Charitable Losers - Update, new recruitment thread to come soon

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.

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.

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..

4. 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.

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.

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?

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)

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....

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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. ^-^

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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