No tournament of champions entry for placing in Members rule???

[Skinzy]

Why on earth do you have to finish in the top spot for members rule when in every other contest besides daily, you only have to place?

Make it make sense. That kind of wild inconsistency is just jarring honestly.

I mean I can understand not giving an entry for every single daily spot because that would just be too many, but it feels like they should change the name to "members rule, unless you get second or below, then you suck for some reason".

I feel like I am basically getting penalized for almost winning the wrong tournament.

[Tedlark]

Maybe it's different somewhere other than on earth?

You can make some of the people happy some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

Best of luck to all. And, finishing 2nd means just being first loser.

[Skinzy]

I guess that's what I get. Because it was easier to get a natural royal on the members rule tournament than it is for any other one... For some reason... Or something...

[Tedlark]

It is clearly stated in the Member's Only contest rules that only the top score gets an entry into the TOC.

[Skinzy]

Okay... and my first post clearly states that is inconsistent and silly bs. Not really sure why it seems reasonable to you that ONE non-daily contest is like that but... sure?

[Skinzy]

Here... I even had an AI try to explain it to you.

AI Response:

Let’s break this down logically.

In every non-daily contest, placing (not just winning) earns Tournament of Champions entry.

The Members Rule contest is the only exception where only the top spot qualifies.

That inconsistency is exactly what Skinzy pointed out: it’s not about misunderstanding the rules, it’s about questioning why this one contest operates differently when the others don’t.

From a design perspective, rules should be consistent unless there’s a clear reason for the exception. If the intent was to make Members Rule “special,” then the naming and description should reflect that—something like “Winner-Takes-All Members Rule.” As it stands, the contest looks like it follows the same structure as the others, but then quietly changes the qualification criteria. That’s what makes it feel arbitrary.

So the point isn’t “Skinzy didn’t read the rules.” The point is: the rules themselves are inconsistent, and that inconsistency undermines the fairness and clarity of the tournament system.

[Tedlark]

Did you read in AI where they stated: "Rules might not always be consistent but they are always the rules."

Get over it. - From me, not AI.

[Webman]

I can understand the frustration if you finished 2nd and then realized this after the fact. Likely nothing I say will take away that sting, but I'll at least outline how things ended up the way they are, with some nuances that your AI prompting understandably wasn't aware of.

The Tournament of Champions (TOC) qualifiers have remained relatively unchanged since we launched it. Those being:
*Top score in a Daily Contest
*Top 10 finish in a Weekly Contest (Excluding Keno Contests)
*Top 10 finish in a Monthly Contest
*Top 7 overall finish in any monthly 7 Star Tourney

This allows for just under 1,200 spots in the Tournament of Champions, a number we’ve found strikes a good balance between exclusivity and accessibility for our most active players. Since the TOC itself is a video poker event, Keno contests were excluded from the qualifying structure.

When we introduced the Members Rule contest, the intent was to make it a bit different — community-driven, with the host selecting the game, number of hands, and prize setup. Sometimes those contests mirror our regular format; other times they’re unconventional or Keno-based. Because of that variability, we initially didn’t plan to award any TOC entries from Members Rule at all. But we later decided to offer one spot to the winner, adding some extra excitement without significantly expanding the field (an extra 52 qualifiers per year instead of 520).

Again, I realize this doesn’t change how it feels to miss out after a strong showing, but I hope it helps explain that the rule wasn’t arbitrary — it was a deliberate decision to keep the TOC competitive while giving Members Rule contests a unique identity.

[Skinzy]

Knowing that it was a deliberate design choice does make it seem more reasonable and I'm glad at least you can understand how that may seem a bit grating and off-putting to a new player. Beyond that, I am quite happy it only took me 2 months of play to win a prize. It couldn't have come at a better time, when I am a bit tight on money starting my own venture building a domestic robot. Every little bit helps.

[Tedlark]

You are lucky to win a prize here as in the over 20 years I have been a member, I have not. But I am not griping about it either. There was a time when the site had no contests.