Does CV need a rework? A (not so) short essay

Oh boy, it's that time of the year, the time for debate!

I'll start with my opinion; the reason why I decided to create this topic. The way CV works right now isn't an exact representation of what it's meant to represent (Contributor Value), and it can be abused and exploited to no end.

Let's refer to the FAQ for more information:

What are levels, and how can I increase my level?
Levels represent a user's contributions to the community.

We don't really need to read further. CV is supposed to measure how well a user has contributed to the community, but what it really does is represent the ability of a user to push the "Create Giveaway" button, regardless of your win/give ratio, how many people had the chance to participate in your GAs, or any other factors that could measure "contributions to the community" with more precision.

There are a couple of design flaws which I'll try to explain, and I hope the point gets across since it's a bit late, and my English isn't in the best of shape.

First, you can exploit your way to a high level without being particularly generous. Do a few quick giveaways of bundled games to get a nice starting win/given ratio, then look for one (or a couple) of those private GA groups. "Potato GAs of the Potato!", they call themselves. With every characteristic element every private GA group has: a member limit and mandatory giveaways every X days if you get into it.

Then you just need to play along: start creating GAs and the other members of the Potato GAs of the Potato will create some too, and that little Secret Santa of yours will net you Contributor Value while, at the same time, you'll most likely win a lot of Potato games by the other members, so you won't really "lose" anything in the process. Your CV rose but did you contribute anything to the community? The answer is no. The same results could have been achieved by making the GA group in Steam, using a random number generator to determine winners, but why should they do that if they can use the SG platform and rake in CV in the process?

Then we need to introduce the biggest losers of this scheme: people who make public, level-restricted GAs. In their good will of rewarding people who contribute to the community -or at least that's their intention- they set a bar which low levels who are actually contributing, even if limited a bit by their wallet, can't cross; while people who have traded gifts with only 20 other people and received the same amount they've given in return are free to enter.

In short: Giving the opportunity to win $100 worth of games to 10 people is worth the same as giving the entire userbase that same opportunity. Also you can play a game of "giving to my friends, taking from everyone", and that isn't healthy for anyone.

The first and easiest solution people have found to combat this system is pretty easy to spot: there are tons of "adding to my whitelist" topics here in Discussions. Having individual control of who actually has a good ratio for a better indication of contributing level is the only way you'll make sure your game gets to the people you want to. But we shouldn't need to use that if the system was designed with the goal of rewarding contribution in mind.

For this, I have thought of several possible solutions, and you're free to suggest more in the comments section.

1. Split CV into Public CV and Group CV: This is pretty straight forward. You measure how many of the user's GAs have been created for everyone and how many of them have been for groups/whitelist. For example, if you're level 8 a possible split would be level 7 public CV and level 7 group CV (I think the result would be that based in its exponential nature but feel free to correct me), in which case you don't really have a problem, but, most importantly, it would allow givers to restrict level 0 public CV/level 8 group CV users from their giveaways if they don't want people who have been gaming the system in their GAs.

2. Create a Ratio value and add it to the filter options available when creating a giveaway: this solves the problem of weeding out "leechers" that drives some people to create high level GAs and forget about non-leechers who don't have a fat wallet. If you set the Ratio requirement to 1, the guy who has given $100 and won $90 is on the same playing field than the guy who has given $1000 and won $900. If you still want to reward the $1000 guy, use normal CV as a filter and you're all set.

3. Make CV gain proportional to how "open" your GA was: Straightforward too. If your GA was visible to 100% of the community, you get 100% of its CV value. The lower the proportion of the userbase able to enter it, the lower the CV you get.

4. Make won gifts decrease CV: this would encourage people who have been winning a lot to start giving more for a while. You could start at level 3, with levels 2, 1 and 0 representing people who win more and 4 to 10 representing people who have been giving more.

And... that's pretty much it, some final considerations:

1. This is an opinion. The CV system feels broken to me, but it doesn't have to be like that for anyone else. Feel free to discuss why it's working as intended if that's how you see it.
2. Before someone fires the first ad hominem attack, value this piece for what it is instead of who wrote it. I have no particular interest in changing the system so I can enter the promised land of high-level GAs, since I have pretty much every game that I like already in my library. In fact I would be even lower level with some of the proposed changes, but developing a fair system is far more important than any personal interests.

Thanks for reading, leave your comments, and have a nice day!