I belive, this helps keep order and track history for everyone: donors, requesters, and giveway host.

Not sure when nominations turned into such a problem o.O

My only input regarding the rule changes would be to remind people, that yes, while it is nice to see a post with „granted“ etc, please keep in mind that it is quite a bit of additional work. And managing this giveaway is already huge time sink ;-)
So having just a post saying that everything was going updated / sent out sounds reasonable to me.

Oh, excellent point there, since only the donor can check who actually redeemed a key, without posting who got what game, there's no way to actually enforce that rule.

Welcome aboard captain BenKii!

If I am allowed, my suggestions are:
A) Prioritize how to grow the forum community
B) Prioritize how to foster more GA donations
C) Prioritize GA changes to ease the managers life
D) Prioritize how to increase the forum participation:
general forum, vgame reviews, subforums,
existing info repositories (anywhere)

Considering those & your proposals:
-BenKii1) collides with Tag+C)
You should expect more paperwork:
more nominated members declining nominations,
longer queue times, rewrite the new games list...
I get your noble cause, but I dont see effective grant of vgames,
Talking by me, many times I wanted to nominate a member
but the good will was full stopped because I didnt know
their tastes & their wishlists are not public (like mine)
add the quick reaction needed while vgames are available...
And thats why my nominations have been -only a few-

-B2): Sounds excellent,
but a deeper comprehensive definition of -activity- is needed
to let all the community to be on the same page
Otherwise, posting in excess on word game threads
would fit some weekly posts count requirement
avoiding real participation/collaboration/interaction with our community
[i]A side note to the word games posters: Dont get me wrong, those are assets
& a easy way to start participating on this forum, I dont forget my begginings![/i]

Additionally, is not a secret that some members find better
to avoid participating on the forum by their own personal valid reasons
Personally, when the reputation number was visible,
it wasnt pleasant at all to me my negative rep (It is yet "to my eyes only"...Yay?!)
& a lot less to see "low rated" even on my posts
saying thank you or any other innocuous thing...

What if the member is a generous donor,
which spends more time on the store & pays a visit on the forum rarely?

-B3) & B4): No comment, Its your GA & your logistics :)
As already mentioned by a fellow, if you could move
the short version on the sticked post
refering somewhere there the link to the extended version post,
that would be a QoL improvement indeed: A scrolling saver :)
Bonus: You would be free to edit the extended content anytime
without the impact of having it unstickied because the edits

I hope you consider & find room to my suggested priorities
Thanks for asking & welcome again BenKii!

To me nominations and people thinking about others is what brought the community together so to continue the limit on noms is a non-starter. Right now even with the 2 noms per month limit no one is even using it so I don't see a problem with removing the limit. Now if it does become a problem I might consider the "one nom per day limit" that mrkgnao suggested as a compromise but until I see abuse it will remain unlimited.

For the granted and denied posts, If it helps donors like Doc keep track of codes then I'll make like a short report card with who was granted, denied, or broke rules similar to what Cavalary suggested.

And BTW, it's good to see you moonshineshadow. My hope with the few rule changes is to make things how you and IAmSinistar ran things. To encourage the community to come together and help each other out and to make donors feel safe that their codes are going to good homes. :)

I think his point is that there were some people who did the minimum necessary to start being eligible and from then on posted nothing whatsoever outside of the giveaway threads. Pretty much any regular participation is an improvement over that.

It's less of a problem for giveaways for GOG games, but back when we had the old non-GOG (Steam key) finkleroy giveaway, when people were allowed to "fast-track" (essentially buy their way in), there were people donating 3-4x $0.50 Steam keys (probably got for free on IndieGala, etc) then 'flipping' them for half a dozen much more expensive games then either vanished never to be seen of again, or just turned up once a month for more. It wasn't a good thing and scrapping the "fast track" rule was definitely the right decision by Lone_Scout.

Agreed that the "fast track" rule was terrible. I want actual forum participation. Meaning I want to see game discussions, people helping out one another, or just plain old hanging out and talking about the weather. While I don't see a problem with Forum games like the One Word at a Time thread, I kinda see them as low effort and would want to see discussion posts or opinions being shared. Anyone who has only forum game posts would be asked to participate in a few other threads besides the forum games to be eligible.

