What kind of system would you prefer to be used for Charitable Losers?
I just saw the new rules (took some digging, but I found them ^^), so here's what I think regarding the first rule (which I failed, miserably):
I agree with what others said already, that it's probably better to focus on real CV rather than pure numbers, since it wouldn't leave many eligible users left (as it stands now). Or not make bundled GAs an issue at all, just concentrate on non-bundled GAs and non-bundle give/win ratio (maybe with an in-group rule about no/very few bundle GAs). Or, if you want to keep the number requirement for unbundleds, maybe lower it to something more realistic, like 20 % (I still wouldn't pass, but at least some of the more generous members might - although there are plenty of users who buy bundles exclusively to give everything away, and have been doing that since before thinking about joining the group, I'm not sure why that shouldn't count as generous/"charitable")
That said, thanks for the group and for having me, even if it was just for a short while (so far?), I enjoyed my time there and the positivity around it :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I posted my thoughts in the group thread but I'll echo here briefly the point I made.
Any requirement to be eligible to join the group taking the form of an inequation (e.g. x / y > z) should be set so that any successful giveaway the applicant completes should not push them closer to being ineligible.
If you want to avoid applicants mass-boosting their CV through cheap bundle GAs, then set a rule that takes into account their unbundled giveaways. It doesn't need to 'compare' to their unbundled GAs in the form of a ratio.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, can I ask something? Why do you want to change the premise of the group when you don't even know where to?
To me it was fine as it was, except we had a bunch of rulebreakers in it that I'd rather not have in there, but apart from that the ChaLos rules are totaly okay.
Comment has been collapsed.
Concerning the all activated and no multiple wins rules I would ad a clean Steam profile to the requirements (No VAC ban, No Game ban and No Trade ban) as nobody likes people with cheating and/or scamming mentality.
As for why the change in the CL group is needed: in the CL Steam group discussions all kinds of different things have been said concerning why there's a change in CL, for example it's being said that AAA games were won by users that mostly do bundled giveaways and that some don't like this. And also some other talk that boils down to leeching and bundled and unbundled giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would ad a clean Steam profile to the requirements (No VAC ban, No Game ban and No Trade ban) as nobody likes people with cheating and/or scamming mentality.
Going by VAC bans is tricky, as VAC, in particular it its earlier days, is known for its false positives. Modding games that have multiplayer components, like Half-Life, can get you VAC-banned, depending on the mod in question. If VAC only went after you when you played online, I would be more fine with it, but in its current state, it does not.
Trade bans is something that I'm fine with using though. That system does not seem to be prone to making mistakes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hear (following the sources in the VAC wiki, Steam.db and VacBanned.com) that the early false positives have been cleared and fixed and that now when you get a VAC ban it's because you really have been naughty or "forgot" to turn of a cheat engine or cheating software when you should never use these things in the first place. Valve does warn about using 3' party software when playing VAC protected games and playing on VAC protected servers. In any case modding a VAC protected game and playing it is playing with fire.
I think that a lot of SG giveaway creators don't really like winners with VAC bans as I've been seeing in SGT protected giveaways that " No Vac Bans" is more of a common used requirement than a rarely used requirement.
Comment has been collapsed.
Super Bunnyhop made a video on the topic, in regards to his own woes with VAC. It's from 2014, so things might have changed since then, but he still had issues with an old VAC-ban from using a graphics mod in HL 6 years prior, that Valve refused to remove.
That's the sort of VAC-ban that I could easily have gotten if I had used the wrong mod, as I often mod my games.
Comment has been collapsed.
While I personally do pass the SGTools qualifications with flying colors, I'm not so sure about the bundled/unbundled ratio. Would someone who gave as many unbundled game as I did, but 3 times as many bundled games, be any less generous?
Maybe something like this could work:
- At least 450$ in region free not in bundle list giveaways
- Ratio of at least 3:1 for real CV sent vs real CV won.
That way, people are not penalized for doing bundle giveaways in addition to the non bundled ones. Also, the bundled games given away or won wouldn't affect the ratio as much as non bundled titles.
