Nobody but BenKii knows when the rush starts so I think it is still fair enough.

Worked for me. I didn't have an interest in those titles, but I think you picked the right ones for the draws anyway.

Let's keep the trial going for another month and see how it goes. If you make it a hard rule then you'll get instant arguments anyway.

Oh, and I don't see the point of running draws for all of the games. Last month was a good balance between the traditional and the starred I think.

Half of the draws turned out to be first-come-first-served with a dice-rolling bloat:

Van Helsing - 2 copies available, 2 users participated
Chaosbane - 2 copies available, 2 users participated

Even more "successful" earlier attempts were not particularly popular. Only a small fraction of giftees have chosen to try the gambling options.

In fact, the majority of people neither need nor want this initiative.
It was inappropriate. User activity was low and "starred" games were not high-demand.
Really? If any significant number of users acted that way, the list of games would have been empty most of the time.

I didn't take part in any of the drawings, because either I wasn't interested in those games, or I had that game (e.g. Van Helsing). However, I liked the idea of having some of the most important games to be available for longer time, so that more people would see them (that they are available) and not be snatched in the blink of an eye. This is more fair. And, up to now, I like your perception in which games to be in the starred category and which not. This is good perception, that you are not judging by the price of a game while on sale alone, but by the overall "renown" of that game (along with its price). I would do the same.

But it always has been. There was barely any game that didn't come from amazon prime until BenKii introduced the stars, things got grabbed the exact moment an update was posted, even in the previous iteration of the community ga.
I wouldn't be surprised if some used bots to warn them, it can't be a coincidence the same people were always so early to request games mere seconds after the update was posted.

Notice I'm talking as a guy who got quite a few games with the "first come first served" rule over the years, so if I was merely self interested this new rule would go against my interests.
For example, I would have got two games more by now if I didn't entetr a draw - this is to address any possible accusation of "you're profiting on it" before it inevitably gets voiced.

Imo, this rule is working great and precisely as intended, and the outrage of some people is a clear indicatot it's doing good. "The community giveaway" implies a collectivity caring for each others. It was like this, once - back in the original edition held by IAmSinistar (I really miss the guy, a great chap) barely anybody entered from themselves, we all kept our eyes on each others wishlists and we got often surprised by gifts on nominations.
Now? Like sharks rushing on a bleeding carrion, always demanding and never giving anything, not even the effort to make a nomination to brigthen someone else's day. Heck, myself included, I wouldn't know WHO to nominate most of the times!

I was reluctant to the concept at first, but after being one of the winners, my opinion has changed (yeah, I know, it's not relevant).
The "first come first served" rule is becoming annoying and was useful when there was a lot of donations and more potential giftees.

Only the criterias of a "starred game" might be a subject of discussions because they are obscure and it's totally at the discretion of the OP (price, complete pack, AAA or indie... ?).

How come, that you are not interested in the games, which you consider to be the most important at the same time? :)
&
Now we have metrics, the concrete numbers. Which clearly indicate the opposite: the conception of starred games is irrelevant to this giveaway, and the majority of users are not interested.
No, many really good games are on the list for weeks, and nobody requests them.
Care to provide the proof? If you are right, those users must be banned from giveaway.
It's an insult. Each person is eligible for a reason. People help each other with game-, store- and forum- issues. Spend their personal time discussing GOG features, this giveaway, other community initiatives, making suggestions, posting interesting news, etc.

Because these games might be world-famous and praised by many (probably rightfully), but that doesn’t mean that ALL people may like them. However, the people that don’t like them, don’t have any problem to admit that these games are accepted worldwide. For example, I very much like RPGs. However, I will never play Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2, as: 1) I’m not good at controlling a team of 6, and 2) I can't stand that much text (neither Pillars of Eternity 1). But that doesn’t mean that I don’t accept that Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 are very important games in the gaming industry.

I truly tell you, I wouldn't take them, even if they were given for free from the site.

So famous and praised masterpieces, that median number of participants in a draw is 2 persons.
( 8, 2, 18 for 3 keys, 2 for 2 keys, 2 for 2 keys )
2 of 5 draws were completely pointless.

86% of people received a game thanks to first-come-first-served approach. ( 59 of 68 )
Nobody complained about fairness.
You are going to force on people things, which you don't want for yourself. And call it fair.

This whole post makes absolutely no logic sense.
There was time for requests and it was set *before* they could start, if requests have not been made that doens't make it first come first served.
Also, not taking something means... forcing it on others? Just, what?

"Please mods, ban this guy, I found a Baldur's Gate 2 copy in my library because he didn't want to request it in the community giveaway"!
LOL, we're touching surrealism here.

It is the statistical data from starred games experiment. Pure facts, on which I've made the conclusions, posted above:

I still support the idea of ​​a mix of draws and choosing.
I think that consistent application of the principle that participation in the draw is for "only reputable members" will effectively exclude accidental requests caused by herd behaviour.

I think the problem isn't about starred games, draws or fairness.

Instead it is about the community and the character of the giveaway that changed a lot since it started several years ago. Back then most people didn't even ask about games for themselves, but instead nominated other members for games they knew they would like. There were always much more games than takers and so the first-come-first-served-rule never was a problem.

Today it's completely different. There are much more people who ask for themselves or even think it's their right to get a game from this giveaway each months. From my feeling there are also less people who donate games (most of the games are from the incredible generous Doc0075) and whenever you donate games, they are gone within hours (often within minutes) and half of the time you don't even get a thank you from the person who took them. Some community members even use scripts that tell them when the list of available games changes, so they can ask for games as fast as possible.

We probably won't come back to a state where people nominate other members instead of taking games for themselves. So maybe instead of starred games it would be better to limit the number of games one person can take. Maybe from one per month to four per year with growing cooldown-times each time you take a game. Would be more work for BenKii, but maybe people would start thinking again about which games they (or other people) really want instead of taking games, just because they can.

Sorry, if this post sounds a lot like "back then everything was better". But I feel a little sad about the how the character of the Community Giveaway changed for a while now and would be interested, if other people feel the same way.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And I know that many others think the same.