Well, the "blindly" was in quotes, so I did not perceive that as an allegation, merely a reference to "just following the rules, not thinking much about the whole thing of 'distribution justice'". I also didn't notice an "insult" in any of the previous posts here in this thread.

I also don't see an "abuse", that's why I've written above (emphasis in bold added):
I've myself not given much thought about this issue until recently, it just came not to mind with one notable exception with an unexpected connection to today's "distribution round".

One day, December 2nd 2024, I received the incredible total amount of 8 games in just one "round". Having made my requests, I followed the thread, being aware that I might have been "grabbing away" too many keys at once. When I saw LynXsh considering to ask for the same "Kerbal Space Program" he today has won the DLCs for, I nominated him, offering to retreat from my own request in case he wouldn't get a copy, which he rejected at first.

When I studied the results BenKii had posted, LynXsh had also received a key, as well as almost everyone else; there were 2 rejected requests, one from a new user having edited the request, but that was for a "starred" entry not yet due, so easily resolved – the other one for a game I had not requested, but I'd seen copies left in the list, asking BenKii this turned out to be an error.

So despite me having received 8 keys, there were still some left, and there was no need to step back for me in the end, back then I thought with some personal responsibility such issues could be avoided.

Later, on other occasions I received 2 or 3 games at once, not really thinking about "justice issues", now being aware that it is uncommon to waste many thoughts about other people receiving less than oneself unless this is a truly outstanding case like with those 8 games at once – or as recently in some german threads – in a much "smaller environment" with fewer people. There, you can simply discuss who's getting what, but not in a huge giveaway like this one. This needs to be rule based, if not, it will quickly become too much work for the organiser.

So those events have brought me here today, just to see that gogtrial34987 brought up the issue as well, and I honestly cannot see, 4thDown, why you're thinking that some statements made here were meant specifically against you.

No judgement or personal singling out detected in the og comments for me. A remarkably sensitive reaction to a perfectly reasonable observation and response from the organiser. Everyone who's followed the existing rules and conventions is 100% entitled to every game they were awarded and I see no objection to that here.

That said, there's always room for improvement and I support the suggestion of one daggered request awarded per round. It's simple to understand, fair and leaves BenKii free to continue managing the giveaway on his own schedule, without excess additional effort. The recent adjustments to cooldowns etc. have had imo a very positive effect on participation, visibly making people consider what they really want to ask for most. I see no reason the philosophy shouldn't be extended to less desired daggered keys. My only note might be that [NO FORUM ACTIVITY REQUIRED] tagged games could be the exemption, as they're the ones that urgently need redeeming.

So what's wrong with a starred game going to standard if there's no interest in it as starred? And it's not like there's any danger of such games expiring, since only free keys expire, not purchased ones, and I'd think (and hope) no freebie would get starred. And the fact remains that nobody's entitled to receive games. If some are only interested in getting something that the donor isn't interested in offering, they'll sit it out and the donation will wait for a recipient who's interested in what the donor's actually offering and not in what they'd want to be offered, however long that'll take.

About the limits for daggered requests issue, as it was already pointed out, there's no reliable way to track a 24-hour wait period, since the forum doesn't list actual timestamps. And one request per calendar day wouldn't change much (whose time zone? how can you reliably check whether it's seconds or minutes on either side of midnight?). So yeah, the only option out of those offered that may make sense is one request per "round", can't request more until you receive.
But seeing as the daggered keys are (or should be) those that are in danger of expiring, and which can often be obtained in other ways as well (the expiring keys thread, maybe the ninja one too), we should want them to be taken asap, to avoid that risk. So keep it simple, once a key's daggered, there should be a reason for that, and the cooldown's waived. And when it's in imminent risk of expiring, all rules, including eligibility, are waived.
And besides, if somebody really wanted a key that ended up daggered, they'd have requested it before that, and "paid" the cooldown for it. If they're waiting for it to be daggered, it means it doesn't particularly interest them, at least not enough to sacrifice anything for it, so complaining that someone else who may have the same mindset got it first is hypocritical to say the least.

I wonder if a simpler solution could be not to offer in daggered section several games at the same time. This time, BenKii put Rebel Galaxy Outlaw, The Pale Beyond and Neo Cab the same day. If BenKii tries to avoid this "coincidence", I mean if each one of them is offered in different days, different times, will we have resolved the problem? I just want to know what other fellow gogers think :-)

Nothing wrong with that, I think you misunderstood my point completely.
I'm against forbidding "split requests" only.
Reasons:
1) Sometimes low interest, so it's not useful to even "artificially decrease" that by forbidding "split requests" (probably hoping for a lower "cooldown" time if not taking the whole "package").
2) Whenever a person already having parts of it decides to request a "package where splitting is forbidden" nonetheless, the "unneded parts" will expire.

The 2nd argument is the main one here. Having the donor decide that splits must not happen won't make sure that the whole "package" goes to a person who really wants all of it. It increases the probability a bit, but will occasionally result in parts of such a donation expiring – whenever somebody requesting it (just for a missing DLC or something alike) does not care.

Your time in running this GA must be respected by the community. Whatever works best for you is what should happen.

