Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
1 
Report this post
As for general group rules, it isn't enforced. I'm not very happy with the current situation myself, I would like to make it possible for members to still report shared giveaways that were not played; we'll then look to it on a case-to-case basis.
For instance one of my giveaways was shared with the Unlucky-7, only for unlucky's. A gifter, also a member of Playing Appreciated, won it but didn't play it enough. In this case I'd like to make it possible to count it towards our group and enforce the group rules.
Another example would be sharing with Actually Playing Games (APG) with a period of 3 months. We'd move it to unfollowed, but if after 3 months the winner also didn't play and get's kicked from APG, it could fall back to us and the winner would also be kicked. Same for Strategy Enthusiast, who also have a playing period of a month.
Example where it wouldn't be enforced are if you create a giveaway shared with a public group, or applying to my example for the Unlucky-7 but open for gifters, or for a group that requires you to make one giveaway per month, or where you get a ratio score in return for example.
Let me know what you think of this. :) I'm also curious with what groups you'd like to share it with.
Those who prefer the default lenient rules will still be able to use them for their giveaways. But others rightfully object to having PA members not playing PA wins. If a user enters from 2 groups at once, they still win half of the game from PA.
Your suggestion makes sense. We shall make them pay play! :)
When I see a PA+The Vivarium GA, and I am not interested in playing the game in a month I will not enter it but with the current rules people can do just that. :/
I do understand what you are saying Reforced for those groups that are similar to PA so there won't be a lot of room for a person not to play the game. But I feel like it should be an option if the GA is shared with other (not PA similar) groups as well.
Now with the SG (saying at least) banning auto scrip users you can't rly miss the description of a GA :)
As for sharing with The Vivarium, looking at their group page: "Every giveaway created in this group counts towards a shared pool of points and once a certain number of points has been collected a new event will start". So in that case, it wouldn't be enforced as you get or generate points for it. In addition, you are also required to make a giveaway every two months looking at their rules. it wouldn't be fair to make stricter rules for just that part of that group that is also a member of Playing Appreciated (being playing it within one month) and not the others.
But cause of my money situation I can only get a few games at a time to GA so I want to share it with the 2 groups I am a part of (especially now when people who enter it are more likely to be interested in the game :) )
I see your point, but it's also possible to view this situation from the opposite side.
Imagine you're a member of Cat Grooming Society (people who give their cats fancy hairstyles) and of Cat Fashion Society (people who dress up their cats in nice clothes). If you go to a fancy cat show with a cat who is nicely trimmed but completely naked, it is quite logical that your CFS colleagues would kick you out. You've ignored their mission and their ideals, and your claims that it is a lot of work to both trim and dress up your cat would mean nothing.
Anyway, from the practical point of view it is much easier for you and the other moderators to enforce the simple rule "member of PA => must play the game". No more checking the winner's membership in other groups. This practical point alone would force me to adopt this rule. And if any member of The Vivarium disagrees with the extra restrictions, they can freely leave PA and not be restricted by its overly strict rules anymore. (I'm a member of The Vivarium too, btw, and I would never think that this fact somehow makes me above the law in Playing Appreciated.)
As in your example: when the CFS organizes a cat show, you turn up with a nice styled and clothed cat as expected; but when it's a public cat show event you may choose to bring your naked cat because you like that too. If your CFS collegues think you should always bring a clothed cat to any event, then you'd have to choose if you'd leave their group or that you'd give up your naked cat who you also love - or just not go to events anymore where CFS can see you and hide it. All these conditions I'd like to avoid.
That being said: I think members who enter giveaways should always read the description and respect the wishes of giveaway creators. If the public event was hosted by CFS and you said you'd come, it's a slap in the face if you'd bring a naked cat. That is why I think a case-by-case basis is the way to go.
The other problem with this is that it adds even more complexity to something that is already more complex for admins to manage than it needs to be, and also too complex for members to follow. I would much prefer a process that is simple to explain and is predictable. "member of PA => must play the game" is exactly the kind of rule that does both.
With that said, I'm mostly over arguing in favor of this change. Protecting collectors and other sub-groups seem to be more important for Reforced than getting all winners to play their games means to me. As things are I'm still very content with how the group works. I guess I see the half glass full, and then some...
If a user enters from a public group, the entire giveaway might as well be public, so the PA membership doesn't matter. If an user enters from another private group, the creator has indirectly allowed everyone who fulfills the requirements from that group to enter, so the PA membership still doesn't matter. I still don't understand why people want to enforce rules that make no sense. If you want PA rules to apply - then make your giveaway PA only, it's not hard. If you include other groups, then its because you allow other groups, and then you can't also claim that PA members have to play extra, if they already can enter from another group.
I am sorry but why does this other private group in your opinion have more valid requirements then PA, or other way around. Then someone can say (if PA has looser requariments) that they will follow them.. Meaning that it doesn't mather what group you are a member of, but which is the group with the most loose requariments..