Ouch Pheonix. Sorry to hear that. Was it a rubric as above? at a minium if you had everything you needed to play you should get a 3

I have never liked the sportsmanship scoring at tournaments. There are just too many ways to game the system and nobody ever comes out of it feeling satisfied (or at least, I never do).

The idea that I just had (so forgive me that it's not fully fleshed out) was that sportsmanship should be scored by people at a nearby table. That would be harder to accomplish, perhaps, but it would take away the opportunity for someone to "chipmunk."

If someone at a nearby table rated the game, and answered questions like:
- Did you like the look of player X's army on the table?
- Did player X seem prepared to play?
- Based on his behavior during the game, is player X someone you would be interested in playing?

That's probably not any better of a solution, but it makes it into a somewhat external evaluation, and thus a bit harder to chipmunk.

I like this checklist a lot.

Although I like the concept of 'open' sportsmanship, I think both players would have to hand over their scoring sheets to their opponents before revealing how they had scored their opponent.

Otherwise a player could hear what his opponent is scoring him and then change his score to match.

Hand it over to the judges you mean?

skyth wrote:Hand it over to the judges you mean?

No, to have an open system but to get rid of potential abuse after hearing what your opponent gave you, I was suggesting you'd both fill out your scores completely, then fold the sheet of paper and hand it to your opponent.

Then you'd both open your opponent's scoring sheet at the same time and see what you and your opponent gave each other and discuss the reasons why. Both players would then walk up to the judge's table and hand the other player's scoring sheet in.

Problem with that Yakface is if your a young player who is playing a very intimidating type that would make bikies quake in fear (yep; seen one of them - got a death threat from them too - what can I say; its my outstanding personality )

They may inflate the score to appease the opponent.

Aeon Death threats are not good sportsmanship. I would have the back of anyone that "stuck by their guns" and did the right thing....

I like that Idea Yakface. Does anyone know who to talk to about this? Maybe we can work with the GT organizer and see if we can have a test run in baltimore on a system where people can discuss why the gave the bad marks.

nopes, not good sports at all but the guy was allowed to stay in at the GT even with the organiser listening. I still had to play him in the next round.

That said we made up and it was all happiness after; but at the time I was wondering if GW was going to have a lawsuit on its hands - could be why they dont have GTs here anymore

frgsinwntr wrote:@ don_mondo

Do you think it would be possible to have a set of judges there to review the sportsmanship scores as they come in. There are around 170 spots in the tourny which means you would need to review 85 sets of scores turned in over a 30 min period. If one judge were to do this it would alot very little time per match... but how about if there are 10 judges reviewing this or better yet 10 volenteers. This could get done very quickly and it only takes about 2 min to review the scoring effectively. If there are problems this would be where the judges could penalize the ones who are incorrectly with deductions to the forms, -1 point for the first offense, -10 for the second and -20 for the third, ejection for the tourny for the 4th.

How many judges are at the typical GT?

Let's see, typical GT staff for the entire event is probably around 15 personnel, IIRC. Course, that's for the whole thing, 40K, WHFB, and LOTR. Now, there's usually a couple of staff standing in front of the judge's table accepting the scoresheets, making sure that you both entered the same scores, ie making sure I didn't put a win for me and you put a win for you, so it wouldn't take more than another few seconds to look at the Sports scores and let us look at each others scoresheets. Then the judge is handy to mediate if there are any bad feelings about the scores.
@Yak, I think that doing after turning them over to the judge would work better, gives an impartial arbitrator in case there are any bad feelings re the scores. Do it out in the tables and someone is more likely to vent than they would if standing in front of the judge's table.

Hi guys

Interesting discussion. Some of you may have noticed that the Sportsmanship checklist we are using this year is very similar to the Adepticon Checklist used in their Championships. When we discussed our Sportsmanship scoring we came down to a few key issues and questions.

Why have sportsmanship scoring?
How impactful should it be?
Should a checklist include subjective questions?
What balance should there be in the subjective/objective?

The answers we came up with, based on combined decades of playing in and running tournaments as well as listening to our tournament goers, are as follows.

