Approved Change Trade Server Rules for contest minimums

[Luke]

I'm suggesting that we change the following rule:

Trade Server Rules

• All Raffles and Events/Contests (trivia, costume, etc.) require an official Skial/SteamRep middleman.

I want the rule to be changed to the following:

Trade Server Rules

• All Raffles and Events/Contests (trivia, costume, etc.) require an official Skial/SteamRep middleman, if the reward is a worth at least a key.

I want to change the rule because:
I wanted to host a fun little "event/contest" in order to give away random scraps. A "the first person to find me gets a scrap" kind of thing, however as soon as I said this I remembered about the above rule, according to the current rules, in order to hold a competition I have to get a Skial/SteamRep middleman.

I think there should be a minimum to what requires a middleman - and anything under it is fine to be run without any kind of middleman. I do not mind what the minimum is set to, 1 key is because I asked someone about this and they said (not an exact quote) that a scrap would be an inconvenience to the middleman - and I agree.

I don't want to waste my time finding a middleman, I don't want to waste the middleman time handing out a handful of scraps to various people... this process would be a lot easier without this requirement. Someone has told me "who cares, it's only a scrap", but I obviously don't want to break the rules - no matter how minor the infraction may seem.

 

[Jermaphobe]

+1

I can see how the rule as it is could be very tedious

 

[Cream Tea]

+1

But I think you should word it better and it should be limited to metal only. Also remember that something worth a key to somebody might be worth 30 refined to somebody else.

 

[uppe-r]

+1
I like ur idea of giving out :boar: crap to random people scrap to other people because it's just about the fun isn't it.
If there was the whole middleman thing, I probably wouldn't participate.

 

[soo]

+1
This sounds really fun. I also agree with the whole hassle of acquiring a middleman for some thing that is worth less than a key would be tedious and time consuming.

 

[dope]

+1
Sounds cool, would like to try this out.

 

[san7890]

+1 seems logical

 

[Sargent¥]

The rules have been changed. We've also added a contest minimum to avoid the need to call in middlemen for contests of little value.

 

[Luke]

We've also added a contest minimum to avoid the need to call in middlemen for contests of little value.

Your current wording outright bans contests under 1 key.
Needs changing to say that if the value is 1 key or higher you need a middleman.

 

[Sargent¥]

Your current wording outright bans contests under 1 key.
Needs changing to say that if the value is 1 key or higher you need a middleman.

I'm aware, I don't want regular users hosting raffles or events like "Contribute to a pot and after x time, one random winner gets what is in pot" as both those things can easily result in a scam with the host easily running off with the items (the pot items or the raffle fee).

 

[Luke]

I'm aware, I don't want regular users hosting raffles or events like "Contribute to a pot and after x time, one random winner gets what is in pot" as both those things can easily result in a scam with the host easily running off with the items (the pot items or the raffle fee).

Reduce the minimum then.

Don't mark this as "Approved" when you have not implemented it.

 

[Sargent¥]

Reduce the minimum then.

Don't mark this as "Approved" when you have not implemented it.

I asked you in Discord specifically that I'd be doing this and you said you were fine with it, why is it a problem now?

Give me a reasonable minimum and I'll change it but make up your mind next time.

 

[Luke]

I asked you in Discord specifically that I'd be doing this and you said you were fine with it, why is it a problem now?

Give me a reasonable minimum and I'll change it but make up your mind next time.

You said you would set the minimum to a key, like in my suggestion. This is what I wanted, I did not want you to ban everything below the minimum.

My suggestion was to make the middleman a requirement over the minimum, not ban anything under it.

 

[Sargent¥]

You said you would set the minimum to a key, like in my suggestion. This is what I wanted, I did not want you to ban everything below the minimum.

My suggestion was to make the middleman a requirement over the minimum, not ban anything under it.

I asked you twice, first time stating, and this is direct quote "@Luke I'm going to make the contest value minimum requirement be at least a key so we can avoid the stupid contests" in which you followed up with "That's fine". My internet lagged and so I sent that message twice, so there's no way you could have missed it with your second response being "Uh that's fine". Why would my statement imply that people are allowed to host contests under that minimum?

I'm going to repeat myself again, select a minimum you believe is better if a key is too high and I'll see to it it gets added. I'm not going to let users host their own events that involve any form of trust because that is a scam waiting to happen, there is no way to verify a user's credibility and allowing one user to host their events would just give other users the right to complain that they can't host one. However, I am going to do this. I'm going to specify that giveaways do not require a middleman. This is different from that of a raffle or pot-styled event as no trust is involved and also meets what you were after from the beginning.

 

[Luke]

I asked you twice, first time stating, and this is direct quote "@Luke I'm going to make the contest value minimum requirement be at least a key so we can avoid the stupid contests" in which you followed up with "That's fine". My internet lagged and so I sent that message twice, so there's no way you could have missed it with your second response being "Uh that's fine". Why would my statement imply that people are allowed to host contests under that minimum?

I'm going to repeat myself again, select a minimum you believe is better if a key is too high and I'll see to it it gets added. I'm not going to let users host their own events that involve any form of trust because that is a scam waiting to happen, there is no way to verify a user's credibility and allowing one user to host their events would just give other users the right to complain that they can't host one. However, I am going to do this. I'm going to specify that giveaways do not require a middleman. This is different from that of a raffle or pot-styled event as no trust is involved and also meets what you were after from the beginning.

I would've expected that with your wording:

@Luke I'm going to make the contest value minimum requirement be at least a key

so we can avoid the stupid contests

Meant that middlemen can avoid the stupid contests.
...therefore following the suggestion that I made and people supported.

I want the ability for people to do games that result in them giving items out for free.
You can set the upper limit on this, as I don't really care - you were the one that set a key:

fuck off with your scrap, you're being an inconvenience to the middleman

if you're gonna host an event, at least have it be a key

You've made the rule entirely worse.

 

[Sargent¥]

I want the ability for people to do games that result in them giving items out for free.

That's what this means:

I'm going to specify that giveaways do not require a middleman. This is different from that of a raffle or pot-styled event as no trust is involved and also meets what you were after from the beginning.

So whatever hide n' seek event you wanted to do does not require a middleman. The rule I've added simply means that if you would like to do an event where trust is involved (ie, someone other than the host has to forfeit items of their own to participate), that requires a middleman and at minimum, needs to be a key. You don't like that and have asked me to lower the minimum, now I'm asking you what you want that to be.

 

[Luke]

That's what this means:

So whatever hide n' seek event you wanted to do does not require a middleman. The rule I've added simply means that if you would like to do an event where trust is involved (ie, someone other than the host has to forfeit items of their own to participate), that requires a middleman and at minimum, needs to be a key. You don't like that and have asked me to lower the minimum, now I'm asking you what you want that to be.

Yes, so now that you've added the following:

Giveaways (meaning events where there is no fee/requirement from users other than the host) do not require a middleman nor value to host

I'm fine with the rules.

...it was the fact that you did not change this until now.

 

[Sargent¥]

I changed that rule to that before you made this message, you can check the timestamps if you like:
https://www.skial.com/threads/change-trade-server-rules-for-contest-minimums.77196/#post-748728

Now, do you want a new minimum?

 

[Luke]

I changed that rule to that before you made this message, you can check the timestamps if you like

Yes, I had not read the rules again and noticed your change.

I don't care what the minimum is for the rest, a key is fine.

 

[ck24]

its already set to a key

• All Raffles and Events/Contests (trivia, costume, etc.) require Skial Green Shield Admins or anyone on this list to middleman: http://steamrep.com/list/M
  • In addition, raffles and events/contests must be a key value at minimum.