Oh, I'm sorry. Let me clarify because my brain is obviously so full of cats that it's clearly being influenced by their innocent and beautiful souls to the extent that it never even occurred to me that someone would do any of that. If/When BenKii decides to step down, your post is exactly why I should not be the person that takes over. Let's just assume that I was specifically talking about requests were the person actually intends to play the game without doing any of that distasteful stuff you mention. That's also including people that don't necessarily play the game immediately for any reason, but they will play it. It's all about the intentions.

While we're on the topic of distasteful behavior, I think it was very much not okay at all when someone recently asked someone else if they would pass on a game to them. If BenKii thinks there should be a rule addition saying don't do this, I completely support it.

There is such rule already.

Catventurer, bless your innocent soul! And may you retain your innocence in this grim worldline! :S
Reality is unfortunatelly often ( usually? ) more dissappointing than fiction :{
Please stay innocent Catventurer :)

It's funny you should bring this up :P
It was ME ( Dio! /s ), who was asked :D
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_community_giveaway_6th_edition/post3282
To which I made a response pertaining to the (Im)MORAL aspect thereof:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_community_giveaway_6th_edition/post3326
aside ofc from being a de facto rule against it already in place.
That would be rule # 8 in post # 1.
I'm not entirely sure whether this rule was present in the previous edition(s), but it's definitely been present in this edition for a while now.

Speaking of which, it would be nice if GOG would introduce ( PUBLICLY visible ) account ID system - cue, on Steam you have a "Steam ID" ( actually several types for each account ), a world-unique ID that NEVER CHANGES, cue can be used to track account resellers, and anyone who changes a nickname.
On GOG, however, there's no such ( PUBLICLY visible ) thing so far - here someone can just change their nickname, their avatar, and none would be the wiser.
And with chats expiring after some time, it's not impossible for people to be bypassing bans, reselling accounts, trolling, and whatnot.

That's not correct. To prove such an id exists: Your id is 48126517547866. It gets posted on every forum message you write.

Thanks for the info. Nice find. :D

Indeed, a very good find, mr. ID 554183078918
Might be helpful against scammers

You can also find a user's ID using dev tools if you dare to poke around with them.
I'm surprised on of the existing big QOL scripts (Adalia/Barefoot) don't include the feature to display the userID under the name (or on the popup).
I can't be bothered to learn to code it myself, but maybe someone else wants to have a fiddle? Might be a handy feature for some of the GA hosts here.

This isn't anything new, and this find isn't nice, it's effectively WORTHLESS in it's CURRENT form.
**Would you like to know more?** /s
Then read below :P

I said >> PUBLICLY VISIBLE << you cherry picking shady morals provocateur.
Having to open developer tools in your browser ( which may NOT be possible depending on what software you use, eg on some phones ) is NOT "publicly visible", nor is it "user friendly" kind of visible. It is, by definition, HIDDEN, in the html code. BY DEFAULT you don't see it.
When I said "publicly visible" I OBVIOUSLY meant "visible BY DEFAULT", accessible ALWAYS, and in an EASY, user friendly manner, LIKE IT IS DONE IN STEAM'S CASE, and like it is NOT the case on GOG.

Even more, GOG could decide to mask this at ANY TIME ( making it no longer display in the relevant code sections ), because clearly it was not MEANT to be seen by your "average customer".
Which is in opposite to Steam - where the ID **BY DEFAULT** is in URL, you can also easily query it with official Steam API - it is BY DEFAULT visible to EVERYONE, and in fact CANNOT be hidden by literally ANY means. Changing it also NEVER happens, no matter what you do.

We will not be having exact same conversation 2nd time - last time I FAILED to drive my point across ENOUGH because I didn't realize in time I'm talking to a TROLL and that a certain hypocrite would also take your side.
But I don't forget.
You can fool people without necessary technical information on the subject. You won't fool me.

