The current 12 best players on the site
  • 1323 posts
  • Page 82 of 89
AlexCheckMate wrote:
I would like to inquire about the current regulations for making it to The Dominating 12 list.

It used to be: To get on this list you need to have at least 30 games played in total and at least 5 games played in the last 15 days. (not yet changed on the page: https://dominating12.com/tutorial/thedominating12 ).

Is it now changed to playing in 5 non test games over the last 15 days? Or are there any other stipulations that we need to be aware of?
“Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

― Albert Einstein
dough_boy wrote:
Three simple rules:

Rule #1: Continue to compete and challenge yourself and others each month, not worrying about your D12 rank
Rule #2: See Rule #1
Rule #3: There are no other rules

PS - I agree with you that it should say "5 non-test" games (missing - ).
The_Bishop wrote:
I think it's clear/obvious that the 5 games have to be rated games (not test games), otherwise there would be no purpose on the 5-game requirement. However I've never seen anyone who plays more tests than real games, so likely it's the reason why it is not lightly expressed in the rules.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
God_of_War wrote:
5 games is SOOOOO low... i think I reached 100 pending/active games last week. 

It's not that difficult to keep track of that many games... there is a "note" section. 

Prove your worth and play the games with us bottom feeders... triple dog dare you all... (I know some of you do, we appreciate it!!)
Hi there!
dough_boy wrote:
The_Bishop
However I've never seen anyone who plays more tests than real games, so likely it's the reason why it is not lightly expressed in the rules.

Just go back and re-read the last few pages of this thread…
dough_boy wrote:
God_of_War
5 games is SOOOOO low... i think I reached 100 pending/active games last week.

I think the tough thing is that “free” accounts can only do 5 games at a time.
AlexCheckMate wrote:
dough_boy
Three simple rules:

Rule #1: Continue to compete and challenge yourself and others each month, not worrying about your D12 rank
Rule #2: See Rule #1
Rule #3: There are no other rules

PS - I agree with you that it should say "5 non-test" games (missing - ).

I think rule 1, 2 and 3 are nice. However, it is rather hard to use these as criteria to automatically extract a D12 list.
Besides, everyone who might want to try to be featured on the D12 list, should have a means of knowing what's expected.

As long as it's something quantifiable, I suppose we're good to go?
Looking forward to see an answer emerge.

-Alex
“Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

― Albert Einstein
dough_boy wrote:
Dude, you have the answer. Do #1 and have a minimum of 5 REAL games where you are risking rating. Not hard.

Got your 5 games? Great, your rating can be placed.
Matty wrote:
@God_of_war, the d12 should be achievable for non-premium members who only play long term games, including some fixed card games - in that way it's quite hard to top a lot of games played per month.

@Alex: Yes, the games have to be real games, test games don't count. They never have, it just hasn't been implemented in code because no one ever played many test games.
Maybe I'll come around to update the exact requirements to qualify for the d12 list. It can't fit on that d12 overview page because then the page will become a wall of text, instead of just a logical description of what you have to do without going into unnecessary details (as his Eminence correctly guessed).
In this case, unnecessary for everyone except Alex I suppose.

Please do note that currently nothing has been said about stringing games to go on forever and not finishing them, in order to keep active 'real' games open. But if that gets abused then we'll notice and act on it as well.

So yeah, just be a good sports. Play some genuine games genuinely and you'll qualify again. Right now you're just not doing that. Which is totally fine, I don't either. But then I don't get to be in the d12 list anymore, even though rank wise I'd still be.


P.S. I don't enjoy rules lawyering and shenanigans. I really don't enjoy coding in all kinds of exceptions just to make sure Alex cannot qualify anymore without tricks that make him appear to be a bad sports. Please don't make me.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
AlexCheckMate wrote:
I asked because I played in 7 games over the last 15 days before the last D12 update. 1 of them being a test game. Therefore I supposed that 6 would let me qualify, but I do not see myself on the list.

I'm not trying to enforce any lawyering of rules / shenanigans. Sorry in case I cause a ruckus, it's not intentional. Currently I'm in a position with less time, yet stay with the desire to try and qualify. As the rules changed (or didn't change - but a specification that I wasn't aware of, turned out to be different), I looked for options to adept to stay within the realm of being eligible to qualify (adding "simple" 1v1 games). A year ago, I had less time constraints and with fully normal (I guess that's still a subjective thing; some may disagree) play, I managed to fulfil the criteria without actively trying.

In my opinion, one shouldn't frown upon specific playing to achieve a goal, as long as it's within the rules that are linked to that goal. I'm sure everyone tries their best to pay as few taxes as possible and get as many tax returns as possible, within legal bounds of their respective communities.

Probably the game stringing is meant and I can see where it would be coming from. Do we know whether anyone has trouble to finish 5 games in the last 30 days (increased from 15) preceeding the list, due to playing in (several) games without increasing cards? I could imagine making this change would take away the stringing thought, possibly without any negative side effects/collateral damage.
“Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

― Albert Einstein
elysium5 wrote:
I would just like to say that this has taken up a lot of people's time for an original concept that should have been pretty simple, straight forward and intended to promote the idea of good competition and fairness.

This is like trying to explain to players that just because you put an *asterisk, or a dollar sign or an exclamation point..., etc. in place of a letter or letters in a word or phrase doesn't mean it is no longer swearing or vulgar, or saying we should rewrite all of the rules because they want every single specific example of what 'harassing other players' means written in the rules and so on and so on.

When a restaurant server asks, "Would you like a coffee or a tea?"

The technically correct answer would be "Yes" if you do indeed want something but do not follow it up with your choice because technically that is how the question is phrased.

This just upsets the server, wastes time and only succeeds in having a negative trickle down effect and impact on the entire rest of the restaurant, staff and customers.

The common sense and courteous response would be, "Yes, please, I would like a (insert beverage choice here), thank you!" because everybody understands what the question really implies.

Instead of giving your server a hard time, be nice because your server is working hard to please you and everyone else.

And oh yes, please don't forget to leave a tip;)
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
dough_boy wrote:
AlexCheckMate
In my opinion, one shouldn't frown upon specific playing to achieve a goal, as long as it's within the rules that are linked to that goal.

I am glad it is just your opinion because it is wrong. I guarantee you that if you asked everyone else on the site they would say what you did is not in the spirit of the "leaderboard". Honestly, if it were my site I would go back and see how many times you won the D12 game when you shouldn't have been in it and remove all of the extra double points.

You have lost all respect from me and probably others. I will continue to question and challenge every time I see you on the leaderboard.