when approached seperate to the other forms of "site clutter" typically considered to be "spammy".)
Inappropriate use of comment formatting. The intended use of comment formatting is to improve the readability of your posts. An inappropriate use of formatting would be writing all of your content with headings, or using all caps for your comments.
Thank you.
Untagged spoilers. Refer to our instructions on comment formatting for learning how to add spoilers to your content. A spoiler is content that reveals important plot elements of games, movies, tv series, or other types of fiction released in recent years.
Thank you.
Community events or third party giveaways that require or reward users for performing an action for promotional, commercial, or monetary benefit.
Advertising
I like the improved detailing given to this element, but I'm wondering if it'll be more likely to be overlooked, if there aren't clear "Posting Content" and "Advertising" top-level page sections, or similarly visible arrangements to draw attention to those sections. Then again, people who are inclined to read the rules to begin with may also perhaps be more likely to read them with proper consideration, so it may be an inconsequential thing after all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Specifically, the issue is in you specifically highlighting those three [race, sexual orientation, and gender] as being the exclusive basis for the rule violation, when sex, disability, religion, and other factors have all been issues which attracted hate speech and harassment on the forums in the past. They should only be used as examples, or the list should be exhaustive and complete. Else, the entire rule just ends up being hypocritical and nonsensical, in a "You can be a bigot, but only in the ways I approve of, okay?" kind of way.
Thanks. This is concerning to me as well. The absence of any mention of religious, and for that matter, political and national, affiliations as could be used in making personal attacks on users, is the elephant in the room here. It doesn't make sense to close one door and leave others wide open. An exhaustive list might turn out to be problematic - something is bound to be overlooked, but designating these categories as examples and adding a few more of the most obvious ones should be helpful.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are times when necroing a thread is done without intent to harm, but as a way to avoid the even more heinous "opening a new thread to answer a question which has been answered a million (or 5) times in the past. Especially for things like Puzzle guides, once-a-year events, or generally-helpful-to-new-users type of threads.
There should also be something specifically included to limit "blacklist-whining", given how disruptive that behavior typically is. This is especially true when the behavior is presented to an excessive degree, in a hostile manner,
Yes. However, consider allowances need to be made to for one party to ask the other in a calm, rational manner something approaching to "why did you blacklist me, was it intentional or accidental? If intentional, was it due to a misunderstanding, can I do anything to explain my position without arguing, can I do anything to change your mind in the course of this discussion, and generally, can I (and if so, how) fix this rift between us?"
However, there is a time and a place for this, and a time and a place not for this. The example you gave is definitely the wrong place.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like to clarify a guideline, one I was warned against at one point.
A user might have an interest in racing games, and ask the community for recommendations. If you have a Steam curator page with a list focused on the racing genre, you could link the user to your curator page to help them find a game.
Would this apply to the following :
A user is asking for people profiles who post good Steam reviews. In a comment, I respond with a link to a Steam Group (I am associated with) of Steam reviewers. I was asked by a Mod not to advertise Steam Groups in conversation and asked to remove the link (which, of course, I did right away).
Would the new guidelines now allow me to share the link to the group, or is it still considered unapporpriate advertisement?
Other than that, I think these guidelines are clear, straight to the point, and easy to understand, and they aren't overwhelming to go through. Any new members bothering to take a minute or two to read it will be able to go through it. Good job!
Comment has been collapsed.
Note that I wasn't recruiting, as the person I was responding to wouldn't be allowed to join the group. The group was linked so that through it, he could find people who wrote reviews the likes of which he was looking for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Respect the privacy of invite only giveaways, and if you are invited to a private giveaway, do not share the link with other users unless given permission by the giveaway creator.
This if fine, but what about obtaining a link without help of other users, but not in a way that was supposed by creator? For example, brute-forcing a puzzle. I will get the key myself, but not in a way puzzle creator expects, will my entry be valid or not? I'd like an explicit rule about it. And, by the way, if those "not suggested ways" are not allowed, then it contradicts to the rule above, as it allows users to make extra rules/requirements for entering invite-only giveaways. Either explicitly allow ANY way of getting a link EXCEPT leaks from other users, OR explicitly forbid any extra requirements from giveaway creator (or maybe make more complex rule, which requirements are allowed and which are not, because otherwise it would mean to forbid puzzle-giveaways altogether).
