Moderator: Community Team
Challenge games usually need to finish within 1 month of the challenge month (so by end of March here) to count towards the score.dyrtydog wrote:Good Lord...you know this will wont be finished until February 2019 as slow as some of these players play
I am in 50 of these things and there is no dog-named way this will be over before the end of this year.
Several players milk the number of games and SIT
so, to heck with it....if it is unlimited games --i might as well join the crowd and let February Challenge 2017 end in 2019
Did not intend an argumentative tone, apologies!CatchersMitt14 wrote:Fine, I'll add the stars to the OP each month. It's not worth my time to argue over such a minor thing.
it is to cut down on you answering this question all the time,I view it as a benefit to you.Sorry you dont see it that way.CatchersMitt14 wrote:Fine, I'll add the stars to the OP each month. It's not worth my time to argue over such a minor thing.

For the scenario challenges, no. This is running how it was intended. A "spam it up" month for those who want to play countless games.dyrtydog wrote:love the idea...but just a suggestion
Can you limit a person to say joining maybe 100 games maximum..
might make it more fair for the working person, not just those that sit around all day and join 500 + games (cough, cough, confederate, cough cough cough)
Maximizing gives all the same opportunity to compete--even the freebies
all in all, great idea, but it needs a tweek (for the tweekers)
according to what I read, if a game is started within the window, game on--so to speakSwifte wrote:Challenge games usually need to finish within 1 month of the challenge month (so by end of March here) to count towards the score.dyrtydog wrote:Good Lord...you know this will wont be finished until February 2019 as slow as some of these players play
I am in 50 of these things and there is no dog-named way this will be over before the end of this year.
Several players milk the number of games and SIT
so, to heck with it....if it is unlimited games --i might as well join the crowd and let February Challenge 2017 end in 2019

ok thanks for the prompt and thoughtful response. I am just aksing to win a medal, how about making it fair under the same scenario....give players a maximum amount of games; for this one, agreed--your agenda is what it is, and it is a success. But for players trying to win a prize or a medal under these parameters, it is not exactly fair. My two pawsCatchersMitt14 wrote:For the scenario challenges, no. This is running how it was intended. A "spam it up" month for those who want to play countless games.dyrtydog wrote:love the idea...but just a suggestion
Can you limit a person to say joining maybe 100 games maximum..
might make it more fair for the working person, not just those that sit around all day and join 500 + games (cough, cough, confederate, cough cough cough)
Maximizing gives all the same opportunity to compete--even the freebies
all in all, great idea, but it needs a tweek (for the tweekers)
In general, sure, we will absolutely have months with the split level scoreboard making it much more conducive for those who play less games to win the challenge.
My overall goal for these challenges is variety. Some will appeal to you much more than others, and that is okay.

