Update

Some people seem to misunderstand my reason for wanting to limit bundles in some way. I don't hate them. I've done a lot myself. The problem was with wins balance. When the group was first started, not many people could join the group, and there were very few people that could exploit it by having their ratio boosted easily through high bundle or dev key giveaways. 20 months later, we have a lot more people worthy of the group, but also more people that would exploit how the group worked, given it relied on little more than wins to gives ratio. I introduced the anti boosting rule to limit this somewhat, but there were still users that would get in soon enough. Trying to decide on a fair boot point was also difficult .

In the end, since its the second most popular poll option (just behind a suspension, which I'll talk to Khalaq or Bobofatt about later), I'll be adding a Real CV related system for group membership. I still need to go over a larger number of former group members to get a suitable final number, but I expect to be using a Real CV ratio of $1 won : $1.50 gifted minimum for invite, while going below 1 : 1.25 will result in a warning followed by a boot within the week, though a second warning likely won't happen if a user skirts the limit again too quickly.

This will ensure that people aren't messed up by gifting bundles, but those who were potential problems previously won't find it too easy.

Previous invite rules will still apply, possibly with a reduced win : gives number ratio, but otherwise the Real CV ratio will be the only change.

Note for previous members - For reinvites, the requirements will be relaxed. If you fall between 1.5 and 1.25 (or whatever is picked as the final ratio), you can still request an invite to the group.

Hopefully not too many people are annoyed by these changes.

I expect a new recruitment topic to be no longer than 48 hours at the worst, and hopefully less than 24. I'll just be finalising the Real CV numbers and chatting to Knsys to see about a tool that will allow new users to confirm they can get an invite.


Original post

I've been trying to work out suitable new rules that take the changes to SteamGifts since v1 into account. I'm quite terrible at it. I want to balance things well, but I can't really find a good point which allows the group to be fair to all users.

Right now, higher numbers of bundle giveaways can allow members to win more without a boot. I'm trying to work out a good ratio for when a user should get the boot, but as it is right now, a set amount would punish people who have given less giveaways at higher prices. I've just been booting when I feel like they have enough, but that isn't really suitable, and means I can't make others do it either.

I've been trying to work out something that keeps the classic rules that were made when we couldn't even see wins CV and bundle gifters were capped at $30. I'm getting the idea now that just isn't going to work out as well as I'd like. We have long time users that wouldn't pass some of my ideas. We have me unable to pass the current idea (like I said, I'm terrible at this).

Since I can't just tell all the brats to get off my lawn and force CG to change this site back to the way it once was, I'm going to collect input from all users that frequent this site. Should I continue the group with similar rules to how it was started, get working on a system that uses Real CV Sent and Received (and if so, what ratio do you think should be used for this), should I try another system to be mentioned here?

Should I retire from leadership and make Khalaq and Nerka do all the work?

5 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

What kind of system would you prefer to be used for Charitable Losers?

View Results
Classic can be made to work if you...
Real CV might be the best choice for balance
I have a suitable suggestion you can find in the comments below
Delta clearly doesn't know what he is doing, can Support please suspend him?

I think that real unbundled CV is a strong filter and as that would be in favor to use the reqs for entry that were in place yesterday.

You couldn't believe the quality and quantity of (veteran) Charitable Losers that fail on the new unbundled gifts ratio that's on the tool today.

You have to make allowance for things that bring a lot of bundled games to the table like community events, trains, those like myself that buy bundles and giveaway those they already have or don't find interesting or don't think they would play.

A lot (me included) have no problems passing the real unbundled CV req but also a lot (me included) fail on the new unbundled gifts ratio req including Admins.

Also as others put forward and I agree with them that rules concerning all activated wins and multiple wins should be enforced instead of relaxed. CL's should set an example concerning SG rules and not be on the dark side of the moon concerning SG rules.

I think a real unbundled CV ratio combined with a CV level not lower than the old 5.75 and a X value of unbundled USD amount would be good concerning the first requirement and like in CL 1.0 a gift/win ratio of 3/1 that has to be maintained.

