What do you think?
so this site should become ea-gifts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have been assured by a very knowing SteamGifter of my acquaintance in SteamTrades, that a young healthy leecher well nursed, is, a year after registration, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually quite a decent idea. I've been talking about this a lot, like not having level 1 is disgraceful
Comment has been collapsed.
You can select Level 1-10 for a reason, so I disagree with 50 pts.
However I do wish they would reward people who give public giveaways over people who only give to a small group of friends, then enter all the public giveaways which only benefits them and no one else.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know what I think as a honest, upstanding SG citizen? I think all of the leechers should be made to drink blood which we consider bad for some reason or they should be used in reconstructive surgery to provide a vacuum effect to stimulate blood circulation. That'll show em!
Anyone below a 20:1 RCV ratio is a leecher don't @ me
Comment has been collapsed.
Welcome to SG Battle Royale! - we slowly increase the minimum ratio you need to stay on the site and the last two remaining gifters have to fight to the death in a pit of Steam Gift Cards!
And then all of the "leechers" clear up the blood after its over xD
Comment has been collapsed.
so first you say "i dunno" now you say it's absurd.
reasons that others said already??? you don't have your own opinion that you just follow the mayority??
you claim it's bad but you don't said why and don't make any argument, so why you don't start making any argument about why it's a bad idea to lower the points to lecheers??? (50 it's too low but for example to 150-200)????
Comment has been collapsed.
Y'know, I didn't put an "/s" after the first sentence because I didn't wanna make it look like I was insulting you but fine, if you want me to not be polite- I won't be.
Reasons of the top of my head:
Surprise- all of these have been mentioned already in one form or another. And now I'm wasting my time listing them to you because you're too lazy to read the replies to the thread yourself. Honestly, I'm the dumb one here for falling for it.
Edit: Oh, pardon me- you did read the replies. You were just too busy saying that everyone else is wrong to actually pay attention to what they were saying. I don't think I wanna talk to you anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
1- lecheer it's how all people call in internet to other's that are just there as "0 contribution but getting all they can".
2-arbitrary limitations? why limit the points to a lecheer is arbitrary and why put levels isn't arbitrary? explain the diference, because for the first one you still don't need to spend nothing but the second you are forced to spend money.
3-bots are already here, there's no diference at all and only moderators can do something against them.
4-they are not forced to giveaway, however they are forced to do it if they want to have more points---> that translate to more chances to win because they enter in more giveaways... wait... i think we already have something like that... ohh yes!!! levels!!!! the only diference it's the quantity of people in that high levels giveaways
5-i don't think "people who give away stuff are way more eligible to receive stuff", it's just maths if you enter in a giveaway of 10.000 people of level 0 you will have 1 VS 10.000 chances to win, if you enter in a giveaway of 400 people of level 6 you will have 1 VS 600 chances to win. these are just simple maths, i hope you can see the diference, if not you have a problem with maths.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, I wasn't gonna reply because you basically ignored half my comment and misinterpreted the rest (I'm starting to think there might be a language barrier involved here), but I have to point this out because I am a math person (well, a programming person, but a lot of math is involved there):
A giveaway with 400 entries is not a 1/600 chance to win. :P
Anyway, I'm not talking to you anymore. Have a nice night.
Comment has been collapsed.
ohh just a mistipe because i wrote the level 6 before i wanted to say 1 VS 400 chances to win.
anyway if that's the only you can say to defend your arguments there's nothing more to say here. that means you can't refute/refuse anything of what i said.
thanks
Comment has been collapsed.
2-arbitrary limitations? why limit the points to a lecheer is arbitrary and why put levels isn't arbitrary? explain the diference, because for the first one you still don't need to spend nothing but the second you are forced to spend money.
Man, if you don't spend money on giveaways then it doesn't effect you if a level 0 has no points to enter (to your nonexistant giveaways) or they can't enter because you did set them to level 1+.
But then, why do you care about other people entering giveaways if you don't want to spend money on making one?
Besides you don't want to protect anyone's giveaways (remember? you said that it takes money to make giveaways so it's a worse way to control things) but to fuck over level 0s without spending money, but :they couldn't enter any giveaways if someone wouldn't spend money on games to begin with.
