Cavalary: Just one thing: If the community giveaway is for active users and a person has multiple user accounts for quite some time that are reasonably active, technically the accounts meet the criteria.
Well T E C H N I C A L L Y yes.
Although then we have post #3 with the "banned users" and several of them havve a reason, and I qute " for violating rule #8 of the giveaway, using several accounts in benefit of a single user " - I just re-read the rule 8, and it's somewhat of a "linguistic stretch".
The point here however is that the ban reason cites "user", not "single ACCOUNT".
So MAYBE it could be argued that BenKii already disapproves of "benefit of a single USER ( even if they use separate ACCOUNTS, each activating keys for ITSELF ( account ) )". I don't know -
BenKii RFC! ( request for comment ).
Cavalary: Other than that, circumventing the rules in a largely undetectable way seems sufficiently difficult now
I'd disagree.
You only need to have a couple of brain cells, and be clever enough to not "tell on yourself".
I suspect there are ALREADY people in the giveaway who are doing this...
Cavalary: overhauling them to try to prevent it from happening altogether seems far more trouble than it's worth, and as you admit, likely to lead to far more false positives. Which are a problem.
Yes, like I said, I don't really know of a way they could be improved right now.
----------------------------------------
Quantum_Quark: People gifting games should be as careful as possible, but the main objective should be to make people happy with a game and not to overly worry if giftees are legitimate or not
I don't know about you, but if I'd donate a key, I'd like to make
actual players happy, NOT some "giveaway profiteers" ( cue key / account resellers ).
If I would become aware that my donated key was swiftly packaged and sent off to a "grey market", it would make me perhaps a little upset - perhaps I'd feel like there was no point, as it didn't make some ACTUAL player happy, as no ACTUAL player got it for FREE, as it was INTENDED when I was donating such key.
----------------------------------------
Provide_A_Username: I suggest him to first check the personal reasons for donating the game. I bet generosity or altruism isn't going to be. And I think that's what GamezRanker said in other words to a variant of bad feelings.
Honestly this is a
dense take.
I'd EASILY argue that MOST of key donators in this, and all previous editions of this giveaway, have a goal of making
ACTUAL PLAYERS happy - NOT to just "throw keys at the wall and see what sticks".
I'd argue it would likely make many key donators unhappy if they would become aware that their keys are - instead of making some ACTUAL player happy, the actual player getting the key for FREE ( cue giveaway ) - the keys are being shadily re-distributed, with some
openly profiting off of their charitable donations...
But this is MY take - noone has to agree with it...
Provide_A_Username: If a person wants to police to the point of invading the privacy of who's using the account for the game he donated
This isn't about "policing anything" - if I'd donate a key, I'd like a LEGITIMATE user to be "HAPPY", like you say, NOT to make some reseller "happy" for getting free shit he then can swiftly proceed to resell ( the account ) and make money off of.
Provide_A_Username: A leap of faith must be taken at every moment
Dude, if I would still "take everything at face value", "judge people based on MY OWN standards / behaviours", like I did when I was a small innocent child long time ago - I'd not only get totally f-ed over in life, I'd actually be DEAD by now.
Humanity as a whole is way too cheety when you don't VERIFY their deeds - a hefty % of civillian population WILL do something "if they can get away with it" without consequences.
Sure, you can trust people, you can trust EVERYONE equally if you so desire - but sooner or later this will horribly bite you in the ass.
Oftentimes "trust but verify" ( to quote, for example Nathan Drake ), is a far superior approach.
Provide_A_Username: Why do we follow the norms and rules if we cannot directly guarantee the honorability and impartiality of all our law enforcing fellow citizens? Trust.
Excuse me. W H A T ?
You follow rules because of TRUST?
This has to be one of the goofiest logic bending I have heard in a while and I don't even know how to comment that... No offence, but it's just fallacy.
Rules are for those who are willing to follow them. You
voluntarily reduce your freedom of WHATEVER, to follow arbitrary rules for the sake of OTHERS - there's NO "trust" in this of any kind, certainly not YOU trusting, because WHAT exactly would you trust anyway?
Trust has nothing to do with it.
It's just goodwill.
Note that "some" require a direct and or thinly veiled threat to deter them from breaking such rules - THOSE people won't be so "voluntary".
Others couldn't give two shits about this.
The only people who can "TRUST" are OTHERS - trusting that YOU ( by extension "everyone" ) will follow their part of "goodwill" - but YOU don't havve any "trust" by JUST abiding to rules.
Provide_A_Username: In case you don't agree with me, give Sociology a chance.
I
might take Criminal Psychology instead :P Maybe
someday anyway...
Provide_A_Username: forgiveness, honor, justice!
There's no honor among thevies.
Key / account reselling is a free real estate.
It's legal in most jurisdictions across the world.
So regardless if this giveaway forbids it or not, the only thing stopping those resellers from even TRYING to do this HERE is their MORALITY.
Provide_A_Username: Who knows, you might dive in and come up with more structured solutions to cyber problems we all know exist without effective solutions, yet.
Here's an off-topic hot take:
the so called "web developers" of either websites or "webapps" need a cold bucket over their collective heads - the current trend of making everything bloated either by design or by literal INCOMPETENCE, the PISS POOR code optimisation, etc, results in web browsers eating resources like there's no tomorrow, for no real reason - this simply cannot go on forever, this "approach" has to end someday, and we need to go back to "web 1.0 SANITY".
Don't even get me started on memory leaking...
But alas, this is off-topic...
Provide_A_Username: I could've avoided my text wall by simply saying generosity and altruism are bigger than cheating. My leap of faith and my way to enjoy this extraordinary event.
You can ask the thevies in dark alley to "generously let you go without taking any of your shit", after they "ask for a charitable donation from your wallet" /s
----------------------------------------
CarChris: In my mind there are 2 (maybe “and a half”) donation variants.
And then you swiftly proceed to name 3 individual variants :S
CarChris: So, in this case, the donor doesn’t basically have a say to who the giftee is, nor if that giftee deserves something (or asking for the giftee to be checked out!) or not!
Would you be happy or even just indifferent if the only person you'd make "happy" would be an account reseller who proceeds to make money out of a giveaway?
WOULD YOU?
Because I don't think you would - and if you claim you WOULD be indifferent - please forgive me, but I'd then say you are just COPING.
CarChris: If a donor has any doubts (or reluctance, or hesitation), about the above, he/she can resort to the second donation variant. That is to buy a game and directly give it to the person he deems worthy (so, no giveaway “middleman”!).
This simply no longer falls under "giveaway" under that point - not any definition I'm aware of anyway.
It's simply a direct gift - and it's
irrelevant to this discussion.
CarChris: The middle variant (“the half” I wrote about), I consider to be the draws that OPs make in their respective threads. The OP buys the code. He/She doesn't give it to the "box". But he/she doesn't give it to someone specifically either! Only the draw decides who takes it!
Your variant 3 doesn't address the problem
either.
It's exactly the same as variant 1, it simply changes
"the administrator".
----------------------------------------
Currently the rules are fixed around "IF you get caught" part.
It would certainly be nice if we could prevent things going that far.
But frankly, like I said before,
I don't know how to improve the rules right now[b/]...