- Community events or third party giveaways that require or reward users for performing an action for promotional, commercial, or monetary benefit. For example, linking to a giveaway on another service that requires or incentivizes users to click a referral link, like a Facebook page, follow a Twitter account, join a Steam group, complete a survey, sign-up for a newsletter, or make a donation. Or, running an event that challenges users to collect achievements for a game you're associated with (e.g. you're the developer, publisher, or promoter of the game), an event that asks users to promote your product or service on social media, or an event where users need to write a review on Steam for your game.
So, now you make a rule like that, and back when I reported a case like that you (and many support members too) told me I wasn't right. Double standards as it is. And I bet NOBODY will apologize. As usual.
Also, I'd like something to be done with new trend of posting in giveaway descriptions "By entering this giveaway you are agree to delete it in case key isn't working". It needs to be addressed somehow, either make some automatic way to remove giveaways after it's end without support members involved (and with losing a giveaway slot), or just forbid a comments like that. It's really annoying.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are no double standards about clarifying/changing rules, things change - like how the gleam links got forbidden from one day to another. And there is a waiting period between rules being changed and actually punishing people for that.
Just because you were annoyed with something that was allowed at that time and goes against the rules later (the rules aren't even set yet, so as things are now it WILL go against them) - nobody owes an apology for that to you just because you feel ignored for some reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are wrong.
Now you are right, I changed my mind. But you were wrong before I wrote second line.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are free to change your mind, just about how rules can be changed. Like it can be changed after a discussion, that is properly and calmly done.
Rules ARE BEING changed right now, in this very topic, there are entirely new sections added to the guidelines and yet the only thing you mention is when you thought you were right but it was not against the rules. Rules are exactly there to avoid such emotionally fueled things and make factual and consistent rules. And they do not work retroactively or people wouldn't know if they are breaking a rule that will be made only days, weeks or months later.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can change my mind. But something can't be both right and wrong. So, either I was wrong before I changed my mind, or after. If I am wrong after I changed my mind - I should revert it. If I was wrong before I changed my mind - I should apologize. Change my mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
You publicly replied to a mod's post quoting a support ticket that nobody can check, demanded them to say sorry for you for them acting according to the site's rules instead of breaking them in your favour, and now you act like an elementary school child. Do you really think that the stickied post about discussing new rules is the best place for a temper tantrum?
Comment has been collapsed.
acting according to the site's rules
Wrong. Why are you judging me if you have no idea about what I'm talking about? And by switching to personal insults you probably wanted to show how mature you are comparing to me? Sorry, it didn't worked.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not so much double standards (though to be fair, I'm sure there have been a few) as inconsistencies in the application and understanding of the rules as they were written. I believe that's part of the reason they're being rewritten and clarified.
Perhaps we should be appreciative that those things are being addressed now, and will be dealt with appropriately in the future, rather than dwelling on (obvious) inadequacies and oversight in the past.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you are right. I probably was too salty about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
No blood, no foul. Just like you, I'd like to see more consistency in the application of the rules around here. I've seen all sorts of things around here, and if I dwelt on them, I'd probably be far more salty than you. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Advertising
...
Dissociated
You are always free to advertise third party content when you have no affiliation...
Associated
When you are associated with the content you are advertising, you may still be able to share it...
Giveaways
...
Discussions
The rules for discussions are a little more complex than giveaways, so please carefully refer to the below when writing your discussion descriptions.
- Advertising Steam games, Steam curators, or social media channels is not allowed.
...Comments
OK, I find this section enormously confusing.
It's really odd that you give a general set of guidelines for adverts which you are or are not directly connected with, but then muddy the water by breaking down the site section by section without any clarity on how the specific section rules work in tandem with the previously detailed general "associated" and "dissociated" guidelines.