TLDR: any kind of entry requirements needs money to be spent, because giveaways don't grow on trees.
3-bots are already here, there's no diference at all and only moderators can do something against them.
It would favour bots. You get 24 points an hour, so you max out - even overflow - in 2 hours and 15 minutes if limitation is set to 50P. An average person is in school / works for 6-8 hours, + transport, and sleeps let's say 5-10 hours. During work, school, sleep people can't enter giveaways. Points are lost if they overflow, so unless you check and enter giveaways every 2 hours, you have less points to spend a day than a bot, that automatically spends it like every hour, preventing any overflow.
Basically my day: wake up at 5:30, start work at 7:30, that is 50P from the night and 2 hours of regen. 92P. Then lunchbreak after 4 hours ( I have 50P maxed and I get 15 minutes' of regen during it) - 56P. Then I get to home around 8 because tutoring (I again collected 50P during the work) and I'm online until ~ 11, 3 hour's regen, that is 324=72P. Together: 92 + 56 + 50 + 72 = 270P.
Meanwhile a bot running 24/7 can spend every point - 2424 = 576 points, DOUBLE of mine.
Current system allows 400P of accumulation, which is 400/24 = 16.67 hour's worth of points. So yeah, this is why it favours bots. You need to do the math not just yell "but we have bots now too uuuuuugh"
they are not forced to giveaway, however they are forced to do it if they want to have more points
lol. This is not even ZLia's comment, you're arguing with a strawman you put up.
"This is forcing people to make a giveaway not because they want to, but because they would need to do so in order to lift some limit put on them."
i hope you can see the diference, if not you have a problem with maths.
Besides you failed super-heavily at your easy maths, you did forget something, while also twisted the narrative to high level people while we're talking about level 0s. People aren't entering one giveaway a day. People DO have the same chance inside the same giveaway, but to retun to the third point and my example:
I do want a 20P game from monthly and enter every giveaway for it. With the 50P limitations, I would have around 270P to enter - a bot would have 576, lazy-current-me would have around let's say 450 (having regen from the night, but not caring about overflow during the day). 50P-change level 0 could enter 13 giveaways, lazy-me could enter 22 (!), a bot could enter 28 (!!!). To the SAME level 0 giveaways.
To sum it up: It's just pay-to-win mobile game bullshit level of setting a point limitation that would require you to use the site every 2 hours or have a distinct, heavily inferior experience on the site compared to paying users. Also the fact that it does nothing against level 0 bots but would discourage level 0 people, it's pretty unfavourable.
Also I have to agree with Zlia, the "you basically ignored half my comment and misinterpreted the rest " stands super-heavily. Calm down please because misrepresenting other's statements is a strawman logical fallacy. Playing the "if you know maths hurr hurr" card while unable to do basic probability and ignoring things like people enter multiple giveaways a day paints you in extremely bad light.
"Small" things come from the point changes, but they become an almost 50% reduction in entered giveaways, while not fixing anything from the most blatant "leecher" problem - bots.
One needs to make a step back while thinking about a suggestion - okay that it will punish a group I don't like, but is it fair (super-heavy punishment)? Is it possible that someone will get an advantage out of this (yeah, lvl 0 bots vs lvl 0 users)? Is it possible that it only punishes a sub-group of people I wanted to control (yes, only people, bots are unaffected)?
Comment has been collapsed.
what??? what have to do arbitrary limitations with non existant giveaways, explain a bit better that point.
2-ahhh so it will favour bots???, sorry but if the web detect that the users use their points every 2 hours you don't need any confirmation to know who's a bot or not, simple insta ban and in a few week there's no bots of level 0 lecheers. (people need to sleep / work / etc... it's absolutely imposible to spend your points every 2 hours) so please use the brain... make all that numbers you did took you time, time that you waste completely.
anyway in any case would be better because istead of have 10.000 users in every giveaway we will have less users because people will need to select the games they really want to play/win instead of just farm farm farm farm and enter in every giveaway..
3-there's already limitations to people (it's called levels) there's no diference at all, consider it a level -1 instead of level0 (isn't better this way?? now there's no limitations just levels, seems that people loves it), "let's unlock features to enter giveaways!!!!!!"
