Hello. I would like to request Sid Meier’s Pirates!.

Both rules look good Finkleroy.

Rule 15 comes easily for me as I strive to give thanks 3 times - the admin, the donor (PM) and a third publicly. It's rare but sometimes I miss either a PM or public one, but never both.

Rule 16 is fair, especially with the relatively smaller number of donations as compared with the Non-GOG GA. The only time this rule might seem inflexible is when trying to get rid of those pesky "always free" game codes you have sitting there, but you know *shrug* it probably doesn't matter if they don't get used.

No need to get rid of the always free ones :) Issue is when you need to get rid of expiring ones, but then we can do what's always been done in such cases, get rid of nomination restrictions and loosen eligibility criteria.

Actually, you know, instead of trying to come up with something generally agreeable, why not make this #16 edge case of double accounts one of donor decides? Will add another complication, but may also avoid future complaints from donors. Can't ask for someone else, and if you have an alternate account you must send finkleroy a PM to say so when you make the request (and can't change it or redeem anything on your forum account once it's set) and the donor gets to decide whether that's ok or not. Key gets removed from list when original request is granted, then either sent to recipient if donor agrees or quietly put back if not, with a PM to the recipient to say that won't work, no need to make it public.
Again adds more to finkleroy's work, but should be something very rare I guess?
One issue is that the rule in question is long already. But then again, those who get that far down the OP shouldn't have problems with reading a couple more paragraphs :)

Maybe finkleroy should ask donors if their keys can be re-gifted or shared between users (multi-game codes)? I think it will save a lot of time. Then the list can be divided into two categories: "for personal use only" and "can be re-gifted".

I know that many donors monitor the keys they donated, but if there are donors who are not interested in the further fate of the donated keys, I think that they can tell finkleroy that the users who requested these keys can do whatever they want with them.

Before making the rules even more complicated, I think I should ask for the donors to weigh in. Is the rule fine, or should it be changed? If it should be changed, how should it be changed?

Granted.

I think Rule 16 is generally fine @ this pt in time although i'm not for hving an alt account, adjusting further may only cause more work 2 u & the donors. As it is now both need 2 check if a recipient redeems the game correctly 2 their specified alternate account should they choose 2 do so already.

I dun agree with the 1 time change to redeem 2 a recipient specific alternate account as i dun really feel it is necessary 2 hv 1. As long as we secure our passwords long & complex enough with 2FA enabled i dun c any reason 2 do so.

As another GOGer correctly points out, it dun seems fair that 1 can get away with taking all the flak in forum using an alt account while quietly enjoying the games in their main account. Personally i believe we shd b responsible 4 wat we say here & stand by it, rather than hiding behind an alt account. In fact, i think GOG has a policy on hving alt accounts so it's better 2 go with redemption only by the actual forum account holder as games is granted based on his/her participation in the forum itself.

This is of cos my personal opinion, it's ultimately ur call & i wld respect any decision on this matter. :)

There are some excellent points. Can someone do me a favor and find out if GOG has a policy against the same person having multiple accounts?

I'm a very minor donor, but I'm hesitant to open that door. I agree with lazarus, ariaspi and others.

It would also seem to me that if a user has split accounts, even if the majority of their games are on account B, there's nothing stopping them from adapting and accepting a gift game on account A.

The games they paid for would still be squirreled away and protected to the level of comfort they desire, and this GA/finkleroy/the community wouldn't have to create and monitor exceptions.

Exceptions give way to exploitable loopholes. If this decision is based on votes, I vote for same-account game activation.

Just my 2cts to rule 15 and 16.
#15 should have been clear already and imo is not necessary at all.
I also don't really see the need für rule 16 but then again I am not a big fan of rules in a giveaway that's based on generosity and trust. Anyway I don't mind either of those two rules, so go ahead :)

Here u go:

See 'We Don't Tolerate: Pt 6'

Deleted

The ToS doesn't say anything about multiple accounts from what I can see. tomyam80 found that it's forbidden on the forum, but multiple accounts when one doesn't post on the forum wouldn't be covered by that.

As for rule 16, I'd go with anything. Of course, only very minor donor so doesn't count for much. For simplicity, would also lean most towards making it clear that the game must be redeemed on the account that asks (or is nominated) for it, no exceptions. But can see some point in some arguments for all other 3 options too (a single designated alt account for those who use it, donor choice whether it must be redeemed by the account that asks or is nominated or not necessarily, or zeo's way of allowing even some cases of one using up their game of the month to ask for it to be sent to another). Give me a single-choice poll and I'd vote for that simple option, but ask what I'd be ok with and I'd say any.

Is the alt-account-for-privacy case something we've actually encountered in the wild, or is it just hypotheticals and speculation? It feels like the latter to me. As another minor donor, I'd say keep the rule a simple "must be redeemed on same account". If a real world case ever comes up, I'd say any requester who'd care enough would still be able to request an exception from our gracious host regardless of what the rules say, and the donor should then be able to grant it (or not).