Seems sensible. And if someone is bothered by it, already shows they don't have the right mindset.

Like mrkgnao said, one nomination per day is more than fair. I remember seeing a couple of times, after big donations from Doc, when someone requested a key for themselves, made a nomination, and after several posts from other users made another nomination, or two. All these in the span of an hour. That's unacceptable, in my opinion.

This happened to me, and I'm not even a big donor. One of my key was redeemed on another account, and neither the requester or redeemer said thanks to me in chat, or in the thread -- so without the usual "Granted" posted by the giveaway's host, I would probably have not realised that the key ended up on a different account and the giveaway was abused.

I agree with the suggestion made by Cavalary in post 358. Some kind of list of who gets what must exist.

It does. Currently almost all nominations are being used to bypass giveaway rules ( to ensure granting requests, which should be declined in accordance with rules ).

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_community_giveaway_tradition_discussion_and_poll/post318
You are wrong. There were daggered keys left on the list after that request:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_community_giveaway_gog_edition/post3415
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_community_giveaway_gog_edition/post3434

Also, the request was reasonably short and caused no conflict in the thread.
The intention to hide maintainer's decisions and their reasoning:
Of course, it has already been improved a bit:
In my opinion, every member of the community should be able to independently review any decision of giveaway maintainer. It should be easy to understand, why particular requests were declined.
Introducing some old giveaway rules will not magically make the community what it used to be in good old times. It is impossible to return to the past. Rules should be appropriate to the present day needs.

Are we still talking about gifting games to other gamers or has the topic changed?

Should we post a link with the secret service of our own countries for that background check?

What is a meaningful post? Someone can tell me if I've ever made a meaningful post on this forum?

An important point! Would definitely make life easier for all involved, donors especially.

Absolutely not trivial for me. I agree with you 100%. It costs nothing to say "thanks". Expressing gratitude and appreciation is the least one can do. This applies in real life too. :P


BenKii, you certainly got a big job ahead of you! ;) And I think you are capable of handling it...
My most humble advice to you would be to take it easy with trying to overhawl too many things all at once, especially when tackling a new endeaver. Take your new role as host for a test drive first. Coast the waters with the way things currently stand and as you perform your new duties as giveaway host, you'll get a better feel for what currently works and what could benefit from improvements with new updated rules. Just my personal opinion. ;)

I have a tiny suggestion, and it's really just because it's a pet peeve of mine. If I were hosting I would want a way to get rid of keys after a while. I think I would have three categories of games:

A) High demand. These are the games usually limited to 1/month. High forum participation required.
B) Medium demand. These are the multiple copies of gog giveaways, or gog keys, the daggered category. People can ask for more than 1/month. Some forum participation required
C) No demand. DLCs and dusty games. Anyone gets them in any amount. No forum participation requried. Just want them gone.

As an A game sits around for months, unasked for and unclaimed, I'd move it to B. The limit of 1/month is to ensure everybody has a chance to get a decent game when multiple games are donated... share the love. But after a game has been sitting there for months, it's clear nobody wants it. Downgrade it to B, making it easier for people to claim.

If any key has been there a long time, say 6 months or more, drop it into the C group. C would be available to anyone, anytime, in any amount, just to get rid of them. Clearly nobody wants them, or they're not useful to the average gamer, such as DLCs for a certain game. Having keys linger for ages I don't think helps anyone, and just clutters the list.

When Fink was running it, there were a ton of keys on the steam list that sat there for over a year. Me, with my poor memory, was constantly looking up interesting sounding games, only to realize that I'd already looked into that game before, multiple times, and decided each time I wasn't interested, only to forget a few months later and look it up again. I really wished those games would disappear somehow.

Perhaps some may feel it's nice to have a "fat" list, or want keys to only go to worthy members. I feel that a key that is never given is being wasted, and the rapid aging of game tech and software means keys will only become less desirable as time passes. Have all the restrictions you want at first, but the less likely someone is to claim something, or when keys are expiring, make it easier for SOMEONE to get it off the list.

1) I agree with Melvinica. Who can judge someone's post to say if it's meaningful or not. It's a gaming site that we're in. Not a site of making difficult national decisions. Personally, I enter the site as a time out between (difficult) gaming sessions, or during work (as is the case now!).

