Change Rule

[SoldierAlex]

Rule 4.5 states: Requiring users to like you on Facebook, follow you on Twitter, subscribe to your YouTube channel, or otherwise connect with you on social media in order to win a contest/giveaway is not allowed.

I think this entire rule should be removed. While some people will complain and say they're lazy, a lot of people would follow someone on a certain media platform in hopes of winning a prize. There is nothing wrong from benefitting from a giveaway. Hosting companies benefit all the time by asking people to advertise for them in their signature. I just see no one being negatively affected by this. I hope you guys understand where I'm coming from on this and I don't get a bunch of 'but I'm too lazy' comments.

 

[Doge]

meaning, that you can have a requirement set if someone wants to enter, BUT you MUST giveaway something,
for example,
I am giving away a name color, in order to enter please subscribe to my channel -> youtube.com/example, and take a screenshot of you subscribed and post it in the comments below! I will pick a RANDOM winner!
that should be allowed, BUT you have to have a winner.

You're required to have a winner no matter what obviously. That's literally the point of a giveaway.

Also, it isn't even a solution to what BeBosny stated above. People make alts, promote their server/youtube/whatever and then don't pick a winner and leave. Most of it stopped when the rule was added.

Let's not turn the Giveaway section into the twitter feed of that one person we all know which is nothing but retweets of "Giving away X: Like, retweet and follow!!!" Most of which are fake.

If you do a giveaway, do it to give something away and not for personal gain.

 

[SoldierAlex]

You're required to have a winner no matter what obviously. That's literally the point of a giveaway.

Also, it isn't even a solution to what BeBosny stated above. People make alts, promote their server/youtube/whatever and then don't pick a winner and leave. Most of it stopped when the rule was added.

Let's not turn the Giveaway section into the twitter feed of that one person we all know which is nothing but retweets of "Giving away X: Like, retweet and follow!!!" Most of which are fake.

If you do a giveaway, do it to give something away and not for personal gain.

Doge the rule would not have done anything. You're already breaking a rule by alting so I don't know why they wouldn't break another rule anyways.

 

[Ivain]

Doge the rule would not have done anything. You're already breaking a rule by alting so I don't know why they wouldn't break another rule anyways.

because the rule allows staff to lock it immediately, while discovering them alting would take a lot longer.

 

[Doge]

Doge the rule would not have done anything. You're already breaking a rule by alting so I don't know why they wouldn't break another rule anyways.

Actually, the rule has decreased fake giveaways by a lot. I've seen it myself.

This is what used to happen:

User signs up on a VPN so they don't get caught for alting and makes a giveaway requiring some social media interaction that would benefit them.

The end date is around a month or more.

The prize is large so many people enter it, thus gaining them lots of free promotion.

End date comes, user is nowhere to be found.



If someone tried to do that now, they'd be warned for requiring social media interaction and they couldn't get away with it.

 

[SoldierAlex]

because the rule allows staff to lock it immediately, while discovering them alting would take a lot longer.

Actually, the rule has decreased fake giveaways by a lot. I've seen it myself.

This is what used to happen:

User signs up on a VPN so they don't get caught for alting and makes a giveaway requiring some social media interaction that would benefit them.

The end date is around a month or more.

The prize is large so many people enter it, thus gaining them lots of free promotion.

End date comes, user is nowhere to be found.



If someone tried to do that now, they'd be warned for requiring social media interaction and they couldn't get away with it.

There are also a lot of members that like me, have donated to the forums, are trust worthy and have been here for a long time that would like to do a giveaway and would love to promote ourselves in exchange for a giveaway.

 

[Ivain]

well, that sucks doesn't it? I'd also love to host a giveaway with paid entries, but I can't, since that'd be illegal gambling. Rules suck sometimes, but they exist for a reason.

 

[Derrian]

What happens if I make a giveaway and say they can on their own will follow my social media to gain an additional entry but regardless everyone who replies will be entered once. It's no exactly requiring anyone to do anything, would that be considered against the rules?

Most will likely try to get the additional entry but they get one regardless so they aren't required to follow, like, etc. in order to have a chance at winning.

 

[Ivain]

Derrian, if following you on whatever is not a requirement, it's fine. Then it's just advertising.

Also, to expand on my earlier rant, the reason it's tricky to allow even trusted members to bypass this rule is the threshold. At what point is a person reliable enough to be allowed to bypass the rule? Allowing anyone to bypass any rule already sets a risky precedent, and will likely start a shitstorm. One person being allowed to and another not being allowed to is bound to breed strife, no matter what the threshold is.

Not to mention I've seen plenty of giveaways by people that would otherwise be reliable, but they were just not ending.

 

[SoldierAlex]

well, that sucks doesn't it? I'd also love to host a giveaway with paid entries, but I can't, since that'd be illegal gambling. Rules suck sometimes, but they exist for a reason.

This rule I want changed is not something illegal at all. It would also workout if donors were allowed to host giveaways with following social media being a requirement since they're less likely to host a fake giveaway. Even if they did host a fake giveaway, they'd be banned and would have wasted $10-$25.

 

[Ivain]

hm, donator only might work, solves my previous issue as well. though I would like to see a max end date as well (say 2 weeks) so people can't just have a giveaway running for 3 months.

Still, it's important to work out the exact finances. What is the market for big social media accounts? is it viable to spend $10 to get a bunch of followers? what of $25?
etc etc.

And ultimately, it will still mean more work for staff, so even if it DOES get accepted, I don't think we'll see it until the storm of accounts returning has passed, once it starts.

 

[SoldierAlex]

hm, donator only might work, solves my previous issue as well. though I would like to see a max end date as well (say 2 weeks) so people can't just have a giveaway running for 3 months.

Still, it's important to work out the exact finances. What is the market for big social media accounts? is it viable to spend $10 to get a bunch of followers? what of $25?
etc etc.

And ultimately, it will still mean more work for staff, so even if it DOES get accepted, I don't think we'll see it until the storm of accounts returning has passed, once it starts.

It doesn't matter what the market of social media accounts are at all.

It's not more work for staff, less threads they'd have to delete because donators can and will post giveaways to promote their social media.