Allow me to answer your dilemma. Me and Carradice from the one hand and you from the other are talking about two very different things:
We are talking about asking for a game we are not sure if we like (but we wanted to see it) and might turn out that we don’t like it after all (because maybe we hadn't searched well for its gameplay, for example), thus depriving it from someone who would like it.
While you write about two games that someone likes both (even though one more than the other). To answer your case, I would ask for Ultima, as I wouldn’t be sure that Skyrim would be in a giveaway in that month, or even ever!

It's really a matter of pure decision and a bit of a risk.

So do you desire more active and favored Gog posters get more?

Why stop there? Maybe we could have some people get two or more titles. Like we could have a list of top best Gog forum posters each month. The number one favored ranker can get 10 of their most desired games with first pick and number ten in the list only getting two. Everyone else can be given one game by random and be grateful for the lovely surprise of having no idea what game they will get of the left overs. [/sarcasm]

On a more serious note, what if you posted the list ahead of time so people could familiarize themselves with it, but have the actual release time and day be a semirandom surprise, that way you can show lots of favor to those who are most active on Gog while people can request the titles they'd like most.

Also you talk about how fun surprises are. But if we have to only request games we are familiar with to know we will like, that ruins the surprise of finding a new game you've never heard of before but now really want, since some people aren't given the time to learn about such games.



What "bottleneck" do you refer to? It would work like it's always worked, who ever requests first, gets it, by order/time stamp of post.

So are you open to the possibility of change or not?

The giveaway is for the active community, so wouldn't it follow that those who are particularly active, being here often and checking threads, get some, at least indirect, advantages?
As it now stands, you can have a couple of users who didn't check that their desired game had been requested since the last list update and maybe sometimes one or two who were beaten to it while they were typing their request. If everyone would have plenty of time to see the whole list and determine their most desired title, you could easily have dozens of almost-simultaneous requests for the same title, likely followed by plenty for another title once all but one will realize they were beaten, then some more for another and so on until it'll settle down to what's available.
And hey, on top of an element of chance, which again is still a heck of a lot lower than what a giveaway usually entails, it's also a matter of strategy now. Titles are ordered alphabetically. When many show up at once, do you check the list from the top, from the bottom, have your most desired titles in mind look specifically for them first?
And frankly, one would assume that you know what your most desired titles are, so if you need to research a title before requesting and someone else requests it while you do, they probably wanted it more than you did.

Right now, I have the last word on the giveaway's rules.

However, I am open to the possibility of reviewing and changing any rule if some general agreement is reached on the subject.
A request from a single user that hasn't yet familiarised with the mechanics is, on the other hand, unlikely to be accepted unless it has the support of a number of other users.

As a side note, there are a pair of advices for you, or anyone who is in some form frustrated with the rules of a giveaway:

* Do not center on what you didn't get, better enjoy what you actually got.
* If you failed to get a game you really wanted in a giveaway, you can always save some funds and purchase it. If you can't afford it anyway, you can always ask for it in the Gifting Thread.

^ I'll be honest, the increasingly negative 'tone' of such comments towards those donating free games / free time to administrate them is starting to get to the point where I wouldn't want any change precisely because of it... Any game requested & received should be treated as a bonus rather than an entitlement.

Likewise for "unfairness" vs other requesters, you've had 10 games in 7 months since the giveaway started:-

- Old World - Heroes of the Aegean - June 13th 2022, post 425
- Outcast 1.1 - June 14th 2022, post 432
- Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - June 15th 2022, post 440
- Cave Story's Secret Santa - June 17th 2022, post 460
- Edna & Harvey- Harveys new Eyes - June 26th, post 506
- Venetica - July 1st 2022, post 531
- Stasis - August 29th 2022, post 743
- Bioshock 2 - Sept 2nd, 2022, post 765
- Lovecraft's Untold Stories - Sept 14th, 2022, post 856
- Slay the Spire - Oct 1st, 2022, post 1057

^ So it's not like you've been left out. Many of us don't ask for games every single month (nor do we have to be warned to participate on non-giveaway threads). If there's a game on the list I'm unsure about, rather than ask for the sake of asking I'll leave it there for someone else who wants it more than I do and will ask only for something I know I really want. I've requested and received just 2 games (one in May and one in October) in the 7x months this giveaway has been running, and I've been active on the forum throughout. So you've already had 5x more games over the same period than some of us 'active' posters you're complaining about having some unfair "advantage" that we really don't.

Not knowing what to ask for is solved simply by browsing the site now and familiarising yourself with what you like (ie, wishlist the type of games that you'd buy for yourself if there were no giveaway at all). Then when the next giveaway happens, simply compare them and ask for one. If you're unsure about a game, there's nothing forcing you to ask for any game purely for the sake of asking / filling a monthly quota. Just ask for what you know you want and leave what you don't. Some of us who do the same may well end up leaving a game we're unsure about (but you may really want) on the table for you in return. This is what the Community Spirit of the Community Giveaway should be about far more than the ability to block other people from asking for what they want out of fear of missing out.

Recognizing a good/desired game when one sees it in an update is not a big hardship. After all, the point of the community giveaways is not, to my mind at least, to do a careful weighing/ranking of all possibilities - if a game is good it is worth asking for it. Certainly the person who donated each game must have thought it is a good game for someone. :)

Besides, in most months there are not massive drops, this month was an exception due to the recently ended Fight Club event. Most times, there are only a few games and they are easy to glance through.

Overall, I think Lone_Scout's current rules are working well. That said, I appreciate the discussion.