I'm also a sheep (BAA group) and our Admins also use a CV level and a real CV Steamgifts ratio (not a group ratio) that you have to maintain.

EDIT: Concerning the all activated and no multiple win's rules I would ad a clean Steam profile (No VAC, Game or Trade ban) as nobody likes people with cheating and scamming mentality.

5 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah, my idea for that tool was maybe, just a little bit terrible...

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No offence but my personal thought if that req would stick is that maybe you wanted a very small group of maybe a couple of tens of members max as I don't think a lot of CL's would pass these reqs and especially the first req.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Right now, higher numbers of bundle giveaways can allow members to win more without a boot. I'm trying to work out a good ratio for when a user should get the boot, but as it is right now, a set amount would punish people who have given less giveaways at higher prices.

I don't like the idea of a ratio at all. It punishes people for making certain kinds of giveaways. A person can make 100 unbundled giveaways and get in, but another person who makes 100 unbundled and 150 bundled would not, despite the second person having given more (if the value of the games are equal). I personally think the current CV-system works quite well for valuing bundle keys, as the amount you get for bundled games is roughly in line with what you would get buying games at 80% off (with a few exceptions).

Why not just put a real CV ratio in place, and a minimum amount in unblunded value? Easy to understand, easy to check, and about as fair as it's going to get.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree people shouldn't be stopped from making bundled giveaways. If you are avid bundle buyer you can end up getting large number of them just by giving away duplicates.

Purely ignoring them in requirements is likely the best solution.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

sounds fair to me.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Why not combine the current rules with the original ones you had before SG v2? Something along these lines:

  1. At least 50 giveaways
  2. Number of wins to be no more than a third of your giveaways (so entering at 50 giveaways would require no more than 16 wins)
  3. Minimum user level of 5.75 (may change with time)

^ Current ones, plus..

  1. Minimum unbundled CV: $400 (Could be more, just used the number you had in SG v1)

Pretty much everyone gives away more bundled games than non-bundled, so needing a certain percentage of non-bundled would only exclude the generous people that give hundreds or even thousands of bundled games - they still spend money on them after all.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 5 months ago.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If u given a away a game that wasn't bundled before, it won't count in the Bundled CV, but in the Unbundled CV. :)

I don't think this suggestion is anyhow bad, 400 unbundled CV isn't much to get, and is fair enough.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The difference is that one can get games with 80% discount, for 20% price - meaning 400 unbundled can collected from 80$. If someone gives away bunded games that still gives possibly much more realCV but they count bundled, it's like it dooesn't even exist.
For example my realCV is: 389.50 $ non-bundled and 656.70 $ bundled. What someone gave away 401$ unbundled and nothing else, 0 bundled?
I think not the collection of unbundled can be the limitation, but not counting the bundled one.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't even know what I wanted with the last sentence... Something about the bundled giveaway's realCV should count, because it's already worth only 15% - this way it's easier to prevent the inflation of sent stat by cheap games - though for this reason there was already a level limitation.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Exactly. In fact, from the whitelist giveaways I've done so far, the most demanded one was a "bundled" game which I've given away simply because I know it's good, not for the CV: The Talos Principle. That and A:I are just two examples out of many games that are on the bundle list because of russian pricing.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Talos Principle was bundled because of the stackable AlienWare Coupon. Basically if u had like 5+ during the game sale (the coupons could be used during the sale), u had the game absurdly cheap.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If we follow this kind of principles then we can put all games in the bundled list after a big sale from any retailer.
I also had the case with Amnesia: Memories, it was never included on any bundles if I trust ITAD or even googling around yet it's part of the bundle list for what I guess was a big sale somewhere in November.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Every game which had an Alienware Coupon is on bundled list. Because u can stack like 20 Coupons and use them all at the same time, making a big discounts

The coupons are tradable, and the giveaways usually contain 5k-10k of them on the site.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's not true, Dropsy is not on the list. But the Alienware coupon stacked with a larger discount than Dropsy has been on. And coupons don't stack, but some coupons stack with sales.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I like this suggestion. It doesn't change too much of the old rules (why did they need to change anyway?), I just would like to add the "no rulebreaking" rule to those requirements.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

if i only break the no breaking rule
will i get kicked ?

