This is a good idea. Now if only we had something like a list of games donated over a long period of time so potential donors could see which games had "saturated" the giveaways less than others, as well as other helpful stats. :)

No one was "negative about starred games". I personally like the starred game system.

That wasn't done here. Steam was only mentioned in relation to legitimate game availability.

OK, I'll go back to the topic on hand if you really want to.

How about the games BenKii put on the starred list were chosen because BenKii thought it might serve well to put them there. The popularity of them being there will determine whether they stay in the starred section or not. The fact they are there means those looking to "just collect" as you put it are less likely to grab for it, due to the cooldown. If titles in question are still on Steam, and if that's indeed important to someone, and if they can afford to do so then they will opt to do so. Those who want the title and who cannot or will not buy them on Steam will seriously consider opting into the raffle.

And I'll say what others have said: there are those who will be looking to add the title to their GOG library, not their Steam (or other) library. A delisted GOG game on a giveaway is more likely to attract attention to those with it on their wishlist due to it being the last possible opportunity the game can be owned here on GOG. Last chance, if they don't request it right now they may not ever see it on GOG ever again. So, yeah, there is an added urgency, whereas titles not at risk of delisting may be less urgent to request at the moment. We all have a pool of games we want to play, yeah? A wishlist. Just like a collection of movies, the urgency of purchasing a title can indeed be impacted by the threat of never playing it in the form we prefer. A form of FOMO, if you want to think of it that way, but that doesn't mean we don't enjoy it when we get it. The fact that the game may not be as mainstream, or as attractive to you as it is to others does not mean it isn't worth raffling. And it can't hurt to try raffling it anyway. Someone who dearly wants it will get it, even if it turns out only one participant ran in the raffle. Generous donation to a happy and grateful recipient. The goal of the giveaway is met.

So what's the point in asking for them to be moved? If they're not popular they won't be requested, and they'll be shifted later. In the future similar games which weren't popular in the starred sections won't be listed in the starred sections next time around.

BenKii's system works well, I think. I don't really get why all the hubbub about the title selection of starred games - we don't pay for the giveaway, we don't run the giveaway, we don't own the giveaway. We have opinions, but really in the grand scheme of things, what does it matter? Is something going on which isn't "fair"? Is the host acting in a suspect manner? Is there voiced dissatisfaction from the donors? What do we lose by just letting BenKii select the titles as he sees fit?

I don't understand the drive to grab for the steering wheel on this. He's not driving us off a cliff.

Suggested rule addition:
--- Which category a game is placed under (e.g. starred, standard, daggered) is determined solely by the giveaway moderator (currently BenKii) and the game donor, based on their own private and subjective criteria. Accordingly, discussing such criteria is futile and discouraged. People who insist on discussing them will be warned and, if they persist, banned.

In other words, you want everyone to shutup mrk. That is not constructive of you. If Benkii doesn't want people discussing this, maybe let Benkii speak for themself.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. No "steering wheel grabbing". Just suggesting starring titles be based on likely popularity. Benkii can ignore this suggestion, but it doesn't do any harm to suggest it.

You're assuming there's any positive motive behind it beyond "I want, I want, I want". myconv was the same chronically narcissistic guy whose very first 'contribution' to this thread was to want to change the rules to "I want to deliberately block others from claiming games they really want for days on end by self-nominating games that I don't even know if I want for myself, so I can eventually make up my mind because I'm unfamiliar with many games due to me only bothering to turn up to the forum once per month just to claim free games, so I want to hold everyone else down until I've had my fill of "non-leftover" games." style rule-change proposal. Which was at its core entirely about being intentionally hostile to other participants. Everyone unanimously said no. He called everyone "toxic". When someone posted explaining what the Community Spirit of these giveaways have traditionally been about (thinking of others not yourself), he turned around and called even THAT "toxic" too...

The only thing myconv related that really needs voting on is whether BenKii thinks another long 'vacation' would be beneficial as "How can I constantly twist the rules to get even more free games that aren't 'leftover junk' for myself, f**k everyone else" attitude clearly hasn't changed a bit in 2 years.

Reminder, the topic is-

Does it make sense to only have the most likely to be popular games be starred? Or should other qualities like current Gog sale availability apply?

My position is that since the seeming whole point of the star system is to increase fairness regarding when people are on and who can request something first and to even out game requests.

If that is the purpose of starring games then it would make sense for the qualifications of whether to star or not to be in line with that purpose.

On the other hand if a unpopular game is starred then it just wastes BenKiis time putting up a game in starred no one asks for. And then latter needing to shift it off starred for more work.

The only rebuttable I can discern is something like-
Keys for games that are no longer directly available for Gog (but still available on Steam) have special collector value where starring the game provides necessary? honor to the person who gave the key.

Sorry, if that isn't quite accurate as the opposing argument. Please correct me if you feel I misstated that opposing argument.

My rebuttal to that rebuttal is game-giveaways should be about people enjoying games, not prestige. I have no problem with people enjoying collecting keys, but that collection desire should reflect the popularity point of the starred system. If no one is asking for a starred game, that shows it is not popular.

I stipulate to it being BenKii's decision in the end. That is neither here nor there for this discussion though.

Do have to ask why continue to engage in this discussion post by post. (Though I'll openly applaud BrianSim's sleuthing and point by point presentation of the track record.)

And on topic, I'll just say again that yes, imho games that are no longer available on GOG have a value that's inherently much higher than that of any games that still are available, regardless of price or desirability, and if a "higher" category exists at all, then those games are the ones that objectively should be in it as a rule, no questions, and also no move back to the regular category even if they remain unrequested.
And of course availability anywhere else has absolutely zero relevance in a giveaway solely for GOG games and strictly for the active GOG community. Assume not caring to know or look for it and not wanting to have it anywhere else.

What?

Hey, myconv. You know if you have more to say about something you don't have to go back and edit all your previous posts. It's a little disingenuous to significantly edit a post directly addressing a person long after the conversation has already progressed.

I mean I get spelling errors or maybe correcting a confusing sentence so it makes sense. We all have posts like that. But adding extra snipes like "you're being toxic" and avoiding the notification flag in the process is a bit nasty to say the least.

Cavalary applauding bad behavior aside

Cavakary do you or do you not believe that the point of starred system is to manage and even out access to the most popular titles?

Starred titles are already based on likely popularity.

What you don't seem to understand is that "popularity" is very subjective from one person to another. You seem to want Starred games to be based on what you personally perceive as popular. Sadly for you, you don't run the giveaway, so Starred games are based on the host's opinion of what is popular, as it should be.

And frankly, no matter how many times you deny it, you wouldn't be here arguing this hard about it unless you yourself wanted the games, just not the cooldown. If it weren't so, you wouldn't be bothered by them remaining on the Starred list at all.

I firmly oppose the starred system.
But, again, since it does exist, I'm of the opinion that delisted games are the ones that must be placed in that category as a rule, no exceptions, and kept there for however long it takes until someone willing to take the longer cooldown requests them.
Any other criteria is subjective and can't be reasonably discussed, a still available starred game is whatever the admin and donor decide it is and that's the end of it, but delisted games are by definition of higher value.

And that's the last time I'll repeat myself on this...

Edit: Ok, that edit above just made me laugh out loud. Good thing I had just finished eating...

Cavalary. you just essentially said you don't see a point or value of the starred system. Since the point or value of the starred system is at the heart of this discussion....

Why star any game? What benefit does this provide other than extra work for Benkii? The answer to this question could be the answer to how you decide what games to star.