Speaking of which, myconv's earlier request flood (#432, #434, #440) posts made after ignoring Lone Scout's first 'you lack meaningful forum activity' warning in post # 427 were all downvoted when it started to look like he / she was only turning up just to ask for free games, and only started posting elsewhere when the ability to request non-daggered games was taken away in Lone Scout's 2nd warning # 509...

So it doesn't look good popping up 6 months later with a negative tone towards "active" members that's starting to sound like someone is angry that forum regulars who turn up daily (for reasons other than giveaways) have some "advantage" over those who turn up 5 days out of 30 just to "stay active" in the giveaway threads... :-/

Personally I vote against publishing the list of games prior to listing them in the giveaway precisely because it would reward those who find it a "chore" to engage with the forum beyond retaining minimum participation levels for giveaway threads, more than it does anyone else...

First, I do not believe there are any big issues with the giveaway.

As with any process, there are small tweaks that can be made, but IMO no big change is needed. Lone_Scout has done admirably and deserves respect for taking on a difficult job.

At the same time I would caution about equating suggestions = complaining. A community giveaway should always be about the community.

Second, there is no issue to be had with Doc's donations. He's gracious enough to make them for altruistic reasons... and at a time when many can't afford the same. I would respect that... or lose it?

Thirdly, my suggestion for a round system similar to Finkleroy's giveaway process was just a suggestion...

... and not based on some passive-aggressive anger...

... at NOT getting a game I wanted.

In fact I DID receive a game I wanted, but my frustration with the process was simply...

... frustration with coming to the giveaway after it had started and not being able to follow the speed of prior requests with such a giant list of games (and IMHO -- having run periodic giveaways elsewhere -- frustration and disengagement are not ideal in a community-building exercise).

This made judging availability extremely difficult and redundant requests more probable than needed (IMO). In fact my first request was a dupe... that I would prefer not have made had I been able to thoughtfully scan the requests.

That frustration led me to walk away from the giveaway for a day or two... and to come back once things had calmed down and I could adequately look through the games available and the prior requests.

My suggestion was simply that IMO smaller rounds could alleviate what I saw as an issue... not a major one, but a frustrating one nonetheless. It could still create exciting rounds but lessen the "chaos" of one giant, immediate "feeding frenzy" and the difficult-to-follow blocks of requests. That was all I was suggesting.

And yes... it was a SUGGESTION... nothing more

(I am not against giveaways or "first come, first served." In fact you'd find that if you followed my conversation with Doc when he was thinking of taking over the giveaway; I suggested that he keep the main giveaway "first come, first served" and leave games and "chance" to his personal giveaways. I think that speaks for itself.)

Lastly...

... there will always be people who complain to complain... or who will never be happy. That's just the way it goes when dealing with the public. Best to just let them have their say and move on.

I am a direct person and wanted to answer what seemed to be indirect posts (some bordering on accusations?). And with that, I've said everything I want on this.

Fade out.

THE END. ;)

Leftovers myconv? That is very insulting!.

It's easy - they will be prepared "what to grab" from the first second the list appears.
No time to check, no time to think about for the rest of users.
All big cakes will be gone with a speed of light.

And to tell the exact date / time will make that situation even worse. It's not needed at all.

This.

Also, sorry for mistyping your name! *facepalm*

This. I would subscribe all the post, but these two ideas might be especially important. Especially, the self entitlement part.

In a community giveaway, one thing to consider is what os each one contributing to the giveaway. It may be games, according to each one's posdibilities, it may be feedback about the games, it may be politeness, or it may be just taking, then complaining that someone else took the game they really wanted and so they just grabbed the (If I read well) "left overs"?! Really?

Every game is donated here as a work of love. They have been chosen by their donors because they consider them good. Some titles will be more obscure than others. They are there because they have given the donor hours of good fun, or because they show promise and might deserve more visibility, or both.

Not much more to say on this issue. Lone_Scout is doing a good job. Thanks a lot for keeping the tradition alive.

Wait a minute, I thought the name sounded familiar so I searched on the old two giveaways and sure enough:-

"I wasn't going to go into detail about what happened with myconv, but they started a forum thread about it, which was locked before I could explain what actually happened, so I'll mention it here. They missed the deadline to request games in March and then expected me to make an exception for them because they've donated to the giveaway in the past. I told them that they won't get any special treatment, at which point they became rude and belligerent, so I permanently banned them from both giveaways and blocked them from being able to PM me. They then whined about it in public, which did nothing but demonstrate their nasty attitude to the entire community. It's sad that some people feel the need to act like this, but there you have it."

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_community_giveaway_gog_edition_redux/post7584
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_community_giveaway_nongog_edition_remastered_redux/post8402

(If links don't work then page 151 (GOG) and page 168 (non-GOG) if you have forum settings to view 50 posts per page).

So the 10 games he's received here is 10 more than he would have had on the old giveaways from which he was double banned...

I remember these threads:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/discussing_in_public_what_cant_be_discussed_in_private/page1

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/a_meessage_for_finkleroy/page1

Damn, you're right. I just checked the list of banned people from the previous edition and there was myconv...
In my opinion, myconv hasn't still crossed that line that would get them banned again, although definitely needs to work on their tolerance to frustration. Too insistent, but I wouldn't say rude so far.

So watch out your manners, myconv, as I mentioned before starting the new edition any new offense will mean a definitive ban.
Again, try to adapt to the rules and you'll enjoy both the giveaway and the gifts.