No value to some big games GAs is shocking. What did I miss.

Not sure how "there's reasonable grounds for doubt over validity if it was within a certain timeframe" isn't relevant. I wasn't referencing it for emotional or other context, but purely as a logical point of reference. Like referencing a hurricane hitting a region while considering past periods of high rainfall for the region. :P

Rather, it also acts as a support that if it's NOT in that timeframe, then we need to come in from the assumption that it was probably done with legitimate cause, and therefore shouldn't jump to conclusions to the contrary. I didn't feel that needed to be clarified but, yeah, given typical internet commenter perspectives and the difference in the dualistic manner of how I think about such things versus how others may view such things, maybe it did want for it.

As far as you thinking your comment was clear, sure- the phrasing was a bit off, but the meaning wasn't hard to figure out.. But I also wasn't addressing any specific offer, either- I was more noting that we should be cross-referencing "x date nvidia offer", and then checking the timeframe it happened in to see if we could figure out if there may have been an easy to figure out problematic reason for the addition. Since, as I noted at the end, there's possible reasonable reasons it may have gotten added even with an nvidia offer, such as a glitch, so if there's no recorded glitch and it's not within those few years we had listing problems, then there may have been an overlapping offer or something else (eg, region exploitations, or russian key giveaway sites, though that latter one's extremely unlikely for AAA games) that we should be looking for.

In short, you said "nividia offers didn't count", and I was agreeing with you that they don't, and there was only ever one real exception to that- so, as you seemed to be suggesting, we should confirm that nvidia offers weren't involved and then be looking at other possibilities.

As with your perspective, I also don't believe "bad faith actions" have anything to do with the matter, but cause and effect doesn't care if it's a bad faith action or not (and staff acting contrary to site rules IS considered an abberant data set, so it's highly valuable for proper analysis; the motivation doesn't matter, the fact that the site functioning was compromised does, similar to how glitches in offer sites are relevant data outside of the scope of promotions that nevertheless still affect consideration of promotions), so we do need to at least acknowledge their existence so as to be able to verify things using proper data. Basically, exactly the perspective you just mentioned yourself. :P

It's not that I didn't get that reference, but I also thought you were at least a bit serious about your memory as well. :P