Can someone make an argument of why we need sportsmanship at a tournament?

I have now played in many tournaments without sportsmanship and I have not had a problem with any of my opponents yet. From the ‘Ard Boyz, to the Wild West Shootout to other tournaments, I have had nothing but good games. From what I read about the Valentine’s GT they did not have any problems with anyone either.

Over in the UK they have survived without sportsmanship for many years so my question is why have it?

I know that there are rare cases of TFG out there and this is meant to stop them from being jerks, but my argument is that it has the opposite effect. Since your opponent has so much power over you because they control so much of your soft scores, a lot of people are less likely to call out TFG because they fear that there sportsmanship score will get tanked. So they do not want to question rules, do not want to call out their opponent for inaccurate moving, premeasuring, etc. The UK system works well here by just giving TFG a yellow card as a warning, and a red card and an ejection.

So why do we need sportsmanship when it can be manipulated to chipmunk people (deliberately tanking soft scores to give yourself or friends and advantage), Then on the other hand you have people that always give maximum scores so why have it if they always score the same and it punishes those people who do not play them?

In my experience as a former American, European players tend to more mature and less socially awkward and so they are able to do without sportsmanship.

Nope, there isn't one.

I do not get why you would ever put a score in a tournament just to insure people played by the RULES.

While I agree that they have no place in tournaments I think I know where they come from.

Let's face it, society is telling everyone that no one is ever a loser and that just trying is good enough. This mentality has trickled over into wargaming it seems. If people get a high score for comp or sportsmanship then they wont feel so bad for loosing in the game.

People loose

People Fail

People are not good at everything

Get over it world

I agree. Sports scores cause more problems than they solve in my experience. It's an unfortunate reality.

Yup. Sports scores are generally just another way to chipmunk people. The problem with them is you don't have to justify your score. I could be perfectly reasonable with a guy, but he decides that he's ticked at me because I keep correcting his usage of 4th Edition rules, so he smacks me on sportsmanship. So for every rules dispute, I have to ask myself, "Is it worth running the risk of getting my sports score tanked if I say something to this guy?"

I actually like the idea of rewarding the person who was the most fun to play against. A tournament that I think did it really well had each player rank their opponents on who they would most like to play again. They then coupled these rankings with having the TO and some other judges walk around and also rank players on their sportsmanship.

It's easy Allan. Arseholes need to be kept in check. They do exist and play 40k. Soft scores seem to repulse them.

G

I have to agree, sometimes people need special rules in place to keep them in check. I wouldn't want someone arguing with me all the time on rules. These type of people tend to be the ones that are really competitive... well guess what if they know it will effect their score/standing in a tournament they will keep in line.

I'm not saying that either one of the players can be right/wrong on a rule. But if every rule they bring up only benefits them and/or is wrong that is when I start to think it effects their sportsmanship score.'

But that is the view of a casual gamer who enjoys the hobby aspects more than the playing part.

They repulse them? Didn't the guy who won the first major tournament this year get caught cheating on tape?

Of course no one called him on it for fear that he would tank their scores. So instead they just tried to beat him despite it.

Is that really a good idea?


For all this talk about jerks, I don't think I have ever met one that bad at a tournament. I'm sure there are a few out there, but is it really worth implementing something that effects everyone negatively to stop 1-2 individuals from having an unfun game?


(btw, competitive people don't argue rules if they know their wrong. Jerks might, but competitive people play by the rules, otherwise they aren't truly competitive)

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's easy Allan. Arseholes need to be kept in check. They do exist and play 40k. Soft scores seem to repulse them.

G

They exist, but they are too few and far between to justify having this crazy scoring system that does not really keep them in check.

Again my argument is if you have arseholes at a tournament, they are going to be the ones that will tank your sportsmanship score just because they lost, and it keeps others from calling them out for fear of getting a bad sportsmanship score from them.