4-people don't have the same chance in giveaways, that's wrong how i told (i just mistipe the 600 when i wanted to tipe 400, just that, but that does not mean i¡m wrong, just a mistipe, if all you can say it's about that mistipe you already show how corect i am)but if you mean that people will have 1 chances VS 400 it's true level doesn't matter then, that obvious, i'm just talking about the same game at level 0 and level 6 for example, people of level 6 will have more chances to win it because the quantity trying to win it will be less than in the level 0.
P.D. even if the title of this thread it's 50P it's too low even for lecheers i said a lot of times before, but eh you just read the last comment ignoring all the others, so you lack of information about this thread.
you guys are defending the level system as just "contribution" with the excuse you can choice how to giveaway and "you are not forced to do anything" and the same way you guys say that limit the points to lecheers (50P 100P anyway the number doesn't matter) it's discrimination VS them.
how i said before let's do the next to the people that win games and never contribute let's put them in the level -1, then we all we will see how many contribute this person and if he want to enter in better giveaaways he should contribute (yeah i said contribute not forced to giveaway)
now this lecheers will have a "punishement" while we stick with your loved level system.
now i ask to you and other's what's the diference now???? there's no discrimination at all i'm just following the actual level system no?
hope that you guys finally see how wrong you are about "discrimination" and why lecheers need to be "punished" in some form.
you guys really seems equal to what here in Spain call "feminazi" when you all ignore the actual and literal definition about discrimination.
(i bet that the next to answer me it's going to ignore the full post i did and just talk about this last sentence/oration/phrase)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this is most easily resolved with SGT or just limiting giveaways to certain levels. As others have said, level 0 doesn’t necessarily mean a leech and I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to punish people who genuinely don’t have means to give games away. I’m no fan of leeches either (not that I really ever pay attention to who wins my giveaways unless it’s for a group with rules), so most of mine are level 6 or higher. Imo If you’re that high level you’re not likely to be a leech. Even then I just want games to go to people who will play them rather than someone only interested in the +1. If you’re level 1, have given away three games, won 40 and put time into 35 of them, I’m happy to have you as a winner.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I wanted an equitable trade, I'd go on steamtrades first, which I do quite often. In the end, I only give away games i don't want. I'm not gonna play them anyway, and I don't care about a +1. But if someone else can get a little bit of joy off of my garbage, why not?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't agree with you TBH. The odds of a lower level leecher winning a really good game from a public giveaway are very low. Whole point of steamgifts is to allow the more fortunate and well-to-do gamers helping less fortunate gamers to play games, right? I would never be able to play a AAA game on release day, because I can never afford it. But with Steamgifts, I atleast have a slim hope of winning such a game. I don't think it's right to deny people of that chance. Although I'm totally in support of banning people who use bots.
Comment has been collapsed.
The level system solves this. This is a solution to a non-existent problem. Just set your giveaways to level 1 (or 2, 3, etc).
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm assuming the intentions behind this are good but consider the matter logically.
The level system means that people don't have to give away games to level 0 users if they think they think level 0 users don't deserve them. All this proposal does is give level 1+ users an increased chance of winning level 0 giveaways against users with less points. Which is bullshit considering how many level 1+ users are themselves already gaming the system to massively leech games.
Comments like this and the fact that I'm a surly drunkard are clearly why I am less well liked than leeches.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, you can use SGtools to do this if you want to. But you don't have to force it on those that don't.
Comment has been collapsed.
We do have tools indeed, but SGtools is only limited to private giveaways, and I still think Steamgifts would be better off if such mechanisms were implemented, it's already the case in all decent SG groups, most have a strict ratio system in place or a playing requirement, which seems fair to me, it's done to prevent greed/leeching and to ensure that the odds of winning games are fairly distributed among the members.
Comment has been collapsed.
Random draws are already a way of fairly distributing games. What you're talking about is being purposefully unfair to people because in your opinion, they've won too often in the past.
