This is what I want to achieve:

  • Give some chance to Level 0 users. I assume many of them are kids or have other valid reasons for not leveling up.
  • Give a chance to Level 1 users, but limit it because quite a few of them aren't really into contributing and only want to level up to be able to access more giveaways. I not only accept this, but also advise them to do, and would do it myself if I couldn't afford to level up beyond L1. Still, users who gave a 1P bundled game years ago and then only focused on winning can't really claim to have any moral high ground over Level 0 users.
  • Assume all others (Level 2 and above) can actually give, so if they won 5 or 10 times more than they gave it might actually be a case of "leeching" (I hate this word).

Other considerations:

  • I obviously like invite-only giveaways (and even more SGTools-enhanced ones), but I consider public giveaways to be an essential part of this site and want the rules to reflect this.
  • I have no issue with users having mostly region locked giveaways because in some parts of the world it can be difficult to get ROW keys. I do have an issue if they don't occasionally have some non-region locked giveaways, even if it requires them to invest a little more effort. Having only region locked giveaways would mean that I, and most other users on this site, could never win a game from them and it doesn't sit well with me.
  • I don't want this filter to be based on bundled vs. unbundled values, or to require a Real CV ratio. If the giveaway is especially worthy in my view I just use a whitelist and favorite-groups giveaway. I prefer my SGTools-filtered giveaways to reach as large audience as possible, except for the tiny minority of rule breakers and extreme you-know-what (not using this word!).
  • I accept that multiple wins can be easy for newcomers to misunderstand (and therefore fall into) and difficult to fix later on. I would therefore prefer to ignore multiple wins if they happened a long time ago (e.g. more than 2 years). Anything newer I'm willing to check manually before asking for a new winner.
  • Like most people I consider uncultivated wins to be a complete no-no. They are so easy to fix, so no justification to accept users who have them, even if they "already served a suspension for that infraction" in the past.
  • I don't want to check for VAC bans because of the risk of false positives is not insignificant (e.g. innocent users being banned for using a graphic mod).
  • I do want to check for trade bans, and see no possible justification for users to have them.

This is what I have so far:

((level==0)&&(num_won<=10)||((level<2)&&(num_won<=20&&real_sent_public>3))||((level>=2)&&(ratio_number_giveaways>=0.1&&real_sent_public>10)))&&pass_activated_rule&&last_multiple_win <= date_modify(date('now'), '-2 years')&&!VAC_economy_ban

Any suggestions for improvements? Please show me the path to a better filter!

Needless to say, if you don't have specific suggestions for the filter, feel free to comment on the rationale and considerations.

Thank you!


Edit: Work-in-progress GA to test suggestions from this thread: Cities XL Platinum
Edit #2: Additional GA with modified rules: The Silent Age (an explanation of the rules for this one is here)

8 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

I think you have to change the first part to
(((level==0)&&(num_won<=10))

Edit 1:Why do you use real_sent_public if you don't want the filter to be based on real CV? forgot to type the don't :(

8 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Isn't Boolean AND (&&) higher in precedence order than OR (||)?

And I don't want it to be based on Real CV.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If have no idea about boolean priorities. With additional parentheses you are on the safe side.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

&& does have higher precedence than ||

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Cool, so no need for additional parentheses :-)

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's a good habit to use them anyways. For example I've had to use C compiler with a bug in operator precedence. C++ too has it's specifics when it comes to evaluation order of sub-clauses.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I may just add them then.

BTW, do you consider the rule to be more or less readable with such parentheses included? Making the rule easier to read has value in itself, even if it's functional equivalent.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

For coding I use spacing (to have some "light" in wall of text) and line breaks (and try to avoid very complicated ones)
ie:"( (num_won <= 20) && (real_sent_public > 3) )'

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It does look better overall, but I don't know about the space between parentheses.

Thanks for the tips!

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Works best for me, but I have my requirements,circumstances and habits )

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Adding work-in-progress GA to test suggestions from this thread: Cities XL Platinum

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

On second thought, some of the parameters already use a form of Real CV (public), so scratch that. The main point is the public aspect of the giving, not aiming for a high value.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

oh i really came here to try and help. then:
WALL OF TEXT!!!

i'll try to remember later ;) although, never used SGtools, i like logical conditions

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

WALL OF TEXT!!!

By now you shouldn't be surprised ;-)

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

ברור, i'm not ;)

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just blacklist xarabas

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This xarabas?

View attached image.
8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

him and me

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes, I added you 20 seconds later :-)

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

maybe replace real_sent_public with real_sent_region_free to fulfill the "not only region locked"? although, that removed the "I consider public giveaways to be an essential part of this site"... hm... so i guess just add it in somewhere?

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Great suggestion!

I think this should do:

((level==0)&&(num_won<=10)||((level<2)&&(num_won<=20&&real_sent_public>3&&real_sent_region_free>3))||((level>=2)&&(ratio_number_giveaways>=0.1&&real_sent_public>10&&real_sent_region_free>10)))&&pass_activated_rule&&last_multiple_win <= date_modify(date('now'), '-2 years')&&!VAC_economy_ban

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Hm, after having thought about it a bit, I would propose maybe losing the level==0 part... (and the level>=2 should be superfluous)... it feels kinda weird that I would no longer be allowed to enter just for making a forum or group GA.

