- Mark as unread from here
- Posted: 2 years ago
-
Post #1231
AlexCheckMate
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.
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.
"Lead by example" (Baldoni)
Try it.