hehe i did it right
NOW BOW DOWN TO ME, OR I’LL EAT YOUR FINGERS!!!
hehe i did it right
Good going @ohko and gratz to all the winners. (I think I did my entry right, hope so - didn’t want to make extra work for the generous organizer.
This is surprising
Unbeknownst to me, the Uplay version of The Division was region locked
This wasn’t something I considered checking before running the raffle. The winner, @Towos2442 was very graceful and accepted a replacement prize, Dead Island: Definitive Edition.
I will re-host The Division in an standalone raffle, giving interested members another chance to win it!
Thanks for everyone’s patience and cooperation as I iron out all of the kinks
Everyone, the keys works perfectly!
Thanks to @ohko for the raffle and the kind and y’all have a Good Day/Night!
@LordAo, you can read the full post above. I’m a bit concerned at the amount of miscommunication has happened despite my best efforts to be thorough. Makes the whole thing a little bittersweet, tbh. At least that giant emoji is easier to throw an egg at
@LordAo your remarks are perceived as smug and poison the entire thread. The initial rules had no such restriction but then I was forced to deal with cheaters and therefore amend the rules. Now I’m forced to deal with someone that doesn’t know how to read yet still tries to stick their sense of right and wrong in mine and everyone else’s face. I’ve done enough apologizing for someone that’s in the position of giving things away for free, with nothing but the purest intentions. I’m half inclined to restrict you from participating in any future raffle, but it’s against my better nature and I’m always going to choose the high road.
@LordAo, sarcasm and ad hominem attacks - I doubt I’m alone in saying these toxic posts are highly unwelcomed
Alright that’s quite enough I think.
Calling people “toxic” is toxic behaviour. @LordAO has a point that he tried to bring up in his usual charming joking manner. @ohko you DID set up additional rules after the creation of the giveaway and as Ao has pointed, out failed to apply them. The name calling didn’t start with Ao though, rather than responding to the number of users pointed out who did receive your “like of verification” but did not meet with the restrictions you called him smug and poisonous.
While we certainly do appreciate generosity, that does in no way grant you any extra leeway, considerations or browniepoints to use instead of an argument. None of us wants your apologies and none of us really care about the purity of your intentions. The thing about rules is that for them to be useful they need to be applied evenly, not at will to achieve some sort of goal. You wanted an all-inclusive raffle, that’s great, you noticed early on that people will take the piss. So you can either embrace the cheaters or you can make rules that limits who gets to enter.
@LordAo maybe you went a little too far there. He’s new and don’t really know us yet, go easy on the new folks yeah?
I called the posts toxic. The difference is subtle but important: I never attacked the person.
Posting a gigantic doubt/skeptic emoji about @Towos2442 entry cast doubt on the validity of the raffle. This is poisonous to other readers that don’t realize I made an entire post about it specifically. The post also explains how I was very torn on the matter and never wanted such restrictions in the first place.
After that @LordAo went on to challenge two of the other winners and instead of using words to articulate him/herself, a smug-faced “your move” gif was posted, as if somehow to say “I’ve got you in a corner now.” This is why I said “Your remarks are perceived as smug…”. I never attacked the person or used “name calling” and @Fraggles, you make a mistake by saying I did.
Had @LordAo actually read the post about which birthed the amended rule, he/she never would’ve made the initial challenge. He/she offered no reconciliation on this matter and instead continued to challenge me on one simple word:
The amended rule reads:
Entrant’s account must be at least one (1) week old and have ten (10) badges
If that rule instead said or, it maybe would’ve carried out my intentions more effectively -
Entrant’s account must be at least one (1) week old or have ten (10) badges
But here’s the kicker: careful readers of this thread will see that I’m very concerned about running an all-inclusive raffle and have gone through extensive discussion in attempt to find ways to fulfill this goal. @LordAo fails to understand this intention and instead minces my words. Yes, I said and in the amended rule when maybe or was a better fit, but the intention of the rule to filter out cheaters is the same. The subsequent challenges of @choujiacheng and @matia show me that @LordAo is not interested in helping me carry out my intention and instead would rather flaunt doubt and skepticism via witty gifs.
I don’t see where I’m using my generosity to stand in for me. I’ve articulated myself very carefully but it seems readers aren’t so careful.
How are you qualified to speak on behalf of everyone? I get the sense that a lot of people care about what I’m trying to do here. Again, if you read the thread carefully, you’ll see what I’m talking about -
This is the group I was considering when originally not placing other restrictions on entrants.
You also carelessly assumed my gender.
So I called this “toxic” and you want to call it otherwise? What sort of community are you trying to nurture, @Fraggles?
I want to thank those of you that do care about the small thing I chose to be important about my raffle. Attacks were unexpected and made this round bittersweet, but I’m optimistic about the next rounds. This thread is now battered and beaten and any more breath spent here will cause me to resent the time I’ve spent on this, so I’m going to do my best to detach from it. See you all in near Raffle 2!
As was the intention, because it does. Sure you granted Towo specific leeway to enter into the raffle because the post was made before you changed the rules. The follow up by LordAo only reiterates the point.
It’s “meme culture” and it can certainly be a bit annoying from time to time. Sure it might make the point harder to figure out, but it was made none the less. And since I know LordAo I can tell you for sure that the intention behind it was levity.
Now you’re just mincing words though. Sure you can claim it’s your opinion he’s appearing smug or toxic. But then it does you no good sharing that opinion as that is functionally the same as an “attack” on the person. Jumping through hoops about how you express yourself negatively about someone doesn’t matter.
But it didn’t, and so we can only expect a rule to be applied as the rule is written.
It’d be great if you could manage to escape the notion of being under attack when merely questioned.
A new person, doing their first giveaway, realising why we put some light restrictions on the giveaways and then getting thrown over the coals for it, I though we were a little better than this. Sure some mistakes were made (though I do have to say 2 of the three entries in question were made before the rules change) but we are here to be a fun and inclusive community and I really don’t understand why we have to go this far. Also saying that a community members humor is well known to me doesn’t really work as an argument when the person who took offense to his posts has been here for 4 days, how are they meant to know that? and that last comment went from him went far to far.
I am almost not wanting to post this comment because I know someone is going to tear it apart bit by bit and tell me why I am wrong, but I came to the conclusion that I don’t care, and to be honest that is why I have been posting around here less lately. Their keys, their choice and the keys are given out, there is no point to keep this stuff up, what is done is done.
I guess the tl;dr is lets stop please it doesn’t help anything or do anything good.
I think all giveaways in future should be via referendum and with the final gifts inclusive of a backstop. I foresee absolutely no potential problems with this incredibly democratic methodology.