Comment has been collapsed.
Putting region free in guarantees that anyone in a region can never be in the group, no matter how much they give. Seems unfair.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are plenty of people in Steam's restricted regions who do region-free giveaways by purchasing games from the various online stores.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not vouuching on any specific choice, but wanted to discuss some ideas ;)
First of all about your higher numbers of bundle giveaways can allow members to win more without a boot argument - it works both ways. Higher number of bundle sites also means that people who win a lot of bundle games but would like to keep their ratio somewhat fixed also has much more opportunities to get a lot of bundle games.
Another thing if you're considered just about bundle games affecting ratios - SGT allows you to see non-bundled CV only. You could compare non-bundled sent to non-bundled won, non-bundled sent to overall won or overall sent to nonbundled won. On the other hand with bundling because of Regional Prices it may also suck for some really generous users. Those who will give the game just because it's good not because it will give them more CV. Someone making ROW GA of Evil within, Trine 3, Wolfenstein New Order etc would be punished by such system, because his high quality GAs, which he clearly made not for CV farm but to give away good quality games (in most cases he'd be getting CV value he paid for or even less for them) would not count.
Ofc there is also 3rd way - most fair but also requiring most work - you could describe general or border rules in your recruitment topic, but also note that each user will be judged separatelly and only the best would be picked. This way you could bypass all problems mentioned before, but especially at the start it would require shitload of work.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your "third way" might not be that complicated if it is implemented in a simple manner.
Example:
- These are the entry requirements.
- These are the exit requirements.
- Appeals to #1 or #2 are decided by Mr. Arbiter (whomever that is).
Comment has been collapsed.
This is getting too complicated. Make it simple, set the rules to $10.000 real cv sent and $0 received. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pretty bad at those rules things, but have a bump anyway :D
Comment has been collapsed.
cv is a messy, and unfun thing
Does anyone know, if you win a non-bundle giveaway that has less then 5 entires, does that count towards your win cv? seems unfair for the giver to get ZERO cv but the winner has it counted against them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think when it's a public giveaway you need 1 entry and when it's a group giveaway you need 5 entries to get the CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have a poor memory I think... ignore this comment!
Comment has been collapsed.
Strange for me Dyscourse isn't counted... Then I don't know if full value games are separated from bundle ones...
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right... see what happens when I go off memory? It was Blackguards that had 2 entries and I do not see that one on RealCV.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed... <5 entries don't count for your given games.
It does however count for your won games.
Comment has been collapsed.
My experience is that private or group giveaways with less than 5 entries don't count towards real CV neither for won nor sent. When I check my wins and compare to my real CV won, none of the giveaways with less than five entries shows up in the real CV list.
It would be strange if it's only for me though. What says otherwise (that won giveaways with less than 5 entries count towards your real CV won)?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ohh so that explains it. It's the same for me and I was wondering what was causing it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Used to, for real CV purposes this was an issue. KNsys fixed it
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, this is killer for me. I've sent tons of games with under 5 entries, and I've also won over 70 games with less than 5 entries. One of these counts against me.
Comment has been collapsed.
See my reply to Dyna, but everything I've seen is that no private/group giveaways with less than 5 entries counts towards real CV, neither when winning nor giving away.
Edit: Bundle or non bundle doesn't matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's true when talking about real CV calculations because of Knsys' tool. If you're just looking at wins on the user page, I'd be a whole digit lower if it worked that way for real, and that's what people often look at.
Comment has been collapsed.
[This post will be edited as I continue to work out my ideas in response to the conversation.]
Lots of interesting ideas are being floated, and discussion of them is producing good results. That ll makes me very hopeful that we will come to something that achieves the goal(s) of the group. I'm going to bug Delta to see if we can get clarity about what those goals actually are. In the meantime, here are some ideas that seem appealing to me:
- Real CV seems to be a (relatively) fair assessment of monetary value given and received.
- Bundled ratios and non-bundled ratios should be considered separately rather than compared against each other.