In order to qualify for the challenge the game must start in the respective month and end in the following month. So in this case, the game must start in February and end in March.dyrtydog wrote:according to what I read, if a game is started within the window, game on--so to speakSwifte wrote:Challenge games usually need to finish within 1 month of the challenge month (so by end of March here) to count towards the score.dyrtydog wrote:Good Lord...you know this will wont be finished until February 2019 as slow as some of these players play
I am in 50 of these things and there is no dog-named way this will be over before the end of this year.
Several players milk the number of games and SIT
so, to heck with it....if it is unlimited games --i might as well join the crowd and let February Challenge 2017 end in 2019
CatchersMitt14 wrote:Notes
- Games must start between CC Time: 2017-02-01 00:00:00 and CC Time: 2017-02-28 23:59:59 to be considered for the challenge.
- Wins will count until CC Time: 2017-03-31 23:59:59
- Any issues will be solved by me, CatchersMitt14, and my word is final.
It is completely fair - everyone is bound by the same rules in order to play this challenge. In terms of the February 2017 CA Medal, are you maybe missing the part where you only need one win to earn it?dyrtydog wrote:ok thanks for the prompt and thoughtful response. I am just aksing to win a medal, how about making it fair under the same scenario....give players a maximum amount of games; for this one, agreed--your agenda is what it is, and it is a success. But for players trying to win a prize or a medal under these parameters, it is not exactly fair. My two pawsCatchersMitt14 wrote:For the scenario challenges, no. This is running how it was intended. A "spam it up" month for those who want to play countless games.dyrtydog wrote:love the idea...but just a suggestion
Can you limit a person to say joining maybe 100 games maximum..
might make it more fair for the working person, not just those that sit around all day and join 500 + games (cough, cough, confederate, cough cough cough)
Maximizing gives all the same opportunity to compete--even the freebies
all in all, great idea, but it needs a tweek (for the tweekers)
In general, sure, we will absolutely have months with the split level scoreboard making it much more conducive for those who play less games to win the challenge.
My overall goal for these challenges is variety. Some will appeal to you much more than others, and that is okay.
As an aside, I do not see limiting games as fair at all. Play as many as you would like or not. Again, we will absolutely have months with the split scoring system - play X number or fewer games and wins are worth more than if you exceed X number of games. Those are not the rules for this month. When they are the rules, we will still not be putting a cap on the number of games an individual can play for the challenge, it will be each player's choice as to which scoring rubric they would like to use.CatchersMitt14 wrote:MEDAL CRITERIA
Tokens are for WINS only.
ONE WIN is required for a CA Medal (any token).
As I think someone has said before playing a lot of games is a challenge in its self,I dont think limiting players to the amount games they join is fair. A plus with this challenge one win gets a medal so no reason free players can not try for this.CatchersMitt14 wrote:It is completely fair - everyone is bound by the same rules in order to play this challenge. In terms of the February 2017 CA Medal, are you maybe missing the part where you only need one win to earn it?dyrtydog wrote:ok thanks for the prompt and thoughtful response. I am just aksing to win a medal, how about making it fair under the same scenario....give players a maximum amount of games; for this one, agreed--your agenda is what it is, and it is a success. But for players trying to win a prize or a medal under these parameters, it is not exactly fair. My two pawsCatchersMitt14 wrote:For the scenario challenges, no. This is running how it was intended. A "spam it up" month for those who want to play countless games.dyrtydog wrote:love the idea...but just a suggestion
Can you limit a person to say joining maybe 100 games maximum..
might make it more fair for the working person, not just those that sit around all day and join 500 + games (cough, cough, confederate, cough cough cough)
Maximizing gives all the same opportunity to compete--even the freebies
all in all, great idea, but it needs a tweek (for the tweekers)
In general, sure, we will absolutely have months with the split level scoreboard making it much more conducive for those who play less games to win the challenge.
My overall goal for these challenges is variety. Some will appeal to you much more than others, and that is okay.
As an aside, I do not see limiting games as fair at all. Play as many as you would like or not. Again, we will absolutely have months with the split scoring system - play X number or fewer games and wins are worth more than if you exceed X number of games. Those are not the rules for this month. When they are the rules, we will still not be putting a cap on the number of games an individual can play for the challenge, it will be each player's choice as to which scoring rubric they would like to use.CatchersMitt14 wrote:MEDAL CRITERIA
Tokens are for WINS only.
ONE WIN is required for a CA Medal (any token).
This is a common complaint from members that have limited time. Then again, we also have members who want to play hundreds of games. Our mandate here is to have something for everybody. Every month is a little different. Some months the scoring formula favours playing lots of games; other months it does not.dyrtydog wrote: Can you limit a person to say joining maybe 100 games maximum..
might make it more fair for the working person, not just those that sit around all day and join 500 + games

CatchersMitt14 wrote:There are no active games left for this challenge. Since there are so many medal winners (138) I will begin awarding CAs in sets. This will take me a decent amount of time so please be patient if your medal is awarded well after one of your friends.

CatchersMitt14 wrote:Mmk, Duk is last.
![]()
Unless of course we get a higher bid