1) We have Sportsmanship scoring to ensure players know their behaviors are under review. More fun is had when people are positive and on their best, most considerate behavior.
2) We felt that last years scoring was too impactful and, although zeroes were rarely given, the variance potential for pure subjectivity was too high.
3) If the checklist is about something as subjective as sporting behavior then yes it certainly should.
4) The current balance is 5 sub and 5 obj with two of the subjective leaning more towards objective answering (if that makes any sense). We are happy with this ballance as we feel that playing a great game against a prompt, efficient, fun, and well-rounded opponent means you'll be giving out a ten. Playing against a prompt, efficient a-hole means you'll be giving out a 5. Playing against a fun, well-rounded opponent who is disorganized means you'll be giving a 6 or a 7.

Those players who come just to win have a very clear checklist of how they need to approach each game with regards to timing, materials, army build, and in game behavior. If they are able to achieve all the checks then they will have provided a good game (hopefully great) for their opponent. This is the true aim for this checklist.

I expect that at our GTs this year we'll see a lot of folks with scores of 50 for sportsmanship, and the lowest score being around 30. I expect the average to be 42-45. At the sharp pointy end of the stick things will be very tight, and behaving well at each game will be very important.

As for us all being adults who can deliver and take constructive criticism, that may be the case here in this thread, but it certainly is not the case in a competitive environment. Passions run high and the right words are not always at the ready. While open sportsmanship is a wonderful ideal, I still feel that, in the heat of the moment, the bulk of our hobbyists are unable to avoid the nastier elements of confrontation.

Judges. We typically have 15-20 staff and volunteers at each US GT. These folks are typically chosen for their experience, enthusiasm, ad knowledge of their particular area (rules or painting or data entry). Unfortunately very few of them have had training in true conflict resolution/mediation. Many have plenty of life experience in those areas, particularly when it come to the hobby, but formal training? No. Is this another ideal or something we can work towards? I think it's both and something we'll discuss over the coming season.

I hope this helps everyone understand where we're coming from, and thanks for the feedback.

Cheers
Dave Taylor
GW US Community Development Manager

Thanks Dave for coming to the thread

I did not think of things from the training perspective and I kind of give people alot of credit when it comes to recieving feedback (probably because I work with a very diverse population in school). Hopefully there can be some additions to this later on and I am glad you guys are working on developing better systems. Thanks for the information

Rich T

P.S. See you in Baltimore !

Thanks for popping in, Dave! You’re doing a heck of a job demonstrating how responsive you and your staff are to constructive feedback. I am definitely buying you a beer this year.

Furthermore, I hereby encourage everyone reading this thread to buy Dave a beer (or an appetizer if he’s already drunk) when you see him at Edgar’s or another appropriate venue this year.

Anyway, back on topic, I think the system you’ve got is one of the better ones possible. (Mostly) objective sports scoring is a great concept, and one a lot of folks have been working on in the last couple of years. I think you’re really on track on just about all of your scoring this season. I miss comp, and am looking forward to you working some version of it back in at some point, but aside from that I’m hard pressed to come up with anything to criticize.


FYI: If anyone has any interest, the link below contains the tourney rules for the last few tournaments I ran, which have a similar system. Though mine is perhaps a little too complex and needs a little re-jiggering:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/153188.page

Dave,

I think #1 is a bit of a wash--aren't 50 points "up for grabs" for sports and 100 is what is available for battle points?

I guess my conundrum is this, and this is just for me personally--and I know it's a public forum, so you can hit me on the head with a brutal-as-need-be public answer.

I usually end my games in half the time it takes others.

I don't show any emotion anymore, as I got chewed by Jeff Hall way back in the day for cursing up a storm when I lost some critical units. So I appear pretty passive aggressive, when I'm not really but only people who play me would know this.

How do I get even a 30? I've never not been knocked down for eliminating my opponents army in 3 turns.

Should I be less successful? It is a tournament, and I want my opponents to enjoy their game--but usually the first 3 games on Saturday are against 'The Rookie', 'The Painter', and 'The Converter'. My games on Sunday (due to battle point standings) are against 'The Jackass' and 'The Chipmunk'.

I can take it easy against the first set of opponents, and then on Sunday I end up crushing the more skilled opponents but they intentionally knock my sportsmanship down.

I really don't care what people think of my army, they're always legal and comp is a meaningless travesty I ignore when in play...so that leaves sportsmanship (aka comp to ALOT of players) and painting.

I'm not criticizing you here, I know resources and time are scarce but in the end it seems like sportsmanship and pro-painted armies are what decide the events as there's no way to run a real swiss elimination with this many players.

Do I need to pay to get my army painted so I can get as close to maximum points so I'm at least in the running? I have always been disappointed by the sportsmanship system, since it seems like to do well at it I have to not totally crush the other guy (I haven't faced a good sport at a GT or Indy in years--they lose and mark me down as much as they think they can get away with).