- Entry requirements and exit requirements for the group should be different to allow "room to grow."
After talking with Delta, it seems my original assessment was fairly close to the mark. The idea is to invite people into the group who give a lot but don't win a lot. Once they are in the group, they will only be asked to leave once they reach a point where the "loser" tag no longer applies to them. Delta also wants to avoid having people pad their "giving" through the use of dev keys (giving lots of games without actually spending personal money on them) or bundles that really should be on the bundled-games list.
Comment has been collapsed.
So a new $60 game like xcom2 vs some $60 game that was bought for $15 at 75% off. (well, xcom2 was $42 somewhere), is still a big difference in actual $ spent for the same cv got.
In that sense, I should be below 1:1, cause I won a few games that were only on a low % discount, compared to most of my giveaways being 67% off or more.
That is only because I prefer to buy stuff on big sales, real life issues and all; and because I would like to win and play most of the giveaways I enter, and I would not mind waiting for a year or two for said games price to drop and to get a huge discount otherwise.
ALSO, a big tip for Delta, if you use complicated system, have a website to automatically fetch each members steamgifts data.
It is a headache doing all that stuff manually. (specially with the few minor errors on steamgifts and sgtools).
Comment has been collapsed.
Speaking only for myself, I would not penalize anyone for finding a good deal on a non-bundled game. If you can find a $60 game to give away for $10, more power (and CV) to you. Huzzah for entrepreneurship. .
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, in that sense, it would benifit me, since I only buy on steep discount. dances
I feel like a leach winning Fallout4 -_- and only spending $15-20 on non-bundle giveaways, to 1:1 my cv with FO4.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is 1 big problem with Real CV.
Giveaways with small number of entries (<5) are valued at 0.
That means for some giveaway groups, that a large number of giveaways won't be counted in any way.
On the other side of the calculation is real won CV. Real won CV is taking every giveaway into account.
This is a real unbalance.
You can check out my real value and see what that leads too. If you look at real CV I got a terrible profile, but that's caused by that the majority of my gifts had < 5 entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why create giveaways people don't want to enter? The only other way I can see a "forced" number of entries less than 5 is if you do giveaways for just a handful of people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or if you're in ratio groups where every win is counted against a sent game.
People become very picky and only enter what they truly want.
This often ends up with the creator making something that perhaps 10 people supposedly want in the group (wishlist)
yet they don't truly want it. So you end up with < 5 entries. Someone wins, gets the game and the creator gets ratio credit in the group.
This is extremely common in a lot of the ratio groups. The closer the ratio required to be in good standing, the less GAs you make will get CV. The further away, the more entries.
Personally this doesn't bother me, it is what it is. You know getting into those groups what the deal is and if you don't like it, you quickly leave. This of course means that people have the ability to win games easier too, as the odds are much more in their favor because of lower entries. But they've essentially "paid" for the game in one way or another.
Comment has been collapsed.
That can be avoided by gauging interest with a post before you make the giveaway.
If some groups want to force their members to make giveaways, that's their choice, but I don't join such groups. To each his own.
Comment has been collapsed.
Posts before making the giveaway would slow down the momentum of a lot of these groups.
I understand where you are coming from, but without having been in a ratio group, it's hard to really understand what they are like.
And for the most part, no one really complains about losing CV in these types of groups :)
Comment has been collapsed.
But the reason we're in this reply thread is because someone is pointing out they're not earning cv in those groups ;P and how it affects them outside of it. I think that they either balance it out or pick one. He's asking to be accommodated on the fact he's in one of those groups I figure.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 This group being far more casual is something I truly appreciate. And if I think I might run short on entries because it's on few wishlists, I can still offer it here and add other good groups/ whitelist as well.
I don't like being dictated to for something that is a casual interest. Being on SG isn't my job, it's just a side thing I enjoy. Too many restrictions just ruins that joy and makes it a chore. No thanks!
Comment has been collapsed.
Your <5 entries win doesn't count on your real CV won the same way your <5 sent won't count. It balances out that aspect.