This is not a trading system. It's not a peer-to-peer system where we need to aim for some arbitrary ratio. It's a site for giving stuff away.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think so, just because everyone has equal odds before each giveaway doesn't mean it's fair. "Equal" and "fair" do not amount to the same thing. RNG is inherently unfair, as it doesn't take into account the results of previous draws. With a ratio system in place or other ways to limit wins, users will have to carefully think about which games to entrer for, which would result in better odds to win for everyone, due to the lower number of entries, and hopefully, a more diverse pool of winners.
If the system was fair, why do we have groups like the Unlucky-7 ? Do you think the members of the said group would have such great odds to win, if they weren't limited to 7 wins ? A site for giving stuff away ? Obviously, the steady decline of supply doesn't seem to be a concern of yours.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, equal odds means it's fair. Each giveaway exists independently of the next one. You're trying to create a zero-sum game where none exists or was intended. RNG should NEVER take into account previous draws. What you're describing is inherently unfair, since it makes each giveaway dependent on what came before.
You're assuming fair means everyone gets to win. That's a misconception on your part. Probability doesn't work that way. Even if you did somehow punish people for winning too often by lessening their chances, it would still be possible, though less likely, that someone might never win.
Supply is a concern. But it has nothing to do with how to make the site fair. Everyone still has the same chances of winning whatever prizes are available.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not how gifts work though. Do you give people gifts with the expectation of them giving you gifts back?
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you in a habit of holding street raffles for random bystanders after collecting your salary from the bank ? If not, then why are you even comparing gifting in real life, which happens mostly between people with whom you already have somekind of a relationship, to Steamgifts ? And do I need to tell you that recipricating gifts is one of the most basic and universal "rulesp" of gifting etiquette ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually that IS a universal one. This is a direct quote from a dictionary: a thing given willingly to someone without payment.
And another one from Wikipedia: A gift or a present is an item given to someone without the expectation of payment or anything in return. If you expect payment for your gift then you're not gifting, but trading instead and lucky for you there's a site for that: steamtrades.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, but that's basically how the word is used. I guess it tells how we view ourselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or maybe they will just want to share the message of universal love.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah universal probably not, we're not on that level yet.
Planetary though? On this particular planet?
Yes. ^^)
universal
adjective
"relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
That is very deep and everything, but maybe you should use human words when communicating with people, you know, for understanding. Not this esoteric-whatever you're spreading recently. Like this "yeah, this is what people mean by this word, but not me" -.-
Comment has been collapsed.
You use English words while you claim they mean different from what they do mean. At this point we can claim anything means anything else because
Yes yes, that is what humanity thinks i know.
Well, i do not.
So when I say "Have a nice day"
that can mean
" I go play a game because I already fed this troll enough"
This is too nice of a Sunday to spend arguing with someone who brings beliefs into grammar and language use.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe Steamgifts isn't the site for you then if you actually expect to receive something for your generosity.
Comment has been collapsed.
I personally think giveaway creators should be able to directly set how much CV it takes to enter their giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Instead of limiting the point system to 50P I'd very much like to see the ability to recover points from leaving GA entries removed. This only helps those trying to exploit the site entering every GA, there are members with thousands of points stored at any given time while honest users are unable to enter for a lot of GAs when a big bundle/sale occurs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think he means those people that join every giveaway and then leave just before it ends and so store the points so that when 1 day there is a game that has a shit ton of giveaways and they want it, they can join all of them in 1 go. Not sure what the max is but I heard people who had maybe 2000+ points just stored in case a situation like that will happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow. I occasionally remove my entries as well. .. Let's say from GAs that have still weeks left... To join new appearing GAs with less time when I don't have enough points left. But I didn't knew that there are ppl out there doing it systematically
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, there are people that do that to not waste points, I mean like, right now I have some giveaways to join because of the new Monthly but most days I join 1 at most, so I waste a lot of points by never using them and it can happen that when a great monthly comes out, I don't have enough to join all, that way you just keep using them all, keep getting them back and stack them so you can join everything you want when a moment happens. I can understand irock seeing that as a problem, because you are not suppose to have more than 400 and they have thousands and that doesn't help at all for the rest of the people who do play it fair.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally, I feel that anyone willing to go to that much trouble for points should be allowed to use them. In the end, it doesn't really help them that much. (I say this as a person who has used this technique in the past for events like SimGives.) You can accomplish virtually the same thing without storing up points. In other words, it is a lot of time and effort spent for almost no benefit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agree. I've seen a couple of users admit to using this technique and they were the same people that would be described as having "great ratios." I see no problem when they're using the points to enter for games that they actually want. They're not the problem user imo. The problem user is the one using a bot to enter everything just to profit from trading cards. Don't see much profit there personally, but meh.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not necessarily.
