Well, there can only be multiple requests for daggered titles, since for the regular ones you're limited to one per month and can't make either/or requests. And since the daggered titles are meant to have no limits, then, well, this is a limit...

There is a simpler solution. Instead of making all the games daggered at once, the day for each game could be chosen depending on the date of expiration and number of keys in stock. This will spread request load throughout the month and make distribution process better organised.
Some people always count. Others never bother to check, if the key is still available. Nothing changes regardless of the request load.

Why isn't the Time for Adventure Bundle a starred key? Shouldn't someone get a 3-month cooldown for claiming 3 standard games in one go?

https://www.gog.com/en/game/time_for_adventure_bundle

Probably because of the current sale price: 1.79 euro it's really cheap.
In my opinion it's a real bargain; it's a shame I bought it earlier, at a lower discount (4.99 euro)...

€4,99 is still the current price in Poland. (€5,09 in most (?) of the eurozone, but for some reason even cheaper in Scandinavia, down to only €2,09 in Denmark.)

€1,79 is probably how it shows up for you as the store page partially detects you owning some (but not all) of its contents. Given that you already own it, if you now add it to your cart, the checkout page should tell you that it's completely free.

For me, it is a a 5.09 euros. Think that the price of this bundle automatically lowers based on the games you already own. I do not own any game, so I have to pay full price.

You are right: when I try to buy it as a gift I get the price 4.99 euro.

Would still be way too low for it to be starred. (Not that I agree with the concept of starred games in itself, of course.)

I agree with the first sentence (but not the second one, in brackets ;)

Seems like a pretty reasonable management idea to me and in response to AlexTerranova actually a lot simpler to understand and for BenKii to manage. Everyone still drops in around the start of the month, to see what they want from the daggered list and just spaces their requests out between key acquisitions. It's also sensible because it aligns with the one game per post rule and lessens the chance of annoying forum merges/edits.

I have Prime so I've no dog in this race, but that won't be forever and as someone from a very different timezone to most users it would be nice to know I'd have some extra space to ask for a game I really want next to the riot of requests taking place on the 1st of the month around the time most users know BenKii will be online doing God's work. I don't see this penalizing anyone but potentially enabling community members all over the globe to post a request on time and simultaneously lessen the workload on the Captain.

No forum activity games should still be free-for-all I feel goes without saying.

No, it isn't. Users should keep in mind several different concepts at the same time:

- one per month;
- one per cycle;
- one per post;
- unlimited without requiremets

Which is really confusing, especially for newcomers and people, who rarely ask for games here.

What I suggest, does not overwhelm people with unnecessary limits. And does not add any excessive work for giveaway maintainer either.
Some people might be busy the whole day, multiple days in a row. They can still miss daggered keys, if all of them are listed on the first day of the month.

Making games daggered on different dates and at different time will allow more users to participate in giveaway.

This is a good argument in general, but I think "people who rarely ask for games" wouldn't particularly suffer from this, as it's pretty much only long-term regulars who ask for multiple daggered games in a row. Additionally, this particular change would give a higher chance for "people who rarely ask for games" to get a game they otherwise might've missed, so it seems like a worthwhile tradeoff for them, easily offsetting any chance of confusion.

I think we'd all adjust swiftly enough to 金黒's proposed change, and where not, there'll be plenty of people around to point out the current rules.

There's nothing preventing BenKii from doing this, and I seem to recall him in fact doing so a couple of months ago, so I suspect he is batching the keys like this on purpose, preferring to have just one or two peaks per month to deal with, rather a flurry of requests every couple of days.

Thanks for your considered reply.

"Games listed as 'Daggered' are the exception to the one game a month rule. As many 'Daggered' games as desired can be requested—even if a 'Standard' key was already received. The only limitation is that just one 'Daggered' game at a time may be requested with subsequent requests only valid/admissible after the previous one has been fulfilled (granted by the Moderator).

"One game per post; One 'Standard' key per month; One 'Daggered' key per moderator update/granted request."

!!!No Forum Activity!!!-labelled games can be requested by anyone, at any time without restriction.

There we are, hopefully cleared up the confusion.

"Some people might be busy the whole day (24-hours?), multiple days... ", not sure how to answer this, it doesn't seem to argue my points so I must be misunderstanding. More than happy to engage if you could explain what you mean here and how it contradicts a slowing down of the request system giving global community members a greater chance of requesting games in time.

Indeed, Amazon might be slowing down the GOG giveaways going forward so you'll see, if it can ease your load a little bit great, otherwise the cost of adding / modifying rules might not be worth it anymore.

Compared to the suggestion I shared earlier, it would share the benefit of spreading out the request processing load, yes, and add the nice bonus of keeping the rules as they currently are.
However, it would also still add to BenKii's load (he'd now need to manage and schedule tranches of keys each with their own "daggering" date, and as gogtrial34987 surmised he might not be up for the additional work), and it wouldn't change the "same users front-running the requests" and the "flurry of requests to be later denied because already over-requested" aspects of the current organization (these would just get spread throughout the month).

I was addressing the concern that only being authorized one request per "processing cycle" would lead some people to miss a now-rarer chance to get the key they want if the lone one they do request happens to be depleted and they consequently get denied, missing their chance and being set back "unfairly" because of that rule.
My point with regards to that was: one can always count, so it would be entirely up to the requester to ensure it doesn't happen, so that concern is moot.
Interestingly, I think that with the stakes of requesting an already over-requested key being higher, we could see less people "never bother[ing] to check". Or not, who knows…

That I agree with, it's already seemingly too complicated as it stands, so :\
I think it could (and would greatly benefit from, new rules or not) be overhauled for simplification and clarification, as Stiffkittin suggested, but hey: again, more work…

Well with vastly reduced key requests (I mean four forum pages of requests would become two overnight) it becomes a lot easier for the onus on tracking requested keys to rest at the feet of users. The other benefit is that folks will prioritize first and foremost the games they're most interested in playing—leaving room for other users to submit successful requests later on.