One of the problems groups encounter is people joining a group, but then don't follow the rules. For instance if the group is using a ratio system. After they join the group they join as many giveaways as they can before the admins of the group catch up with them and kick them. We've had occurrences where people have won 25 games in 1 day in such a way where they gave nothing back. In other words a leecher.
Problem with the current situation is that only some rerolls get approved. Rerolls for giveaways that were already ended are rejected. Forcing people to give a game to such a leecher is very unpopular. You like your game to go to someone who followed the rules and be a good member of the group.
So the change in rules I want to ask for that would solve this problem.
On private giveaways (whitelist and group) allow a reroll to take place in all circumstances.
Comment has been collapsed.
Problem with the current situation is that only some rerolls get approved.
Did support give a denial reason?
Rerolls for giveaways that were already ended are rejected.
...that makes no sense because if true then the reroll reason of "No Longer a Group Member (Group Only)" would never be valid, because you can't have a winner until a GA ends. Is there something I'm misunderstanding?
I and my group members have submitted multiple reroll requests with that reason selected, and as long as we have a screenshot from Group History that proves exactly when someone was removed/left my group, we have never gotten support pushback.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is the window of time between the giveaways ending and the group's staff noticing the abuse and kicking the leecher.
This effectively means that, if you catch a leecher red-handed abusing the group and/or its members, and kick them before the affected giveaways end, they can be rerolled with the reason "no longer a group member".
Otherwise, until they're kicked they're still considered, for all intents and purposes, a member, and thus expected to receive everything they win, regardless if they had been following group rules or not (since they're internal rules not enforceable site-wise).
In short, leechers are allowed to run away with the loot they managed to collect before being caught up.
Then it's up to the members to decide whether to follow the rules and reward an abusive leecher, or take the "not received" hit.
And this is, I believe, what Dyna was complaining about.
Can't say I disagree, having witnessed such a case not long ago.
And it wasn't 1 or 2 giveaways, but more like 30 or 40 (possibly more, I forgot the actual number), with some being multi-copy with fewer entries than copies (thus a major pain to fix, since cg is the only one who can do it)
However, I think automated rerolls would bring more troubles than benefits ("I don't like that user, so I'm gonna reroll them").
Protip: always keep an eye on giveaways that are still "awaiting feedback". Thank me later.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed. The problem is that someone with bad intent is always possible to get away with a number of games. And than the SteamGifts rules don't help us to prevent that.
So having manual rerolls (submitted by the creator) be approved would help here.
Comment has been collapsed.
until they're kicked they're still considered, for all intents and purposes, a member, and thus expected to receive everything they win, regardless if they had been following group rules or not (since their internal rules not enforceable site-wise).
I understand. So it sounds like the ultimate goal is "I want to be able to easily request & get approved for a reroll on a group giveaway won by someone who was kicked regardless of the datetime they were removed from the group", is that accurate? I agree with that goal.
Like you, I think I disagree with automated rerolls for the most part, but with one exception:
Auto approve rerolls for "no longer a group member" at least when SG has data that confirms the winner is no longer in the group. SG will totally have this data after a sync takes place after a kick that would update the group's user list. This would however require SG rules to change such that a group winner is not entitled to receive a group win if they are kicked from the group at anytime.
Then it's up to the members to decide whether to follow the rules and reward an abusive leecher, or take the "not received" hit.
I haven't thought about that option because I assume most people care more about getting "received" than taking a stand against a "leecher" in the inbetween state (GA ended before "leecher" was kicked) and getting "not received", given that "not received" is something that can affect how other groups, whitelists, and sgtools react to your stats.
And it wasn't 1 or 2 giveaways, but more like 30 or 40 with some being multi-copy with fewer entries than copies (thus a major pain to fix, since cg is the only one who can do it)
I understand that mass rerolls after a kick are a pain when the kicked user entered a ton of GAs. As for multi-copy with fewer entries than wins, that sounds like a very uncommon case and it kinda makes sense it requires an admin because you are not just asking for a reroll but rather asking to basically remove a copy from a GA (but ideally support could do this if they had the tool).
Comment has been collapsed.
On private giveaways (whitelist and group) allow a reroll to take place in all circumstances.
This is hyper-abusable in every way - even in the lenient "all circumstances" way, and even if you would write breaking group rules. Nobody would or could stop me from making a group with arbitrary rules that would allow people to reroll as many times as they want, essentially making SG rules that would allow and support CV-trading rings.
Comment has been collapsed.
Being the devils advocate.
As long as it's within a private group, why would that be a bad thing?
Give the groups some power to set (and enforce) their own rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Being the devils advocate.
lol man, your lenient and abusable suggestion is the devil. Having rules like " all circumstances." is one of the most foolish things ever, it is so, so abusable.
making SG rules that would allow and support CV-trading rings.
You know, the things that are against the rules and people were actively banned for it, and your suggestion opens up the door for all kinds of abuse?
What would stop you (or any group owner/admin in any group) from changing the rules to "all ongoing giveaways must be won by Dyna18/them, rerolled any number of times to make it happen. Deletion of giveaways is not allowed" then just cash in hundreds of games and/or getting everyone banned on Steamgifts?
This is what your suggestion means. At least rephrase it instead of going defensive about it, because it is actively harmful in the way you did put it.
Comment has been collapsed.
why would that be a bad thing?
Because that will allow to abuse the system. Isn't it easy to imagine?
- Make a small group where people want to farm CV.
- Make a list with an order, in which members will make giveaways.
- When someone in group want to buy a game - he gives his money to the other member (chosen from the list above), and that other member makes a giveaway for that game.
- All members enter the GA
- After giveaway ended - it's re-rolled as many times as needed, to make user who gave money the winner.
- Repeat from step 3.
See? This way nobody actually gives anything (as they only buy games for themselves), but every member gets fast CV growth. And they can't even be banned, because they just follow the rules. That's why the rule like that is bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is already possible under the current rules.
When the winner chooses not to accept the giveaway, that is a valid reason for a reroll.
Anyway, this is not what my suggestion is about, so lets get back to the topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
What Ryzehvost stated is a valid point. The repercussions of allowing someone in a private group or anyone for that matter, to have the ability to reroll any time they choose and for whatever reason is part of the topic.
The person could reroll as many times as as wanted unchecked by support till they rolled the person they wanted to give the game to. While there are people who do abuse things with the current guidelines the support team can monitor situations like this. With rerolls being unchecked it would make it much harder to take care of things of this nature.
Do you believe that allowing something like this is actually a good idea? There's a lot of people out there that unfortunately would abuse this.
I just want to take a moment and say that this is my opinion and not the opinions of other members of the support team.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is already possible under the current rules.
No, it's not possible now, because support may (surprise!) decline reroll request. And the rule you proposed says "allow a reroll to take place in all circumstances." so they can't decline it anymore. And that's exactly what is wrong with your suggestion.
Comment has been collapsed.
As someone who owns a smaller GA group, as someone who is currently a moderator in another smaller GA group and as someone who has been an admin as well as a moderator in 2 other larger GA groups I truly understand the frustration. I've had to deal with people in the past in all of these who have taken advantage of the members and it's a truly shitty feeling. Unfortunately giving someone the power to reroll to take place in all circumstances I feel could be highly abused by the same type of people who currently try/do take advantage of group members.
What I think will help in some cases is what Zelrune suggested back in 2017, a group refresh button.
Comment has been collapsed.