The fixed values of 3 and 10 also feel "meh" in my mind, but I have no real better idea... maybe replace them with ratios (real_sent_public/real_sent_cv and real_sent_region_free/real_sent_cv)? That way you could say that at least 1/5/10% should be of the "good" kind?

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If I use anything related to Ratios or Real CV and don't include a dedicated part in the rule for Level 0 I won't be able to let any of them in, which is a key requirement. I want Level 0 users to enter my forum giveaways.

With that in mind, what alternative do you see?

8 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I just meant "don't restrict the num_won<=10 part ONLY to level 0"... right now a level 1 user with 5 wins but without 3 public CV can't get in. which feels mean considering that a a level 0 user with 5 wins does get in.

I would maybe even leave out levels totally... either you did not win much, or you won a bit and then i want some public and region free stuff, or you won a lot, then I want to see a nice ratio... or something... this is giving me a headache :P

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, a Level 0 user with 5 wins gets the benefit of the doubt from me, while a Level 1 user with only group giveaways does not. I think it's good practice to give to the larger community before joining groups, and it's what most users do on this site (intentionally or not).

The concept of "winning much" is relative to how many games one gave, and it breaks with Level 0 and Level 1 users for the reasons mentioned previously. I just don't see how I can create a rule that takes this into consideration without having dedicated parts specific to these levels, but I'm open to ideas :-)

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Also, unlike a Group GA, a forum GA is practically as public as a Public GA, but there's no way to tell if an invite-only link was actually shared on the forum, which is why I'm checking for real_sent_public.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

just fyi, there are groups exclusive to locked region members. They don't use the explicit lock feature which makes them appear as row GAs on the statistic, which then shows actual 100%-region-lock senders having falsely displayed 50%+ non-locked gifts.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I was not aware of this. I wonder if there are such users who don't meet the very modest requirements of real_sent_public>10 AND "real" real_sent_region_free>10?

8 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

yes, many, especially in higher levels surprising, those also have huge public, unlocked GA wins but make only 100% locked and/or region-group GAs that have to be looked up to be identified as such.

But those still slip through these rules due to the problem mentioned above.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm really curious to see such a profile, so if you happen to know about one and are willing to share (elsewhere) I'd appreciate it.

Thanks! :-)

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

oh I sure do ;-)

Surprisingly seems we aren't friended on Steam yet, added you ^^ but will have to search a bit and send you some links then later on when I'm back.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks! :-)

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It also works other way. I know at least one steam group that is restricted to Poles only, so they tend to put gibs as region-locked to Poland (to assure that nobody else joins), but those games are in fact not region-locked.

So yeah, ANY indicator based on region locks can be at best half-reliable, but very easily tricked.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I like and pretty much agree with your "Other Considerations", however I'm deeply conflicted about the first three points. Still suffering from my first naïve days on this site, I suppo- wait. Steamgifts gave me PTSD!

View attached image.
8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Have you thought about something like "(sent-received) > -500" realCV/face value? A kind of "you grabbed enough, give others a chance" rule

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not really, because there are some awesome users on this site who won more. In at least one case more than a 1000 games.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is difference of gifted and won, not only won. How high your pain threshold is, only you can tell )

As with all numerical sieves, this one too doesn't account awesomeness )

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Only one proposition: why can't I block a user in discussions too? Since he's blacklisted me, I don't see any use in stumbling on his topics..

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If your suggestion is related to SGTools, the correct place to post it is here.
If your suggestion is related to SteamGifts, try this sub-forum.

Good luck! :-)

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"I accept that multiple wins can be easy for newcomers to misunderstand (and therefore fall into) and difficult to fix later on. I would therefore prefer to ignore multiple wins if they happened a long time ago (e.g. more than 2 years). Anything newer I'm willing to check manually before asking for a new winner."

Thanks for understanding this :) I made the mistake myself in the beginning (out of courtesy I asked the GA-Creator if hes okay if I give the game to a friend but I did not read the SG-rules thoroughly enough at the time). Reading this just gave me that warm feeling of beeing welcome. Enough for you to get a spot on my whitelist ;)
Sadly I cant really help you with SGTools, but what you are trying to achieve seems like a very fair system.

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

One more: The Silent Age

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Users who can enter this GA include:

  • Level 0 with up to 10 wins
    or
  • Level 1 to 1.99 who won up to 10 times more than they gave, and sent real value of at least 3P public and 3P region unlocked (ROW)
    or
  • Level 2.0 or higher who won up to 10 times more than they gave, and whose giveways real value consisted of up to 90% group, at least 5% public, and at least 5% region unlocked (ROW)

In addition, all users must have activated all games won, must not have multiple wins in the last 2 years, and must never have been trade banned by Steam.

8 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I just typed a coherent reply and it went away... I might have clicked Cancel instead of Submit >.< Anyway, it worked for me (I'm in the second group). The SGtools special rules look a bit strange but I guess it just takes some time to find out if I pass or not (beside just clicking the 'Check' button ;)

Thank you for the GA :)

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Does the syntax of the rules look strange or the logic of them?

8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The logic is fine. But the syntax requires a bit of fluency in formal notation or programming. :)

View attached image.
8 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Closed 8 years ago by Yirg.