I'd like to bring up this proposal again. Explicitly only for daggered keys which aren't close to expiring yet. Maybe only for 24 hours after new daggered keys are added? (Whatever is most workable.)

Given that the daggered category was instituted to find a good home for keys which are plentiful but not in demand, It feels off when there are multiple people requesting two or even all three of today's daggered additions (Rebel Galaxy Outlaw (x6), The Pale Beyond (x7) and Neo Cab (x9)) within a very short amount of time of them being added to the list, and to then see many more people requesting one or more of those same keys but getting nothing. (Bias disclosure: If I counted right, I was late myself asking for one of those keys, until UCrest withdrew two of their requests. Thank you, UCrest!)

I second this. I agree it feels off and I do not think I have much of a bias here, as I am a Prime subscriber myself, so I do not need to ask for these daggered keys.

Yeah you may have a point. I could institute a 24 hour wait period for people trying to 'acquire' every daggered key. However this only seems to be a problem when I move a batch of several keys to the daggered section all at once. Do you think it would be a better idea to only move one game at a time to the daggered section instead of a whole batch? Which one do you think sounds better?

I will say that personally, I found releasing the games one at a time was easier on me tracking everyone's requests when I tried doing that method. The only reason I did the multiple batch this time is because I was pressed for time doing RL stuff and didn't know when I'd be back to update the CG.

I'm in favour of spreading out the joy as equally as possible, with a secondary feeling that making people consider what they want to request (rather than "blindly" requesting everything which is available) is a good thing, so would recommend larger batches with an initial cooldown. One game at a time would still enable "blindly" requesting everything available, even if it'd be more randomized as to who'd benefit from it.

That said, your time is also an important consideration! By their very nature, these daggered keys aren't super high priority for anyone (otherwise they'd have been requested while in the regular section). So maybe good enough is good enough, and none of this is necessary.

I think you might be on to something gogtrial. While the batches would be a bit more work for me, by putting more options up at once and limiting it to one per 24 hour period, that gives people who don't normally visit the CG more of a chance to get something that they were wanting. I'll think about this for the next time and see if I can make an improvement. Good suggestion gogtrial. :)

Well, it is certainly not like in the "Ninja thread", but that actually doesn't matter much, because there is still an inherent advantage for people having more time as well as for people living in a "more suitable" time zone than others. Keep in mind that BenKii is living somewhere in America, that makes it almost impossible for people to be the first who have to sleep or work whenever he is likely to post updates in his spare time. Especially when changes to the list are to be expected (because the month ends, for exapmle, when usually also "starred" games are ditributed), significantly more people seem to post wishes (probably not only because their "cooldown" time ends).

Please think twice. We've seen multiple times low interest in "starred" games already, some have even gone to the "standard" section. So if a donor would object to a split, it could even come worse: whenever only people "needing" parts of such a "package" actually participate in the raffle, or the "wrong" person wins, the winner would simply let the "unneeded" parts expire. I don't think that everyone here is fair enough to not take part in a raffle at all if they want something while a split is not allowed.

Well that's why I try to mix it up whenever I add games to the list or when I change over to the new month because I'm aware of the different time zones that everyone hails from. Could be morning, afternoon, evening, twilight zone; ya never know when an update may strike. ;)

Exactly the same issue came to my mind today after seeing this as well.
I think the rules should be slightly changed in one of 2 ways, whatever works better for you:

1) Make a 2nd rule in addition to "no edited posts" (which already serves as a "10-minutes-or-until-someone-else-had-a-chance-cooldown") saying that multiple "daggered" requests within X hours (can then be even below 24, I think, because 24 would force you to wait that long) will get fulfilled "rotated": first request of 1st person, 1st request of 2nd person, … 1st request of last person, 2nd request of 1st person, … 2nd request of last person, … last request of last person inside that time window – until either keys run out, or all requests are fulfilled. The problem I see here is that you probably have to set a "stop signal" for further requests from time to time, similarly to "starred" games to make that work, and all those time calculations can get difficult, because you can't apply the rules only to posts made "in quick succession", otherwise that would probably be "exploited" by some people.

2) Change the rule "one request per post", and allow only "daggered" requests to be grouped, allowing an "order of preference" to be given (but no editing, so people can't change their mind even while you are already "at work"), this along with a "cooldown" time (X hours) also for "daggered" requests.

Simply 24 hours "cooldown" would almost enforce "batched" updates of soon expiring keys, because people can't know when the next one comes, but if they don't request the 1st one now, probably all keys will have gone: you're at risk missing even your favourite game, while waiting for the 3rd one, for example, because you don't know when it becomes "daggered", and in which order. In tht past that wasn't strict in "expiration date order", but dependent also on demand and number of leftover keys.

Those are just thoughts, however, I'm not sure if one of those suggestions could work rather well, because most important is that it won't result in too much additional work.