I agree, but I insist: Ive seen members ran away because forum rules arbitrarilly applied,
trolls seasons, lack of true moderation (versus their simplistic ban & censor axes), etc
I mean, the goal is to increase this community & certainly there are things out of our hands,
the challenge is to find a way to keep those members engaged
to this vgamers community somehow :)

I keep my reserve there. You know, tag prices are not synonym of quality
& one donate what one can afford (I am there)
Besides, truth be told, the Syn-Spigot business model allows non USD people reach keys easier
than here: The whooping X2 or even X3 price spike (Global pricing)
to get vgame keys is a real killer (Talking by me of course)
Maybe thats the reason why the pool of the nonGA was larger

I wish the day this store loose a little its strict rule to share to my fellows here
the regional pricing love we have in return
(I know is not a popular view of that matter, but give some think about it)

Nomination-abuse will become even worse. And like Ice_Mage has mentioned, it will allow locking any games ( actually, the entire list ) for the indefinite period of time.
Could you find a single case, when one person has asked for all available daggered keys in single post?
Based on what criteria exactly?
The announced rules' changes has nothing to do with your declared goal. In my opinion, with less transparency and past-oriented policy you are likely to achieve the opposite result.

I agree with the greater background checks as well (even though I worry about the mental health of whoever has to sort that out. Well, not just mental, their physical integrity could also be in jeopardy since there's a lot of voodoo magic floating in the air around here these days). Besides that, I'd like to suggest that we consider changing the "one key per post" rule to a "this or that" model in case a bunch of games drop at the same time. The reason being that such change could (maybe?) make the whole wholesomeness of having the possibility to be gifted a game much more fun and relaxed (even though maybe doing so for nominations could become a bit unfair?). And if this idea has already been debated in the past please excuse me for mentioning it again, but I'd argue that since posts can't be edited and the forum can get a bit janky sometimes, having that extra option could make the process more fair and positive for everyone.

How will nomination abuse become worse when it doesn't exist to begin with. Look if anyone is purposely locking up games by abusing the nominations then that person will get a permaban. Nominations are supposed to be a good thing by thinking about others.

Here you go. Post number 3407
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_community_giveaway_gog_edition/page68

I want to more participation than just a few months of activity then just nothing but giveaways after that. I feel like once they've been approved for the giveaway then they're good for life. I'm not naming names but these people know who they are. I also will not take kindly to people being total jerks. Be kind and courteous to one another.

Not sure what you mean by "less transparency". That's the whole reason for talking in this thread is for transparency and to let everyone know my intentions. I'm very past-oriented because that was the height of the community. We had a huge list of games with everyone looking out for one another. People only taking games they wanted to play and nominating people who've never heard of the giveaway for games on their wishlists. It was a beautiful thing. Look at my register date "March 2010". Of course I'm nostalgic of the past!

Welcome BenKii! Some thoughts:

1. I would like to still have some kind of nomination limit. Otherwise one person could still make 4 nominations in an hour. In a smaller update that could be all of the added games.

3. I feel the "granted/denied" messages still served an information purpose: for example, if two or more people requested the same game, it could be unclear whether the first requester is eligible before you decide it. A "granted" message to the first request would let later requesters know they were beaten to it.

An overall "games delivered" message might serve the same purpose: the waiting requesters could check the game list after every such message, to see if the game they requested is gone. It's a little less clear, though, if there has been a long chain of requests and if the "games delivered" message does not cover all of them yet.

(The missed request possibility Catac1ysm mentioned is also a good point I feel.)

I think that the way it'd work to allow both tracking who got what and listing the reasons for denial would be:

-----

Games delivered:
- [game]: [user(s)]
.
.
.

Denied:
- [reason]: [users]
.
.
.

-----

Since the game title is needed for what was delivered but not for what was rejected.
And, for those purposes, such an update wouldn't necessarily need to come whenever requests are acted on, but every so often, to maintain transparency and keep people in the loop. The only problem with delaying posting it is that rare missed request situation.

And in case of nominations I'd still want some limit like that suggested one of one per day, but also a way to better prevent "locking" games in case the nominees don't reply, maybe reducing the deadline to 3 days? Or at least a reduced deadline in case of another nomination for someone who already missed the deadline once, and then rejecting further nominations if they still don't reply, but that'd be more work for you.

EDITED to change order for games delivered, since while an user can get more games if they're daggered, it's more likely to have more users getting the same game, especially when daggered ones are involved, so that will make for shorter lists.

Congratulations BenKii and I like your changes.

Just a suggestion on how to do this. If you're unsure about someone, just ask him (or her) to do the background check on himself (or herself) and send you a list of posts by way of proof (e.g. at least N meaningful non-giveaway posts over at least the last M months).