You have arseholes at tournaments with a sports score like at the Big Waaagh last year. If you have one at your tournament, just kick them out. At the last ‘Ard Boyz, Mikhaila had a problem with TFG at Showcase Comics and he was thrown out. That is how you need to treat them, not by having them ruin the tournament for 5 people and then giving them a low sportsmanship score.

Do you think that a sportsmanship score is the only thing in the way from someone acting like an arsehole at a tournament? That if you remove sportsmanship scores people would act differently?

Blackmoor wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's easy Allan. Arseholes need to be kept in check. They do exist and play 40k. Soft scores seem to repulse them.

G

They exist, but they are too few and far between to justify having this crazy scoring system that does not really keep them in check.

Again my argument is if you have arseholes at a tournament, they are going to be the ones that will tank your sportsmanship score just because they lost, and it keeps others from calling them out for fear of getting a bad sportsmanship score from them.

You have arseholes at tournaments with a sports score like at the Big Waaagh last year. If you have one at your tournament, just kick them out. At the last ‘Ard Boyz, Mikhaila had a problem with TFG at Showcase Comics and he was thrown out. That is how you need to treat them, not by having them ruin the tournament for 5 people and then giving them a low sportsmanship score.

Do you think that a sportsmanship score is the only thing in the way from someone acting like an arsehole at a tournament? That if you remove sportsmanship scores people would act differently?

I disagree. I no longer go to tournaments (after having played and run them) partly because of bad players. Inevitably I'd run into one almost every tournament. Having said that sportsmanship didn't help, because I still ran into them.

First there is no video proof the guy at Conquest cheated. I watched all the tape too.

Allan I have had several opponents at gladiator and ard boyz tell me to my face it's okay to cheat because it's competitive. It's not a case of far and few between... All it takes is one arsehole to ruin your tourney.

G

I think its a good idea to have it, but that depends how you work it out exactly. Here on WHB tournos we have a "positive" sportmanship score, it means people can vote you in as a best opponent they have and yo umight get some points for it (none for one vote, 5 for two, 1- for three and 15 for four). Nobody can deduct your points because they think your sportsmanship is poor. It did keep few arseholes in check as well and everybody enjoyed it (well, apart from one powergamer that complained not getting into first three places because of lack of sportsmanship points and that it happens for the 4th time- well, maybe its about time to stop being an arsehole? . Atmosphere was great, top ranks were taken by people that well deserved it anyway- it basically stopped repetition of WH40k tourno (which doesnt have sportsmanship rules) where muppets with completely broken armies turn up, annoy the gak out of every player, argue the toss out of every little rule (even against the suggestions of a referee!) and win the tourno. with sportsmanship score there would be a big chance that the baboon that got 1st place would loose it to somebody playing very good but also playing in a way that didnt make people annoyed. My few pennies..

So because a couple of people you met are dumb, we need sportsmanship scores?

I don't see them most other competitive environments. Magic gets along just fine without sportsmanship scores.

I suppose though, 40k players are just that big of jerks that they need some incentive to play nice.

Here's an idea. Take away sports scores. If anyone gets caught cheating, they get kicked out of said tournament and are not allowed back in any future events.

And no one has addressed how to stop said jerks from tanking your sports score.

cerealkiller195 wrote:I have to agree, sometimes people need special rules in place to keep them in check. I wouldn't want someone arguing with me all the time on rules. These type of people tend to be the ones that are really competitive... well guess what if they know it will effect their score/standing in a tournament they will keep in line.

I'm not saying that either one of the players can be right/wrong on a rule. But if every rule they bring up only benefits them and/or is wrong that is when I start to think it effects their sportsmanship score.'

But that is the view of a casual gamer who enjoys the hobby aspects more than the playing part.

To keep people who know the rules in line? Not to sound rude but it sounds like you are one of the types of people that are able to exploit a sportmanship score in the first place. I could be misunderstanding your next to last thought, but I think I understand the first part of what you are saying.

"I play for fun so I don't always follow all the rules. If my opponent is only playing to win and I dont think he cares about the hobby aspect, I'll tank his sportsmanship score for correcting me on every little thing I do wrong."