The "dissociated" part says it's always fine to advertise things you're not connected with, the "associated" section says it's sometimes fine for things you're directly involved with - but then the first point in the "Discussions" section gives the blanket rule that advertising games is simply not allowed, i.e. never allowed in the discussions section, which would surely be where the overwhelming majority of such posts would be made.
If the "Dissociated" and "Associated" guidelines aren't intended to apply to the discussions section of the site, could you be clearer where they are intended for? In particular, you must modify the phrase "you are always free" to make it clear that you aren't free in the discussions section.
Alternatively, if the "Dissociated" and "Associated" guidelines are intended to apply to the discussions section of the site, you absolutely need to qualify the first point in the discussions guidelines with something like:
"Advertising Steam games, Steam curators, or social media channels is only allowed within the rules described under the "Dissociated" and "Associated" sections above."
Finally, the "Comments" title is a touch vague. Basically any post replying to another could be understood to be a comment. If you specifically mean comments made under giveaways, it would probably best to specify as such, by saying "Giveaway Comments" or similar, and perhaps change "Giveaways" to "Giveaway Descriptions" to further clarify.
Ed - separate point: The rules for where you can advertise Whitelist GAs state:
"Whitelist restricted giveaways can only be advertised in giveaway descriptions corresponding to the whitelist, the "Group Recruitment" discussion for the whitelist, or in the comment section of other giveaways for the whitelist."
It's very common practice in forum posts for cakeday celebrations or other giveaway events for the creator to include "And here's a few GAs for my whitelist..." - under this rule, it would now be prohibited. Is this intentional?
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, hopefully the below helps to answer those questions...
-
The notes regarding giveaways, discussions, and comments only apply to associated advertising, which is why they're listed with smaller subheadings below that section of the guidelines.
-
"Comments" refers to all comments across the site, not only giveaways.
-
Yes, advertising your whitelist giveaways would not be allowed in discussion descriptions for cakedays. In these guidelines whitelist giveaways are treated similar to group giveaways in many ways. I'm open to feedback here though.
Comment has been collapsed.
OK, I follow what was intended now.
I would find it much clearer if the first line of "dissociated" was something like "The rules for dissociated advertising are the same for all sections of the site." and the first line of associated something like "The rules for associated advertising vary across different sections of the site, as detailed below."
As for "comments", I was confused what it referred to because "Giveaways" and "Discussions" seemed to be referring to all posts in those sections of the site, rather than only being rules for when creating a new giveaway description or writing an original discussion post. For me it would clarify this confusion if the first line of "Comments" was amended to something like:
"When leaving comments on discussions or giveaways created by other users, advertising content you are associated with is only allowed when it is both relevant and valuable to the conversation."
I personally feel like including whitelist or group giveaways in a discussion post which also includes invite-only giveaways shouldn't be against the rules. I've seen lots of posts generously dividing giveaways across public, groups and whitelist, and feel it'd be unfortunate to discourage (or outlaw) that kind of engagement with all aspects of the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with PsychoApeman regarding whitelist giveaways in a Cakeday, event, or similar thread which also includes invite-only giveaways or trains consisting of these.
I have, if I correctly recall what I did vs what I intended to do, once made a WL-gated invite-only train; only WL people could enter the train which was then an invite-only train open to everyone who made it past the WL point. Perhaps I wanted to make certain giveaways available via my "leaking" the code to people who I like but did not wish to whitelist, but I do not recall.
Also, as whitelist and group giveaways are so commonly mixed, and since some thread have invite-only trains for 1) everyone, 2) certain groups, and 3)WL or WL+group what about those?
I would much prefer to see things as they currently stand and hope that you could see your way clear to allowing this item to remain unchanged from the way it presently stands, and indeed has stood for more than the last year.
Comment has been collapsed.
I propose a minor addition to the guidelines to make it clear what is implied about GA deletion in the FAQ:
Giveaways
Deleting
-
Deleting a giveaway before it ends can be done when viewing a giveaway using the "Delete Giveaway" button in the left column.
