I have opinions (and admit I do tangent threads myself from time to time), but this feels like a discussion that should probably cease here and move to PM or a separate thread, both for the breadth/length of the posts.
Moreover, it is an issue that isn't specific to this particular community GA, as highlighted by the fact we're now talking about how other GAs might/should be handled. Just feels like the focus in this thread should come back to this GA.
The focus is on the issues at hand.
Shoving them under a carpet once they arrive isn't particularly beneficial.
Also imo length is IRRELEVANT if valid points are brought up.
It's not like the thread is currently active anyway (there are no new batches NOW and the requests are rare atm).
Also, afaik there's no way to make a group chat on GOG.
It was only two posts & the thread is more or less "ded" atm anyways.....that said, I agree we should get back ontopic.
(was planning on more or less leaving it there anyways, so no worries about rambling from me btw :))
I think actions should be taken to better avoid malicious outcomes in the future.
We definitely should not just "get over with it" and "move on" saying nothing.
With that said with THIS post I generally have already said what I wanted.
Tho personally I would see that as a scam welcoming behaviour and would not allow it myself.
I hear ya and I do check for scammers.....it's just I feel things are different with this user, like that they are donating despite being banned & also that they apologized a bit. To me that's a slightly better person than some i've heard about and seen.
Ultimately the choice is yours.
But you need to be careful where you draw the line.
If you forgive too much then people WILL abuse the system more.
Sometimes it's just not worth the risk.
But then again, every man for himself, choose your own adventure ;)
Beyond that, I think some can be "redeemed" over time, so those ones are given a chance to try and do so in my contests instead of me banning them outright(though I can see/respect why OP and others might do otherwise).
First of all "warning system" is a thing utilised in many environments.
It has it's pros and cons and can definitely work if utilised PROPERLY.
Second of all, you have to ask yourself 2 questions:
1."How many times is too far?"
2."If the users cheated in NOT-MY-THREAD then should I treat it the same as in MY thread?"
As a ruler of your giveaway you have to think your own rules through properly.
You have to assess the risks and choose wisely to not risk burning yourself on some loophole (SOME PEOPLE will feel ENCOURAGED to cheat if they for example see that giveaway ruler is "generous" and "forgiving" and that's the very fact I'm prying at here).
I'm not saying which approach is the best, nor that mine is (I was never suggesting that).
I'm merely discussing them.
Also, on the "redeemed" part - people certainly CAN be given second chances - but don't forget that with remote interactions you have VERY limited possibilities for verifying ACTUAL intent - so you have far less possibility of making the right call - you certainly can make it, tho with far less certainty most of the times.
Perhaps (and this is just a suggestion, and yes I AM aware of how ludicrous amount of work this requires) we could start drawing "behavioral profiles" to early detect possible scam attempts.
And before someone goes all "but privacy" - it's not like the data required isn't already public - the only other sources being PMs and with those I imo would call "justifiable" to include as an additional source.
You mean being careful to watch for potential scammers or blocking people out of contests based on various "warning signs" before they've done anything wrong?
If the former, sounds good....if the latter: to me that sounds a bit unfair and if one profiles wrong it could lead to unfair bans/blocks.
I mean "actively assessing the situation and flagging suspicious activity as 'possible culprit' early on" to have more close watch on the accounts in question. Possibly having multiple risk levels and upon suspicious activity raising the level for account(s) in question.
Banning people preemptively isn't exactly a good approach and I definitely did not mean that.
Yes, fink and others here might be duped on occasion by being this way, but i'd rather have that & the nice mood/feeling/group we have then the system you seem to want with everyone seemingly suspicious/paranoid of everyone else & their intent/actions.
My point isn't about total "everyone is untrusted" just about the fact that the default trust factor may not factor certain facts in.
If there's a raise in scam activities or possibly new ways it is being carried out then operations manual of OP should probably be reevaluated every once in a while to account for "rouge element" tactics changes.
I don't mean "trust nobody". I mean "be vigilant" and also "don't take the goodwill from EVERYBODY for granted".
Perhaps it's due to what I went through in my life, but I have general cautious approach to EVERYBODY at this point.
I have seen enough ill intent in my life to know that assuming somebody is good by default can horribly bite you in an a** :/
Therefore risks must be assessed and things cannot be TOO relaxed by default.
It's better to oversecure than one day realize the whole system is about to collapse because your security was too lenient because you "assumed" things will "be fine" or something is "unlikely".
In short, in order for this to work and
be fun for everyone people need to have some level of trust for those involved(while still doing things like watching who redeems keys, of course), else it stops being fun & possibly starts to fall apart.
With my approach (which btw, you have no full picture of) I would want to ensure it's still a fun for "everyone" and not "fun for few users and an entire bot network of alt accounts".
The point is to have a proper balance in operations and I am merely suggesting that perhaps some procedures should be strengthened.
With what I wrote in THIS post I hope you understand my point better.
(also, I don't understand why my previous post is low rated. I am discussing things that are in general best interest of the community here, so there shouldn't be any problem with my post's contests. And imo downvoting just because some post is LONGER is just PETTY and ungrown)