Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like the Checklist option.
However.... The checklists should be gone over carefully with specific criteria for the Judges to look for.

Did the person win or lose the match?
Did the person win or lose the majority of their games?
How did they score the opponants in their wins vs their loses?
How did they get scored for the games they played?

The first two go to the mental aspects that would affect the scoring. The next one shows how well they respected their opponants. The last shows how they were viewed by said opponants.
Discrepancies would equal negative points.

If some-one won most of their games but scored their opponants poorly -And- was scored poorly by the opponants, then maybe this person wasn't that good of a "sport" and suffer consequences.
If the person Lost most of the games but was still scored high by opponants -and- scored his opponants highly, then they would gain points.

Anything that is considered "subjective" should be viewed through comparrison.
Consider this:
A crime is witnessed by seven people. Do the police question only one witness or all of them? The answer is All... they then balance the witness statements to find the consensus... the common ground... in the statements. Any major discrepancy would then be suspect, e.g. One witness varies too wildly on how the criminal was dressed? (6 say jeans and dark shirt, 1 says khakis and a light shirt......for example.)

The problem with ranking is you might play the 3 coolest people that you have ever met... but you still have to label one poorly. Or you might play 3 total jerks... and you have to rate one highly.

True. If all you're looking for is a "best sportsmanship" title than that probably won't be as much of a problem, though, as in the first instance there can only be one winner in any case, and in the second it's very unlikely that one of the jerks will be paired with two worse jerks in more than one instance (and there is, after all, only room for one at the top).

I like the checklist option.

Sportsmanship should be used simply to ensure a basic level of etiquette.

A favorite opponent vote can be used to elevate those players that really make the game fun to play (even when you are losing).

Later,
WR

I don't get it.....

I've got no problem with having a sportsmanship score, just make it seperate form the scoring for placement. W's & L's are what should reflect your success or failure, not something arbitrary and subjective.

Luckily most of the players around here are real cool, no real toolboxes who can't handle losing. There's nothing wrong with winning, just be a legit player, don't cheat, just play it straight up. There is also no need to gloat since luck is the primary factor in winning anyway.

I would like to see sportsmanship treated as a separate category. Honestly, I'm a good sport but a terrible player. I know a few other players from my local games club who lose consistently but are far more fun to play against. I think that an arrogant, mean spirited winner is a far worse kind of person to play against. I would like to see the players who handle both winning and losing in an amicable fashion rewarded for their efforts.

On the other hand, i don't think sportsmanship should be able to affect your overall results. If you only have one category of judgement for a tournament (one overall winner) then sportsmanship should be (tragically) ignored.

I think I'll have to go with a checklist.

Rating your opponent is dumb: if YOU are the poor sport, then in your poor sport mood you will not give your opponent a fair score. Judges giving yellow red card is better

Sprtsmanship is too subjective to be a factor in tournament play. Many mentions of my major gripe, someone giving you the blam-hammer just because he doesn't like your face. If I had a lot of time on my hands, I would make the TO play a game with every entrant just to judge them and weed out the bad players. but of course that is elitist and time consuming so i'm guessing that it would never fly

A 0-10 scale is good.

It would be very nice if basic manners and sportsmanship where introduced to my gaming shop.

Seriously,screaming at your opponent isn't going to make the dice show a six when it rolls 1.

Tournaments bring out all the douche bags and takes most of the fun out of it... I'd much rather play an apocalypse sized game or something if i'm going to spend a whole day playing

This is a tough one to get a handle on but I fele the most fair way to deal with it is either a checklist or a numerical score.

A pass/fail is just too black and white for me

I havent played in a tournament at all yet.

I laugh so hard when my opponents get flustered and curse at me (like when my necron lord used nightmare shroud on my opponents entire kroot selection and got them to run off the side of the board)

Voted Other

Our club feels that sportsmanship is as important as generalship, so tournaments in our neck of the woods weigh very heavily on sportsmanship

What this means is that if 1st place is 100 dollars worth of goods, so is sportsmanship.

