I like this new rules.

I confess that the criteria for classifying a game as standard or starred remains unclear to me :p
Is the user rating taken into account? Maybe the price? Perhaps the release date?

Currently what gets determined as starred or standard is determined by me. I take all factors into account (price, release date, user ratings). But the most important factor I use is it's popularity because if a game is extremely popular then it will get requested quickly.

I like that.

The whole point of the starred category is to offer people who don't lurk in the thread on a daily basis some chance of getting a desirable game. This necessitates the random method, not the first come first served. The extended cooldown doesn't help prevent the game from being claimed within minutes. If it were up to me, I would use the random method for all non-daggered games, starred or standard.

I'm thinking that, given that it is most often for standard category games to appear than starred games, and combining with that even the standard category games have lessened in the last few months (taking into account the lack of donors, as Catac1ysm already noted), then we're still on the same spot, i.e. the few games that will appear, they're most likely to be standard, and thus to disappear quickly by the many eligible people within each month.

Like you said, you know very well where I stand regarding anything bar first-come-first-served in the Community Giveaway.

Regarding limits, if they're not increased for regular games, it won't change things there, so maybe at least every 2 months for regular?

But I'm not fond of a "starred" category in itself either. And determining what goes in it will always be highly debatable. Plus that it actually highlights likely desirable games. Granted, when there are few available titles, they're easy to notice anyway, but as a general idea, it can be a small moment of joy when you notice something "big" appearing in the list, instead of it being presented to you on a silver platter before the "second class" games (because that is how the regular ones are now presented).

That said, if you're so set on keeping it (Gah!), I can see it involving a version of Lexor's idea. Definitely no bidding or anything other than still first-come-first-served, but maybe instead of separate cooldowns for the categories, you could give them different point values, 0 for daggered, 1 for regular, 2 or 3 for better (or even both, some with 2, some with 3, since you're set on categorizing anyway), and users have a maximum number of points per calendar year, 12 if you want to stick to the current limits, 6 if you'd lower them, of 8 for something in between, or even 4 if you'd go drastic. I'd go with 6 for now. It's still more work than just a set one game per 1-2-3 calendar months, but not much more than your original proposal of 4 per year, just add how much each user used already and when they reach the maximum that's it.

I'd still favor a simple 1 game / 3 months, with possible exceptions made only if there will ever be a huge list again, but I like playing with numbers and systems so when I saw that idea I did see an appeal to it, if changed in this manner.

Nice, it's great know that the new ideas have been working out so far. And on that note, I'm in favor of keeping the starred category as a random draw (if it's going to stay, that is), since that's what makes it relevant/unique.

Regarding the cooldowns, awesome, though my suggestion would be to increase them if the gap between donations and people asking for keys remains as is.

I've been going back and forth all month on whether I want to keep the Starred Category random dice or first come. But I've settled on keeping a dice roll. Apologies to Cavalary and others that dislike the randomness but I felt there was still much support to keep it. So the only thing I'll be changing going into 2024 is making the cooldown for requesting gifts from the Starred category from 1 month to 3 months. We'll see how it all goes.

Starred being a high cost presumably? I think that makes more sense than everyone having a difference of opinion, regarding any other measure. Quality is speculation. But a $50+ clarifies the why. Quick glance tells the audience what they need to know.

I cannot normally grab high cost games, due to bandwidth restrictions. So for context, I am not being greedy for my suggestion.

I read the star rule. Stands to reason it holds up a standard title. Because a star will be randomly given. I think the population should be allowed to make 1 request for a standard game and 1 for the starred, at the same time. Since it is random anyway, it does not matter if 1 person gets both starred and 1 requested standard title. But it makes sense for the random draw of a star be 3 months after winning. The random draw seems to vindicate my suggestion. Since there is no guarantee.

I dislike any roll of randomness in the Community GA.

I'm fine not participating in in any draw for "Starred" games. If that means I would never get pricier games that I can't afford then so be it. A bummer for sure, but It's not like getting free games there is a must every month.

Absolutely. That's not the Community Giveaway, period.
Longer cooldown, sure. Higher requirements, like account for at least 1-2-3 years and sustained activity over such a longer period, not just a handful of recent posts, to be eligible, absolutely, please.
But removing first come first served, even if in a supposedly limited manner, is really similar to GOG's "Good News" moment, getting rid of the second clear "principle" of the whole endeavor... supposedly for a small number of highly desired games... initially...

But here I already said that I'm tempted to go the other way. This year, and in fact since the start of this new incarnation of the Community Giveaway, I didn't ask for anything, and feel ever more awkward about doing so, but if it's not direct asking but entering a random chance draw, I'll be tempted to enter whenever I'll see something I may have any interest in. It's an entirely different feeling and thought process, just dropping your name into a hat, and also participating in some contest that you make no effort for but may still win, which may in itself brighten a day to some extent, vs. actually taking something that's in limited supply, where one should seriously weigh whether they actually need it vs. how much others might.

I truly and honestly don't want anything, since the participants of the Secret Santa '23 were very VERY generous and I've got games to play for several months ahead, so I don't want to ask for anything and deprive it of others who would want to play it immediately, but I strongly believe that more (or most) of the games added today should be in the starred category and not in the standard. There are certain games that currenlty cost (way) more than Fallout 4, for example, even in discount!

My opinion is that ALL of the games Doc had in his last giveaway, and given gradually to the Community Giveaway in the next months, should be put in the Starred category. Games shouldn't be "jugded" only by their "fame" to gamers, but also according to their price. Another option would be to put most such games in the Starred category, and if there are no participants for them (for fear of the 3 month delay), then they could be put in the standard category afterwards.

I second this.