You have 427 GAs not shown on SGtools. Backtracking 30 pages of your GAs, you give about 95% bundles and the 5% are non-bundled which somehow holds 30% of your current CV sent value. If the average value of your bundle GAs were $4, you'd actually be about 1:1 real cv ratio. Realistically speaking let's average it $2, that would give you around 1.5 ratio which is still a good ratio in my opinion but you shouldn't really limit most your GAs to bundlequest if it's having trouble getting enough entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally I think if you compare a bundle to unbundled ratio then it almost makes it seem like giving bundled games away is a bad thing - and would stop people from giving away bundled games so that their ratio is higher. But surely giving ANY game away is a good thing? So it cost less than $1 - someone out there gets enjoyment from it, and isn't that the whole spirit of the site? I'm not sure that making people feel like giving bundled games away actually counts against them is in the spirit of the name "charitable", but that's just my opinion. I do of course respect the fact that any creator of any group can make his rules and although I would be sad if I didn't make it back into the group after the change, I would understand.
I think that Real CV is a simple solution and sometimes simple solutions are the best one and if I was going to suggest a ratio I would still stick to the old ratio which I believe was 3x sent to 1x received, but in real CV instead of won/sent numbers? And perhaps level 6 which is a little bit higher than the old one.
If there was going to be a bundle / unbundled amount, then I think it would be fairer to say "At least $500 Real CV of unbundled games" or similar, rather than a ratio that would make people feel like their stats were "worse" for giving away a lot of bundles.
Comment has been collapsed.
Kinda off topic, but I'd like to ask about this. How are people going about getting the aaa games to give away? Trades? If you can afford to give away thousands of dollars in games that's great. When I joined SG there really wasn't any bundled games so all my giveaways were retail games. But recently I mostly do bundled because I can't afford $60 games.
So what's the secret to giving away full price games?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think leadership retirement is a good option for a leader who did great so far since I bet you will continue that way...
changes need to be made, that is a fact... but I don't think ratio between bundled and unbundled is a good idea. that can terrible punishes users that makes lots of bundled giveaways. that is a overly simplistic rule that may end in unwanted results for a big amount of unquestionably good users. that is not a very good rule to set, since most good titles are getting bundled pretty quickly.
as an ex-member, I personally think that the best idea is not abandon the inicial group goal. what was the first goal? avoid bundled giveaways? make only bundled giveaways? have a good number of giveaways no matter what? avoid people who do region lock giveaways?... once these goals are set, you go to the final question: what rules has to be made to invite users with same goal of the group? I mean, since the whole concept of "group" is a "amount of people that shares the same interest", you should begin there. you have to set a general balise to set the "group interest". once the group goals are set, you just have to set rules that fits with those people. eventually who thinks/act the same will fit as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
complement: I personally believe that all khalaq ideas was the most balanced and reasonable so far. If, somehow, you need to share your leadership to not overload you, I'm pretty sure that charitable losers is in good hands.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have any smart suggestions to make (Fnord idea sounds good to me), but I have an interesting observation. Among the few giveaways I won where Charitable Losers was one of the groups, there's only one win which I could not join anyway:
Please, Don’t Touch Anything (5P, unbundled game)
The other two wins are for giveaways which I could still join as I'm a member of other groups or the GA creators whitelist. These were for:
Symphony (9P)
Combat Wings: Battle of Britain (5P).
My giveaways for the group (typically shared with my whitelist and other groups) were:
Downfall (unbundled game released today, should be 14P) Edit: I now notice that CL is not in the list of groups. I left it out because of the request to not create giveaways extending past the 14th of February, 2016.
Chroma Squad (15P, unbundled)
Contrast: Collector's Edition (20P)
Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine (15P)
3D Realms Anthology - Steam Edition (40P)
Year Walk (6P)
Shadow Puppeteer (15P)
Goodbye Deponia (20P)
Company of Heroes 2 (35P)
Doctor Who: The Adventure Games (20P)
Run Rabbit Run (2P, unbundled)
Bottom line: I don't meet the new rules, which is why I retired. But at least I can sleep well knowing that I did not leech the group :-)
Comment has been collapsed.