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I consider that limiting the ratio of unbundled/bundled games would result in two things:

  1. Less bundle games given away.
  2. Cheap DLC that isn't bundled mass spammed, to achieve the limit.

Neither of which is desirable in general.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I wouldn't use the sent-won ratio, neither the single number of the two stat because it would just make the thing more complex - what if someone spammed 0.10$ games? What if that 0.10$ game is better than the 5-8$ ones? How many copy is okay? Value the games on price or quality? WHAT means quality? Way too many question.
Instead of levels and sent-win ratio I would use a miniimum realCV sent limit, with some kind of maximum limitations - either realCV ratio, or flat numbers, it's up to the group to decide. Number of games doesn't really reflects one's intentions as good as the worth of given-won.
or maybe number of Fortix sent?

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Honestly Delta, I think that (like others have said) you should count bundle give aways. After all, that doesn't mean they are actually unwanted games, many are actually pretty good and even get solid entry number in the group.

If you wanted less stress and to make it easy on yourself, just set a number with Real CV. (I know, it might even STILL be tough, I've ran a decent number of the members numbers while trying to see where I stand, and it's not all pretty)

I could see you also rounding up the entry level to 6.00 or so. (I think it's probably still too early to go 7.00)

I don't know if "regional gives" are a problem within the group, but real Cv even shows those. (and I don't mean that as any kind of slight toward those that are in these lower priced regions, I won't begrudge you one advantage in a sea of disadvantages of a bad economy. But i know it's a source of some angst with some people, feeling they can not participate in a regional give, while that person can still participate in RoW)

I don't envy you the work, I love the group, I hope I make the cut next time! Thanks for having me in the first place. -CyberEvil

(also I've been on this huge completely unlike me winning streak that's KILLED my .25 Real CV just in time for the reorganization, i think it's a conspiracy, I blame the Illuminati)

5 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Most people blame Xarabas. P

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well I've seen him about, but hadn't realized I was on his radar. Curse him!

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Don't curse him. Do you really want a cursed Xarabas running around?

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Seeing how I haven't been active much here for these past few months, I'll guess that it is some recent inside joke I missed. In any case, would you be kind to clarify it for me? Thanks.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't know the origin, but you are apparently a popular scapegoat. )

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ah ok, thank you :)

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No solution is going to satisfy everyone. It's clear that bundled games GAs upset a lot to some of the key members of the group, and that triggers the reboot. Now we are seeing that asking for no bundles profile punish the SG community and some of the major donors...

Dunno what to do in your position....

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I am for it being based off of real CV given. A minimum level of 6.0 with a good balance of giveaways created vs won, probably still use the 1/3 as before. No need to make anything too complicated.

As for bundled games vs non bundled games if real CV is a factor it will not matter as much.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

it's your group. if you aren't convinced with based on strict rules, why don't you review each application and use a mix of criteria to see if that user is worthy of being in the group?
like min real cv, max region cv, min unbundled cv, won:sent ratio.

or you could also set a minimum ratio inside the group, so you will encourage people making GAs in charitable losers.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

In the end, I was going to suggest that too, but I'm not sure how much work he wants to assign himself. It is his group though and with that he can do as he pleases.
But that said, without some "standard" written down it becomes a pain to deal with. Unless he wants to set that standard and stress it as a complete minimum, subject to whim.

One of the greatest things about this group to me though is how casual it is. I have consistently avoided the "You must give this/ to this group only" groups.
I may be misinformed or looking through rosy glasses or whatever but I think this is already a generous group. (though I guess it could fall prey to someone qualifying then sitting back and entering while doing all their giving to those aforementioned "must give quota" groups)

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm the same. I have avoided any group that forces me to do monthly giveaways or keep a ratio within the group. Fun fact is, I probably give more in this group than I would if I had any pressure to do so.

