Help me fine tune my SGTools giveaway rules [GAs to test different suggestions. New: The Silent Age]

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)