Use this HB monthly release day for example. I am entered into about 40GAs currently and have few points to use, if i wanted to join for CoD/Spyro/CB those are high point games (50/40/40), i can enter about 8-12 while there are tons of GAs created, I know there are users that have thousands of points stored to enter everything while I for example can only enter a couple handful of those GAs and doing so would mean that I can't enter anything else either, that does mean they have an unfair advantage simply because they are 'going through the effort'.
Ultimately if that's ok to do then why not remove points entirely and let everyone enter everything they want? It breaks the balance when the 'collectors' with 2k+ points go through the effort of making sure they can win as much as possible while people using the site as intended are being punished, I only enter for stuff that I actually want to play (I know that's a bizarre concept here for a lot of people) if the ability to recover points was removed I believe that a good portion of the entries would dissapear after a couple months allowing for truly fairer GAs, that was the point of reducing the point regeneration rate wasn't it? making it fairer by having less entries per GA, however that really only punishes those using the site as intended, the ones storing points have been benefiting since as they are not losing anything at all, in fact it's given them greater chances since they can enter everything.
Also they are not 'going through the effort', these are people are either addicted to either winning (yes they do exist and you know a few of them who have stated as much) or collecting games for a +1 and card farming, for them it's not effort at all as it's just benefits.
Comment has been collapsed.
they have an unfair advantage
That's nonsense, the points they stores and use now, they couldn't use before. So if you always used your points, you both entered the same amount of giveaways.
that was the point of reducing the point regeneration rate wasn't it?
no, the point was to reduce the bot advantage
Comment has been collapsed.
That's nonsense, the points they stores and use now, they couldn't use before. So if you always used your points, you both entered the same amount of giveaways.
Uhm... no not really at all, you seem to have missed the point here. I'm not a collector, I don't care for a +1. The amount of open GAs I see is usually about page and a half and that's all.
They store points so that when a sale/bundle occurs like HB monthly they can guarantee they can enter every single GA made. However for me I am limited to spending the 400P available on 8-12 GAs as that's all I can do then I'm on 0P, we don't enter the same amount of GAs at all since they've banked enough points to guarantee they can enter ALL of the GAs created, this gives them more chances to win and punishes the rest of us that are selective with entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, say you've entered 2 high-value games from your wishlist, but there is 3 weeks left on the time. There are an influx of about 20 shorter time giveaways for a newly bundled game that you really, really want. Those two 40-50P games are the only source of extra points you have... would you drop them and enter the new GAs? Be honest.
I don't see the problem here. At the end of the day, they're your points to spend. So, there may be a few fanatical people systematically saving up points, but I'd say they're not the majority of users here. I'd also say they have too much time on their hands.
I think that if someone entered some GAs and a few hours later changed their mind about wanting the game (or just bought the bundle it was in themselves), they should be able to enter for something that they do want with those points. Fair's fair. To punish the few systematic point savers, you'd have to punish everyone equally.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really no, in fact I have many entries over a week that I'm still in. Again... just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. Banking points is 100% a way to exploit the system otherwise the points system wouldn't exist at all and we'd be able to enter for everything, the points are there for you to be selective about and prevent you from entering everything which is what these people are doing.
And while I don't know the exact amount of users that are doing that you have to think about the benefit of people not being able to recover points, entries would drop considerably on most short to mid length GAs (maybe the exception would be long GAs) because currently people can do exactly what you suggested and start entering for those fresh GAs, this would give everyone a true fair chance as people would have to balance entering for a lot of cheap indies or try their luck with the expensive AAA. Hell, it'd give lower level users a better chance too, higher level users would probably prioritize higher level GAs instead of lower levels where more people can enter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also they are not 'going through the effort', ... for them it's not effort at all as it's just benefits.