I now notice that CL is not in the list of groups for my Downfall giveaway. I left it out because of the request to not create giveaways extending past the 14th of February, 2016. I definitely would have included the group if not for this request...
Comment has been collapsed.
It's important to note that sgtools "real CV" still doesn't correctly tabulate packages worth over $100.
Comment has been collapsed.
I post here for no reason. Too many posts already and I lack time to read through all of that, but I'm sure someone already said something similar to what I would say.
Comment has been collapsed.
For the admins... don't retire and don't take any of it personally...
The mere fact that you were able to take this to a discussion and hear what the members of the group think, is a great thing. Through many voices it is more likely to achieve something that is "the right formula". So long as CL is not a ratio based, mandatory giveaway kind of group, this is the best way. Personally it is what I loved most about the group, the very fact that no one forced any of us to give out games (bundled or unbundled).
If you feel you need to have a standard it place it might seem that real cv could be the way. Even though in pure terms real cv is not as real many times. In a way real cv derived from bundled games can be more real than real cv derived from bundled games that are heavily discounted (and at the end of the day how does a heavily discounted non bundled game differ from a bundled game ?) - the most critical factor in my opinion is if people want it or not. In a manner for speaking the best was to reward giveaways would be by the number of entries they get.
From a personal standpoint when I did my first giveaway 1year ago, I didn't even know about cv, real cv, giveaway groups and for the longest time I did only bundle giveaways, I didn't even think about it, it was a relatively inexpensive way to give a lot of games to a lot of people. CL was the first group I joined and it was mainly by accident since I think it was the first time I visited the forums and I bumped on to its recruitment thread. In many ways it was nice to be part of a group of likeminded people and people in CL seemed to make giveaways without any ulterior motives, it was amazing. Another group which seemed to share a similar set of principles is Ni Dieu, Ni Maître, where there is again no ruleset, and people are like family where each one for their own reasons gives what they want to give.
Cheers to all. XXX
Comment has been collapsed.
So I've been thinking about this quite a bit, I've had many conversations with Delta about this issue throwing ideas at him, and I think there are a few things that need to be said.
What qualifies as generous or Charitable?
Some people might only be able to afford bundle games, and give away a lot of them. That's how I started. Now that I'm more established in my school district as a substitute teacher, I have more days on than off by far. I still don't work every day, but probably about 85% of the work days in a school month, rather than 50% (or during the summer when I began with no work at all... that was fun). Over time my gifting changed, and though I've given away a lot of bundle games, the 200 or so unbundled games I've given away out value my bundled games already. However, I never stopped giving bundle games as well. Currently ones that I've received CV on are around 1350+/- and only 200 unbundled games.
Am I generous? Good question... I think I am (though some may think otherwise), especially as even though I work a lot more now, I have an extremely limited budget. I scrounge and research sites for usually at least an hour a day looking for good deals so I can provide something people want. And of course, I auto buy almost every bundle to give myself and to give others (sometimes several copies). I know that not everyone will play the games, and I'm okay with that. Some are collectors, some truly want the games, I don't really judge. But, I like giving. And I give as much as I am able to.
So the question becomes, should bundled/unbundled games be rated against each other? Can in any way we use the old model? Do we really want to be yet another CV group that excludes those who give a whole lot, and still don't win that much because of whatever reason?
There are already plenty of groups that require a certain level of CV ratio. Does Charitable Losers want to be yet another one? I see a lot of people are in favor of CV ratios, and if that's where it stands, I'm fine with it. I already qualify on CV ratios. It's just a personal thing I do. I try to maintain my ratio for myself, not for anyone else.
SG already has a model for determining and qualifying bundled vs unbundled games. Bundled games have a 15% retail CV value. So just over 1/8th the retail value of an unbundled game. Can we compare the two categories against each other? SGTools already can tell how many are bundled and how many are unbundled as we've seen with the new group qualifying tool. Can we determine a ratio of bundled to unbundled to make an appropriate valuation?
