Indeed, but wouldn’t the latter require more tracking from your part? And people might also need some time to get used to a new rule, since old members are not very likely to check the rules they think they already knew.

I don’t have much problems with the rules, but if possible, keep your work easier ;)

Agree except for the insult cause in a communication scheme the perception received and the intention emitted are already easily ambiguous, so no need to further encourage tensions.


Agree : useful to refrain our instincts of hyenas


Agree, I've got the same film here
And to add for daggerred-games : fix, black on white, the implicitly suggested rule of 5 per month. GA are not supposed to end up on sale at HK's stores

You've got the point, I just TO-TA-LLY agree ! Dispatch the Altruistic spirirt , yeah, that's good !

Agree, again, and may be does not want their generosity profit to some elite instead of the whole community. Nothing is perfect but, IMHO, everything should be organised to strive for the most equitable, the most egalitarian, the fairest redistribution.
Nevertheless, all is in the hands of the administrator once you've given.


you've got another point.. That is the Zeogold organization : be opportunistic, no fair, kill first.
(Well, So I think your/our ideas will not pass, especially because of the rule 1.)

It's not so difficult to spread the good before the evil. Not so much effort compared for example to a retained keys management to postpone the update contents on several months. Quite the same.

Hehe, we've got the next Finkleroy :-))

Why would there be difference between update and general ?
In the same way of limiting the raptors, that upadated list may not exist : "Hey dudes, List is updated, have a look and take the time to choose wisely while the orthers have some times to do the same"


and to add even more equitable chances: Invalidate requests that have been edited.
=> To avoid people who post quickly anything just after the announcement of the update to take a ticket like at the butcher's shop, and then edit to claim better pieces that others have yet seen and requested but later .. .
Well the fact that Finfleroy now acts very fast, (not like with Zeo where it was necessary to wait hours or even days), the phenomenon may be reduced, but it would avoid the 0.54 seconds used as arguments for example because Finkleroy, as fast as it is, can not be there round the clock. (even with an assistant ;-p)
but in this case it may be wise to delete the rule of appointment otherwise, it is the same with 2-3 false accounts nominations are distributed from the first week of the update.

Whatever is best for YOU is what I support. Most flexible, least headaches, and whatever bring you the most joy running this. Everyone else has the easy parts; get game, be good, and enjoy.

I will say I'm perfectly fine with imposing a one key per month rule as it avoids there ever being a drought and emphasizes picking a game you'll actually want over a bunch of random games (and lower yield for those here just to abuse, not to get a game they'll actually play and enjoy)

Ah don't worry, my answer has to be read contestualized to bler144 proposal to limit the request to 1 game, just for few days after a new update is released:
so I wrote down some questions that jumped in my mind that could be what I defined a 'gray area' in that specific scenario

Totally agree! Believe or not I was going to propose the same as 'behavioural' rule for us, I took down a note saying: no edited post containing requests should be accepted for any reason

As I said I'd be happy to give an help if this lead to an improvement of an already nice community!

Thanks to greyhat, letsmaybeLP92 and to finkleroy !

Wow thank you Finkie and thank you greyhat for The Warlock of Firetop Mountain and Hand of Fate! Two good games less on my wishlist at high gaming priority! Have a nice day or night everyone depending on where in the world you are!

The challenge with that solution is that it works if one thinks about AAA/otherwise desirable games, but it leaves a backlog of less desirable games that would slooooooow way down.

This is partly why the limit grew to 3, to keep those other keys going.

I suppose an alternate solution would be to shift keys over to daggered if they've lingered more than a month or two, but that requires a different type of attention and management.

May I get Grim Legends: The Forsaken Bride?

Good idea. But 5 updates each month - that's too much. You'll run out of gas pretty quick by doing this. So it seems that 2-3 updates is more than enough.

Also, I remember zeo did some kind of list of retired keys for games been on the regular list for too long. Those games was mediocre anyway, so I think he just decided to ease his work.

I meant that the limit would be 1 key from each new update, and 5 non-daggered keys per month from the regular list. The only reason why "retired keys" were even a thing is because he ran out of space for all the games in the first few posts of the thread before last, before we switched to Google documents.

I totally forgot that, sorry :)

Yeah that's another valid solution!
This way also the key backlog could be thinned a bit

It has also the advantage to not change much the habit and way to work of the current system

that sounds pretty nice. Definitely will give more people the opportunity to fetch a key from the new updates.

Sounds like a good solution!
I think it has the advantage of slightly lowering the regular list and limit of 1 non-dagger game with each new update to give more people the opportunity to have something they really want to play.
I also think which is a less laborious solution to manage.