First of all, I am totally in favor of a group refresh button. It's something I have suggested in the past as well.
It saves a lot of problems where a kicked member keeps on joining group giveaways, that will all have to be rerolled. So this would also save the moderators a lot of time (and save the group from a headache).
However back to the topic I wanted to bring forward.
Please also allow giveaways to be rerolled if they were won while the user was still a member of the group. This will prevent people who abuse the group be given games they shouldn't be getting and it would prevent creators for the giveaway to be forced to give their gift.
So can we please have that addition to the rules for private groups that this is now allowed?
Comment has been collapsed.
Doing something like this would allow anyone to reroll anytime they choose for whatever reason they wanted. I'm definitely not in favor of this.
Comment has been collapsed.
No this won't be possible for anyone.
My proposal is to only allow this within private groups.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure if you understand how badly this could be abused.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm just trying to find a solution for the problem where people are joining my group. Steal 25 games and then we have no option on SteamGifts to do anything against it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was already written why allowing re-rolls "anytime for any reason" is a bad idea.
There must be a balance between creator and winner rights. Allowing creators to re-roll for any reason, when it's not along current group rules would mean that winners would have no rights whatsoever inside the group. As group rules are arbitrarily set up by someone else. And can be changed anytime.
It's group admins / moderators that decide who is accepted into the group. Group admins / moderators are responsible for checking if users follow group rules.
Rules can be written like "create GA no later than on 5th of the month, and they need to be open till 15th", if it would help group admins to check users. But it is still their responsibility to keep order inside the group.
If user makes necessary giveaways and then deletes them before end time, to win games and not contribute - it can be the ground for suspension on the base of fake giveaways. Because they were created without intention to be delivered. (Even when deleted giveaways are not visible for normal users, mod staff can access and review them).
I know it may be unwelcome rule for some, but it needs to be in place to balance things out. If group admins and mods can't keep up with checking if users follow group rules, then they should have either less members, or more mod staff.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm just trying to find a solution for the problem where people are joining my group. Steal 25 games and then we have no option on SteamGifts to do anything against it.
Let me give an example of what the last guy did.
He requested to be invited in our group through the proper invite thread. We did a solid investigation on him. His profile looked all ok, with having over a hundred games given on steamgifts, a good ratio, no bans, no suspensions, etc.
Once in the group, he joined all the giveaways he could, especially those that were close to the closing time. In total he joined 50 giveaways (we have about 100 giveaways created per day in our group). The admins got alerted of this behaviour on the same day, kicked the member. But he still was able to win 25 giveaways that had already ended.
Then SteamGifts refuses to have those giveaways rerolled, because they had already ended.
He was especially joining giveaways that would end soon, leaving us with no option to defend against this.
In total this has happened about 15 times over the last years in our group. It hurts the moral in the group.
So again my request to have the option to reroll, since I have no idea on what else to do against users with the intend to steal.
Comment has been collapsed.
He requested to be invited in our group through the proper invite thread. We did a solid investigation on him. His profile looked all ok, with having over a hundred games given on steamgifts, a good ratio, no bans, no suspensions, etc.
This is something you can't check, as information about past suspensions is available only for the support staff. And user that is currently suspended can't write application. Not to mention fact someone was suspended in the past does not mean much, as majority of users are suspended only once, and learn their lesson.
He was especially joining giveaways that would end soon, leaving us with no option to defend against this.
If you're afraid of such behavior - have date when users need to make giveaways, and when all will end at the same time after few days. Accept join requests before giveaway-start-date, when you have no open giveaways which abusing user could enter. It's simple. No need to change SG rules, to open way for site-range-abuse. It's enough to tweak up your own recruitment / group rules to prevent such behavior.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aside from a group refresh feature, I would also support a feature that auto-approves reroll tickets only if the group GA winner is known to SG as no longer a group member. IIRC I've seen a kicked user removed from SG's group user list within a few days or less.
Abuse of this feature would be none to minimal given that group user list updates seem to be not frequent, and they don't seem to be tied exclusively to individual user's general Steam syncs.
However, such features do not address underlying group management scenarios like what Dyna recently gave an example of: Not having an easy way to monitor how many group GAs someone has entered (like your .../giveaways/entered page), or who is entering current group GAs (.../entries for each GA page).
Increasingly, group admins are having to build their own sites/tools or leverage ESGST to retrieve & monitor group GA information. Unlike all other essential GA data, GA's Entries page is a multi-page list, which makes it non-trivial to scrape/retrieve the full entries list of every group GA. Perhaps the tool builders will have to bite the bullet on handling how to scrape Entries data as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
"When you disagree with a user in the community, do your best to explain your viewpoint rather than attacking the individual." That's not how the internet works?
"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." What about the "enter button" that I click manually but is never auto?
-- I want to add "Post whoring" people who start shit in off-topic just to be a drama queen (there is only really ONE on this site) and does this consistently.... take it to reddit! I suggest to remove off-topic 100%, there is no point for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can something be added about people who repeatedly use, recently given out free games to level up to quickly to try to win as many games as possible before they lose the level when the game is added to the free games list.
Comment has been collapsed.
The FAQ says how someone can lose levels if their GA games are marked free by support.
What more do you want support to do? Have a hard limit on free games to give away? Have repeat givers of free games get suspended?
Groups are fully capable of retrieving free games lists from SG or barter.vg and compare them to group GAs - That's what I do
Comment has been collapsed.
With the last free game that was given out I saw dozens of them that where only an hour long.
Old free games that have been marked are fine, but I'm sure we have repeat abusers of the system that lets them put up hour long GAs to get there level quick enter a bunch of short GAs, possibly win a bunch, then lose the level when the game is added.
Its the in between point of when a new free game is given out and when its added to the free games list.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was just reading this (one of your older posts from back in 2012) and the following part of it:
- When you create a giveaway, there's a notification saying, 'Based on your current feedback score, you're able to create up to x additional gifts.' Deleted giveaways count towards this limit, so if you're able to create 5 additional gifts, and you create and delete them all, you'll be locked out. This prevents users from simply creating and removing giveaways, or trolling.
This is neither mentioned in the FAQ nor the current guidelines. Wondering if this is still in effect I was suggested to post this here in order to get it added to the new guidelines (assuming it's still how things work).
Comment has been collapsed.
second to that
(got locked out because of wrong game choice, it was Endorlight and it wasn't available... so i've chosen Endorlight OST: my first ticket, quickly resolved by jatan!)
Comment has been collapsed.
I was suspended for "Necro" a little while ago and the new guidelines don't seem to address that behavior. I think warnings should be given for things that aren't mentioned explicitly in the rules
Comment has been collapsed.
If you'd want to have written down every single "infraction" that user can do, as otherwise they will argue against suspension - then every site "rules page" would be the size of an encyclopedia.
Here we try to address some points that emerged recently, and were causing problems. So that people know what kind of advertisement is allowed on SG. We will not write down whole netiquete here.
Also your point is covered by latest addition:
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 should stop bumping the discussion unless important new information or updates would make it appropriate to do so.
Bumping months old thread with unrelated message "for fun" is not in the best interest of the community. And do falls under unreasonable bumping.
And speaking about myself - I would never even think about necroing that old thread, without having some relevant info (like keys were revoked from the bundle; mod author updated it's version so it works with new OS; there is a new info about missing person from few months back; I wrote year ago that I fight cancer, and turned out I'm in full recession etc.).