The old model required that for every 3 sent, you could have 1 game won. Just a proposition, but what if for every five or six bundled games sent, it qualified as one sent? An unbundled game would of course qualify as one sent.
Take me for example:
I have 205 unbundled games currently sent.
I have 1385 bundled games currently sent.
If I divided my bundled games by 5, it would come out to 277.
Bundled 277 + Unbundled 205 = 482 sent games.
I'm sure that could be automated with a little tweaking by Knsys.
The only thing I can't tell you right now, is how many of my wins (that had CV or didn't have CV) have been bundled or unbundled. SGTools doesn't currently have a way to show that, though it obviously has the resources to check for it, just not the lines of code to report it yet.
So with that, for my 482 games that I've sent on the old system, I'd have to have won 160 or less games, to qualify under the old rules. If we just take all my wins, I wouldn't qualify under a ratio of 5:1 bundled:unbundled. I'm fine with that, if that's the direction the group wants to go.
Anyways, just another perspective and some ideas I've been mulling over (without Mullins).
The real quesiton needs to be what qualifies as charitable and how can we apply a metric that takes into account different financial situations that might still be considered generous?
Have a great day :)
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot of the stuff you mention was also discussed in previous posts. This thread is getting a bit long, however, so you may not have read it all. The point I'm making, here, is that your ideas "jibe" with a lot of other people. )
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I read almost all of it, but was trying to find some valid formula that might bring nit tall together. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Just been removed from the group. Still 140 something members so I suppose this is final? What are the new rules?
Edit: Okay, everyone has been removed except the mods and adminds when I double checked. Gonna wait for any new info then.
Comment has been collapsed.
also forgot to mention,
i don't see why the % of region locked giveaway is relevant, shouldn't it be better to ask for X amount of real cv in ROW giveaways?
right now if i want to make some SA giveaways i have to balance them with the same amount in ROW. so in the end contributing with region-locked stuff is just plain negative...
Comment has been collapsed.
And this is why I've made the argument that anything about giveaways sent should not appear in the denominator of a requirement of the form x / y > z. I feel it's counter-intuitive for a group that's about being charitable to penalise an applicant for being too generous in one particular aspect, whether that be reigon-restricted GAs, bundled GAs, private GAs etc.
Conditions can be set that still require ratios or various thresholds to be met, but careful consideration into what variables are put into what part of equation (well, inequation technically!) is needed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aww, just saw that I am removed from the group.
Hopefully I'm still qualified for the new rules, I got a few games to giveaway for the new members. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I have never been part of the group most likely never will :D so as a non charitable loser I'll just say what I think about the topic :D
I think old SG had a much better system on bundled CV which was:
Total Value = Non-Bundle Value + min(Bundle Value, Non-Bundle Value * 0.2)
Means someone could get only 20% of his non-bundled CV from bundled giveaways at max. Can be lowered to 0.15 or 0.1.
Since sgtools give the exact bundled and not bundled CV amounts, it should be pretty easy and simple to understand to use such a modified version of real CV which has a stronger filter for bundled GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
After thinking a day about it, I personally think I don't want to continue with this. The only thing that I ask when I add to the group was if I should be worried with ratios, number of GAs per time, kind of GAs... the answer was a simple "no" and I had enjoyed the time with you giving (and winning too) to probably the ones that deserves most in SG.
I came here to share and give, not to worry about what or how, and I want to give every bundle or unbundled game that I want.
The most of you are in my whitelist and if not probably very soon you will, that means you will continue in contact with me. For now, I will walk alone and without worry about numbers.
Thanks for all to all of you. Love you :*****
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I am probably going to follow suit on this dear, its unfortunate, because I loved being part of CL.
There are already a lot of groups that work with ratios and what not and it was fun mostly because this one wasn't one of them...
See you all around...
Comment has been collapsed.
it was fun mostly because this one wasn't one of them...
