I'm busy the whole day, multiple days in a row. My online time is fragmented, and my timezone is poorly compatible for the vast majority of giveaways which land pretty much everywhere online. I thusly miss out on perhaps 95% of the giveaway draws here alone.

Can the entire GA be changed so it suits my schedule, please? /s

I find it a simpler task in comparison to re-processing the same users on each cycle.

Like 4thDown noted in the request thread: "only one background check in your masterlist, quick confirmation that my requests don't overlap, and the convenience of sending both keys in a single PM".
As your suggestion won't.) Same people would ask for the same keys, just wait a bit longer for the next opportunity ( cycle ).

***

However, we could replace one key per post with one post per cycle rule. Allowing multiple requests for keys, marked "without requirements" in a single post.

This is almost equal to your suggestion, but will neither complicate the rules nor give anyone any advantage.

Could very well be, whatever is easier for BenKii, he'll know.

Maybe "it would greatly reduce the impact of the front-running requests on the latecomers" would have been more accurate?
The point was that, if the front-runners can only request one key and have then to wait a couple days, although they can still catch their most coveted key first, the pool of options left to the latecomers would be much bigger as it wouldn't have yet been depleted by the early requesters.

Actually, how does it differ?
I'm not sure I fully grasped it.

I just wanted to say I like this idea. But we should talk about how to formulate the rule and about the limit. I mean, I wonder
if the limit should be one or higher (two?). Is this limit just for daggered keys or in general for any key? If the limit is for any key, it would be easier to understand, but suppose that the limit is one key per cycle (any key), I could not ask for a starred game and a daggered game in the same processing cycle, would that be problematic?

As I see it the suggestion just applies to daggered games, since it's the only source of congestion at the start of the month when they tick over. As written by 金黒 the only thing it adjusts is spacing out existing requests until a key is approved—it's pretty straight forward. No changing fundamental rules on the number of requests per post; no elaborate tranches of daggered keys across the month (which produce the same user disadvantages as the existing system). Just the spacing out of unlimited daggered requests over a few days to ease the burden on BenKii; also to allow a little room for users not free at the time of day they become available to access some desirable, low quantity game keys. Everyone still gets the same opportunity to ask for as many games as available, you just broaden the field a bit.

This.

I'm leaning towards this suggestion as it would be the simplest without needing to change any rules. And since I would mark games daggered at random instead of just the start of the month, it would stop the race to request that you see at the beginning of every month.

So, AlexTerranova's suggestion then, right? Meaning, unlocking (daggering) a small subset of the Amazon Prime keys at a time, throughout their expiration month?
No issue with that, whatever works best for you, but I believe this wasn't what Stiffkittin was (very aptly IMO) defending in his post, and I'm a bit confused now: I either got him or you wrong I think…

I have an idea, what if BenKii can Dagger any keys whenever he feels like it, BUT we can only have one active Daggered request at a time? So basically, you can only have one Daggered game "in the queue" until it's either granted or denied.

Of course, folks might still ask for more than one game, but only the first unedited Daggered request counts. Once that's sorted, you can jump back in for another shot.

Just tossing this out there, feel free to poke holes in it, sharpen it, or tell me it's brilliant. I can take it!

I suggested to replace one limit with another, instead of adding even more restrictions. It would be simpler for users to understand.
But it will change the rules ( in part of daggered keys distribution ), inevitably leading to confusion. Especially, if it's being applied only occasionally.

Do we really need one post per cycle limit, if you are going to mark games daggered at random instead of just the start of the month anyway?

I guess I got some things turned around. I thought it was Stiffkittin that was proposing to slowly dagger the Amazon games instead of all at once.

So in this case, I guess I would support AlexTerranova's suggestion. It saves from people having to learn a new rule and all I have to do is choose when each game goes daggered. Shouldn't be too hard since I know when each game expires.

That makes sense. Seemed weird to have a bunch of them daggered at the start of the month, that just asked for a flood of requests, especially since the start and end of the month are a flood of requests anyway. Requirements should be waived whenever some codes risk to be lost if not claimed, so having to do with the number left, how close they are to expiring, and how desirable they're likely to be.

If you're willing to assume the task of assigning daggered release schedules separately for each game, I also support the idea—that really rests on you. I think genuine confusion over the idea of slowing request frequency is a bit exaggerated and easily resolved by a single sentence statement, posted beneath the Daggered (†) Keys: heading in post #2. 金黒's suggestion also provides additional value for some users as I've pointed out previously but is a bit redundant if you're implementing a staggered release. Either way what's important is smoothing out the system for everyone and making the job of managing the giveaway less onerous.

If it's to ease up the workload a bit, trickling out the daggered games one by one will probably help a lot. If it's to make sure everyone gets something, not so much. Those who want all the games, and have time to check the site every day, several times a day, will still scoop up whatever gets released. Only now they will just grab whatever gets released first instead of whatever they want the most first, so it might actually lead to fewer people getting something.

Also, it might get and increase of "X game if still available" posts.