(The only group where I have an actual obligation is the Unlucky Gifters of the Dice but that one's special)

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm too averse of mandatory gifting, only group with that sort of rule for me is Touhou, but that's a special system that I think is fair for everyone in it. I just don't like pressure of it.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

don't forget leech lvl.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well I was going to buy a whole bunch of indiegala bundles next payday to try to qualify for your group. That's all the input I can give.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Under the old rules, you would have fallen under the "Boosting Rule" and had to go through a waiting period.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Being in the current group, I find it hard to look for an alternative. I certainly agree with the difficulty of doing so. I would think that real CV is the closest you're going to get. Personally, a ratio oriented group is far too much work for me to run, and I do not envy you in that respect.With the number of bundle games at a seemingly all time high, i think it would be wist to entirely null them. Is there a SG tool that caps the CF given of bundle games to emulate the old system?

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Clearly we need to pressure SGTools to add an SGv1 CV calculator.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

View vote result LOLLLLLLLL

My suggestion.

Unbundled win cannot be > 1/3 Unbundled GA
AND total win cannot be > 1/3 total GA

This way, people who giveaway a lot of bundled games are still eligible as long as the wins are also bundled games.
So, people who only giveaway bundled games but keeps winning AAA games will need to work on giving away more valuable gifts.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Now, there's an idea. I'm going to mull it over for a while before responding.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Delta clearly doesn't know what he is doing, can Support please suspend him?

111 people want delta suspended. xD

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's complicated; giveaway economy can vary a lot by group; some groups EXPECT bundled giveaways, others frown on it, and some are indifferent. It's largely varied based on things. So are win/sent rates; many groups encourage better ratios, but others (Like, say Touhou Giveaways, but I'm sure there must be others) encourage winning and giving at about the same rate because of the unique economy. This is how over half of my wins come from a single group. There's no way that really establishes equitable, relevant statistics across the board because each group and user has a distinct way of giving and certain giveaways they enter for. I like Real CV, but it's not always the same (especially because giveaways for some groups don't usually hit 5 entries, while still being "legit" giveaways glares at Touhou Giveaways for making my profile complicated) but overall I think sent/received is a useful metric. Real CV should be a bit more relaxed, in my opinion, than gifts sent, but my opinion is heavily skewed by freaking Touhou GIveaways, complicator of things.

It's also complicated by things like how users use the site; for example, almost half my giveaways (real CV) are group giveaways; that ratio seems to make a lot of people upset. At the same time, however, almost 2/3 of my wins are group giveaways, so there's a reason I give so much to groups.

View attached image.
View attached image.
5 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So much 2hu hate :P.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I hate 2hu too... ;)

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Don't mind me, just hopping on the 2hu-rekt-my-ratio train D:

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I clearly qualify for being one of the brats, so I take my hat and leave early :)

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, if the number ratio of won-sent is unbreakable rule, I'll never make it. At this time my stats are 250 won, 271 sent.
On the contrary, Real CV ratio of not-yet-bundle(green colored), I won $725 and sent $2012.99, so 2012.99 / 725 = around 2.775. I believe this ratio will increase more in a few weeks after my cake day train.

I prefer simple rules, so I voted for Real CV. Also I would recommend to add non-rule-breaking record.
But, it's your group, you have freedom to make it fit your taste. ^-^

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

how are you gonna enforce the no rule-breaking requirement?

because i doubt support will give us a list of offenders.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh, it seems I didn't say it clear. I meant no bad record on SGTools at least.
People can make mistakes and correct them later. I've helped a handful of persons to clear their unactivated wins and multiple wins.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

but what records on sgtools, someone that joined a ga with a leaked link?

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It also could be, but isn't it hard to investigate? Not every leaked link has been reported to knsys, I guess.
What I meant no bad record is

  • No unactivated win
  • No multiple wins
5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

oh those simple rules, i didn't even paid attention and forgot them -.- *facepalm*

yeah that sounds fine. i don't really think we had anyone with unactivated/multi wins anyway.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh, we do/did. Had some in my ChaLos giveaways (level8/9 users).