And if I would necro a thread - I'd well expect to be suspended for doing so. I learned this lesson while being part of an internet forum like 13 years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
I actually think this is pretty harsh. Suspended for necroing a thread? Really? I mean I don't know the exact ins and outs, but we can't get pissed people bump old threads, where do you draw the line? Go on holiday for two weeks, come back and thank someone and get banned for it?
I don't know if this still happens but when new users join and ask similar questions that had been asked 100's of times, they were told to search the forums. This sometimes also lead to bumps.
What about when people bring back threads two or three weeks old that have been going for years just for visibility? Say the selfie thread, the films you watched thread etc? Do we make a two tieres system where some bumps and necros are ok?
Leaving subjectivity in whilst other things are objective is what got us here in the first place.
All that being said, I've no idea about this guys specific situation and we do need some protection from spamming etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
... i've just read Wallister comment and, now, i'm kind of changing my mind about last cg update about advertising (not a big problem, i know :D).
i do remember Robby necroing that and, frankly, thought it was fun. it doesn't fails under "unreasonable bumping" to my eyes, and his suspension feels unfair. cause, even if it wasn't in the best of interest of this community, neither it was in his own interest.
auto-bumping is unreasonable, for example. we really don't need a perfect Support, there's no reason to ask that. when a Mod makes a mistake the reaction we see is completely unreasonable. and this is related to cg update on advertising.
you've said you (we) are trying to address problems caused by advertisement, cg is proposing "a more reactive approach" on the matter:
If we feel the community finds your content intrusive, repetitive, or disingenuous, it may be closed...
and here comes the Steam Curation. what i'm trying to say is that you, Support, know what is and you really should have the "power" of deciding what's best for the community. and, in my opinion, Curation is not in the interest of this community, is just for personal interest.
you've closed my thread made in my only own, personal interest, and i react harshly? Suspension.
sorry for messy comment, but it looks i'm really not alone... is like there's even more confusion than before. but it will get better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aye, but 13 years ago, there were people running around on internet forums wielding their power like a sword and being total asshats about it. This is coming from someone who was an admin on a #1 google ranked site with a lot of activity, so we did have necros happen. I still don't agree that you should have gotten banned/suspended for it 13 years ago, unless you went around necroing a whole bunch of threads to the front page. I would definitely trounce someone for that one. lol. But doing it one time, should be a warning imo.
But, I don't blame you or anything. SG mods don't have many options here and that's the thing that should be fixed. Being able to hand profile warnings to someone might prove beneficial. If they continue the behaviour, then a suspension might be warranted. Sometimes all someone needs is a little nudge in the right direction. Those ones could turn out to be the best members in the end. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been sitting back and watching/reading all the discussion on the new guidelines update.
I've always supported leaving the guidelines a little open for interpretation, so that things could be handled on a case-by-case basis, and I'm convinced more than ever after reading this discussion (and recent comments elsewhere on the forums) that that was the proper avenue to take.
The more crystal clear the rules are, the more loopholes and work-arounds people will find to abuse and exploit, and they'll use the exact same excuse they did before -- "but there's nothing in the rules about this!" Best of luck to all of you in support handling this new onslaught of people circumventing the rules, and those defending them doing so. I'm glad to see an effort put forward to address those sorts of things, but I don't envy any of you your task dealing with them.
Edit: and already we're seeing people trying to circumvent the new rules and stamp their own authority over the new guidelines. /facepalm
Comment has been collapsed.
Posted this is NB's thread but wanted to put it here for visibility for CG.
My issue with the new rules thread is people are very much deep diving, then there are a few others who are doing a "catch all". You can't have both, you either go comprehensive or you do a bunch of catch all's. When you start being specific, unless you want to write 300 page legislation you are going to miss things.
For example, let's take the "don't be a dick" rule, which basically says don't be racist, sexist, homophobic etc. I think in a normal world most people understand that rule and can abide by it. However, there are people who are going "well what about X" which tbh, is correct on the one hand as it doesn't specifically mention X and there are other rules which are more generic catch alls. The issue then becomes, do you open pandora's box of a list as big as your arm of things we now need to mention as to what is "not" ok. Does someone post something quite obscure, but clearly awful but it's not in the "rules" so its "ok", even though everyone in the world knows that its not ok. Then on the flip side you have people who do something quite innocuous but its part of a catch all rule so it gets banned.
I think we as a community need to meet half way, both the moderators/CG and the community at large. We used to be pretty decent at policing ourselves, someone new posted something that wasn't allowed, we just said "hey that's not allowed". We all knew where the lines were most of the time.
I've read a few things I missed over the year or so of inactivity and couldn't believe the lack of common sense we now seem to have adopted. If we try and then break it down into "lets list everything right and not right" it becomes a minefield of do's and do not's that will leave mods with the impossible task of not being able to punish clear misdeeds without it becoming a rule and vice versa the community not knowing what is ok and what isn't.
Do I have a solution? Absolutely not. All I know is at the minute things are going to be difficult for all, I'm definitely in favour of new rules, they've been needed for a long time. The implementation of them needs to be done in a way which is consistent across the board and everyone needs to get on board with it straight away.
We can all make each others lives easy here, I think things like your events are a great example of "lets use common sense here" and just let it slide. It's not like you've come in after the rules and decided to try and make money off this. Are we really going to turn down say EA coming in and offering the site loads of money to run a competition? What if CD Projekt Red offer 100's of copies of their new games, are we going to turn down great games because rules are rules?
Any rule we make or want should be for the improvement of the community at large on both sides, anything that makes that process more difficult for mods or people involved in making the community better should be left behind.
Comment has been collapsed.
Beta keys which do not provide unrestricted access to the full game in the future
How do members know whether or not beta keys will provide unrestricted access in the future?
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the response.
How do beta giveaways look? Are people supposed to know how to do this? Is it reasonable to expect a winner to conduct a form of personal investigation to make an appropriate judgement, and hope that a moderator will agree with them?
ISTM that the current view is that as long as a giver says that a key is a full version of the game and it will not be revoked, then it can be judged not to be a beta key, even if it says that it is a beta key. So, why not just allow beta keys as long as they are disclosed as beta keys? Why pretend to have a rule?
I'm not trying to be a jerk but I believe in the addage that good fences make good neighbours. If rules are unclear and can be enforced by ad hoc judgement, then they're not rules; they are suggestions or considerations.
Comment has been collapsed.
How do beta giveaways look?
If someone gets a beta key and shares it via GA on SG, they often look like any other giveaway.
Are people supposed to know how to do this?
No, but if someone wants to protect themselves from the risk of getting a key that will be revoked weeks or months after activation, they should know to do their homework.
Is it reasonable to expect a winner to conduct a form of personal investigation to make an appropriate judgement, and hope that a moderator will agree with them?
IMO the two most probable ways a beta key can be dealt with on SG are:
-
A support person or mod actively searches for giveaways for a game that has a known recent beta key/limited giveaway, and warns/investigates users who post GAs that are likely beta keys.
-
A user notices a giveaway that was created shortly after a known recent beta key/lmited giveaway, and files a support ticket reporting the giveaway.
Beta/limited access giveaways are against guidelines and are grounds for suspension.
ISTM that the current view is that as long as a giver says that a key is a full version of the game and it will not be revoked, then it can be judged not to be a beta key, even if it says that it is a beta key. So, why not just allow beta keys as long as they are disclosed as beta keys? Why pretend to have a rule?