Yup... Couldn't agree more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, technically, CL has always been a ratio group. It's just that almost all of its members give so frequently that they never reached the "cutoff" point. I think we've only ever had one or two people who just "won too much" and had to say good-bye.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps we view it differently... from the months I was in the group I can tell you one thing. There are different kinds of people that may both fit the "parameters of entry", but there is a difference between those who adopt what many of us felt is the spirit of being part of this group.
I never thought about ratios during these pasts months, it was never something that hovered over my head, and frankly I didn't think it was hovering over anyone else's either... perhaps I was not looking.
What I can tell you is that there were many in the group who have all the right ratios, and did zero to very very few giveaways in the group, or have their ratio purely from the kind of groups I would characterize anything but "charitable", having done no public or group giveaways - there were many more that did hundreds of them - bundled and unbundled, without thought of ratios, real cv's or any thought of a reward system [and none of the above mattered - because it was not what it was all about]. Too many are so caught up in this elitist group attitude and I am afraid this group is being turned into something similar.... I am afraid that what will be created is going to be a place where people will be 100 times more calculating in their actions.
Obviously this is not the universal point of view and I am sure many viewed the group very differently.
It doesn't matter, I personally don't regret any of it - it was a good time and I still feel that the overwhelming majority of my giveaways went to people ho deserved them.
And to be fair - I guess the parameters have not been set, so no point to judge something before you know exactly what it is. What I really think is not right, is saying that the group that is coming, is in essence the same as the one that was.
At the end of the day its pointless even writing this stuff I guess, things are very weird, as I said my impression of what it all was - was apparently very different than what it really was. There are people at the forefront of this that I didn't even know were in the group, so as I said I am probably very detached from the actual reality of it , so don't mind me....
(and if I am not making any sense, then please excuse my use of English, as its not my native language)
Cheers and love to all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm kind of confused by all the re-edits. Which thing did you edit? Can you maybe post the rules here?
Comment has been collapsed.
In the end, since its the second most popular poll option (just behind a suspension, which I'll talk to Khalaq or Bobofatt about later), I'll be adding a Real CV related system for group membership. I still need to go over a larger number of former group members to get a suitable final number, but I expect to be using a Real CV ratio of $1 won : $1.50 gifted minimum for invite, while going below 1 : 1.25 will result in a warning followed by a boot within the week, though a second warning likely won't happen if a user skirts the limit again too quickly.
So essentially you must have given 50% more in terms of Real CV or level to get in group.
Comment has been collapsed.
Still going to have the value and minimum of 50 giveawaya requirements for entry, but rather than relying on gives to wins ratio, we are getting a real CV ratio (probably will keep the classic 1 : 3 to get in at first as well, possibly reduced though, since the ratio is being added). Ekaros quotes the most relevant section.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can I ask what your thoughts are on :
Will the old entry CV requirement of 5.75+ be used or another one?
Will SG rules like for example all activated wins and no multiple wins be an entry requirement and if yes will they be enforced?
What do you think about asking for a clean Steam profile (No VAC, Game or Trade ban) as one of the entry requirements?
Also I might be wrong but like I said in the first post of this thread; I know that real CV is a strong filter so if you would use a real CV ratio AND the classic win/gift 1 : 3 ratio wouldn't that make it even stronger for the better?
Comment has been collapsed.
Still going to have the same level requirement (its been 5.75 for longer than it was $400, anyway), and keeping the 1 : 3, I imagine. I considered lowering it, but that has always been part of the group. Its hard to lower that to 1 : 2 or something else.
Previous rule breaking, I suppose I'll be harder on, though I might let Khalaq have final say on those hopefuls, since he can see their history. Repeated issues with them are far more likely for denial. Just remember I don't have a rule against having a member of the group blacklisted, a few members have been on my blacklist for an imperfect past, and I imagine I'm on a few of theirs as well.