If one doesnt have a firm grasp of the rules what are they doing entering a tournament full of people who do?

That's why there's a difference between a casual game and a tournament game. In a tournament, no matter what I'm playing, I'm abiding by every rule and expect my opponent to do the same.

I am not a gracious loser at tournaments.

I take challenging lists that are not WAAC by any strech since I feel my opponents will have more fun against these lists. I have the same assumption they do the same and that is why I like COMP... for me a tournament doesnt consist of seeing whose lash oblits can beat the others.

Sportsmanship on the other hand...

Sportsmanship scores are there for rewarding a player for smiling while having a "1" fest, except for leadership rolls which miraculously turn to "6" fests. I get pissed all the time when my terminators die to bolter sprinkles and dont kill a thing...this may effect my oppoents fun. I dont berate him or curse or anything else its just that I dont enjoy the game. If he slaughters me becasue of this I get high scores? Thats rediculous I should in reality get docked on my soft scores too.

Graciousness does not equal good sportsmanship. Rule debates dont equal bad sportsmanship. This should be the rule of thumb. The gap is to figure how to standardize this. You cant...so then how do you mitigate it? A list?

Rules debates: 1pt ea
Eye rolls: 1pt ea
Sighs: 1pt ea
Body blows: 5 pts ea
Head shots: 10pts ea
Curses underbreath: 3pts ea
Curses in foreign language: -5 pts ea up to max -15
Curses a loud: 5pts ea


etc. LOL

Timmah wrote:So because a couple of people you met are dumb, we need sportsmanship scores?

60% of the laws made in the past 20 years have been made because of stupid people or people think they can cheat others, and most of the time it ends up punishing those who werent abusing the system

Timmah wrote:
And no one has addressed how to stop said jerks from tanking your sports score.

When ever someone scores a low sportsmanship in a game I talk to both players seperately and ask if there were any issues in the game. If the player can not give a valid reason on why they tanked someones score, I penalize them. I also average out the tanked players other scores and replace that with the lower score. This is clear at the start of the tournament so my players need to know if they are going to give a low score they better have a reason for it.

There's a need for sportsmanship, in all honesty. Too many jerks out there. But I don't think it needs to be anything more than a bonus (or penalty) than a huge portion of the score. +/-5 points with zero being an average game. There should be an explanation for anything other than zero and it should be reviewed by the judge and, at their discretion, adjusted. There should be good reasons why you give bonus/penalty points; otherwise, the judge reverts to zero. If you're a great guy, loan the guy your dice, know the rules, play quickly, etc., then maybe you deserve a couple extra points. If you're a slow player, complainer, don't show dice rolls, etc., then you deserve a negative point or two.

jbunny wrote:

Timmah wrote:
And no one has addressed how to stop said jerks from tanking your sports score.

When ever someone scores a low sportsmanship in a game I talk to both players seperately and ask if there were any issues in the game. If the player can not give a valid reason on why they tanked someones score, I penalize them. I also average out the tanked players other scores and replace that with the lower score. This is clear at the start of the tournament so my players need to know if they are going to give a low score they better have a reason for it.

This cannot realistically be done at a 50+ person tournament though. Also whats to stop one of them from lying?


Also, we have laws in place to keep people from being dumb. Its called the rules. We don't need an extra set.

Timmah wrote:So because a couple of people you met are dumb, we need sportsmanship scores?

I don't see them most other competitive environments. Magic gets along just fine without sportsmanship scores.

I suppose though, 40k players are just that big of jerks that they need some incentive to play nice.

Here's an idea. Take away sports scores. If anyone gets caught cheating, they get kicked out of said tournament and are not allowed back in any future events.

And no one has addressed how to stop said jerks from tanking your sports score.

I've seen Magic tournaments. I wouldn't have been caught dead playing one of those... ever.

EDIT:When younger the Boy would play Yu Gi Yo tournaments. Wo. There was one match where a teenager started threatening the Boy, not realizing I was wandering about the place. That didn't turn out well for him.