And by the way, mr "totally nothing wrong with morals and online netiquette", if you're so trigger happy as to share around NOT YOUR IDs which are NOT visible to the average user ( again, opening dev tools is NOT a "visible to the average user", it is not visible BY DEFAULT, therefore not on PUBLIC DISPLAY ), HOW ABOUT you use YOUR ID as an example, hmm?
Oh that's right. You have no online morals and you do not have lines to not cross. How could I forget. Silly me ;)

Furthermore, it is NOT KNOWN whether the >> GOG << ID is WORLD UNIQUE.
" I think so " is NOT a proof. Until someone shows DEFINITIVE proof, in GOG's OFFICIAL documentation, the ID in question should NOT be ASSUMED to be PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED and FOREVER UNIQUE, as it CANNOT be confirmed OFFICIALLY.
Which is in stark opposite to Steam's ID, where the information of thee is in official, PUBLIC Valve Steam dev docs, viewable without login.

To summ up:
1. the ID in question is NOT easily accessible, thus CANNOT be considered "publicly visible", let alone "average-user friendly checkup"
2. it is NOT KNOWN whether it's PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED and world UNIQUE. It MIGHT NOT be. It is not OFFICIALLY disclosed ( unlike on Steam )
3. "visible on your post" IN DEVTOOLS doesn't mean 2 broken coins, it has NO VALUE
You can make few legitimizing posts, get a key, delete the og posts through support requests ( you think this is a stretch? The support has done crazier things ), private your account, and then WHERE do people get your ID from? Crystal ball?
On STEAM it's literally always accessible for EVERY user, no matter what they do, regardless of what they change or how private their account may be set to.
4. Unlike Steam with it's very public no login docs, GOG is crazily "security through obscurity" about things here. There's virtually no dev documentation released to the public eye to see. There's NOTHING clear about what this ID does, how it works, if it is TRULY random ( or eg if you could "guess" someone's ID by say date of account creation perhaps, or a simple epoch time derivation ), whether it gets changed on SUPPORT REQUEST, etc.
GOG has not made this information public ( unlike Steam ) to MY knowledge.
This is a BLACK BOX, using it as is would be a POTENTIALLY very unreliable asset.
5. We do not know ( unlike on STEAM ) whether this information was MEANT to be even seen in the html code to begin with. For all I know it could have been yet ANOTHER slip up by the GOG staff, with their already sizeable list of IT sec slip ups.
Until we confirm the EXACT tech details of how this ID works, and whether it's MEANT to be visible in the code, we CANNOT safely use this - as otherwise it could POTENTIALLY constitute GDPR violations to share it ( it DOESN'T matter if eg Facebook slips up and shares unintended info in the code, it's YOU who is then taking it and sharing it without consent, aside from Facebook ofc, YOU are TOO legally liable ), kind of a "wish <.> com doxxing" attempt.
As of RIGHT NOW, to MY knowledge there are no public OFFICIAL GOG docs describing this matter.
In MY opinion using it as it is now is FUTILE.

As it is now, using it ( GOG ID in it's current form ) to distinguish users would be foolish and would give false sense of security.
What we need instead is GOG updating their worldview ( along with their ancient forum CMS ) and recognising that's it's 2024, not early 2000s, and the NEED for EASILY viewable per-user perma unique UNchangeable ID. And I cannot stress enough part of "EASILY ACCESSIBLE".
" Go parse the html code " is NOT "easily accessible" to the AVERAGE user, and in MY opinion therefore does NOT count as "PUBLICLY visible".

As you say it's 2024 not 2000. If security or being able to spot fakes is a concern of yours then by now you should know the ins and outs of basic browser software, and that includes at least a passing familiarity of things like dev tools.

I'd wager the "Average User" isn't concerned about knowing the ID of his fellow forumites. Those who are will either be already skilled enough to find out themselves, or should learn how to. Don't have the software to give you the capability to do this? Get it. Don't have the brains to use it? Grow some.