I'm completely indifferent to VACs myself. Someone being scammy enough to get trade banned, well, that might be a different matter, but I imagine their profile here would look poor as well if they go that far.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for answering. I admit that it's in my nature to be curious.:-)
Concerning VAC bans:
I don't like cheaters and I don't deny this as cheaters spoil the online fun of many gamers and that kind of cheating mentality is also more a scare than a joy during trading.
https://steamdb.info/stats/bans/
I don't have a crystal ball but I really do think that a lot of SG giveaway creators don't really like winners with VAC bans as I've been seeing in SGT protected giveaways that the " No Vac Bans" is more of a common used requirement than a rarely used requirement.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was never a big multiplayer person myself. After so many years on Steam, I can likely still count all the online multiplayer stuff I've played on my fingers.
I also know that sometimes the VAC can be when they were young and stupid, but it stays forever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes it's forever and all credits for that forever go to the serial cheaters themselves. I know the time (nearly 12 years on Steam) that VAC bans were temporary and Valve lifted them so you had a clean Steam profile again. But the thing is that Valve started noticing that when VAC bans were lifted that most of those users just cheated again and they got the same users that had their VAC(s) removed before again.
And that's why VAC bans became permanent and so the cheaters shot themselves in the foot.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't get it. First it seemed like rules are getting tougher and less people would be able to pass those and now given to won ratio is being reduced? So... more people pass? What's the long-term goal here? :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the link! I agree with your point of view so far. Looking forward to the new old group :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I already stopped entering CL GAs some time ago, because with my "real" CV ratio I wasn't feeling like a charitable loser anymore.
My question is, will there be a place for someone like me (and possibly few others) as Guest Gifter? I would still like to make GAs for this group in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
Update
Some people seem to misunderstand my reason for wanting to limit bundles in some way. I don't hate them. I've done a lot myself. The problem was with wins balance. When the group was first started, not many people could join the group, and there were very few people that could exploit it by having their ratio boosted easily through high bundle or dev key giveaways. 20 months later, we have a lot more people worthy of the group, but also more people that would exploit how the group worked, given it relied on little more than wins to gives ratio. I introduced the anti boosting rule to limit this somewhat, but there were still users that would get in soon enough. Trying to decide on a fair boot point was also difficult .
In the end, since its the second most popular poll option (just behind a suspension, which I'll talk to Khalaq or Bobofatt about later), I'll be adding a Real CV related system for group membership. I still need to go over a larger number of former group members to get a suitable final number, but I expect to be using a Real CV ratio of $1 won : $1.50 gifted minimum for invite, while going below 1 : 1.25 will result in a warning followed by a boot within the week, though a second warning likely won't happen if a user skirts the limit again too quickly.
This will ensure that people aren't messed up by gifting bundles, but those who were potential problems previously won't find it too easy.
Previous invite rules will still apply, possibly with a reduced win : gives number ratio, but otherwise the Real CV ratio will be the only change.
Note for previous members - For reinvites, the requirements will be relaxed. If you fall between 1.5 and 1.25 (or whatever is picked as the final ratio), you can still request an invite to the group.
Hopefully not too many people are annoyed by these changes.
I expect a new recruitment topic to be no longer than 48 hours at the worst, and hopefully less than 24. I'll just be finalising the Real CV numbers and chatting to Knsys to see about a tool that will allow new users to confirm they can get an invite.
Original post
I've been trying to work out suitable new rules that take the changes to SteamGifts since v1 into account. I'm quite terrible at it. I want to balance things well, but I can't really find a good point which allows the group to be fair to all users.
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've just been booting when I feel like they have enough, but that isn't really suitable, and means I can't make others do it either.
I've been trying to work out something that keeps the classic rules that were made when we couldn't even see wins CV and bundle gifters were capped at $30. I'm getting the idea now that just isn't going to work out as well as I'd like. We have long time users that wouldn't pass some of my ideas. We have me unable to pass the current idea (like I said, I'm terrible at this).
Since I can't just tell all the brats to get off my lawn and force CG to change this site back to the way it once was, I'm going to collect input from all users that frequent this site. Should I continue the group with similar rules to how it was started, get working on a system that uses Real CV Sent and Received (and if so, what ratio do you think should be used for this), should I try another system to be mentioned here?
Should I retire from leadership and make Khalaq and Nerka do all the work?
Comment has been collapsed.