Timmah wrote:

jbunny wrote:

Timmah wrote:
And no one has addressed how to stop said jerks from tanking your sports score.

When ever someone scores a low sportsmanship in a game I talk to both players seperately and ask if there were any issues in the game. If the player can not give a valid reason on why they tanked someones score, I penalize them. I also average out the tanked players other scores and replace that with the lower score. This is clear at the start of the tournament so my players need to know if they are going to give a low score they better have a reason for it.

This cannot realistically be done at a 50+ person tournament though. Also whats to stop one of them from lying?


Also, we have laws in place to keep people from being dumb. Its called the rules. We don't need an extra set.

I will agree that in larger events it would be difficult, but with larger events you have more judges so it is not just one person trying to handle everything. Also I would like to point out that in the several years i have been running events it only ever happened once. And the person that did it tanked everyones scores.

Timmah wrote:Nope, there isn't one.

I do not get why you would ever put a score in a tournament just to insure people played by the RULES.

How to play BY THE RULES - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278461.page

Good sportsmen BEND these rules to play the game properly.

@OP

You don't NEED a sportsmanship score. You also don't NEED a painting score. Or a 'Best Themed Army' score. The reason you have them is that many people take different things from the game, and so you include multiple prizes to recognise that. I would much rather have a fun game against a great sportsman, but lose, than have a dull game against a rules lawyer and win.

Because of this, I think the guy that's the most fun to play, or themed his army most imaginatively, deserves a prize just as much as the guy who won all the games. Why? Because THAT's what I like most about the hobby, and what I consider most important. YMMV, but that's the point...

Where I differ from most tournaments is the belief that there should be no overall score. Give prizes for all the different areas of the hobby, and acknowledge people's different prefernces, but don't let the battle points affect the painting scores, or the army theme affect the battle points. That annoys all the people who only care about their aspect of the game...!

Blackmoor wrote:Can someone make an argument of why we need sportsmanship at a tournament?

I want a way to reward a player who really is fun to play against. There are people out there who can thrash me black and blue, and make me enjoy the experience. As they are definitely improving my tournament experience, I, as a player, want the score to reflect that in some way.

Janthkin wrote:
I want a way to reward a player who really is fun to play against. There are people out there who can thrash me black and blue, and make me enjoy the experience. As they are definitely improving my tournament experience, I, as a player, want the score to reflect that in some way.

Buy them a beer afterwards. No need for scoring whether or not someone can behave like an adult.

Frazzled wrote:

I've seen Magic tournaments. I wouldn't have been caught dead playing one of those... ever.

Anecdotal evidence with no basis in fact or event a reason for it...
That will convince me...

I played magic for 10ish years. I never had a bad tournament experience despite playing in many. Pros who got caught cheating actually were banned from the game. People new that WoTC meant business and they wouldn't tolerate cheaters. So everyone played fairly (usually).

Frazzled wrote:

EDIT:When younger the Boy would play Yu Gi Yo tournaments. Wo. There was one match where a teenager started threatening the Boy, not realizing I was wandering about the place. That didn't turn out well for him.

So some young kid got out of hand playing a young kids card game. Oh noes! We need sportsmanship scores in a game dominated by 20+ year olds.


Sportsmanship scores are a insult to me personally. They are saying, you can't be trusted to not be a jerk, so we have to give you some incentive not to be.

olympia wrote:

Janthkin wrote:
I want a way to reward a player who really is fun to play against. There are people out there who can thrash me black and blue, and make me enjoy the experience. As they are definitely improving my tournament experience, I, as a player, want the score to reflect that in some way.

Buy them a beer afterwards. No need for scoring whether or not someone can behave like an adult.

If all adults could play like that, we wouldn't need sportsmanship. But very, VERY few do.

