Ronald_D_D

That sounds like a good idea. If a ban was made by mistake then the ban is lifted and the raffles would be back, meaning that a live (yet hidden) raffle is in a pending state. Otherwise if there was no mistake, close the live raffles so people are not winning raffles that nobody else could have entered right after the ban took place. This may result in people still winning raffles from banned users if the mistake isn't resolved within the raffle's duration, however generally speaking that could be a rare occurrence which is better than nothing at all. I hope doing this doesn't take a whole lot of work though.

This is continuing to be what is essentially turning (potentially) any raffle into a delayed flash raffle. ("Delayed" because the raffle duration is still going to run out but "flash" because nobody can enter or leave after the raffler's ban.) Any user that has created a raffle that was intended to be (for example) 24 hours long and a high entry limit is disregarded completely when/if they break a rule somewhere on the site (whether it's because of the raffle or not). This has happened before and was suggested before and fixed as well (but in the puzzle section). What happened was that the people were entering the puzzles (that were intended to have a long duration) quickly/early and if a raffler broke a rule on their puzzle, the early entrants still won the items. After this suggestion back in 2017, Jesse agreed that if the raffler breaks a rule, the items should be returned and that's how it's usually been since then.

I don't mind banned user raffles getting removed however, the raffles are not deleted, but rather hidden. The actual problem is raffles can be hidden but can still be live. I think this is a problem. You could have a user create two raffles, get banned (temporary) due to one, but the other raffle will still be live yet not accessible. It then gives an advantage to any who have entered the raffle before that user got banned. When they win, they can't exactly view the page either but still be able to withdraw which is odd. Removing/hiding raffles is ok for anti-archive reasons but when some of the raffles are still live, it can be a problem.

You think it would be good if the raffler was the only one that was allowed to make the reply to multiple users on their own raffle or profile? Also only be able to reply strictly to the people who commented on those raffles (for obvious avoiding spam reasons).

True, "What ifs" are baseless and don't help with progress but learning from history can often tell the truth too and the puzzle section has a history in which a lot of things have already happened or are continuing to happen however I'm going to stop here because it's starting to get a bit philosophical.

Sorry, didn't realise. The number of puzzles does not always correlate to how doable each one is. On one extreme you could have 30-50 really easy ones but on the other extreme, you could get 30-50 difficult sequential puzzles and the actual (subjective to the majority) doable ones can still be cut down to only 8. The puzzle section always fluctuates in the amount of puzzles available and the quality of them. To solve them you need to adapt to what is available because each puzzle can be wildly similar or wildly different from the last. You could always try to optimise or encourage more people make them but we can't predict the outcome. In a hypothetical scenario, you could end up with 30-50 more 1+1=easy puzzles or you could end up 30-50 more "Jojo" puzzles and you're gonna have to avoid all 30-50. As well as there being a solid fluctuating portion of them that may contain errors (as nobody is perfect) resulting in a lot more work for moderators. I would not be surprised if this hypothetical scenario happens because we've gotten similar odd scenarios like this in the past. Edit: Also prizes (in general, not just for puzzles) are a very sensitive topic and I don't want to have a say in that so whatever happens, happens. Edit 2: Having another puzzle event run by staff would be interesting though. The Easter hunt was a thing. It does take a lot of work though so ultimately it's up to their own discretion since there is already Halloween and Christmas.

Yes and that's also why they used to have the rule of no advertising puzzle raffles in the public section. That rule has since been removed now though. We can still do all these special puzzle events but they will all be categorized into the puzzle section where they belong, as they have all been puzzles in the past. There are no private "puzzle" raffles, just private raffles that have a password assigned to them, which are not puzzle raffles but can be treated like one. Private raffles with the password box (secret link and password) is meant to be privately distributed (to friends, by streamers, profiles, sign ups, etc.) and linking it through the public section would make the raffle (technically) a private puzzle raffle but (before the rule) be placed in a weird limbo state of not being affected by the puzzle raffle rules. This has caused confusion in the past and I did used to see some private raffles (linked through the public section) get closed because they were thought to be impossible puzzles. Now to turn a private raffle (secret link and password) into a private puzzle raffle, you need to link it through the public puzzle section. Your private raffle will then turn into a private "puzzle" and then it will also fall under the puzzle raffle rules. Since linking (public) puzzle raffles through the regular public section is allowed, you can still recreate some of these events but it will all of course be categorised into the puzzle section. https://scrap.tf/raffles/QNE8AD

I think there was already a scavenger hunt puzzle thing in 2014 (complete with badges) but that was very trade-heavy. It is related. To quote Jesse: "The new rule is to stop people using "private password" raffles as puzzle raffles, therefore circumventing the puzzle raffle rules." You may be forgetting about what happened in Halloween 2017. A lot of people wanted to do the quest, resulting in hundreds of puzzles, some of which were mindless or error prone. There is already the veteran badge system that counts for creating raffles too. There is no data to back this up but I will assume that many people will want a puzzle creation and puzzle solving badge, also I will assume there will be a spike in puzzle creation similar to 2017. However this spike will be more persistent because the 2017 event ended eventually but something like puzzle badges will not stop being distributed. Only a puzzle solving badge would be better because that would cause people to create puzzles for people to solve which helps them get the solvers badge. This happened during the many other events where you need to solve a puzzle to get the EP. It did not result in a huge minefield of puzzles. However if there's a proposed puzzle solving badge, then the public section would need equal treatment and be given a public raffle entering badge (the entry numbers would need to be bigger of course). A puzzle event is always nice every once in a while but I don't think having an equal amount of puzzles compared to the public section (every single day) will be very fun and may get over-saturated and very busy. Puzzles (in general) should take time to create and you need to be very careful with how they are designed.

