Very good idea. Is this a good solution - we'll see in action :)

Downplaying Deus Ex like that?? Shame on you!!

Just kidding :)

I say go ahead with it.

One question: when there's more than one starred game, a person needs to choose which one to request and enter the drawing for it or can they enter for more games at the same time?

Good question. I recommend only one, just like regular games.

Regarding your idea it is great for participants, I just hope it will not be too great burden for you BenKii. It is like running several giveaways at the same time, so it can burn you out quickly.

Seems like a good idea. I think donors should be allowed to chose if their donations will be starred or not.

IMO, in such cases, we should be allowed to enter for a maximum of 3 games. I'm having in mind those big key drops from Doc, in which more than a dozen will be starred games.

I like the idea of special category for high-demand games, however I am against any forms of gambling ( random distribution ). We have too many random-based giveaways in our community already.

I'd like to suggest a different system. Starred games would still be first come - first served. But the person, who got the game, should wait for three months instead of one until next possibility to ask.

To make it more convenient, it could simply be one starred game per season. So, we would have the list of this season's giftees along with this month's giftees. Only users, which are not listed on both of these lists, would be able to place requests for any non-daggered games.
It could simply be a coincidence. Or particular person might want to get the game badly, but the most of users are not really interested in that game.

It will be for one starred game at a time. And for those instances when "you know who" donates over a hundred keys at a time, I would only put up a portion of those at a time to space things out. So like if 20 of those 100 games are starred games then like only 3 or 5 would go up at a time. When winners have been drawn and maybe a few days pass, I'll put up a few more.
Donor's requests get priority. If they want them regular or starred, I'll honor it. In the absence of their preference, I'll use my discretion when judging what goes starred or not. Also, let's keep it one drawing entry at a time to make it fair for everyone.

Ah ok, If you manage those cases like that, then one request is fair by me. :)

Sounds good to me, and I second mrkgnao's suggestion (post #459).

It's likely there'll be a couple of hiccups initially, but I think it'll work out fine once peeps understand the change.

As for bluethief question (post #467) - are drawings going to run in parallel in case of multiple starred games?

If yes, I'd say one has to pick which drawing to enter. As otherwise, IMHO, if people enter multiple drawings that run in parallel, it sort of turns into a "X title, else Y title, else else Z title" kind of thing, even if the outcome is uncertain.

Just my 2c.


EDIT: Oh, super late, already answered.

Go for it!

I'll take a firm stand against the current consensus here. The Community Giveaway has always been free of draws. Not free of randomness, since it can be said that randomness enters the fray because you can't know when a title will be added compared to when you look, but no draws.
Besides, even those who do snatch a desirable game within seconds are still limited to one per month.
And honoring potential requests by donors to make games starred could make the Community Giveaway act as private giveaways, just without the donors actually managing them, which again shouldn't be the point.
If the starred category will be used sparingly, only for particularly expensive and high demand titles, and maybe only for a little while, as in if a starred game isn't requested by someone eligible within the first few hours it stops being starred, it may have some merit, but definitely without a draw, and with donors only able to say a game shouldn't be starred, not also that it should be. Stricter eligibility requirements, sure, though hard to "police". Longer "cooldown", like two or three months as it was suggested (until another starred game can be requested, that is, can still go for a regular one next month), maybe.
But any sort of draw in the Community Giveaway gets a hell no from me.
Of course, it's the giveaway admin who makes the call, but if it was asked...

If I'm allowed to say my opinion (and what I would do) is keep the Community Giveaway... away from draws, which would also be difficult for its manager to... manage.
I would keep the current state, BUT with the difference that these starred games would count as a 2 months' gift. So the person getting it could choose neither a starred nor a non-starred game for the next month too.
For example, if Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition was a starred one, it would count for me for a June's and July's game and I would be allowed to ask for another starred or non-starred game again in August.

I agree with these statements.

This wold have the undesirable effect that people goes for games that they were not that interested in, just because those are the games that are available. Instead of choosing what they would really like to play the most.

The only criteria for starred games should be price point IMHO. Because with such small test samples it's impossible to determine which games are really "high demand". Say 10$/€ or more based on "lowest price in 30 days" feature, not tag price. Then it would be nice and clear rule for everyone without raising questions "why did you make game x starred/not-starred".

Requesting games being starred by donator is just big no for this giveaway format. Let donator make their own giveaway if they really need drawing contest.