-
Deleting a giveaway after it ends requires the winner to agree to deletion and approval by a member of support.
This seems consistent with the FAQ and actual deletion practices. If I'm wrong and support ever deletes an ended GA without winner approval, then my proposed second guideline can be rephrased like "Deleting a giveaway after it ends often requires the winner to agree to deletion and will require approval by a member of support."
This lets winners know that deletion of an already ended giveaway is largely up to them. If GA creators care about getting a "Not Received" mark then they should use more reliable sources for their keys instead of using unenforceable giveaway descriptions like "by entering you agree to delete if it's a bad key" (which several other replies here have mentioned). GA creators should rest assured that "Misuse of [Winner's] Giveaway Feedback" seems to be taken more seriously by support than most other formal suspension reasons.
I appreciate the effort of updating guidelines, the responses from mods and cg, and the changes from community feedback :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Been curious if there would be such official words on these. Has always been a bit confusing how official these options were. Mostly the after it has ended one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Overall pretty good except I think the new rules on advertising are a bit too harsh. If it's off topic then it should be out, but I have no problem with someone promoting their channel, game, wishlist GA's, whatever as long as they're not spamming. The new rules and examples seem a little ambiguous and might drive more people away from an already declining forum (although to be fair, selective enforcement of the current rules has already done, so so some clarity is definitely needed).
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, this is the full manual for the advanced user. Where is the quick start guide?
I remember when using the site was simpler (or I was somehow better). What happened? I have an answer to my rethoric question, but writing one would not really help a lot.
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot of things happened :D (again, my opinion)
Site grew, so it's no longer handful of users that can get to know each other easily. Which in turn means easy moderation, as in small places people care more about "good atmosphere".
A lot of changes how Steam gifting / regions work. Which forced site to accommodate to this.
Dozens of bundles, key re-selling sites, shovelware games. When SG was created we were still getting 2nd week unlocks from HB, G2A was non-existent, and no one even thought about "1$ for 50 games" bundles.
Rules could be simple, as idea was simple. "Give games to strangers". Now idea is still simple, but it needs to fit into current "market".
Comment has been collapsed.
This won't be a popular suggestion, but I would consider adding a "Moderation Policy" segment to the Guidelines. Something along these lines:
...All decisions with regards to thread closure and movement, permanent and temporary bans, and any other relevant issues are made by the SteamGifts administration alone and are final. That being said, constructive criticisms and suggestions are welcome, provided they are directed to SteamGifts Administration via ticket, here. Do not dispute administrative policy or action within the forum itself.
I think this has been a problem in the recent past, and it wouldn't be a bad idea adding something to the guidelines to safeguard against mob mentality in the future. This might go against the spirit of how you want to run your forum, as it can read a little heavy handed, but it's an idea to toss around and consider.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can we get a rule on what fits each category of the forum so people don't spam random stuff in the Deals section?
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people have problem to decide which category is most fitting. I would not suspend for that.
You can always make other ticket, and moderator will change discussion category manually.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not asking for a suspension rule, just a clarification/guideline to point people to where they should be posting what.
Right now it's tacit aside from the old 'help us sort old discussions" thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even when "categorize discussion" was promoted in the announcements, users still kept creating discussions in wrong category.
General - for discussions about Steam or SteamGifts
Off-topis - for everything else
Deal - for info about promotions
What people post:
General and Off-topic are treated as connected categories, Deals have a lot of "should I grab this deal" questions.
Information would need to be displayed when you pick up discussions category on the creation screen. And I'm sure users would still create them wrongly, either from "meh, don't care", or poor english understanding.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, but I still think that should be available somewhere.
So having it in the rules is better than nothing.
Sure, on the create-a-thread interface would also be great.
Comment has been collapsed.
That made me realise something: this is said to be 'guidelines', but is actually rules. 'What fits which category' would in my mind be a guideline, something which tells people where certain threads should be places, but isn't binding and people won't be punished for not following the guideline.
I think I'll make a thread post on this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can I propose something potentially unpopular...
