People generally speak up when they're bothered by something. When someone asked for lower cooldowns, those who disagreed spoke up, and that included those who want longer cooldowns. When you suggested longer cooldowns, including even longer ones for starred games instead of just for the regular ones, which wasn't really asked for, then those disagreeing with that spoke up.
Speaking up about something that might bother you in the hypothetical case that it might become a possibility, without it having really been presented as such at that point, doesn't really make sense, after all. And imagine how that would play out if done, "oh, here's today's list of 37 things that I'd disagree with if brought up, I'll add more tomorrow" :))

These two posts above me have me grinning from ear to ear! They're hitting right in the feels.

Even your luck stat will not stop you now :)

It doesn't matter if you took the Super Unlucky attribute where you have a -5 penalty on all attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws on top of a low luck stat if nobody else puts in for the game.

I'm a bit late, but my thoughts on this align with those of gogtrial34987 (post #784) - if and when the cooldown for standard games increases, the cooldown for starred games should also increase accordingly.



I think I've missed or misunderstood something. What did you refer to in this post of yours?

I agreed with Lone_Scout about a three-month cooldown for starred games, rather than a two-month one, as suggested by someone on the other thread.

Ah yes, I caught up with that reading the posts in this thread. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm a bit late and my take probably doesn't matter much now, but I'd have proposed the cooldown for regular games to be on par with the one for starred ones so as to make the choice between them more interesting.

The way I see it, such change could entail that people would think twice before asking for a regular game (especially at the end of the month) which they might not necessarily enjoy as much as others would, or even like as much as the possibility of winning a starred game that might drop in the future.

Btw, maybe I counted poorly, but I'd say there were more people in favor of longer cooldowns than the ones who aren't.


P.S: Also, independently of whether the rules end up being modified or not, I forgot to add that it's great to see the current iteration of the giveaway being relatively malleable with them, subject to discussion and experimentation. So far it's been working pretty well, and if something doesn't work, we could always decide to revert the changes, right?

If the cooldown for all games are the same then let just rid all the first come first serve and make them all a giant raffle. The less in demand games will have fewer participants and those who entered for them will have greater chance winning games.

Oh hell...

I never meant to imply people were scabs, rather, than such change could potentially make for an interesting choice. Also, I was just sharing my thoughts on the matter openly so they could serve as food for thought (for myself included), and not demanding for such idea to be implemented rather than being debated upon.

I really do think that you need to reread what you said in your prior post because it does read as if you think that the guy who requests something on the first of each month without fail wants the game more while those of us who don't request anything right away are being opportunistic. I'll quote you below:

Wirvington said in Post #803, "The way I see it, such change could entail that people would think twice before asking for a regular game (especially at the end of the month) which they might not necessarily enjoy as much as others would

Because games are not added only on the first of the month at the same time every month, nobody can come online at the same time on the first of the month to grab something immediately and feel confident that a game they might want more isn't going to be added later in the month.

If someone claims something on the first for the sheer sake of getting something, it's entirely on them if a game that is actually on their wishlist is part of the giveaway where they can't request it. They're still out, and the person who gets it isn't any less worthy or deserving because they didn't ask for anything right away. I'd hope that missing out on being able to ask for something even one time would be enough of a self-correcting deterrent that it would cause anyone who requests immediately for the same of getting something would put more thought into what they ask for in the future.

This is why I think the current system isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed.

No, I don't think Wirvington needs to reread what he said. The one adding negative connotations as —opportunistic scab that ran off with something that they didn't deserve, disadvantage, being abused, fix what is not actually broken— is only you.

Also, your use of the —first come first served— and honor systems as part of your argument are out of place.

Said that, IMO the reread would be more beneficial to you and I will borrow your highly dismissive and self-centered phrase "everyone (except me)" may agree with you.

In case you need the post numbers to reread, just let me know.

Fine, I'll agree that I'm opportunistic, self-centered, and whatever else you want to label me as because I don't immediately ask for something on the first of the month just for the sake of it. There's no need to correct me any further. I'll see myself out.