Heh, yeah by the time I got home I kind of smelled like a goat and I was a wee bit tired... :P

If this was a mafia game, I would be accusing you of making up facts. But since this isn't one, I will be trying to look for said posts by myself tomorrow.
Fair warning, I will be posting any I find back in the thread.

I really don't see that this is an issue, and certainly as one of those invited I have no problem with my name being mentioned. Being invited to something says absolutely nothing about an individual, only about the person doing the inviting.

I could say I invited Steven Hawking, Beyonce and Dave Grohl to my birthday party I don't see how that is in anyway an invasion of their privacy.
Yes, GOG is a business, but in this instance they are not inviting their customers, they are inviting their community, their fans (and from what has been said their opponents too). The two overlap, but if they had invited a group of game developers to come to their offices I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to say who they invited or why.

Sure if they were to give out real names, addresses, telephone numbers or emails that would be a breach of data protection if they didn't have our consent but all they provided (by the sound of things) was a username (which is publicly available anyway).

Most of the people who may or may not have been invited can probably be worked out with relative ease. For example I'm in no way surprised JMich and BKGaming were invited, they were among the first two names to come to mind when I received my email. As I'm sure no one was too surprised to know I was invited.

I did not consider my communication with GOG about this to be so private that they should require my consent to discuss it with anyone else.

>by uniquely identifiable names.

Only things that were published: *GOG username

That's for sure against privacy laws.


.... enough internet for today ....

I see HSL's point.

It's poor business etiquette to reveal client information without express permission. And users are clients.
If people had entered a contest, the Terms usually include acknowledgement that the winners names become public.

Those who agreed to go might have given up the right in whatever contract they signed, but those who did not take the opportunity did not give up any such right.

In short, it's fine if those who got invited acknowledge it themselves, but it isn't ok for GoG to name the names of those who did not take up the opportunity without their permission. That never should have happened.

I'm of the view that people are willing to pay $xyz for a product or service if those same people actually pay $xyz for the product or service. It's important to note that the given people may not be thrilled to pay $xyz for something, and may even be upset or angry about it per se, but if the money leaves their wallets and they purchase the product or service anyway, then that's pretty much the definition of "willing". Unwilling would be people keeping the money in their pocket.

I think it is fair to say that this is true for any product or service that one spends money on which is not absolutely necessary to survive or sustain life. (all joking aside)
I don't know if they mentioned I was invited, but for the record I don't have any issue with that if they did.

Yeah, it was just a translation problem on my side. I thought "willing" would be the same as "wanting" which it is not. Like you said. I am not happy with higher than base prices and that was why I had problems using the word "willing" if it would mean "wanting" which again it is not (thanks to google translate and the community here ;)). So stop thinking about what the German said who just made a translation mistake :D

The what who the huh? I dunno what you're talking about, something about a ... wait, what was I saying? :)

And I actually panicked a bit before I saw the smiley at the end. I was about to stop posting in English at all .... *puh* that was a close one. :)

No Pictures.

You can find a lot of pictures browsing through this thread (if this post should be a request for pictures or a complaint about misisng pictures).
So again. What is the problem here? Is it the fact that we now know that a sepcific nickname is on the list of people invited or is it the fact that we now know that he could not make it for whatever reasons? I just fail to see the harm that is done here. We are no politicians so it should be possible for us to explain this not just in terms of "normally that is a thing you should not do" but instead saying "this is a problem because it means..." imo. Also a little addition: the only "contract" I signed was to no tell about future buisiness plans, partners of GOG ect. that is not public knowledge.

Section 8 in Privacy Policy. Our NDA does make us GOG partners. Legally, GOG is covered.
So no, GOG didn't share any private information with outsiders. They shared information with partners.

The only information shared was "we thought X was worth inviting" - what exactly is private about that? It doesn't really say anything about the person being invited, more about the people doing the inviting.

It was wrong WHY? Why can't anybody revveal to me what harm was done here? It was wrong becvause it was wrong ... OMG. It cannot be so difficult to explain this logically for me or is it? I just cannot see any CRUCIAL private information being revealed.

Calling me influential just shows how you don't know me so it's probably better not to discuss this with you but no, I don't only see the bright side of GOG now - never did and never will. But if people are complaining at least there should be a logical explanation for it that I do understand. I ask for the same explanation when GOG made decisions I did not like in the past.