So the end question is:

When players give me and others half the points you expected, and since I'm sure I'll be 'watched' this year you'll know I am not a asshat...will the system be reviewed for how flawed it is?

Ten years and not even close to a win, and it doesn't matter which army I bring--I've brought every army undre the GW banner to the tabletop and won every game, and been knocked out by sportsmanship scoring every time.

Even with a pro painted army to dazzle the judges, I'd still not even place in the top 20 despite placing top 10 in battle points.

So either I'm a liar, and I really am the worst person; or the system you use is sub-par and always will be.

I'm not saying my way is better, but I don't get complaints about the results. They're open at every step, and I encourage players to let each other know of any issues...but in the end, the mechanics of my system prevent players from dicking each other on the primary prizes and as a result they tend to be far more 'honest' than otherwise.

~A unhappy vet.

PS Are there going to be 40k team games on Friday at the LVGT??

Soft or subjective scores will always be a point of contention. I've come in second in more RTTs than I can count due to getting tanked on Sportsmanship and Comp. The primary reason is I field a Dark Eldar Wych Cult and it really gets under the skin of guys that field armies in Power Armor to get beat by them. I've had folks tell me that there must be something wrong with my list when that Space Marine player who moved everything forward for 2 turns removes his last mini off the table on turn 4 when the assault phase is over.

The only reason I believe I won the last RTT I fielded them at was because the guy running the RTT told everyone that they would have to explain why they gave their opponent a zero. If you couldn't provide a sound reason, the score you gave your opponent would be swapped with what he gave you.

Maybe I am a jerk but it seems to me that soft scores are related to the army fielded. When I do take my Orks, Chaos or IG to a tourney my soft scores are always near the top.

yakface wrote:

skyth wrote:Hand it over to the judges you mean?

No, to have an open system but to get rid of potential abuse after hearing what your opponent gave you, I was suggesting you'd both fill out your scores completely, then fold the sheet of paper and hand it to your opponent.

Then you'd both open your opponent's scoring sheet at the same time and see what you and your opponent gave each other and discuss the reasons why. Both players would then walk up to the judge's table and hand the other player's scoring sheet in.

Let me preface by saying I rarely go to tourneys at this point as my schedule is wonky and I always get paired with THAT GUY so may be biased.
However, I am not particularly fond of that system. I'm really not there to have in depth discussions with my opponent especially if I or he scored low. I don't see how the discussion could be productive. Further, I don't see how it would keep me from ending up playing THAT GUY.
(it may also be a factor in that I've never given anyone a "0" and do believe there is a difference between sportsmanship and theme/comp)

"Why did you give me a 1?"
"Well, you're kind of a "
"I am not"
"yes, you are actually."
"I am not"
so forth

Edit: I'd have to say I don't have any prob with GW tourneys. I'd allow FW stuff and have some issues with some armies not being permitted but on the whole they are pretty decent. As many fo us have run tournaments it can be both a pain in the butt and really enjoyable.

Ten years and not even close to a win, and it doesn't matter which army I bring--I've brought every army undre the GW banner to the tabletop and won every game, and been knocked out by sportsmanship scoring every time.

Sorry Stelek can't resist this one. As the drunken Ron White would say, "if you're complaining that all the men your banging suck, maybe you should look at the common denominator. Maybe its yeeewwwww."



Lord I apologize...

Anyways, I'm looking forward to seeing everyone at Vegas and/or Baltimore. You can ding my Sports all you want, just remember, winner buys the beer!!

And Stelek, give me a chance, I'll see if I can keep you on the table for a full six turns (altho I'm not sure how well my foot-slogging IG are gonna do in 5th..........)

Hi Stelek

I forgot to put in my original post that if we see scores below 5 in Sportsmanship we'll be asking a few questions and/or keeping an eye on things.

Based on your previous sportsmanship scores, your online behavior, and your own admissions of passive aggressive behavior I expect you'll be scoring in the 5-7 range. That means you'll have the "turned up on time", "had all his stuff", "play in a reasonable amount of time", "measure accurately for distances", and "had a wysiwyg army" plus maybe the "showed relevant passages in rulebook" and "built an army based on theme and relevant background".

If you are worried about getting twos or threes we'll be happy to discuss it with you and your opponent if that happens.

Looking at the rest of your post, you really confuse me.