Did you for SOME REASON get the impression that it is ME who has a problem accessing this?
Perhaps you should reread what I wrote then :P

Well they ARE on Steam, the bigger platform, with the more active forums ( forums where, IRONICALLY, moderation is leaps and bounds, UNCOMPARABLY better ). But GOG is like it's own pocket universe where logic doesn't apply and people frequently make up excuses out of the wazoo to "protect their beloved platform at all costs against ANY valid criticism".

You cannot always get it, and you cannot expect people to be web developers in order to track basic information present and easily accessible on "the biggest PC store out there", but lacking here. Ultimately this information should be out in the public, not hidden "out there somewhere".

Also, No I don't think you 'get it'. On Steam it's blatantly public, it's not even remotely close to hidden.
On GOG not only it is dug within webpage code, it's also highly unclear black box design. There are no public docs regarding this ID on GOG, to my knowledge.
CAN YOU rule out that GOG - with it's ANCIENT forum CMS, and many IT sec practises worthy of early 2000s - is "definitely" not recycling IDs after some user deletes their account? CAN YOU?
Because I can't. And in early 2000s plenty of websites were doing this, including at least few email providers. While GOG seems to be technologically challanged. Therefore it's not impossible for this ID to be "NOT what WE think it is", nor "what WE think it works like".
TO MY KNOWLEDGE there's no public info about it.
Therefore this is an UNRELIABLE **guess* AT BEST.
You are banking on something you THINK you understand - but since there's no public docs for it - you CANNOT validate EVERYTHING works EXACTLY as you think.
You are putting your trust into a blackbox.

What I want is for GOG to get this properly documented and having it in PLAIN SIGHT for EVERY user to see, like it's on Steam.

So I take it you use Linux daily? No? WHY? "Don't you have the brains?", what's the problem, "WHY won't you grow some?".
My point is, you use dangerous logic in this sentence. Logic that leaves obscenely lot of room to flex logic and turn it against you.

edit:
replaced one character

Whoa, tone it down, willya?
This goes past what'd warrant a "this escalated quickly" meme, what was quite clearly a well-meant message provinding a workaround to the raised problem triggering such a vicious tirade...

OK, just what the hell does Linux have to do with all of this? I'm talking about a simple suite of browser tools, and browsers with said tools are available (for the most part) on most OSes on the market. And no, I don't use Linux in case that's somehow relevant to this conversation (I don't see it myself, but OK). At the moment I don't have the need to learn, but I'm confident I could learn if I chose to. Hence I'd GROW SOME BRAINS and learn it if I wanted to use it. It's not dangerous logic, it's "if you want to know how, learn" which is kind of different from the modern "give me the answer NOW" the youths of today rely upon. We're also on a website selling product for Mac/Linux/Windows. You can use a browser on the very devices you are buying the games for. I don't see how phones is a valid concern, since they are an object of convenience and not required for this place. As for Galaxy... I'd rather chew broken glass than use Galaxy to browse anything, let alone this forum. It's not exactly the best tool for the job, ya know?

As for the IDs, well I'd prefer to believe that GOG doesn't reallocate its IDs until it migrates the databases, or some kind of snafu happens where an account has to be rebuilt from scratch. In any case for the use of a simple GA host it will be reasonably reliable until it no-longer is. What's the harm of a false-positive? Someone misses out on a gift they were never entitled to receive in the first place?

"protect their beloved platform at all costs against ANY valid criticism"
GOG is in no-way flawless and it does often deserve criticism. I dish it out regularly, as a matter of fact. If you think I'm a blind apologist, then you're quite mistaken.

By all means, continue endearing yourself to the community by yelling down the keyboard at everyone who crosses your path. I know it worked for me.

um, guys? maybe lower the heat a bit, hmmm?

I agree with LynXsh. Let's drop the heat level some. Pretty please with kittens on top!