People who can enjoy winning, while making you enjoy losing, are rare. People who let you enjoy winning, while appearing to enjoy losing, are even rarer. "Sportsmanship" scores, as used in Warhammer tournaments, are simply reflections on the basic question of "did I enjoy this game?" As a tournament, to me, is about enjoying playing with my expensive toy soldiers, then I believe that the tournament scoring system should reflect the basic premise of rewarding optimal fun.

Contrariwise, if you (the generic "you") lack the social graces possessed by the average sponge, I don't especially care if you are the the second coming of Genghis Khan - if people don't enjoy playing against you, then I don't believe that you deserve to win best overall. But if everyone behaves "like an adult," then in an honestly-scored situation, this shouldn't be a huge issue, right?

The underlying question is: how do you keep people from chipmunking?

Timmah wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I've seen Magic tournaments. I wouldn't have been caught dead playing one of those... ever.

Anecdotal evidence with no basis in fact or event a reason for it...
That will convince me...

I played magic for 10ish years. I never had a bad tournament experience despite playing in many.


.

And this is anecdotal as well. You are taking your personal experiences and applying them to the gaming community as a whole.

Like I said in the other thread, it would be interesting to see a series of U.S. tourneys adopt the yellow/red card system. I think you'd need to have several tourneys over a period of time to really test it. Not every tourney has epic-level TFG. And it's also possible players would be on their best behavior for a while just because they're used to having their opponents grade sportsmanship.

Yeah like any TO would ever throw someone out. We all know they dont have the balls.

G

I think they have a place... otherwise there's not much incentive to play nice (for those inclined to be otherwise). It gives me a better chance of having a decent time at a tournament, and it gives me a recourse if my opponent is bending the rules, etc.

jbunny wrote:

Timmah wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I've seen Magic tournaments. I wouldn't have been caught dead playing one of those... ever.

Anecdotal evidence with no basis in fact or event a reason for it...
That will convince me...

I played magic for 10ish years. I never had a bad tournament experience despite playing in many.


.

And this is anecdotal as well. You are taking your personal experiences and applying them to the gaming community as a whole.

That was the joke...


The proof is that the game system has been going strong for 17 years, has never need sports scores and its tournaments draw a ton more players than the average warhammer tournament.

@Olympia
'Zactly. The beer sportsmanship system works wonders, because you can also apply it to bad sports by denying them beer.

Da Boss wrote:@Olympia
'Zactly. The beer sportsmanship system works wonders, because you can also apply it to bad sports by denying them beer.

Yes!

Sportsmanship scores are used but not for determining the winner.

Instead at the end, the bottom half of the sportsmanship scores must all buy beer for the top half.

Problem solved. Your welcome.

Green Blow Fly wrote:First there is no video proof the guy at Conquest cheated. I watched all the tape too.

Allan I have had several opponents at gladiator and ard boyz tell me to my face it's okay to cheat because it's competitive. It's not a case of far and few between... All it takes is one arsehole to ruin your tourney.

G

Is it not cheating to:

1. Moving things beyond how far they are allowed to move
2. Moving units that came from Reserves AFTER moving every other unit
3. Premeasure distance to an enemy unit in the movement phase
4. Deploying more then 2 inches from an exit point of a vehicle

Sorry, just had address it.

No real reason to have sportsmenship in tournaments, although I think voting for the player you had the best time playing should still be a prize.

asugradinwa wrote: although I think voting for the player you had the best time playing should still be a prize.

This.

Why are people so upset with sports??

G

Timmah wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I've seen Magic tournaments. I wouldn't have been caught dead playing one of those... ever.

Anecdotal evidence with no basis in fact or event a reason for it...
That will convince me...

I played magic for 10ish years. I never had a bad tournament experience despite playing in many. Pros who got caught cheating actually were banned from the game. People new that WoTC meant business and they wouldn't tolerate cheaters. So everyone played fairly (usually).

Frazzled wrote:

EDIT:When younger the Boy would play Yu Gi Yo tournaments. Wo. There was one match where a teenager started threatening the Boy, not realizing I was wandering about the place. That didn't turn out well for him.