If we are changing/defining the rules, can we declare a reset on current tickets from a certain date? Surely it wouldn't be right to punish people retrospective of a rules change/definition. To be clear here, I'm not advocating unbanning perma bams etc, just get rid of say all tickets 6 months or more old? Maybe even older than a month.
Also a mass deletion of tickets would help push the reset button for support, would help standardise the punishments and make it consistent.
Very aware people will see this as people "getting away with...insert thing" but if you feel that strongly, report again. I don't really have a stake in this, havent really been active in over a year.
I would also suggest some more stringent reporting method to stop the problem of high amounts of tickets to enable "better" modding to stop the problems re-occuring.
Comment has been collapsed.
We will not punish people for will-be-infractions-after-guidelines-update, which they did in the past. Like if someone was posting links to Kinguin, and I see it in 2 weeks - I will not suspend them. If they make new comment with kinguin link - I will poke them about it. If they ignore that new rules were shown to them - they will get suspended.
You do not get information ticket was closed, so would not even know to re-create it. And if users regularly check support page for updates, I think they would think "I waited month for my user report to be sorted already, so why bother re-creating it, if nothing will change".
I agree though that ticket creation could be improved (like posting mandatory link to infraction in user report category), ticket that writes "He makes misleading GAs!", when all are delivered (or user has a lot of GAs in 7-days-to-be-delivered window) is not helpful. But it's not part of the guidelines update, only site code.
Comment has been collapsed.
Was more thinking along the lines of a CG pinned posted saying something along the lines of "all tickets have been cancelled as of X date to allow new rules and guidelines to be put in place" deleting probably thousands of potentially obsolete tickets.
Gives you guys a break, also potentially allow a bot to come in for what should be automated system of re-rolls etc(but im not a coder so no idea how) but surely its a case of "does X person own game, is giveaway above X days then reroll allowed" etc. I dunno ive been gone like way over a year so that may already exist.
I do remember before I stopped coming here Support was completely overrun and the place was like the wild west. Anything which would alleviate the job of support and allow them to have a consistent approach is worth the loss of tickets in my eyes. However I'm aware some people would be super salty about it all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would agree with you. Some valid tickets would be lost, including one of mine, but many obsolete ones could probably be purged without affecting anything.
Good to see you again!
Comment has been collapsed.
😍
What are your thoughts on SG as a whole, seeing it with new-ish eyes from your year off?
As Icaio said, i hope you are back to stay! We (myself included) from time to time need people (of whom you are thankfully one) to remind us to "think of others before ourselves," and that this concept applies to support as well. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Well about 2 years ago I predicted that if things didn't change people would leave, splinter groups would break off and all that would be left would be the minority of troublemakers and a few good eggs. It looks like that's exactly what has happened.
It's taken far too long for the site to get some sort of official guidelines to try and do a number of things:
- Stop really big contributors from leaving due to toxic atmosphere(i'm talking regards to puzzles, discussions, general niceties, not necessarily the top monetary contributors).
- Give support some sort of consistency.
- Stop the pedants from trying to stamp their authority on the site(there was very much a flavour of the month complaint).
- Address common complaints without support getting overwhelmed.
All this should have been put in place years ago when the puzzle creators started leaving, when the event makers felt unable to create the events, when the groups stopped coming to the site and formed their own spin off factions.
My honest opinion is this is all too little too late.
It does appear at first glance that some of the really toxic people have legitimately run out of people to harrass. That in itself is pretty amusing as in like the 3 days of being here I've seen them attempt to pick fights with people who just arent going to pick up the bait. It genuinely makes me feel a bit sad to see the discussion page 1, have things from 2 days ago on there not a few hours ago. Its sad that clicking on people to see them banned or not logged in for months, to see groups practically inactive.
Really glad to see that a lot of these places/people are actually active but off site, which is indicitive of the culture we were supporting 3 or so years ago. Speaking to some of those guys it apparently got worse, a lot worse, which forced this here.