I'm not a mod, but I assume that the "Beta keys, guest passes, and coupons should not be given away." guideline exists because:
-
Not all beta keys or guest passes are permanent, some are for a limited time
-
SG regularly checks users' Steam libraries for key activation, as do many SG tools and even some groups. Failure for a winner to activate a game (or failure to appear to have their game active) results in user suspension.
-
Because the former can undermine the ability to do the latter, SG does not allow the former.
If rules are unclear and can be enforced by ad hoc judgement, then they're not rules; they are suggestions or considerations.
Whether a key is a beta or limited access key can be determined objectively with information in various cases:
-
Is there a web page, forum post, or barter.vg game page citing a beta/limited key distribution by a developer/publisher?
-
Was the GA created before or after the datetime of the key distribution noted above?
-
Does the GA creator admit that the source is consistent with the beta key distribution?
-
[Less likely] If not and the game have never been bundled or given away by other means, but the GA creator claims a source that does not match a known beta giveaway, can they provide proof as to how they acquired the key?
I personally have only noticed 3 beta/limited access games that I want showing up on SG during my less than 1 year of time on the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
SG regularly checks users' Steam libraries for key activation, as do many SG tools and even some groups. Failure for a winner to activate a game (or failure to appear to have their game active) results in user suspension.
I can see the logic for this.
Wouldn't another approach be to simply not allow beta keys and enforce it as such? What's missing IMHO is a definition of what is a beta key. Currently we have keys that are labelled beta keys but then people argue that they are not beta keys and mods participate in this. These proposed guidelines make suggestions about what is a beta key ("which do not provide unrestricted access to the full game in the future") but I don't see how this can be enforced without members making individual judgments.
Another approach would be, if it is labelled as a beta key, it is not allowed. This is something that can actually be understood and enforced without complications.
Thoughts?
Comment has been collapsed.
Wouldn't another approach be to simply not allow beta keys and enforce it as such?
It is already in existing guidelines (below), and your original comment quoted what that looks like in the new guidelines.
Beta keys, guest passes, and coupons should not be given away.
I don't know how often the rule is or is not enforced on SG. Are you asking why the rule isn't enforced in a different way?
What's missing IMHO is a definition of what is a beta key.
[New guideline defintion:] Beta keys which do not provide unrestricted access to the full game in the future
For me personally, "beta keys" are clear enough in the new guideline, as I interpret it to mean that a beta key has either:
-
Restricted access
-
Not the full game, OR
-
Cannot be accessed (will be revoked) at some point the future
As for enforcement, that's largely up to how proactive support wants to be about finding possible beta keys based on known beta/limited key giveaways. I guess if support is only reactive regarding possible beta keys, that would mean its largely up to members to report it through support tickets. Regardless of whether the primary source of enforcement is support or members, it all comes down to judgement based on known information that I outlined in a prior comment.
Comment has been collapsed.
I interpret it to mean that a beta key has either:
Restricted access
Not the full game, OR
Cannot be accessed (will be revoked) at some point the future
The point I'm trying to make is that it should not require an interpretation. Regardless, of the 3 conditions you've listed, 2 are not easily identifiable in advance and the 3rd is impossible to identify in advance.
Until a clear and enforceable definition is determined, I suspect that this will continue to be a problem area with or without the proposed guidelines.
Comment has been collapsed.
Until a clear and enforceable definition is determined, I suspect that this will continue to be a problem area with or without the proposed guidelines.
Perceived clarity aside, given Steam's inherent inability to provide pre-activation confirmation of whether a raw key is beta/limited access or not, restricting beta keys is not easily enforceable unless SG bans ALL future giveaways for games that have known beta/limited Steam keys based on the websites/data available. I don't think many people want that.
Another option would be to assign no-value/CV to any game that gives out beta keys, which would demotivate people from giving it away for the purposes of earning CV. This does happen sometimes when a dev advertises giving away what THEY call "beta keys" but provide unrestricted access to the full game and are not limited by a time frame - In that case SG handles it like any other mass giveaway of a game, except the dev happens to use the term "beta" to describe it.
With all that said, this means the only way to feasibly enforce any other beta key rule is taking the effort to go through the relevant websites/data available, and for either mods/support to take action or for a user to report it.
The point I'm trying to make is that it should not require an interpretation.
Perhaps you would prefer inverting the new guideline about beta keys into a definition of (valid) keys?
[Current guideline] Beta keys which do not provide unrestricted access to the full game in the future
[Kinda the opposite of the current guideline] Keys must provide unrestricted access to the full game and not limited by a time frame.
If a key gives restricted access to the full game or is limited by a time frame, then its a "beta key". How much clearer can that be?
Comment has been collapsed.
Do people prefer the proposed guidelines with a more restricted approach to advertising? Or, would you prefer something like the below that's more reactive, where we allow users to advertise and take action based on the response from the community?
Advertising
Advertising is any type of user content that is sponsored, or content that is trying to promote or sell a product or service. We do allow our users to advertise, but we will moderate this content to stricter standards as we watch for spam and unreasonable bumping.
Advertisements should be engaging and leave an overall positive impact on the community. If you are promoting a product or service through a discussion or event, we expect to see our community participating and expressing interest through their comments. If we feel the community finds your content intrusive, repetitive, or disingenuous, it may be closed or removed, and it would not be appropriate to advertise the content again in a similar manner.
Comment has been collapsed.
first thought, reading your first line, was "much more restricted", but then, i do really prefer that "reactive" approach. awesome idea, cg!
i also love the name, the word... "reactive", it gives a feel of active participation, of really being heard, of really being part of the site,...
thank you!
Comment has been collapsed.
this sounds like friends in high places or popularity will affect how threads are moderated.
i'd go with the proposed guidelines, "no exceptions" route.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some thoughts:
I'd rather call this 'promotion' when discussing it. Ads have some connotations online on specific forms of presentations.
Also, referring to mentioning product names during discussions as 'advertising' (as in the 'disassociated' section in the proposed guidelines) seems to me to totally miss the mark. It should be made clear when mentioning products is not advertising. When I post about a game I enjoyed or didn't, that's not advertising. Calling it that just confuses the issue.
Also, I think that there should be a distinction between a person advertising their own work and someone using ads as an affiliate, and making money off that.
I think that it's worth mentioning that promotion should be relevant to the site's content.
In general, vague definitions, if they aren't backed by at the very least examples and explanations, are likely to hurt people whose posts will be closed or removed. For example the current controversy about Twitch's 'sexual content' bans. When people can't understand what would cause problems, and why some things are accepted and some aren't, they feel that the system is broken.
tl;dr I like neither to proposed guidelines nor the short version. I think that the proposed version is too limiting, and talks too much about things which I think are not advertising by any common sense. The short version doesn't actually give any idea of what should and shouldn't be done.
Comment has been collapsed.
The latter would be my preference as it allows the community to self moderate first and subsequent SG moderation only if required. Quite often with these threads, people will listen and if the vast majority of comment/responses indicate they are doing something incorrect, they usually will correct their threads accordingly.
As ET3D has stated, examples of what is allowed and what isn't should narrow peoples ideas of what is acceptable or not. This is definitely something I would want to know before creating any threads where "advertising" might be involved.
Comment has been collapsed.
People are biased by nature - toward their friends, toward people who white-list them, toward their Steam groups, toward "popular" people, against "unpopular" people or people they don't like, et cetera. It's been proven time and time again around here - condemn one person for something while condoning another for the same thing.
