What I was trying to mean was that, if the cooldown for regular games is only a month and such cooldown resets at the beginning of each one, then the choice for claiming a game at the end of the month can become less considerate than, for example, one that could also entail taking into account that there might be other games better suited for yourself later on (assuming the cooldown for regular games was longer), or whether there might be a draw you might want to partake in.

This idea may be flawed or don't make much sense, but hopefully I have explained myself a bit better this time.

Anyway, I thought the dilemma seemed interesting and could proof to be beneficial. By no means I meant to disrespect anyone or imply that the system was broken by talking about such possible change. If that was the case and my words were uncalled for, confusing or not thoughtful enough, have riled up anyone, or caused animosity between people, then it's really my bad. It's not my goal to come here and be offensive or disrespectful towards folks, much less on a thread like this one.

Much love <3.

Stuff like the above is why I think that months should perhaps be counted fully.
(i.e./ex. if one is one a 3 month cooldown then it should be 90 days from the time they last won/got a game)

Suggestions like the above are not taking into consideration that our dear BenKii is in fact a human being and should not be hustled with unnecessary extra work that could lead to early retirement. xD

Yeah, such a sliding window would be ideal. The problem is the overhead of registering things.

I think the least work-intensive way would be to calculate and list the date on which people would be allowed to request a new game again (so e.g. where it now says gogamess (3), that'd become gogamess (5 jul)), and then remove people from the list on the next update after their date rather than the current once a month thing. The thing is, in that example, by the time June comes around, extra effort is needed to insert non-starred requesters before or after that starred-winner - and that of course becomes a constant thing after the first two months of trying this scheme. I guess it could still be barely doable, but it'd need wholehearted buy-in from our host - for the moment it feels like too much of a stretch to me.

I remember having discussed the possibility of setting a cooldown in natural days instead of the one-game-per-month rule two years ago... Yeah, right here

The idea didn't get much support then. Besides, it brings extra work to the host. Although it has some good points, it's probably better to leave things as they are now and not overload BenKii with extra tasks.

I'm totally agree.

The number of days work out to the same thing overall anyway.
Assuming regular titles, request something on the last day of the month and you can request something else the following day, but it means you didn't request anything else for the rest of the first month and can't request anything else for the rest of the second. Still two games in two months, same as if it'd be 30 days after each request.

And I believe that this https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_community_giveaway_6th_edition/post4166 is not a good idea at all.

Nobody is forced to enter every draw.

And nobody is forced to ask for a game every month. Should a month ends and one hasn’t asked for anything, this doesn’t make it a “lost” month! One can ask in the next month, if they are interested in something.

I'm quite fed up with this attitude of treating the community giveaway like a freebie-dispensing monthly subscription. I equally cringe whenever I see "I'd like to try (game title)". People should request games they actually want. Gifts were bought with hard-earned money, then donated for someone to enjoy. That's deserving of a bit more respect than a demo to test on a whim.

*headslap*

Hear, hear, for the above posts. And Ice_Mage's in particular.
Not that entering for a starred game is any sort of guarantee that you'll get it (well, lately it seems to be, probably due to most eligible users being on cooldowns, but as a matter of principle...), so in that sense asking for a regular game may be seen as more of a... definitive choice.
But, yeah, see what Ice_Mage said.

One would think most game requests in the giveaway(and others like it across the net) are for games that giftees would want to play rather than not. Also like game buying(GOG/Steam/etc), afaik more games requested go to backlog for a bit rather than being immediately played. That said, as long as a giftee wants to play the game they request at some point and are genuinely grateful of being gifted something, I personally don't think it should matter as much if they play it right away or not.
(aside: I do dislike anyone feeling over entitled and treating such giveaways as if they're owed something, however)

Starred games are harder to get, so I think it's safe so assume that people who enter for them, really want those games. So if you're someone who wins a starred game, and then notices that a game you wanted more appears on the list at a later date, there's no reason to be upset about it. After all, in the end, you got yourself a game you wanted, and should be grateful for it. Today we're fortunate to have this giveaway, but who guarantees we'll have it tomorrow?

Also, it's highly possible that BenKii doesn't even know all the games that will be starred, as some of them might be donated whith the month already underway.