All in all, this site will never die so long as steams offering a gaming service. I'm glad, its a decent place to be, as a community though, it'll take a while to recover. Maybe never who knows. I still stand by the fact that it's sort of "levelled out" as opposed to "got worse". The novelty was always going to wear off eventually, people move on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Did you delete your account and make a new one? I clicked on you to see joined 3 days ago not like 5 years ago haha. Maybe that's where everyones gone! New accounts!
backlog is way too insane for anyone to handle
I do remember the mods spending entire days clearing them and people still giving them shit which was awful. No idea what its like now though, just assumed its worse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Be interesting to see how many more people find their way back because of the guidelines thread....
I wasn't brave enough to delete my account. Kudos to you sir!
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't want to say publicly, but if you go check the popular clips and look at the second most popular one you'll see why! :) We still live together, she's fine and dandy.
Comment has been collapsed.
stumbled over the guideline thread by chance and created a new one
huge!
Comment has been collapsed.
a CG pinned posted saying something along the lines of "all tickets have been cancelled as of X date to allow new rules and guidelines to be put in place"
a huge YES.
've said this is a "boring and unuseful discussion". i keep reading, nonetheless. and being bored.
everybody keeps thinking about his own little link, where to put that curator/discord/group link, so to become famous, and rich.
...thinking about his own hella important, hella vital little ticket, a ticket that will not only save this site, but also spread peace and joy all over the Steam and all The Internet.
...about the rules, where the hell are the rules for the evil moderators?
Gives you guys a break
WHY none is thinking about Support? why the hell comments like yours are so rare?
Comment has been collapsed.
Cheers mate.
A lot of people are being pretty pedantic in my honest opinion, some decent suggestions as well. I think a lot of people feel wronged by support for some reason or they are owed something by the site. I just think the whole place would be nicer if everything was less stressful.
Comment has been collapsed.
cheers, the Wallister!
i've read you've been away for a year or so, and, very curiously, you have a kinda perfect whole picture.
so, really hope you're back to stay :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, these issues aren't new, nor confined to just this website. It's promising to step back and see this and the forum being developed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi everyone,
We've been working on new guidelines for SteamGifts to help clarify some questions raised by the community, and to help users better understand what type of content is allowed and not allowed on the site. I'm sharing the proposed guidelines below so the community can read them over, ask questions, and provide feedback that can be taken into consideration before the new guidelines are put in place. I would like to leave this discussion open for 10 days for review, and then have the official guidelines go live with any revisions.
I imagine people will have different viewpoints on a number of guidelines, neither of which are right or wrong, so please try to be considerate and constructive when commenting. Thanks!
General
Giveaways
Creating
Entering
Winning
User Content
The below is a list of content that is not allowed in our community. Content consists of any material you post or make available through our site, such as discussions, links, comments, usernames, or Steam avatars.
Illegal content. For example, sharing links to pirated content, or to services that assist in illegal activity, such as torrent websites.
Inappropriate content. If you are posting content that may be considered NSFW (not safe for work), prefix any links or images with a NSFW tag to warn others. Do not post pornography, or explicit content, such as real life images depicting severe injury, gore, or death.
Unsafe content. Products or services that are not credible or potentially dangerous, such as those that could lead to a user's Steam account being compromised, or their financial information stolen. Please do your due diligence prior to posting content or links, and if we have concerns about the safety of a product or service, we will try to remove it from our site or close the offending discussion.
Personal attacks or hate speech. Threats or harassment is not allowed, neither are slurs against race, sexual orientation, or gender.
Referral links. If you choose to post a link, please be sure all referral codes have been removed. For example, by changing http://www.example.com?ref=12345 to http://www.example.com. Also, do not attempt to circumvent this rule by adding referral links through intermediary processes as users try to reach their intended destination.
Spam. Do not repeatedly post content to increase visibility. This also includes creating multiple discussions for content that could be more appropriately consolidated into a single discussion.
Private or identifying information. Users in the community have a right to privacy. Do not post their private or identifying information without their consent. For example, their name, address, phone number, photos, or private messages.
URL shortening. When posting links, make sure you are not using URL shorteners as they obscure the destination of links and make it difficult for users to know what they are clicking.
