First of all, my sincere thanks to everyone that suggested some improvement to the rules. I might seem to have ignored most suggestions, but the truth is that I considered every advice and noted many of them for a rule update, but I have been too lazy to finally decide to update the rules and then ask a mod to re-sticky the post... U_U Sorry



I agree that a less restrictive ruleset, or interpretation of the rules, might probably work better. I wrote the "only one request per post" rule to avoid abuses in a few hypothetical cases, but it seemed to end being more of an annoyance than anything.
However, I disagree with point 2.1. Users are trying to be helpful with others who, by mistake or ignorance, fail to meet that rule.
2.2 and 3 make some sense, but I'd leave it to Benk... whoever continues the giveaway's discretion, how to manage those cases.

Hard to decide. As bans based on behaviour can be somewhat subjective, I wouldn't be against it. Maybe it's a good idea to make bans, only in these situations, temporary. A few months are enough time for anyone to reconsider and improve their attitude. Bans for other reasons, however, should stay permanent.

Good ones, although linking every game might mean some extra work (and I don't know if hyperlinks would count against the character limit, btw)

Rules should be certain. If they are being applied in some cases and neglected in others, rules become pointless.

Allowing ( and even encouraging ) users to bypass rules does not help anyone. Reminding violator to read and memorize the rules would be much better response.

When someone failed to meet the rule, it should be clear to everyone, that the request will be inevitably rejected.

However, if the majority of users does not like particular rule, it should be revoked. Therefore, everyone can be sure, that the rule will never apply.

Maybe hyperlinks when game codes are within 30 days of expiration? Otherwise I feel that if I need you to give me a store link, then I'm not motivated enough to be requesting it and shouldn't ask.

They do.

Sorry to disagree, but my opinion: No, it is not

To all,

For your consideration, of course

I suggest to let Lone_Scout & the future hosts drive the discussion
And currently, Lone_Scout is Looking for new management
Otherwise, if we start right now expressing suggestions, concerns etc
that could jeopardize the continuity. One step at a time, maybe?

Besides, how can we have clear minds for that with the shocking news?
I say, lets take enough time to express Lone_Scout our appreciation
to the blood, sweat and tears he has devoted to us!
Lets take the opportunity of his Anniversary on April
to name the whole month in Lone_Scouts honor! :)

/*/*/*/*/
Estimado Lone_Scout,

¡No hay suficientes palabras para agradecer
que nos consagraras parte de tu vida vgamer!
Al igual que tus predecesores, eres una increíble persona
de una calidad humana admirable, que nos atendió espléndidamente,
¡Vaya tú! Incluso nos mimaste con donaciones, pero lo más importante:
¡Que nos ha mantenido unidos, positivos y en crecimiento!
Realmente dejas una enorme huella en esta comunidad
que seguramente tu sucesor enaltecerá aún más,
porque la gente de este foro es: ¡Simplemente maravillosa!

Si lo consideras pertinente, hay en mí un e-amigo con quien puedes contar
¡Gracias, gracias, gracias por todo! ¡Y nos seguimos leyendo aquí en el foro!

---
Tweaked GugleTrans Eng on The GOGmmunity Monthly Giveaway :)

I for one think the rules are quite fine as they are, makes things clear. And being lengthy and detailed is also very much fine. And not reading them is no excuse, if anything I wish those who post without reading thoroughly need to be dealt with in a much harsher manner, since that is 100% their fault, not that of the rules or of the giveaway manager. Being offered games in the giveaway is a privilege, not a right, and not making that minimum effort of carefully reading and understanding the rules before your first requests should really be grounds for being barred from that privilege for a time, and permanently if it keeps happening after the "timeout". And yep, this also applies to the one request per post, even including daggered. It's a clear and simple rule, stick to it to show you read. (Actually rather frowning when someone who violates it is "rewarded" by others nominating them...)

The one thing that would indeed be nice would be posting the expiration date of keys that expire soon, yeah, and the moment when requirements are waived for them, preferably split the daggered lists into regular daggered and no-requirements daggered, or make another mark for that I guess.

Restrictions for the sake of restrictions are meaningless. They do nothing, but cause annoyance and frustration.

Neither maintainer, nor community benefit from such restrictions. They do not make giveaway any better.

+1 good idea

Thanks heaps for your time and effort Lone_Scout, wishing you the best in real life mate.

Just leave the rule with one request per post but excluding daggered items. It makes zero sense to include them; doesn't make work easier for anyone and only brings chaos and awkward situations. "No sorry you can't get this because you also asked for one of 999 copies of Witcher Goodie Pack in single post". It's just silly, say someone wants 4 daggered keys and must make 4 different posts to do that.

The whole point of introducing this rule was to prevent people from making lists with order of preference. That's different case altogether. And rule can be easily worded to make it clear.

I don't know what the character limit is (I didn't know there was one), but like I said the first post is around 8000 characters long. The second is currently about 1600. So I don't see a few links as an issue in that regard.

I made the above suggestions because there's going to be a new thread. I'm not adamant about any of them.

10,000 characters.

8600, including tags, for the OP, 1700 for post 2, but currently post 2 only has a few non-daggered games, there were moments with several dozen (briefly :))). Every single game link will add some 50-100 characters (40, or 42 if you put the URL between quotes to avoid problems, plus the game name as it appears in the URL). If the links would only be for non-daggered games, the post could probably take it unless Doc will pour 100 titles in at once again at some point, but it is a fair bit of extra work.

On another note, another thing I wish is for the "requirements waved" to not also include the rule about key needing to be redeemed on the account that requests or is nominated for it, as in these "asking for a friend" moments. Nominate the user, and the admin will send them the key, even with zero forum activity, I mean they need to log on their account on the site to use it...

Greeting Goglodytes,

With the Spring Sale in full swing, I feel the need to get the new Community Giveaway up and running soon. But before that, I want to propose a few rule changes and get the community's feedback on them.

1. Removal of the nomination limit.
I don't see the reason to put limits on people trying to find good homes for great games. What I will do is still limit one nomination or request per post. That way it doesn't allow one person to scoop up all the games for their friends all at once. Edited posts will still be denied so make sure you wait 15 minutes or for someone else to make a post first before making another request or nomination.

2. Greater background checks.
I'm going to be diving deeper into people's forum activity and be more scrutinous of their activity. I've seen some make a few posts for a few months then drop off the radar only to stay exclusively with the Community Giveaway.

3. No more saying Granted or Denied.
This goes way back to how IAmSinistar and moonshineshadow ran things. If you qualify, you get the game. If you don't then you don't. What I will do is make a short single post after I've dished out titles to eligible members. There will be no notification for when games are added. So when you see a post from me saying "Games delivered", it doesn't mean new games are added. New games will be added at random intervals and at my discretion.

4. A shorter version of the rules. Not really a new rule but a change nonetheless.