TLDR: some will be able to post whatever they please, while still others will be condemned for anything they post.
It's my belief everyone should be treated equally, and leaving it to the community goes against my most base belief that all users should be treated equally in regards to the content they're allowed/not allowed to post. Leaving it to the moderation staff to apply the rules equally is also less liable to create disruption over this potential inequality on the forums.
Edit: And no, I'm not saying the moderation staff is unbiased. Far from it. But they are under obligation to be as unbiased as possible, whereas other members of this community are under no such obligation at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the answer is probably somewhere between a strict no advertising policy and relaxed community policing. Perhaps some well thought out examples of advertising that is allowable and what isn't and then updates to the guidelines if problems arise.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it should be a "one rule fits all" approach, but perhaps set the rules based on the different kinds of advertising. Some things can be beneficial to the site, like a member releasing a new game. But then there are other things that are not so beneficial like someone posting up a curator group while at the same time using that group for poaching users for their own giveaway site.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some things can be beneficial to the site, like a member releasing a new game.
how is that beneficial to the site?
the only one making a profit is the developer...
Comment has been collapsed.
For $100, one can make an account here (actually far less, given sale prices and all, but for the sake of argument we will stick with $100)
Indie game developers (I'm using that term loosely here), seeing a huge potential market (since we're all gamers here), make accounts in droves, the forum is spammed with indie developers promoting their games, and we're forced to deal with it because they'd be members of this community.
They profit, we're spammed with sales topics. No, thanks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now I wonder does the Steam is learning apply to this $100 calculation?
Comment has been collapsed.
We only account for games reported by the Steam API. Since ownership of those games is unknown to the site, they aren't part of the $100 calculation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if it was a member of the community and not some rando, it generates activity on the forums. I wouldn't mind that kind of thing, so long as it's not redirecting members to another site. I suppose I can see how that would be an issue if every tom, dick and harry was signing up just to advertise.
The worst kind of advertisements are the user poachers who are directing people to sites that generate revenue for them.
Comment has been collapsed.
100% behind a common sense approach but with the size and scope of the site nothing will please everyone. However being too restrictive will slowly smother the site, I'd rather people be pissed off for a bit and the community was allowed to grow.
I think we can all use common sense here, if say NB did a Coins and Goblins event, we know this is community based rather than developer based. If some groups have offsite websites that do literally nothing but hold information for the group to function, it should be allowed to be linked/promoted/advertised. Not actively encouraging these types of things will definitely lead to people leaving and forming even stronger offsite places.
That's the issue with having blanket rules, they can lead to too strict moderation as people start going "dems the rulez" rather than using common sense. Or even worse, people start saying "hey you should ban that guy for that thing" even though its been around for years and actually been nothing but positive. To be clear here, this will be nobodies fault as its the job of the mods to enforce the rules and some people will be trying to "help" enforce those rules.
If you ever do read this there's going to be lots of contradictory opinions and lots of people who have stakes in certain rules going one way or another. Just do whatever you think is going to benefit the community the most, you'll never placate everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would strongly suggest having a more calm down approach to advertising. I have a little giveback thread that got totally locked down for mentioning and linking to my curator page which has gotten a lot of positive feedback from the community here (and really is thought as a service for other gamers). So it really was something that grew out of SG. Just to clarify: Nowhere in the thread I asked people to follow me or even just to visit it, it was just there so people could have some context on what is making me happy.
After the close down I edited all the links out and also took out the name of the curator so all it said in the thread was, that I have a curator. But still this wasn't enough to have the thread opened back up again and I had to take out all mentioning of a curator page whatsoever. (At the time I'm writing this my case is still pending and I can only hope that I've done enough editing now to have the thread opened back up.)
I totally understand that the SG team (wow, that makes you guys sound like Colonel Jack O'Neil 😄) tries to block out the misuse of the community for advertising. But really this seems to be totally over the top. I don't say this just because it is affecting me, but because I think this is bad for the community as a whole.
In my opinion, at least the mentioning should be allowed. I can totally accept, that "please follow", "please buy", "please like" is strictly forbidden. But really, are censored threads like mine or the latest one from NB264 what SG should look like?
I wrote it to the mod communicating with me the following and I'd like to add it here as well: "it feels to me like you're trying to sort out black sheeps and now reach that goal by killing a dozens sheep with one or two black sheeps in it."
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with Gibor's post, mentioning that one has a curator should not be punishable (maybe unless they did it everywhere, without regard for whether or not the comment is applicable to the discussion). Linking to said curator in the Discussions should IMO only be done:
1) In threads if it is just casually mentioned, especially if not asking for follows or visits, more of a "hey, I've got this thing if you care"--and even more especially if it is a line in a post, and not the main focus of said post,
2) if and when applicable (on-topic) in a comment to answer a question or say "hey, you said you're looking for more Point & Click games, I am a curator who focuses on P&C games, here's a link."
or
3) A (one?) dedicated thread (kinda like group membership or WL-recruitment threads) (especially an "about me" thread).
I'm iffy about #3, but strongly in favor of #1 & 2
Disclaimer: I am not a curator nor do I ever expect to be one. These are just my thoughts on a common-sense laid-back approach to not ban everything which maybe mentions anything related to the word "curator."
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer to keep it all within giveaways. Youtube, Twitch, curations, social media platforms, etc. Not only does it encourage one to make giveaways (even if it's to promote something they benefit from), but it keeps the advertising spam off the forums. It also keeps an influx of level 0 accounts from being made solely to advertise on the forums.
- I mention I like FPS games -- I don't want 5 curators spamming me with replies "check out my curation!"
- People mention what games they like in a bundle and get spammed with curator links.
- People spam threads (and constantly bump them) about something else ("About Me", for instance) to "stealth" advertise their curation, YT, Twitch, etc.
We even had one user here spamming his own thread endlessly to drive people to his Steam profile to check out his curation link (after being asked to remove it from the forums and pitching a childish temper tantrum), among other things he pulled.
Common sense, along with forum etiquette and common courtesy, tends to fall by the wayside when one is adamant about something from which they benefit.
Edit: One thing that hit me after posting this comment. You allow advertising on any regular level on the forums, and you're leaving the door wide open for people to post potential scam sites. It's bad enough that kind of thing could already be happening in giveaways, since advertising is allowed there.
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't seen this kind of behaviour (meaning I missed it, not that it wasn't there) and I understand all the anger against mentionings of curators etc. much better now thanks to your post. Thank you!
I still hope though there is a good middle way that allows meaningful, non-spam, community building mentioning of content without leaving the door open for users who's sole purpose is the advertising of their content.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fortunately, it's only a few bad apples in the bushel. Unfortunately, they usually take it to such extremes that it leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many. I've already witnessed angry tantrums occur over curations (the worst one I've seen went on for months and caused a general ruckus on the forums until the user was perma-suspended), Twitch Streams, and even Discord channels.
I believe CG is already being generous allowing advertising (on his own personal hobby site) in giveaways. And giveaways, in my opinion, should remain the central focus of this site. Allowing advertising only in giveaways encourages those who wish to advertise to make giveaways --.thus providing both a way for people to grow their social media or curations and contribute in a definitive and meaningful way to Steamgifts at the same time. It also lessens the work support has to do in determining who is being "genuine" (and any debate that might ensue over that) and who is not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your answer. I really didn't know that it was that bad. (I'm not that constant of a forum user.)