We settled on a pass/fail for games, and then a "vote for your 2 favorite opponents" at the end of the tourney

Each vote recieved was worth a growing number of points. the first was worth 1/2 a full points win, the 2nd was worth a whole win on top of the first, the 3rd was worth 1.5 full points wins, the 4th was worth 2 full points wins, so on, and so forth.

Yes, this does mean that if you go 0-6 you could win the whole tournament. So what? Someone that's that good of a sportsman deserves to win.

Dont play in tournwys that inclueds this. I really dont give a damned what an opponet thinks about me, As long as the rules are followed said person may be pleasent/unpleast all day long. I normaly dont chatt while gaming, I play to win in tourneys, not amuse myself.

Basic pass/fail. It's a lot easier to quantify than an abstract 1-10 system. You know whether the other player is being a douche or not, eh?

third party judge, decides gives each player a score, not the players

I wouldn't play in a tournament with a sportsmanship award given by the opponent. It gives too much leeway to get screwed by a sore loser.

A buddy of mine once played in a tournament like that. He walked in 250 points short, due to misinformation. First round, he tabled his opponent. Second round was against a national qualifier who carefully scrutinized his list, discovering the error. The judges gave my friend the option top redo his list, but he declined. He scored a major victory against the guy, and he gave him a 0 for sportsmanship, eventually costing him the ability to place.

I would prefer a checklist. The problem is the onus then has to be on the judge. Say 10 categories, throw out 1 fail in each category under the theory that everyone makes a mistake, just doesn't get along with a person. Etc.

I like that this puts the emphasis on making the tourney a pleasurable experience for all but I absolutely am loathe that it gets used to game opponents. I would like to see if sportsmanship would be used as a tie-breaker but not in an overall score.

I chose Option not listed (please write in comments).

I have always thought a set criteria to grade sportsmanship would be fair, but probably still be abused. So I am thinking either no score is best or, keep it seperate from best general score...

there should be impartial judges deciding the sports score. I've played too many people who give you bad sports out of spite because they lost

Demogerg wrote:I like the checklist.

My FLGS has a checklist with 10-12 possible points per game depending on who's tourney it is.

I dont recall the exact wording or all the exact parameters, but its something like this.

Did your opponent show up on time/start the game in a timely manner (1 point)
Did your opponent have all the required materials [rulebook, codex, dice, measuring device, etc] (1 point)
Did your opponent play the game in a timely manner [not slowplaying] (3 points)
Was all of your opponents army WYSIWYG or clearly marked to avoid confusion? (1 point)
Were all rules disputes handled amicably, [call a judge, roll off, come to a resonable agreement] (1 point)
Did your opponent strive to measure all distances accurately? (1 point)
Would you willingly play against this opponent again? (1 point)

there were a few more, but its a solid system, and the only people who get marked off for anything know exactly why. (for example, I always misplace my scatter dice, and lose out on "having all required materials". Another guy plays with a few counts-as and proxies, so he loses out on the WYSIWYG point)

That's much better than some systems I've seen.

I mean, Sportsmanship is usually the category where you are punished if you defeat your opponent too entirely. Few people are going to give you full points for sportsmanship if you tabled their army, and yet I feel like that only means you played a much better game overall.

0-10 score

Maybe a better poll would be 'whos ever won a sportsmanship award' ;o)

Not big noting but i've won one, during the day i slaughtered and got slaughtered, it wasnt about win or loose in the end it was about having an enjoyable game. Yes even the guys i slaughtered voted for me.

I'm pretty straight forward so: Pass or fail. It just makes things more simple. Moreover, I believe it summarizes well a fairly subjective measure.

Ranking your games is the way to go.

Problem with a 1-10 system is what's an 8 what's a 10?

My 8 could be your 6 or vice versa

The best way though imo would be to rank the match from best to worst but have an option to score if you would play that person again.

I find the checklist works well as long as its comprehensive enough.