2) I think that mrkgnao didn't express that right. Not "If you are unsure about someone". Of course BenKii will not be unsure about someone. I guess he will have the means to check members appropriately. The right expression would be "If the person denied a game requested, has objections about the denial, then just ask him...". So he latter would prove his participation.

3) Not everyone has the knowledge to provide Solutions to Questions threads. Especially when the questions are about technical stuff.

4) I LIKE the word association game. I (at least) consider it not as a game, but as the known psychological test, where you are told a word and you need to answer quickly, so that the person who tests you, understand the way you think!

5) Finally, I agree with matterbandit. The new thread could start with minimal changes at first, and then adjustments can be done according to the needs arisen.

(As long as this giveaway doesn't get the volume of keys that the Steam giveaway got) I strongly disagree. A bought key for a game which was shortly afterward given away won't see any demand for the next year or two. But I'd much rather have it wait another year beyond that, to then finally find a good home with someone who'd just started being active, than going to someone who has a good chance of eventually turning out to be an account-reseller.

I also agree with that.

I'd certainly call posts like this "meaningful community engagement":-

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/system_requirements/post3
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/blitzkrieg_window_11_compatibilty/post2

All you need to do is search for site:gog.com username and genuine vs faked forum activity quickly becomes apparent.

Same again, posts like this discussing games may only be one-line but they appear genuine and not "I'm posting purely for the sake of wanting giveaways" (like posting "I agree!" 50x times to 50x threads in a day followed by "I want free games" followed by no posts outside of giveaways after that...)

The minimum participation rule is there mainly to stop key harvesters just logging in once a month, heading straight to giveaway threads, grabbing a game then logging out for another month. Allowing that is just asking for trouble vs scammers who don't even use GOG who upon hearing about a Doc0075 sized "no restriction free games" list including premium games like Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077, would instantly create 30x fake accounts, ask for 30x games and clear the lot out before any actual GOG community member had a look-in. Faking ongoing "meaningful community participation" on that scale is significantly harder if not impossible and minimum participation rules negatively impact scammers far more than genuine users.

You have +1. I wish I could grant +10!

We already have two lists that work like you said, non-daggered and daggered. And the non-daggered tends to be quite short except when Doc donates dozens or hundreds at once, so I wouldn't call it a problem. And technically there is a third list as well, that link to "other available daggered keys", which are the codes with no real value. And then there are the expiring keys that have all requirements waived when they're about to expire.
One thing I was suggesting before was to separate the games that have their requirements waived clearly, not just post about it but put them in their own category. And that'd make it pretty much fully like what you said.

I think that this is an extremely important point:

The giveaway really is dependent on all donors because they really are the only people that can actually verify that the account that made the request is also the account that redeemed the key. If I was running the giveaway, I would want the donors to tell me if the account that redeemed the key for a game was not the one that requested it for themself because otherwise there would be no way to know if someone was abusing the giveaway by having their friend(s) request keys for them.

While I would want to believe that everyone will be honest, I have a lot of work experience that involved dealing with dishonest people lying to me.

Then we only disagree on the time. I just don't like keys sitting around for ages, but I also repeat that it's mainly a me problem.

Then we're kinda sorta roughly in agreement. : )

My (belated) two cents:

I'm with gogtrial34987 (post #336) regarding the order of short and long version of rules. The detailed version should still stay, so everyone knows what exactly partaking/wanting to partake in the GOG Community GA entails.
I'm also with matterbandit (post #365) in terms of refraining from making drastic changes from the get go. You can always make changes down the road.

I'm in favour of the new rule #2, but mostly against #3. I think it's important to accommodate donors, especially Doc0075, otherwise current rule #8 becomes moot. And that's one I think we should definitely keep unaltered.

Regarding suggested new rule #1:

Times have changed, and simply being nostalgic won't make things the way they were back then. IMHO, you need to take into account at least two things here:

1. Huge lists of games isn't the norm any more, so in turn you can't really expect unlimited/unregulated nominations to work the way they did back then.
2. We no longer have MaGog which made it pretty easy, and fun, to check people's wishlists, and put in a nomination or more.

I also agree with Cavalary (post #322) about separating daggered titles with an expiration date from the rest, and listing the expiration date for each one (Lone_Scout already adopted the last bit).

And I'm in agreement with gogtrial34987 (post #368) and Cavalary (post #372).

Having said all this, thank you @Lone_Scout for being a wonderful host and doing a fantastic job, and welcome @BenKii, may you be as successful as your predecessors, and then some.