I don't understand why on earth you would want to come to one of our GTs. You obviously don't like any of the systems we use (or have used), you feel that you will need to lie about your army (or who painted it at least), and you feel you have to so drastically modify your behavior that you must play like an automaton. You have publicly ridiculed our rules on a regular basis, yet you keep coming back (or asking what other events we'll be running). What is the point you are trying to make?

Please read our tournament rules again. If you did not paint your army you cannot win overall. If you lie and are caught out the situation will be explained to the public.

And about the mechanics of your "system", I must have missed seeing it when you posted it here, could you send your system through to me? I'm curious to see how it would work.

Cheers
Dave

stelek wrote:Ten years and not even close to a win, and it doesn't matter which army I bring--I've brought every army under the GW banner to the tabletop and won every game, and been knocked out by sportsmanship scoring every time.

jfrazell wrote:Sorry Stelek can't resist this one. As the drunken Ron White would say, "if you're complaining that all the men your banging suck, maybe you should look at the common denominator. Maybe its yeeewwwww."

That’s funny right thar, I don’t care who you are!

Stelek, after your sportsmanship “issues” I thought that you would be happy with a less subjective scoring list. I know that I am happy with it. All you have to do is bring all of your stuff, play in a decent manner, and you will score your points. Now you are free to drain the life out of your opponents and you will still get decent sports scores.

Also they have a checklist for painting, so you know what you have to do to bring up your scores.

Right now I like this system and I am willing to give it a try. Then at the end of the year we can evaluate it to see how well it worked.

Regarding passive aggressive behavior--I said 'I appear that way but am not'. I'm quiet as I was told years ago to not yell out, so I don't. Told by GW, not by anyone else.

Why do I go to your tournaments and not an Indy? While I may not think a whole lot about the way the tournaments are run as a whole in the GW system (including Indy's) I have never had fun at a Indy but I've at least had fun at some GW events. Most of last year was fun and was only ruined by our lack of sleep. 4 hours for 4 days makes anyone not fun.

I liked the original system you used, that had comp (and I stuck within it) so I couldn't get gimped by poor losers--I didn't like it then, and I think comp is not the system I want to live within (primarily because it reinforces cookie cutter army types to stay within comp).
However, with the sportsmanship system as it is...what happens now is I get marked down for my 'comp' even though there is technically no 'comp'. Thus the problem I'm commenting on. Maybe no one tells you this? Or fesses up to it?

I am no angel. Never said I was. I would *never* have my army painted and claim credit for it--I've had serious issues with quite a few people who did so, and I've turned them all in even months (or years) after the fact. Being dishonest is as far from me as you can get.

So to more directly answer you:

I love seeing the hobbyists make armies I love to look at and play against.

I didn't make a stink about playing 2 unpainted armies at the LVGT for nothing, ya know.

As far as ridiculing your rules, obviously I have as much passion about the game as the next guy and have 'I think I know better'-itis. You could have players who weren't passionate, and the difficult situation GW is in now would be alot worse.

I want the impossible--clearly written rules, beautiful models, and tournaments that at least appear to be run fairly so I can showcase what you've given me the tools to do. Run a pretty army against another pretty army, and if I'm not trying to win best painted or best sportsman whatever happens on the tabletop should determine the overall standings to a far greater degree than they currently do.

I'll put up my system in a few.

Oh and I've been silent about these issues for a decade, so you're getting a decade of built-up tension all at once.
Sorry about this, my failings are also my greatest strengths.

Hi Stelek

I'm not saying we don't want passionate hobbyists. Far from it. I am, however, saying that we are more than happy to listen to well-reasoned discussions and new ideas when they are presented to us. In fact, the system we are using this year is an amalgamation of numerous cool ideas and feedback provided by positive, passionate, and constructive critics.

My point is that the discussions I have seen you involved in on Dakka have rarely included constructive criticism from you, but your additions seem to consist primarily of extremist comments and vitriolic put downs.

Just my perception based on what I've seen.

We all know that our perception becomes our reality, just as you "appearing to be passive aggressive" means that those folks you play probably think you are.

It can certainly be beneficial to get things off your chest, just be careful your noise to content ratio doesn't get out of whack ; )

Cheers
Dave

Stelek:

Do you honestly believe that you represent the poster boy for GW gaming?

If not, then why would you think that you'd win Overall?

When I was playing actively and competitively, I was very much in the shoes you're wearing now. I going to guess you're too "serious and tight" to allow the opponent to relax and feel comfortable. Or that you're sending some other message through your body language and intonation.