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Pff, that's easy. We just need their home addresses and 500 kilos of chocolate chip cookies ;D.

View attached image.
5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

View attached image.
5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 5 years ago.

5 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

edit
I just saw the new rules and I think that's cool even though I don't pass :< but the ratio in which bundle games should count should be different since it heavily penalizes people for giving away any sort of bundled game.

5 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

no, that would be to hardcore as there are games that are unbundled that I won for less than 1 $ xD
before I know how this site really works.

5 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm fine with w/e. Noticed that I don't qualify under the new rules (damn trains -.-) which is fine by me since I can go back to being a cheap bastard >:D.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I concur, you should let Nerka do all the work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Since the amount can be exploited and realcv can be, too (a lot of my last wins can definitely be considered exploits, and more than doubled my real cv won), I'd say ratio of real cv won to real cv given.
Chances are, both is exploited, so it stays rather balanced on a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio.

BUT this system would still allow some very cunning and exploitative people to participate who aren't that "charitable" at all. So I'd also consider the amounts of games given and sent (raw), as well as a ratio of bundled given to bundled won. Luckily all is checked quickly today.

I, personally, would be absolutely against excluding bundle games from consideration, especially from wins.
1) because that would enable some very uncharitable people to enter who'd just leech their way through yet another group, upping their +1 badge, farming the cards and moving on massively.
2) because it's not "charitable sg users", but charitable losers -> people who give a certin amount and simultaneously don't win that much - which either means bad, bad luck or entering giveaways selectively.

5 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If the Admin (Delta) reserves the right to kick people for whatever reason, won't that offer some protection against "very cunning and exploitative people?"

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sure, but it'd also enable them being invited in the first place I guess.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sounds like #3 from what I posted further down.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think that bundled games should be excluded completely for both winning and losing. They wreck the ratios, etc. My proposal is something like this (posted on the Steam Group too :) ):

Minimum unbundled CV ratio 2 (giveaway) : 1 (win) or something like that
Minimum unbundled CV of $450 or $500.
No dups or un-activated wins (including bundles).

You can put in a win/giveaway ratio by numbers but that can be misleading because it would exclude someone who gave away 5 copies of a new AAA game but wins 5 x $2 games. Maybe a minimum giveaway count is all that you need on that side.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I just saw the new rules and understand the uproar people on their have regarding rule #1. Instead of a solid number count, I suggest real cv be used instead. In that way people who give away games they didn't know were bundled or were bundled but are still good games don't feel too opposed to it because the valuation does factor in to how CV levels work in SG and they don't seem to be at odds with that. The issue of simply 3 unbundled GAs to 1 unbundled win was pointed out by epica after suggesting it haha. A person could win 3 $1 non bundleds and give 1 $60 non-bundled AAA game and still not qualify. A ratio of real cv non-regional wins vs sent would be best in overcoming those issues pointed out I think.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not an easy task to define charitable and loser with hard numbers, nothing to envy )

If you can edit the rules on the checker and get a list of members that pass/fail, practical approach would be to make tests with different rules and see how close the results are to the concept of charitable loser and how many unwanted passed/wanted didn't make it.

Bundles effectively give the same CV as nonbundles@~85%off (but you have to make maaany of them for mere 20$ CV). RealCV captures that nicely. If you think 15% for bundles is too much, it can be changed (albeit sgt rules will be somewhat complicated). (Same deal for SGv1 CV calculation - it can be done)
Tbh, month ago I would pass all reqs but then 2k16 train happend. If the 1st rule was in place I'd have a hard time deciding whether join the train and leave a group or stay and don't participate. I think it's not the way group is meant to work.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Perfect. +1

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Can you check the reqs only for yourself? I wanted to try KTS's profile :P

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

looking through his profile, he might fail current rule #1 haha

5 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.