players with less than 40 games declared best on the site

all sides seem to have relevant points.

My take would agree with genghiskhan ,that to be in the top 12 after a few games although earned is harsh on players who have played alot more games therefore become more vulnerable to the ups and downs of dice form and opposition.

Possibly to set mile stones before such rating is calculated (to encourage long term use of the site) an idea would be to set a minimum number of games played and also the player to have played in every game format(ie fog ,fixed) before rating can be qualified as this would mean players playing games that are not their strengths(ie 2 player).

Another criteria could be you need premium to gain such an illustrious heights as this would both benefit the site admins and also sort the false ranks from the true(as to pay your more likely to be a serious player) as for sure some games are won by targeting,teaming and just bad new player play(again no slur on current top 12)as games can be lost, not just because someone is better than you.

just some thoughts for what is a great site with very good people but for a few players who do let it down

why does it say post is by yourego.. lol just wondering

I was wondering where thaithai was, I miss playing against him. @ Matty, farimir has beating me twice. Once was when bluebird flipped out and suicided and the other time was a no card stalemate and I got back stabbed. The back stabbing I could definately tolerate as it was a clever, but dirty move. The suicide win was complete garbage.