ssling: The problem I see with the current system is that what makes a game "starred", outside of popular AAA games or brand new releases, seems to be entirely subjective or even random in some cases. So now some games have one month cooldown and other have three months cooldown, but some of the former are in no way inferior (price-wise or quality-wise) than those of the latter.
There was also a case where a game was put in the standard category and another copy some time later was put in the starred category. It might not be a problem in itself - giving a chance of getting it to more people - but should those people really be "punished" with longer cooldown compared to those who were lucky enough to grab the game quickly?
IMHO cooldown should be equal for both categories. It wouldn't make starred category pointless because it would still serve as a chance to get games for those who visit forum irregularly while getting rid of controversial choices of "better" games.
It's my fault where a game has appeared as both a starred and regular pick. I choose one game out of each batch of 10 to be starred and I have been using it as an experiment, choosing games that I would be drawn too myself to see how many people share the same taste as I do.
If that game appears in another batch of 10 and I have gone with something else as starred, then there is every chance it will just get lumped in with the regular games this time (Born of Bread springs to mind).
Also, I saw a couple of games (Blood West and Showgunners) get added as regular picks and snapped up straight away when I had assumed that they would have been added as starred games. So the next time I donated copies of them, I asked Benkii to make them starred.