No, I think the "one request per round" approach is by far better. Your suggestion would decrease the freedom of "working times" for BenKii, because keys often expire in the same week or even on the same day. He would then have to carefully plan a time schedule (keeping demand per game in mind) in order to make sure that some keys don't get held back until he's forced to release the remaining ones as "NO FORUM ACTIVITY REQUIRED", those must be "free for grabbing" (with all those drawbacks we're aiming to overcome with this "time-stretching" measure) simply to avoid expiration or last-minute-feeding to the Ninja thread. It would still not solve the problem that people with much spare time at times when BenKii is more likely to make an update have got an advantage.

I'd like to add that only the "normal" entries in the "Expiring Temp Freebies:" section of the "daggered" category needs additional restrictions, those from "DLC:", "Past Freebies:", as well as the "Other available daggered keys" spreadsheet should remain free to claim just like the "!!!NO FORUM ACTIVITY REQUIRED!!!" entries.

That'd basically create a "daggered but not really" category...
The donor is able to see what is claimed, and if a part of a code that they don't want split isn't claimed (likely because it can't be claimed, the recipient already having it) they can offer it again, so it won't be wasted. But, more importantly, they'll see that the recipient violated their rule and can complain, which should result in a penalty in the community GA for such a recipient. So no, there's no danger of such titles being wasted and there should also be none of people making such requests... or at least not more than once.

With "additional restrictions" I was referring to the "one request per round" rule.
We already have got 2 kinds of "daggered": with and without "activity requirenment".
This new rule, however, is only needed for keys changing from one of the "higher" categories (with waiting time at least until next month) to "daggered", because they're about to expire soon, but not soon enough to have the "activity requirement" lifted as well. Why not keeping it simple in this regard? More work for BenKii, because people would having to wait until they get granted their first key, then request another one, maybe from the spreadsheet, where it is likely "sitting" since years. Such requests for several keys with "almost non-demand" (or expiration date of tomorrow) should be handled in "one transaction" like it is now.
Oh, I wasn't aware that this is always possible.
Explanation of my thoughts:
A key has got several "states":
1) (not) already redeemed
2) (not) in your own library
3) (not) already expired
As a donor, you can only see in all cases whether a key is still available, if GOG always tests 1) before 2).

If you purchased the key, it's in your orders history, with all included titles there, and you can see who redeemed it, if anyone. The situation where you can't check is if it's a key received as a freebie, either from a 3rd party source or given by GOG because you already own what's being given away. But such games won't be starred (one would hope).

Eh, I've got no problem with multiple games being dropped into the daggered section at once. Whether for time constraint reasons on BenKii's part, or due to convergent expiry dates. If anything, having several titles in the drop gives more chances for an even distribution. Folks who turn up first still get their pick of game, only fair, but it democratises the rest of the batch; allowing more people a chance to snap up a desired title without incurring a cooldown.

As for Cavalary's comment about multiple tiers of daggered keys I don't believe this is the case. There are already different conditions for eligibility, while some are expiring, others not. They're all still available to participants regardless of cooldown, without triggering one. Adding a limited "wait until you receive it, before requesting another" speed bump is an intuitive way of spreading the codes to more people, without changing the status or 'properties' of a daggered key.

Tweaking the #6 rule from "Also, regardless if you are on cooldown from a game request, you may request as many Daggered keys as you like just be sure that you make one request per post" to something like "Also, regardless if you are on cooldown from a game request, you may request multiple Daggered keys; just make one request at a time and be sure that you wait to receive a daggered key before requesting another" could be sufficiently clear and easy to accept. Adding an explicit caveat for [NO FORUM ACTIVITY REQUIRED] tagged games is also a possibility.

I think the other "daggered sections" should also be exempt from the new rule.
The better distribution (to more different people) does really only apply to keys newly being changed from "non-daggered" to "daggered", so only those should be covered by this rule.

I'd split the daggered section into 3 parts:

1) "without restrictions" (expiring very soon = !!!NO FORUM ACTIVITY REQUIRED!!!)
2) only with forum activity requirement (= all the rest)
3) with forum avctivity requirement and "only one per round" (= recently moved from "non-daggered" to "daggered")

It is of no use to force people to request those "past freebies" (and "permanent freebies" from the spreadsheet, which are only of use for people like Germans having difficulties to get "Postal" themselves from GOG) with many keys left since years only one at a time, that only results in BenKii having more work granting those.

It happens once in a while that people newly discover those, and look around the lists, requesting everything they're interested in and not already owning. I've seen 2 such occurences today/yesterday.

I don't disagree with you, that the wait time is only really relevant to 'Expiring Temp Freebies'. It could indeed be made to apply only to this category and I'd be fine with that (NO FORUM ACTIVITY could perhaps be placed under their own heading). However, I'd argue making the change very granular and detailed may be unnecessarily complicated. 'Past Freebies' and 'DLC' are for the most part not going anywhere, so I also don't see it as a big deal to just make it a blanket rule for the sake of simplicity.

As for creating undue extra work; the difference between assiging a key to a post on one day, as opposed to another, is a matter of opening a new chat message. For keys, as you point out, that are rarely requested.

My main question remains why are there games moved to daggered before they're in real risk of going to waste and therefore reaching the no activity requirements threshold?
If you actually want a game, you should ask for it while it's on a higher "tier" and "pay" with the appropriate month(s) of cooldown. If that cooldown's waived, it means that it's decided that the title should go to whoever, as soon as possible, so it's no longer a matter of who wants it (because, again, those who do should have been willing to take the cooldown for it earlier anyway), but of who it may be given to.