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.