I think there is never a perfect and totally fair way to handle these things. There will always be people who try to exploid it or users who just don't want to listen (I had a discussion not so long time ago like that, when I tried to help a user who made rule breaking requirements in the description. Let's just say he didn't take the help very well...). But at the same time, the rules as they are used right now lead to pretty frustrating experiences and therefore hinder giveaways. It's great to make a giveaways (and especially trains), but it's always more fun if you can link it together with something you celebrate or something that is dear to you (be it a hobby, a page you make or a political concern) or something where you want to engage the community. Thats why i.e. the community trains were so much fun for many users.
Now here I am with something I hold dear, but I'm not allowed to even mention that I hold something dear without being shut down. (As the rules are right now I'm not even allowed to say "I have a curator" even without naming or linking it). That is quite frustrating. I was building on a big train with games that are exactly what I curate (short games) for months now and hoped to have it finished end of October, so I can make a really big giveback to the community together with a little poll which game the community orders me to try out next. But now, I don't know if I do it. Maybe I find a way so it's still fun to me, but at the moment, I don't know.
Now of course one can say: Don't be such a sissy, this page is about giving and it shouldn't matter, why or how you give. And yeah, you're right. But still, I'm back at the "more fun" part. It's great when you can make the GAs mor meaningful to yourself and other users.
And I think back of a thread I made when I had started with my curator page (back when the ruling was way less harsh than today). I made a little train and wow was this a cool thread. I've got so many very, very helpful tipps on games for my curator page (I still have a looot of games from back then on my list, that aren't even in my library yet and a lot I have, that I haven't tested out yet). It was a great experience for me and from the feedbacks I got, it seemed like a lot of other users enjoyed it as well.
I totally understand, that the mods have to find a as fair and just as possible way to deal with people that don't care about the community. But I doubt that the rigid ban of any mentioning will really be the thing that is best for this page.
And just to be absolutly clear: I accept whatever CG and the mods decide, wether I like it or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I doubt it will ever happen, but I would like it. I don't like curators in general, and even less I like advertising of curators.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because there are very helpful curator pages. I found interesting ones through SG like for example "Adventure Gamer Club". As you may know I myself have a curator page and I get feedbacks every now and then from people finding helpful what I do. So why completly forbid something were passionate users help other users?
As for the offered games: First of all, this is not the reason I have this curator. Would be a pretty bad ratio of what i put into it and what I get out of it. Since I started the curator page I was offered around 20 games. I can only estimate because I for sure declined some, that I thought were 100% not fitting for my curator page. Some of these games (it's at least 2, maybe it's more) are free to play anyways. 12 of those games I have tested and rated (the other 4 I plan to do as well) and only 4 got a positive review. In most of the other cases it was not that much fun, but more of a chore done out of my feeling of obligation to the developers offering a copy. Out of these 4 games there was one I really knew about before and I actually thought about buying.
Of course this all may look different for other curators, but really I doubt, that you get so much out of this, except maybe if you one of the bigger players in the curator system with 1000+ followers. But how many of those are around on this page anyways?
Your argument by the way would go with other channels as well. The Curator Connect is an easy and direct way to distribute review copies, but we all know that sometimes youtubers, facebook stars, steam reviewers, steam groups etc. get offered review copies as well. So following your argumentation, those would have to be banned as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for keeping this up-to-date.
I have some concerns regarding discussions.
- It would be good to have clarification what content goes to which sub-category for example, deal to deals, offtopic to offtopic, etc.
- Proposed rules ban posting information about other stores promotions and such, according to what have been proposed we cannot have any longer posts about for example: "New free games in Gog Connect", or "New batch of free games in Epic Store" or even "Humble Bundle originals" as neither is Steam or Steamgifts relevant.
- Same goes to other not directly Steam connected content, we can no longer have discussion about Hardware, Operating Systems, that includes important news infos, for example: very important-"last windows patch is burning computers, do not update until further notice"(assuming this is true of course and there is a source text)
- And what about strictly off-topic discussions, and what is the aim of off-topic anyway, we cannot have topics like "Researchers in XXX University proved, that eating pizza is shortening your life by 100 years, what do you think? I like pizza and I will eat it even if I die (text/link source)" as this is advertising of the X University and pizza, and it's neither Steam or Steamgifts related.
- In past we had some duplicate posts, for example a couple of Steam sales thread. Wouldn't be wise to propose users to use search thread future first before creating new discussion?.
P.S. In the past community put lot of effort in similar matter, FAQ. That old thread may be useful here for this guidelines and possible future FAQ changes:
https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/Nt4LP/alternative-faq-or-how-to-enjoy-this-site-and-stay-out-of-trouble-wip
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be good to have clarification what content goes to which sub-category for example, deal to deals, offtopic to offtopic, etc.
Nice to have, but not essential to core operation of the site or the quality of its content, given that I see relatively little that I see as not fitting in the proper category - So perhaps that's why its not in the guidelines. It would be nice to have in the FAQ though.
Many people have already complained that the guidelines are too long, but we got to this point because a bunch of people said the guidelines don't cover enough - Damned if they do, damned if they dont. I'd like to think this is a compromise in the middle.
Proposed rules ban [a bunch of stuff]
Can you site the specific parts of the rules that support your claims made in points 2-4? Here's a part of the rules that indicates to me that store promotions are allowed: "You are always free to advertise third party content when you have no affiliation or association with the product or service, such as posting a Humble Bundle deal"
In past we had some duplicate posts, for example a couple of Steam sales thread. Wouldn't be wise to propose users to use search thread future first before creating new discussion?
I've been browsing the Deals and General subforums at least semi regularly for nearly the past year and it doesn't seem to happen terribly often. So I personally don't see it as important unless there's a bunch of thread closures from Mods that we don't see, and promoting thread search would mitigate a good chunk of their workload.
Comment has been collapsed.
Products or services can be advertised if they are add-ons, extensions, or tools for either Steam or SteamGifts. If you are promoting your Steam group in the "Group Recruitment" category, or if you are managing a giveaway event, you are also allowed to link to relevant products or services.
Comment has been collapsed.
...which is under the heading of only "Associated" advertising content, meaning the rules in that section only apply to when you are advertising something you are associated with. In your example, if you work for Humble and you promote a deal or a bundle of theirs, then the restrictions below the "Associated" section apply. Otherwise, relatively little restrictions in the "Dissociated" section apply.
Associated
When you are associated with the content you are advertising, you may still be able to share it, but only when it is explicitly allowed below.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are right, missed that, probably as discussion sub looked for me like independent topic under advertising. Sorry for that.
Comment has been collapsed.
A suggestion:
When you reply a comment that somebody let you in the forum, giveaway or support... removes the MESSAGE NOTIFICATION... I mean automaticaly mark that comment as readed. Just that.
Comment has been collapsed.
we need to be able to give away keys for other launchers as long as specified in the description!! or ad an option in the giveaway creation page!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, why not? We have giveaways of free games, we've even had giveaway for a t-shirt, so I see no reason why we can't have literally anything here. It would require more than just changes in guidelines though... cg would need to implement new type of giveaways, allowing to giveaway ANYTHING at all (as long as it's legal of course) - non-steam games, t-shirts, mugs, tickets to Disneyland, you name it. Obviously this new type of GA should give no CV, just provide users with convenient way to randomly chose winner among entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe it is of the utmost importance that the Guidelines be updated to reflect the offensive and toxic nature of Captain Picard gifs, in particular gifs in which the delightful Jean-Luc appears to be laughing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I apologize if this isn't the right place to ask this. But is there a way to know who whitelisted us? ESGST doesn't have an option like that, right?