If people think that having some limitations is better, I will not be against. But, I would not use a limited-time period. The 10-minutes between post is easy to track since it's automatically done by gog. To track 24hours between request could be not so easy. I may suggest one request per user per round. I mean, if you ask for a game, you cannot ask for another one until you have received the first game. Some rounds could last 24 hours, or sever days, but I think it is more easier to track that one user has not made several requests in the round

P.S. I made a mistake in a word!

I had this exact same thought. Like how would I track the individual 24 hour period for each person? Having people wait until I actually give them the code before they request another is kinda the idea I was thinking of implementing.

Well, I've seen (an example only, nothing I'd make the requesting users responsible for) altosy and MyTropico receiving 3 games each in this one last distribution round, while *)LynXsh, TheBigCore, csanjuro and Snizzle012 didn't receive the single one they wanted.

So I think there should be some means to distribute games more evenly where the pure luck of seeing an update first is not predominant. Some people would get a few games less, but overall we'd have more happy "winners" each month. Having "luck" "decide" isn't bad at all, but with equal, ideally time-independent, "non-connected" chances, not that kind where the winner takes all.
I think this "round approach" is an interesting thought. This forces people to think about their preference before simply posting all their potential wishes without even mentioning what they want most, while indeed being easy to track (no name must occur twice in the list of "giftees of the round").

*) Apart from winning the Kerbal DLCs…, it's just an example making clear that the 6 games could have been given to one person each (grantig everyone at least one wish), instead of 3 games for just 2 of them.

Listen, I'm not going to discuss this further. I'd really, really appreciate it if you toned down your comments, because I take this specific case personally: I requested The Pale Beyond and Rebel Galaxy Outlaw.

First, I wasn't trying to "acquire" every daggered key. And no, it's not because I didn't request Neo Cab.

Second, I wasn't "blindly" requesting anything at all, and, as stated above, certainly not "everything that was available".

Maybe you can observe your judgment mistakes, or at least the straw man in your "reasons", by answering each of the following questions:

• Regarding "spreading out the joy": can you remind me how long those games were available to be requested?

• Can you remind me when those Amazon subscription games were announced to the public? Days? Weeks? Months? Is it really so hard for people, not just me, to take a careful look at each entry and decide what seems interesting and what doesn't? How is that "blind" requesting?

• How often do such daggered batches happen?

• What exactly does "daggered" mean?

• What are the written rules regarding daggered keys?

• So where is the abuse?

My request again: please amend your judgments, or keep your personal feelings private. I'm not asking you not to be bitter at all. That's everyone's right, after all.

Obviously, I also can't hide the fact that the organizer himself is expressing himself in such a poor way about the people he is serving. And then I have to ask: if this is really how you feel about people, is that influencing how you handle the donated keys and the length of the drawing periods?

Ben: if you need to take a breath, feel free to do it, man. You've done such titanic labor here, which I personally appreciate greatly. Just don't taint that with such lazy judgments that are already starting to cross into questionable actions.

Then, I also received insults from a guy who created a third-party site to alleviate GOG's store weaknesses...

Maybe you haven't noticed it, but by now you are public-facing figures in the forum. If you expect people to take their lead from you, then you owe everyone basic respect, otherwise, you risk losing the respect people already give you. At the very least, you should keep your bitter opinions to yourselves.

Thanks.

I tottaly agree with you. I wiish we could find a nice solution :-)

The games in the daggered section were literally sitting there for weeks hoping that someone would just come along to claim it. Nobody should feel guilty if they got two of them as those games looked like they were going expire. I'm glad they all got forever homes in someone's account.


I completely support this change!

Trying to keep tabs on if someone made more than one post in a 24-hour period would be turning this project into too much work. I'm completely against anything that doesn't keep maintaining this project as simple and easy as possible.

You have my apologies. I did not intend my comments to be abusive toward you, nor any of the other people who requested games - but I can see how they came across that way. Particularly the "blindly" (which I put between double quotes to indicate in some way that it's not the actual behaviour, but rather the seeming of it) does suggest a mindset which is not justified. I was already thinking in generalized and hypothetical terms when I wrote that, but I should've been more aware of how it'd apply to the case at hand.

I have never considered myself to be a public facing figure in the forum - but I guess I can see how I am. I'll try to be more aware of the weight my words might carry when I express myself. (I'm not perfect, so please call me out when I make mistakes!)

FWIW, I am not bitter. I actually got the game I requested as UCrest (who originally requested three games) edited and invalidated two of their requests. It's when I noticed that super positive gesture, as well as the large number of people behind me who wouldn't receive anything of what they requested, that I thought I should bring up this proposal again. So, not "these people are doing something wrong", but "wouldn't it be nice if these other people could get something as well".