It is not a dispute, whether first-come-first-served is better, than random distribution. It has been discussed here multiple times already.

The matter of fact is, that lottery is not an acceptable option for a group of eligible community members, so they are excluded from starred section of giveaway entirely.
In exchange for a full-year cool-down. When they use this opportunity, they will not be able to ask for a non-daggered game for a very long time.
That is the point. People will use this option only for games, which they want that much.
If you write "I would like enter a draw for ...", the game will be a subject to a random distribution. If you "win a lottery", the cool-down will be 3 months.

If you write "I would like to take ... without a draw", you will secure the game for yourself. The cool-down will be 6 - 12 months.
If somebody has already expressed their desire to enter the draw, it will be distributed on a random basis ( as it is now ).

If nobody has entered a draw yet, then any eligible user can secure the game in first-come-first-served manner, if they wish. Once the game is secured for a particular user, it is no longer available for anyone else.

Sorry, I must have missed this discussion.

I called it a "lottery" for a lack of better words. I know that a lottery has a negative connotation because it is at least adjacent to straight gambling. You invest real money in the mostly vain hope of a big return. Some people are at risk developing the same kind of addiction as with gambling, ultimately ruining their entire livelihood if not intervened.
In comparison, the community giveaway (of starred games) seems innocent to me. You don't pay money. You don't "bet" anything, i.e. there is no loss of any kind if not chosen. Where I live, a simple "draw" (tombola) is a harmless activity without any age restriction or negative feelings attached. But maybe that is a cultural thing.

Or are we talking about religion and holy commandments? If so, that's a matter of personal belief and any discussion is pointless anyways and ends here.

For some people, any role-playing games with dice rolling and luck-based features must be pure evil then? *dice roll* Let's see who gets attacked first by the angry orc? *dice roll* You get hit by the sorcerer's fireball for *dice roll* 10 points of fire damage!

However, it can create a habit with harmful consequences.
Would you have any negative feelings, or consider it a loss, if from the large amount of starred-games a few would be taken in first-come manner?

Especially, knowing that nobody in their sound mind will waste 12-months cool-down for the game, they don't really want?
For some people it might be, and they should not be excluded either.

In my case it is a matter of strong personal principles.
Don't take it to extremes. You can't use computer without random functions involved. :)

Yes, I think I would consider it a loss. As with any first-come-first-served system, some people will seemingly always be late. Because it is a system that favors the younger, the fitter, the more dedicated, those willing or able to spend more time etc. What if you got no time to hover 24/7 over forums giveaways? Have a family? Or two jobs just to get by? Live in a different timezone? Well, too bad.

There have been games in the giveaway which were very high up on my wishlist. But I only became aware of those well after they had long been claimed. More so, seeing that they were claimed within in a few minutes after announcement also tells me that I wouldn't have had a realistic chance of claiming them either way. And I say that as someone who spends a comparatively large amount of time on the GOG forums.

12 months of cooldown might be a showstopper for very active members, but there is this huge mass of semi-active users that only pop in and out of the forums for short visits. There will always be someone eligible and ready to insta-claim good games. And don't underestimated people's energy. With long giveaway cooldowns, the use of multiple accounts will become more attractive.

--
On the other hand, I consider random distribution the fairest method possible. People are emotional and will always find reasons why they should be favored or why they feel at a disadvantage (Yes, see above, lol). Pure chance is impartial, it doesn't care about human characteristics and motives. Any discussions about poor vs rich, active vs inactive, positive vs negative, helpful or hateful become irrelevant with the throw of a dice. And that is a good thing in my opinion.

I don't fully understand the strong objection which a few people have against the random draw, but given that it's there, I would support the proposed scheme. Locking a few people out from the most 'desirable' games is the very opposite of what the starred category was designed for, so a seriously hefty time cost, together with needing to be the first to ask, feels like a good solution.

Of course, it adds yet more complexity, which BenKii would have to be willing to bear. There also needs to be some very clear phrasing so there can't be any "oh no, I didn't meant to ask for that" shenanigans, and the time cost should be prohibitive enough that this scheme will be very rarely used (if it'll be commonly used, that adds a lot of overhead around any later people interested in regularly entering the starred drawing who didn't notice the 'claim').

What do you lose, exactly? A theoretical opportunity to enter each and every possible draw?
Even increasing cool-down for standard keys from 1 to 2 months has made a significant difference. With 6 - 12 months cool-down and strong eligibility requirements, those games will be available for weeks.
All those accounts should be eligible and not look similar to each other. How could it be possible?
Indeed. But people will get used to it in time.
If this option becomes popular, it would mean one simple thing: people prefer first-come-first-served over random.

Unfortunately, users are very passive in expressing their opinions. Therefore, to know which system would work the best, we should test things ( like with 2 months cool-down for standard keys ).

Demand-pull inflation makes sense: too much demand chasing too little supply.
But built-in inflation is sneakier: folks jack up wage demands expecting price hikes, companies pass on the costs, and boom, you're stuck in a vicious spiral.

Say BenKii greenlights your idea (pay a 12-month cooldown to skip the raffle dice roll). What's stopping the next guy from pitching a straight-up bidding war? Or raffle fans banding together, each tossing in a +1 month cooldown to buy the right to keep it going? Peanuts for two players, but we've seen 10+ person raffles plenty. Twelve folks chipping in matches your 12-month penalty just to roll the dice (plus the winner's cooldown on top). And that's before fancier schemes pile on.

You see where this is headed, right? Death by a thousand fair tweaks.

Giveaways aren't about feeding every whim. They'd flop hard trying. They're for sharing what's available, first-come or fair raffle, no favorites.

Food for thought: If you're game for a 12-month cooldown, why not clock a couple extra hours and just buy the game yourself to satisfy such a huge crave?

Common sense. As simple, as that.
Good point. Just start with yourself and do not receive games from giveaways anymore. ;)

Such logic :-D

Cope hard :-D

Since AlexTerranova asked the opinion of others, I would say that, unfortunately, in many aspects of life too, there are many who cling to tradition for the sake of “such is the tradition”, meaning “something has started thus, and thus must continue forever”!! I’m referring to the “no draws in the giveaway” notion, in this case. No! Life changes, and needs change too. So, if something can be done in another, more beneficial (fairer, in this situation) way, then it must change too. For example, I’m with Cavalary, who suggests stricter eligibility requirements (even if I believe it would exclude me), but not with him (and others), who refuse any kind of draws.

No, it is out of scope of the current discussion.
That is simply not true. Refer to the verifiable facts, please.
Please, read the latest discussion with attention. Judging by your input, you have absolutely no idea, what I have suggested and why.

And that's why most refrain from expressing their opinion. Because they are getting attacked instantly. That's ok, no hard feelings.

I'm strongly support this opinion.

The main appeal of the draw system is to give a chance to win and play a game to those who don't check the thread or the forums as often as others do or can. First come first served, when thread updates were scheduled and announced beforehand, gave better chances to those users. But hasn't been the case for a while, and currently the starred category provides a workaround to that change allowing more people to participate and possibly benefit from the generosity of others.

Nothing against those who don't like the draw system and want to change it, but it seems we keep circling back to discussing different ways to dismantle it every so often. In this case and conceptually speaking, adding a first-come-first-served exception to the draw doesn't really make much sense to me. Might as well get rid of it entirely and use that occasion to simplify the process and the rules since we're at it. Personally, I wouldn't support any of those changes.