I've meaning to & trying to find the people who gave me blue hearts. It's my fault though for not getting back to them ASAP (especially if I think it was after an interaction/talk with someone). Some WLs I have no idea who or why though. Who are you kind folks 😅I want to know to thank you / whitelist back 😭
If there really isn't a way, I understand. Just thought to ask here. I'll also be more initiative with future WLs so I don't have to ask about this
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for being patient as these guidelines are finished. It's been a busy few weeks with life outside of the site, but I'll be getting back to these guidelines Monday or Tuesday.
Comment has been collapsed.
Take the time you need. It's great that you involve the community and try your best to make good thought through guidelines and not just some rushed "at least it's done"-rules! 👍😎
Comment has been collapsed.
Congratulation on making this site better with new rules! ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally i think that in the discussions there should be rule that someone arguing in bad faith (using falacies, hyperbolizing, ad hominem 's,etc.) should be temp banned.
I have stopped using the site because "every" discussion there are users using dishonest tactics to push for their ignorant opinions.
Comment has been collapsed.
This seems highly subjective and that a reasonable argument could be made that such may encroach upon oppressive censorship. As long as a discussion doesn't degrade into vulgarity and incivility or personal attacks then I think it should generally be left alone. I will also say that just because someone may feel l like they are 'losing' an argument that doesn't mean that it has become uncivilized. Anyway this sort of thing comes with the territory of just going on the internet in general.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am sorry for not answering soon but i was looking for an example. Lets talk about your 2 arguments.
this sort of thing comes with the territory of just going on the internet in general.
First i want to say that just because there is a status quo I think we both can agree that we should look to improve ourselves beyond what we already do. Just because in most of the internet people are fine being asshole, doesn't mean that SG community should allow assholes. IMO the more rules there are that give mods the abilty to raise both the standards of discussion as well as making sure users don't throw abusive language "because we talk like this in the internet" the better.
this seems highly subjective and that a reasonable argument could be made that such may encroach upon oppressive censorship.
On one hand i agree with freedom of speech on the other hand giving a platform for disinformation as well as alt-right /nazi-lite views is stupid.
If you have time look at this thread.
There are people defending putin and bolsonaro yet see Germany as "evil". People claiming ozone layer was never threatened, people defending the USA's 2nd amendment for fallacious reasons,etc.
The problem is that those people know that are ignoring reality, choosing to harm other for the safety of their beliefs. IMO the main spirit of this site is to give away. These people are doing the exact opposite for their selfish gain in real life. IMO in this site mods should ban temporarily these people so they understand that if your live is about hurting others then you are not welcome in a place that is all about helping.
Like you say the line is thin and maybe sometimes mods will be overzealous or not acting when they should but as long as they give their reasoning i'd be fine for them to have the power, because this site right now has far too many (active) "bad" people.
Comment has been collapsed.
My only real gripe with the site's system is the absurd leniency towards users who don't activate their wins after the very reasonable time frame of one week. It should be the winners' responsibility to check the site and/or their emails regularly for wins. Instead, it's the giveaway creators who are forced to go through all the hassle of trying to contact them, as if begging the winners to accept their gifts. It seems to me that roles are kind of reversed here. The proposed extra week after trying to contact winners before rerolls can be requested will not only be an additional annoyance to giveaway creators, but will also serve as an incentive for that kind of behavior, which I consider, at the very least, an inexcusable lack of regard for the users offering the gifts.
Giveaways should be automatically rerolled if winners don't redeem their gifts after one week. Now if besides not redeeming the gift after one week a winner went as far as revealing the key or gift link, they should be automatically temporarily suspended. If for some reason a winner is in a situation where redeeming the gift isn't possible, then they shouldn't go and reveal the key or gift link, period.
Comment has been collapsed.
Giveaways should be automatically rerolled if winners don't redeem their gifts after one week.
How do you want to prevent situation where creator doesn't want to deliver game to specific user: do not send them their game, and after a week send request new winner ticket with a reason "unable to contact"?
We'd have tons of angry users where creators abused their right to re-roll giveaways, without ability to prove it. That's why onus of proving that there was attempt to deliver the game lies on the creator.
Winners could just write "they did not contact with me and did not send my game!", and then we'd need to go back to the creator, ask them for proof of contact or sending game to the winner. If they fail to provide it - we could try to revert re-roll if key was not already activated by new winner. But it may take up weeks to process.
Otherwise (I personally could) suspend such creator for fake giveaways, as they created it without willingness to deliver it to any winner. And giveaways are made in a way that every entrant has the same chance to win, no matter additional factors. Only factor that matters is if you obtained link to the giveaway in a legitimate way, and if you meet the level requirements.
And I don't think that writing short message on profile wall or in old giveaway is "hassle".
Comment has been collapsed.
How do you want to prevent situation where creator doesn't want to deliver game to specific user: do not send them their game, and after a week send request new winner ticket with a reason "unable to contact"?
The countdown to the automatic reroll would only start after the giveaway's creator sends the key or gift link. That might require some adjustment to the site's code but it can be done.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is not way to validate if link / key is proper. Someone could add 12345-67890-12345 as a key, it would be sent and creator would get automatic re-roll after a week, as winner did not activate game.
Creators can create giveaway as a gift, and send key via e-mail. As they do not uncover key (there is none) - would it still warrant automatic re-roll? How to prove creator really sent key to winner's e-mail without asking of proof?
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe the suggestion proposed is rooted in the below definitions coupled with a certain understanding of SG's capabilities - Are these points accurate or understandable?
-
When saying "giveaway's creator sends the key or gift link", what is really meant is Giveaway Type of "Key" which can be "Steam redeemable keys, or gift URLs from Steam or Humble Bundle".
-
"sends" is a reference to a creator using the "Send" function on a giveaway's ".../winners" page.
-
When a giveaway ends, SG does send an email notification to the giveaway winner based on the email address on file (default=email from Steam account), but does not actually send the "Key" to the winner via email.
-
After a giveaway ends, a "Send" function becomes available to the creator. When function is triggered, it makes the "Key" available to the winner through the Giveaways Won page
-
After the creator does "Send", SG is capable of knowing the datetime that function was initiated, and SG is capable of knowing if & when a winner clicks the View/Redeem link on the Giveaways Won page.
If all that is true, then the proposed suggestion comes down to...
-
The scope of the suggestion only applies to "Key" and not "Gift", because SG has no knowledge of creator-initiated communication of essential "Gift" data.
-
Asking a creator to contact the user via email is redundant because SG itself emails the winning user immediately upon the end datetime of a giveaway.
-
Auto-reroll suggestion would only apply to "Key" Giveaway Types that have ended where "Send" is used by the creator, and the winner does not view/reveal the key 1 week after the datetime of the last "Send" or any subsequent "Key" modification - Whichever occurs later.
-
Creators who hide or delete a Key from an ended giveaway would be prevented from abusing or manipulating auto-reroll behavior.
-
After a winner reveals the "Key", auto-reroll should not be performed.
Comment has been collapsed.
You described the situation very well. I did fail to notice the complications of my suggestion when it's not a key that's being gifted directly via the site's system - I never make "Gift" giveaways, so my bad. Thanks a lot for a very constructive post.
Comment has been collapsed.