Inappropriate use of comment formatting. The intended use of comment formatting is to improve the readability of your posts. An inappropriate use of formatting would be writing all of your content with headings, or using all caps for your comments.
Untagged spoilers. Refer to our instructions on comment formatting for learning how to add spoilers to your content. A spoiler is content that reveals important plot elements of games, movies, tv series, or other types of fiction released in recent years.
Unreasonable bumping. When bumping a discussion you should try to ensure it is in the best interest of the community. If you notice our community is not engaging with the content after it has been bumped a couple of times, then you need to stop bumping the discussion unless important new information or updates would make it appropriate to do so.
Begging. Do not ask game developers or users for keys or games, unless they are offering and searching for interested parties.
Trading. This site is not for trading, so do not attempt to directly trade games or other items with users in our community. If you attempt to indirectly trade or express a willingness to trade with an unusually high frequency, it will also be viewed as trading. If you would like to conduct trades, refer to our sister site, SteamTrades.
Reselling keys and links to reseller stores. Do not use our site to resell keys, and do not post offers from stores which allow third parties to resell their keys or gifts. For example, do not ask others if they are interested in buying your leftover keys from a recent bundle purchase, or link to keys for sale on sites such as Kinguin, G2A, or Eneba.
Collecting money, items, or games for giveaways, lotteries, or group access. For example, asking users to donate a few dollars, with the promise of giving away a valuable game once adequate funds have been raised. Or, asking users to personally send you games and items for an event. Or, requiring users to send you annual fees to participate in your Steam group.
Third party giveaways that require or reward users for performing profitable actions. For example, linking to a giveaway on another service that requires or incentivizes users to click a referral link, like a Facebook page, follow a Twitter account, join a Steam group, complete a survey, sign-up for a newsletter, or make a donation.
Gambling. Do not post content or links to gambling related sites, such as those to bet on the outcome of gaming matches, or those that collect money or items for a chance to win a prize.
Whitelist solicitation. Do not ask or hint for other users to whitelist you, unless they are explicitly asking or searching for such users and you fulfill their requirements.
Advertising
Advertising is when you are promoting products or services you are associated with, or when you are posting content that is paid or sponsored. Directly naming or linking to an associated product or service will always be viewed as advertising. General references (e.g. referring to your "website", "YouTube channel", or "Steam group") may also be viewed as advertising when we believe their purpose is to bring attention to an associated product or service for publicity or sales. Below is a breakdown of when advertising is allowed in our community. Remember, the above rules regarding user content still apply. For example, we might allow you to advertise in giveaway descriptions, but that does not permit you to post referral links or link to your website with illegal content.
Giveaways
When creating a giveaway you are able to write a description. In this space you are welcome to advertise your products or services, including social media channels (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter), games, groups, curators, or other giveaways.
Discussions
Our forum allows you to create discussions for engaging in conversation with our community. In these discussions you are able to promote your SteamGifts giveaways, but only when there is a greater reason for the discussion, such as including the giveaways in part of an event, puzzle, cake day, or milestone. For category specific advertising, please refer to the below.
Add-ons / Tools
Game Showcase
Group Recruitment
User Projects
Comments
This refers to comments throughout our site, such as those contained within giveaways or discussions. You are able to advertise in your comments, but only when it is both relevant and valuable to the conversation. For example, if a user is searching for a giveaway group only available to users that have not yet won a game, and you are the owner of such a group, it would be appropriate to post a link to your Steam group. Or, if a user is searching for new strategy games, and you have a Steam curator page highlighting your recommendations from that genre, you could share a link since it would be helpful to those reading.
Support
Chat
Changes based on community feedback below.
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before (this refers to the FAQ)
After
Reason
Added
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Added
Reason
Removed
Reason
Added
Reason
Removed
Reason
Added
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Removed
Reason
Added
Reason
Removed
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Rethinking this section a bit. Similar to the above, the community events aspect might be better covered in revised advertising guidelines.
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Removed
Reason
Before
After
Reason
Added
Before
After
Reason
Added
Before
After
Reason
Comment has been collapsed.