... entries would drop considerably on most short to mid length GAs...
From your words, I gather that you have never made a habit of "banking" points. I used to do it for specific events, so I know what I am talking about. Let me explain.
In conclusion, "banking" points is not worth the time and effort, but that does not prevent people from doing it. Some people are so driven to participate that they will do whatever it takes to accomplish that. That is the reason why today's Lotteries make so much money. Of course, our users have a much better chance of winning a game than anyone does of winning the Lottery, but remember that participation does not guarantee a win. No matter how many giveaways you enter, it is still the luck of the draw. If you are taking a little time to enter a few giveaways so that you might get a free game, winning is a pleasant bonus. If you have turned SG into "work," however, than the payoff is never going to cover the investment. For your own mental health, it's best to keep things in perspective.
Comment has been collapsed.
They have the same chance to win the giveaways they enter for as every other entrant, and they can only win a game once. While they have higher chance to win Spyro with 20 entries in 20 giveaways than you with 5, and they don't affect your, or anyone else's chances at all.
While it's up to you if you can accept this and don't stress yourself with it, we're still only talking about chances. small chances.
A level 1+ Spyro ends in a few minutes with 3300 entries. If someone enters 15 more of these than you of these that means 15/3300 = 0.45% chance to win it, 1/220. Which is a lot smaller than most of group or whitelist giveaways' chances, even goodwilled ones often have less than 50 entries. And managing points like this actually requires work to roll these points, time that could be spent with something fun.
If you're willing to do 15+ minutes daily point-managing to have smaller chance to win something with smaller chance than in many groups, you're still free to do. I personally did try this 1 or 2 years ago for the length of 1-1 week before monthlies, and I fucking hated it. It's boring, and most likely you don't win anything extra for months. Meanwhile you can get the game in group buys likely for 3-4 dollarinos max.
They are basically using their extra time to work against your comfort and caring less than they do, and IMO it is fair.
I don't want to preach about care about your happiness instead of glaring at others who try a visible amount for an absolutely unvisible amount of extra, but from maths and experience standpoints: it's not worth, do something better with your time than juggle points and/or be angry at point jugglers. Levels, groups and whitelists give shitloads more unfairness to the system that someone putting in effort.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're free to blacklist. You're also free to host your giveaways. You're free to participate in entering giveaways for as long as they're hosted. If you don't want more people, it's a boring party as those winners will just be taking the majority of the wins because the odds were ever more so in their favor. Yes, if you didn't host giveaways, you wouldn't have this site. But being here is already a privilege in itself because you already have to have an account with a certain value, and that means either winning giveaways yourself and/or buying the games anyway.
Not to mention, you get more points over time. It's actually possible to have more than 400 at a time, for certain scenarios. But the object is that you use those points anyway to enter, and you don't get it back if you lose. It won't matter anyway, because you get it back over time for free. It would lower my odds of winning if there were such accounts you're complaining about, but I don't complain about it because it would seem more rigged with a lower pool of people who might just as well win those all the time more than they should. I find that to already be inherently balanced naturally.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is already level and stuff...
And for people who wants to feel even more snobbish, they can use SGtool and other puzzle to put away the plebs and make this website even less worth it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The purpose of SteamGifts is to enable people to give away Steam games. To this end, we have established various tools and helps so as to make it easy for the giver to target his or her intended "audience." Our users already have much control over who is able to participate in their giveaways. As you can already restrict your own entries by contribution amount, there is no need to penalize users who have created few or no giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
83 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by romana1994
146 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by codasim
30 Comments - Last post 54 minutes ago by CapnJ
1,085 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Konsterter
1,352 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by stlpaul
15,420 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by BHTrellis188
19 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by Chris76de
40 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by Axelflox
166 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by Aerctaure
84 Comments - Last post 40 minutes ago by Masafor
656 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Sariseth
39 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by ThatDave
70 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Cole420
100 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by hbarkas
Hi,
I just wondered how you guys think about this.
Surely I consider people who give away stuff as well to be way more eligible to receive stuff as well.
Then, there's leechers.
So how about a 50P limit for everyone Level 0?
Opinions?
Comment has been collapsed.