It's not your fault - it's who you are. I don't think there's much of anything you can really do about it, aside from not making things worse (like when you cursed up a storm).

The fact of the matter is that only one guy out of 100 can win Best Overall, and over 90% go home with nothing but (hopefully) fond memories.

So if you're having fun and can deal with the fact that you'll NEVER, EVER be in the running for Overall, and that your best shot at an award is "Best General" or "Best Army", then you should keep going to the GW GTs.

Sorry,

/John

Here it is:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/211616.page

Phoenix wrote:#7 on that list needs to go. Just plopping an army down on the table does not automatically make it's theme (or lack there of) apparent. Often it takes a long winded speech from the army's owner to make it all apparent and the more out of the norm it is, the longer this takes.

This is incorrect.

You should be able to make a brief statement about your army, and the theme should be apparent to your opponent. That is the difference between a good theme and a bad theme.

For an example if you say: “Pre-Heresy Thousand Sons” the theme is apparent.

The only time when you have to have a long winded speech is when you have to reverse-engineer a theme. What I mean by reverse engineer a theme is instead of building an army around a theme, you make the army you want with all kinds of units that should not be together, and you then have to make a long winded story up to justify why all of these elements can be seen together.

Hehehehe, yeah, my theme (for the army I plan on bringing, if I can get it redone in time) will be readily apparent. "What's that? Lizardmen IG!!??"

We all know that while gaming its in your best interst to collect all the points you can and if you lose sight of that fact. You have caused yourself to lose the game and or dropped yourself down a few rank in the standings. Blackmoore showed that on one of his Batrep as the guy totally forgot about getting modules into the other person deployment. If the case stands that you need to collect all the points you can, then you need to find a list that will allow you to collect as many points as you can to better your odds at the end of the day. Its just that simple, so get out your list and work it up so that will aquire the points your lacking.

Im not the best painter and have yet to do the shoulder pads on my marines. I have on the other hand worked my head over at trying to find a list that will aquire as many points as I can at the end of the day. I have taken home spots awards and best over all many times. One thing I am lacking is my painting of which will be correct this year to further my score. Other things to think about are the story behind your list, character names, all that xtra stuff that most either ignore and or just dont care to produce. Have you done a display base for your army or are you just showing up and putting your guy on the table for display. You find talent in other areas that will help you collect points over all that you lacked because of your painting.

Best of luck, now back to reworking my list if I can so that I can aquire all the points I can.

don_mondo wrote:Hehehehe, yeah, my theme (for the army I plan on bringing, if I can get it redone in time) will be readily apparent. "What's that? Lizardmen IG!!??"

Then I sincerely hope you do get to play Stelek... Lizardmen IG vs Lizardmen Orks

Hell, you really just need to find a way to strike up a little chatter with your oppenent. I have many times found ways to get something going with the other guy. I have even informed them that I would like to look around while they move. Yes this could cause a problem but then again all you need to do is make a mental note of the things you might find that could hurt your in the next round. Play ahead of yourself and remember location of items, flyrant net to the tree, assault marines next to the heavy bolter on the pred annil. This opens the door greater as it gives you something to talk about while they play there hand. Really nice DA army on table five did you see it. Granted you ask these question while the easy part of the turn is going it opens door for other chatter.

I you need to stelek, get some rest before your games as this could be a key factor of why your so up tight.


If anything tournies need to remove the over all board thing I have heard that some do. Just because your in the top spot does not mean you should know about it ahead of time. That puts greater amount of tension onto the game and could cause some feedback. Your opponent might be the greatest game of your life but maybe he does not know how to deal with stress and your putting a good amount on somebody if they know the stacks are higher.

We show up to play the game not get jacked up on stress.

Hey guys I've done some thinking.

#1) I agree with the random table placement but people that know the math can figure that out pretty quickly

#2) If the rubric for sportsmanship is objective there really can't be any hard feelings can there? I don't think there would be a point to needing training for mediation if this is the case. But then its hard to do sportsmanship as an only objective thing.

Just as a reminder as you are all going through this, the post-GT questionnaire that we have participants fill out after the last game while everything is fresh in their minds is incredibly influential on the following year's GTs.

Most of the changes for 2008 came directly from the 2007 feedback questionnaires. In addition to those questionnaires we'll have our own Community Development Team forums for posting feedback and comments on.

Chris