Not something insane like 1 week puzzles (and accidental 1 week public raffles) that we used to have. I think it is a good suggestion. I wonder why there are set options and not allowing you to pick specific times within a range however there is probably a good reason for that.

Yeah this seems to be a recent feature where when someone gets banned, all their raffles go into this weird "hidden" limbo state, where they're not private raffles but they're not public either. I doubt the staff are intentionally hiding these raffles but rather all their raffles get hidden (live or not) automatically based off how the new ban system seems to work. If a user gets banned for reasons unrelated to their live raffles, newer entrants can't view the contents of any of their live raffles that are still running. They're still numerically tracked on the public raffle pages, just not shown. I think you could probably still enter these "hidden" raffles through an existing off page enter raffle function but I don't think I want to risk anything other than entering on the page itself. People have also won these raffles but they must withdraw their prizes from the main raffle page. They are unable to visit the actual raffle page which is weird. Is it better off to keep still live raffles of banned users as "unhidden" till their raffle finishes or is it better to just close their existing raffles? If a user gets banned while they have made a live raffle in the middle of a huge collaborated raffle event for example, their raffle also would be hidden to everybody. It's not ideal.

If it takes a WR holder to complete a Jigidi in 10 minutes, then it likely does not apply to the majority of the users. This still does not consider the total number of pieces higher than what it took for a WR of 10 minutes and it does not consider the colours of the pieces. This is a debatable topic and can be judged only by the history of the puzzle section. I have seen long streaks of both difficult and very easy puzzle raffles that do not contain jigsaws during times when the puzzle section wasn't a barren wasteland. It's possible to make a puzzle that is not a jigsaw and still not be creative. It is true that jigsaws are an easy way to get new users into posting a puzzle raffle, but since they are new users, like any puzzle, there is a high margin of error that can be created. Jigsaws are incredibly easy to create (taking no effort if the user doesn't solve their own jigsaw) and also very easy for new users to post a broken jigsaw to the puzzle section. Also even if everything goes correctly, losing internet connection while solving a Jigidi may cause the site not to display the ending message. Due to how the site is designed, this means you need to solve the same Jigidi over again, which may not be preferable thing for users to do. Especially since you might not be able to distinguish if it's the raffler's message that's missing or your own internet connection not working properly. This is why this thread seems to have been posted, to propose ways to moderate Jigidi raffles, in which it was said already that they preferred to keep moderation simple. The site already has strict enforcement over a lot of things, as is what they have written in their rules. Call it as you wish but it's not new that they have blocked or moderated access to various links that others may agree or may disagree with. Jigidi was proposed to be banned a few years back (in 2017), we said no and since then the issues have continued. To what extent where action is needed is up to them. Lastly if it goes, remember that you should still be able make and link them in private raffles. Any errors or WR 10 minute solves should be allowed to happen there, so long as it's not required to solve the Jigidi in order to complete the main puzzle raffle.

Then go with removing them because if you look at it this way, even if the jigsaw doesn't have that many pieces (say 150 pieces), if someone comes across a puzzle raffle with ~10-5 minutes left on the timer, they may not be able to solve the puzzle in time. If you compare these times to other normal puzzle raffles, 10-5 minutes can be enough time if you're fast or good enough. This isn't always the case with jigidi. Of course not all puzzles are easy to solve at the end time, however those are usually far and few between while jigsaws can achieve this "limited time window" much more easily. The more pieces there are, the harder/more impossible it is to complete when you see the raffle nearing it's ending time (at >15, >10, >5 minutes left. etc.) proportional to the amount of pieces it had.

Maybe not having them in the puzzle section perhaps. I am indifferent if they stay or go. So I will go with what the majority says. I don't know how this supposed rule would apply to public invites into private raffle chains that may contain them but that may go by what is considered as a private raffle. I think more opinions are needed. I'm sure most will say "ban the jigsaws that have an overly large amount of pieces" however if all jigsaws are tedious to moderate by staff then ultimately it's their choice.

Perhaps Yeah, I think the user should link all their jigidi URL's in the solution section so that mods can skip ahead and check if the rest of the jigsaws are solved too. Anyways, jigidi (and by extension, itstoohard.com) are some nice websites but they are external and don't seem to be affiliated with scrap.tf so it would be interesting or (maybe even odd) for scrap.tf to acknowledge it as an additional official rule. I guess multiple jigsaw links comes down to how scrap.tf places strong emphasis that the solution box must explain everything and not just "put together all the pieces and you get another jigsaw link lol". People have been writing the answers for their itstoohard.com quiz in the solution box too which is nice, but not everybody has (or realises that they probably should). Edit: I think they should also make sure that they solve their jigidi in a reasonable time. Someone shouldn't post an overly large jigsaw that they solved themselves and it took several hours but the time they allocated for the puzzle raffle was only an hour and/or had limited entries.

Lol, lol and lol.