Asking a creator to contact the user via email is redundant because SG itself emails the winning user immediately upon the end datetime of a giveaway.
E-mails are not mandatory, as site needs to have permission of every user to send e-mails to them. We can't force users to use this feature, e-mail may land in spam for some reason etc. Also it is not information that key is available, only that someone won a game.
Auto-reroll suggestion would only apply to "Key" Giveaway Types that have ended where "Send" is used by the creator, and the winner does not view/reveal the key 1 week after the datetime of the last "Send" or any subsequent "Key" modification - Whichever occurs later.
This is not a bad idea, but still - sometimes both winner and creator agrees to keep giveaway in "awaiting feedback" status for weeks after giveaway ended. Creator may write to user on Steam that sadly key was revoked, but they wait for next promotion to grab new copy. There is no reason to uncover key, as it's not working. They ask if winner can wait a bit longer for their win, instead of marking GA as not received. So even if automatic re-rolls would be a possibility, it should still not be automatic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Creator may write to user on Steam that sadly key was revoked, but they wait for next promotion to grab new copy. There is no reason to uncover key, as it's not working.
I propose that a creator should not keep a Key in SG as soon as the creator learns it becomes invalid for any reason, especially since keeping it in SG goes down the path of a fake giveaway. Therefore, if that happens and the key was never viewed by the winner, just have the creator use the Delete "Key" function on the giveaway's ".../winners" page and such function would prevent any possible auto reroll. This would also be one way to address the scenario where...
sometimes both winner and creator agrees to keep giveaway in "awaiting feedback" status for weeks after giveaway ended
And just to be clear about this scenario: If the key is ever viewed by the winner under any circumstance, auto-reroll would never occur under the suggestion as written.
Even if all scenarios are addressed, I suppose there is a larger goal that all suggestion regarding won giveaways & creator-to-winner contact has to be filtered through:
E-mails are not mandatory, as site needs to have permission of every user to send e-mails to them. We can't force users to use this feature, e-mail may land in spam for some reason etc.
When it comes to winning a giveaway, is it accurate to say that the most important thing is to prevent under all circumstances direct or indirect forcing of SG users who enter giveaways to check the SG site for a win, hence the current reroll requirements put on giveaways creators and support?
I can respect that and the underlying "giveaways aren't possible without users entering them" sentiment. We shouldn't be surprised though if big public giveaway creators get tired of manual rerolls & their requirements for more of them to go non-public, as public giveaways in October have decreased to 2012 levels at <50%. Just an observation.
In contrast, I believe creators who post many public or Discussion based invite-only giveaways would prefer that an expectation similar to the following be set:
- By entering a giveaway, SG users should check the site once a week (or specifically within one week of a giveaway's end datetime) to check for giveaway wins and/or sent won keys. SG users are encouraged to enable email notifications and manage their spam filters to help ensure they receive notification of giveaway wins.
Comment has been collapsed.
these sorts of problems rarely appear in a good SG group
Indeed. I rarely have issues with giveaways restricted to my group, but I also make lots of giveaways open to all. Those are usually the problematic ones.
as an anti-bot measure, I second automatic rerolls of untouched wins and suspension for not claiming within 7 days after revealing,
but what if it's a bad key? regioned? has a related support ticket? naughty gifter? etc.
so I must retract my support and recuse myself
An autoroll wouldn't happen in case the winner created a support ticket, and like I wrote above, not until a week after the giveaway's owner had actually sent the key or gift link. The site's system could also be adjusted to add an extra field the winner could use to signal a bad key or bad gift link, which would also stop the autoroll (just an idea, better suggestions are welcome). Mods would need to deal with far less manual reroll request tickets, only needing to get involved if there actually was an issue with the gift and that issue couldn't be resolved between the giveaway owner and the winner themselves.
In my personal experience here, after giving away 8,160 keys, that shouldn't be too common. More than once I've had 50+ key giveaways where the site that sold me the keys sent me lots of duplicates and I ended up having to replace more than half the keys, without any winner ever needing to complain to SteamGift's support. I understand that SteamGifts may have a problem with giveaway creators who maliciously abuse the system, and of course they should be severely punished, but that shouldn't mean that the vast majority of creators, who I believe are honest and abide by the rules, should be practically presumed guilty until proven innocent, the way it is now.
Comment has been collapsed.
but will also serve as an incentive for that kind of behavior
I get it that you're angry, but we're literally talking about someone being too lazy to get their won game. It doesn't happen as often as it could, because you know... free shit :) It's a pretty rare occurence, just people (rightfully) complain about it pretty loudly, which makes it to appear a lot more widespread as it is.
Giveaways should be automatically rerolled if winners don't redeem their gifts after one week. Now if besides not redeeming the gift after one week a winner went as far as revealing the key or gift link, they should be automatically temporarily suspended.
One needs to reveal the key to find out if it's duplicate. Then the creator needs to find a replacement, and have 1 week to do so. Also the winner can't mark it not received until 1 week passes. Your suggestion would automatically suspend winners who got a duplicate key, with the creator not replacing it on time, and that is far from being fair, or even good. I think you should give more time for your suggestions, and consider the consequences not just from the angry giveaway-maker's perspective.
The system sides with the winner because the creator is in a super-abusable position for many reasons.
I could withhold your win until last second, send, make screenshot as a proof, unsend and reroll your win.
I could give you a duplicate key and just say that you activated on your alt and get you suspended.
Also because to prevent winners begging for their games / harass the creator, it is extremely frowned upon to ask for your win so in most cases the winner just waits for the game to be delivered, regardless if it takes 2 hours or 5 days. Basically, the ball is at the creator and that power needs to be balanced, and definitely checked and not automated.
A bit sad that I have to say this, but every rule should be considered from the abuser's perspective, not from yours. Because if you want easier time when dealing with maybe a dozen?two? of your thousands of giveaways, that will allow at least a few dozen people out of the thousand users to actively try to abuse it. #this_is_why_we_can't_have_nice_things
Comment has been collapsed.
Do u plan to translate SG to other languages? I think Crowdin service or another can help u with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe it would help if the guidelines mention that owned games tagged with "Profile Features Limited" on Steam continue to appear in the list of available giveaways even when set to filter out games already owned. I have seen several newer users confused by this and wondering what was going on.
Another user was telling me that since ownership of such games cannot be properly detected by SteamGifts, any DLC giveaways for such games cannot be entered even by those who own the base game. If true, this limitation seems worth mentioning as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, but it feels like better place for this is FAQ. IMO SG guidelines is not place to explain users how SteamAPI works.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, putting it in the FAQ makes sense.
To clarify further, I didn't mean that it should get into the technicalities of why this happens, which is probably due to limitations of the SteamAPI. I just thought an explanation of the end-user impact of Steam's "Profile Features Limited" designation would be helpful (namely, the giveaway list filtering limitation and the inability to create DLC giveaways). At present, new users have no clue why they are seeing games they already own in their filtered list of available giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not only new users have problem with it, I can see tickets about it from time to time from users of all levels:
- I see giveaway even when I own it on Steam
- I made giveaway and I have no entries
- potential bug, I can't enter in giveaway even when I own base game
etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, one of those tickets was from me. :-)
I had assumed it was a glitch tied to a specific game.
You set me straight but putting it in the FAQ should leave you with a little less to do. (Yes, some of us do actually read it!)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree again :P But any changes to FAQ will need to wait for us to end guidelines.
After all faq is partially based on guidelines.
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.