Also posting cat memes until morale improves.

( this post will be in 2 parts due to ancient GOG forum CMS, thank you for your understanding )

Simple for thou, not for all.
You blatantly fail to account for the fact that MOST PEOPLE in the world in fact DO NOT know how to use browser dev tools. Many will NEVER learn them either.
HAVING TO know how to use webdev tools to parse the code to dig out a "MAYBE an ID, or maybe it's some unrelated string we THINK is an ID", falls outside of scope of "EASILY accessible information".

Yes, this is about convenience, my ORIGINAL POINT - where I advocate for WELL ( and PUBLICLY ) DOCUMENTED implementation that is way in the open, for everyone to see EASILY, with convenience.
Without having to resort to dev tools, and second guessing assumptions!
It also shouldn't be NECESSARY to use a PC browser to access this information. On Steam BY DEFAULT the ID is in the url, and remains in said url REGARDLESS if you use PC browser, Samsung Fridge, some smart toaster, or a phone.
On Steam this information is EASILY accessible ( it is NOT on GOG, nor is it CLEAR on GOG how this GOG specific number string WORKS and EXACTLY what it entails ). And for cases where someone has set their vanity url instead, the ID can still be EASILY retrieved, through websites which use VALVE'S OFFICIAL API to query this information, example being:
https://steamrep.com/

It's a dangerous logic because you imply in between lines that "if you care about X, you >> WILL << ( something )", whereas it's not that simple.
Eg many Windows users "care" about privacy, yet they are unwilling to learn Linux.

Your words
can be easily interpreted as: "if you don't know how to, GO LEARN".
It sounds more like "DO IT", than "you are free to, IF you want to".
You are using pretty cut and dry language, in a matter suggesting that if someone can't then it's "THEM problem".
From linguistic perspective, your sentences could be worded better, if you don't want to leave people room for misinterpretation.

And besides, the information in question should be provided BLATANTLY PUBLICLY ( like on Steam ) - it should not be NECESSARY for an average user to learn web development tools.

Hey, let me ask you a simple question:
what if GOG **REMOVES** this from the code one day? WHAT THEN?
Then there will be no ID of ANY kind available; not the current BLACK BOX which NONE of you ACTUALLY know how it REALLY works and you are all just making BLIND ASSUMPTIONS about; nor an actual reliable one.

What I WANT is for GOG to do what Steam did. Have a WELL AND PUBLICLY DOCUMENTED ID system that is in complete plain sight and DELIBERATELY SO.
Not GOG's current "ACCIDENTALLY maybe-ID number string with no public documentation to describe intricacies of".

I'm not mistaken because I wasn't talking about YOU in this specific sentence.

If you want to be accurate:
this platform sells PRIMARILY Windows builds ( and Galaxy has no official Linux port btw ).
Rarely for Mac OS.
And very rarely for Linux, with many games having official Linux ports on Steam, but lacking them on GOG.

If:
A. You don't know how it works ( you ASSUME, while there's no OFFICIAL information )
B. You CANNOT PROVE without any doubt, how it works, you are ASSUMING things and basic your judgement based on that ( eg you are ASSUMING, without OFFICIAL proof, that it's NEVER being reused and is PERMANENTLY static per account ), therefore you CANNOT RULE OUT it's being reused at some point, cue, making it NOT fully unique
then it's not reliable AT ALL to begin with!

Using THIS current implementation, black box, without OFFICIALLY knowing anything about it, just MAKING ASSUMPTIONS pulled out of the wazoo, and gaslighting yourself into believing them to "definitely be correct", is a CASTLE BUILT ON SAND.

I HOPE TO GOD you don't work in infosec, nor in IT sec, nor do you handle any suspensions / bans ANYWHERE in any industry in the world.
There's plenty of harm in false positives. Don't even get me started on this conversation...

( part 2 will be posted in 10+ minutes, OR if someone else posts in the meantime, then sooner )