Bundle games, CV and Monica Lewinsky

With apologies to ADHD sufferers for the terrifying wall-of-text

The simplest and fairest thing to do is completely remove CV. Everybody can then enter for every giveaway and there's no more elitism and it's all about the spirit of generosity. Lol like that'll ever happen.

I think you didn't get the point of the people who complain about the CV value of bundles, they don't care to contribute (at least 99%), they want to participate in more giveaways (with CV value restriction). While people requires you give games to win, people will still try to exploit the system.
I think people that still spamming those threads complaining about CV should be suspended. Best way to solve the problems with CV.

so to sum up .. You are suggesting 2 CVs. One like it currently is, and one that includes ALL giveaways.

I like it. Gives us Group Admins another good stat to play with when recruiting, and Giveaway - Gurus a way to judge their contrib giveaways.
Plus may eliminate all these threads.

Only downfall, I dont know if two values would be too confusing for new users .. But I like your suggestion AWC

Well, I suggested this in the poll thread (page 9), but nobody has replied to my post, so I guess its better this way :)

I don't like the idea of splitting distribution of gifts based on a new value. Better to have a simple system (1 CV value)

This just makes everything complicated

Like:

• Can you make a GA w/ 2 CV value restrictions?
• How about the modifier, is it "AND", "OR"? or selectable

edit:
If you're talking about flexibility, I would like to see Blacklists applied on public GA's rather than this

Clinton did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky or CV

Honestly the main gist I'm getting from the whole bundled list complaining is the following things:

1. There isn't any set standard and it seems arbitrary. Indie Gala pay what you want bundle sales that are similar to Humble Weekly sales aren't added. Amazon sales sure aren't added either. As it stands now, it is very confusing and difficult to understand even though people claim it isn't. The system itself is simple enough in theory, but in practice became a complex mess.

2. Once a game is bundled, as it stands now it isn't removed ever. There are games that were in bundles one time back in 2010 or 2011 on the list, and if you happen to want one of those games, well you sure aren't going to have much chance to win it. Once the bundle is over bundled list status then becomes a deterrent from giving the games. I like giving games and will go buy stuff on Steam and Amazon to give at times, but if I'm doing that, I'm going to look for one that will also give me a CV gain as well. From what I see, that's not uncommon to consider because it's a rare person who gives just for the sake of giving. As it stands now if the bundled list stays the way it is, soon the only way to get $30.01 is going to be by giving DLC and Fortix and maybe a couple of other games and things that are beyond what most can afford.

The thing is, your suggestion really doesn't solve those two issues. If anything, it makes things more complex by adding a second stat and you know very well most giveaways will be made with a non-bundle CV stat except for the people who tend to just set it at $0.01 to ensure a winner has given something, even if it's just some cheap DLC, a bundle leftover or even a copy of Fortix. The people who use $30.01 will just set a $0.01 non-bundle amount.

A lot of words... Don't read~

It seems to me you've missed the point of contributor value. It's not meant to be an e-peen bragging stat so adding another is pointless.

It's meant to be a way to allow people to limit their giveaways only to people that have given a certain amount in turn already, so for instance keep the zero giveaway leeches out. It's an entirely optional way to give something back to the people without whom this site wouldn't exist, the people that have contributed giveaways, and the contributor value locks ensure that it only goes to such people.

For instance let's say I wanted to give away an new top-dollar AAA game, but I want to give it specifically to the people who have already contributed a great deal to the site as a sort of "thank you" reward for keeping providing the site with it's lifeblood (giveaways), so I set a CV lock of $500.00 on the giveaway. That ensures that my giveaway now goes only to the people I actually deem worthy of receiving it.

The CV is a way of determining not only amount of games given but also how generous the people were, IE whether they've gone above and beyond and given away top-dollar premium games as well. Basically those who gave based on the merits of the games, rather than how little "being generous" will hurt their pocket.

Where's my Monica Lewinsky?

Very similar to my idea on page 2 of cg's poll. I even suggested allowing there to be a bundle only CV option. So either Normal only, Bundle only or combined. Easiest way since databases for bundle and normal contributions exist. Purists get their giveaways, bundlers get theirs and then there's the combination option.

MOST important thing is define what is a bundle game and stick to it. Fixing what games are and aren't on it would take a bit of work but the night we did the input on the original bundle list we knocked it out fast (people in chat that night know who they are). Once defined and set the main other thing is if games stay on that list forever or for a set time. Thing is, unless an exception is made on the list from the start for very short pricing oops Bethesda Elder Scrolls 3-5 (yeah Skyrim), Borderlands 2, Sleeping Dogs, etc could all very well end up on the bundle list.

What about limiting the number of times that someone can gift a certain title (in total or within a certain time frame)? It's a little more database overhead but it would make it less appealing to use cheap bundles (from any source) to inflate your CV.

I don't know if this is the best idea, but it's certainly one that I like. You'd get no argument from me.

Wait until Hillary see this thread. Oh, boy

Looks like an improvement compared to the actual situation.