So some young kid got out of hand playing a young kids card game. Oh noes! We need sportsmanship scores in a game dominated by 20+ year olds.


Sportsmanship scores are a insult to me personally. They are saying, you can't be trusted to not be a jerk, so we have to give you some incentive not to be.

I am not trying to convince you. You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. (sorry, channeling the clown from Al Bundy today)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sportsmanship scores are a insult to me personally. They are saying, you can't be trusted to not be a jerk, so we have to give you some incentive not to be.

Here I'll clarify my position.

You can't be trusted to not be a jerk.
Thats a Frazzled rule of life right there. Trust nothing. Believe no one. Repeat as necessary.

Besides, who cares if its fun to play me. If your not having fun, maybe its your own fault.

Just cause it sucks to play me, as long as I am not cheating there is no reason I shouldn't be able to win a tournament.

If I am truly the best (I'm not, hypothetical) why shouldn't I win first?

In football we don't care if the super bowl winning team made it "fun" for their opponents...

Its not the Superbowl. I watch the Superbowl. I play (or don't for me) in a tournament.

It shouldn't be an issue for you. Sportsmanship is part of being the best, therefore if you don't have it you're not the best. You do want the best to win right?

How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

Timmah wrote:How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

Its a score like everything else. Evidently you're not as good as you think you are if this is an issue.

Having said that, the amount of "those players" has already impacted my view even with sportsmanship in play. So as I said, do what you want, I just don't care.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yeah like any TO would ever throw someone out. We all know they dont have the balls.

Mikhaila threw a guy out at last year's 'Ard Boyz.

Frazzled wrote:

Timmah wrote:How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

Its a score like everything else. Evidently you're not as good as you think you are if this is an issue.

In a hobby competition sure. I completely agree with you. At most of the 40k tournaments (atm) sure, it is a skill to prove your the best in those systems.

But would you agree that it does nothing to help you be the best at the actual game (and solely the game) as long as everyone plays by the rules?

Seems to me that some gits are only restrained from bending the rules and browbeating their opponents into submission, or outright cheating, by the fact that their unsportsman-like behaviour will cost them. I've seen enough bad behaviour in "friendly" games, and tournaments have prizes and glory to play for.

But would you agree that it does nothing to help you be the best at the actual game (and solely the game) as long as everyone plays by the rules?

No, I don't agree.

Winning and being nice aren't mutally exclusive.

The main thing that kills me about sportsmanship scores is if you are playing someone who doesn't know the rules (I seem to catch one person every tournament that uses a mix of 4th and 5th Edition rules) you look like the badguy for trying to correct them.

Ok, so how does being a good sportsman make you better at this game? (remember both people must follow the rules)

Timmah wrote:Ok, so how does being a good sportsman make you better at this game? (remember both people must follow the rules)

Yep.

Timmah wrote:How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

You're making the mistake that "the game" = "the hobby."

Some people play the game for "the game." Others play for "the hobby."

There are tournaments out there that are for those who just enjoy "the game;" things like 'Ard Boys. Other tournaments try to explore the hobby more in totality, so will therefore include more soft scores. Some tournaments like to look at the army building aspect of the game, so have composition scores. Some explore the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby and have scores for painting/appearance. Others like to include the social aspect of the hobby, and therefore have sportsmanship scores. Different tournaments all have the ability to mix and match the various aspects that their organizers feel are important in order to explore and reward those players that, in the organizers' opinion, best exemplify the part(s) of the hobby that the organizers value.

There are enough tournaments with different types of scoring systems out there that no single player needs to expect that every tournament needs to adhere to THEIR expectations of scoring. If one does his or her homework before deciding to attend a tournament, that person can discover if the scoring system matches up with what part(s) of the hobby they enjoy the most and would like to see rewarded.

In other words, don't go to Chick-fil-A if you want a Whopper; you'll be disappointed. It's even sillier to then complain that Chick-fil-A doesn't sell Whoppers.

Personally, I play for the game, but I understand that not everyone out there derives pleasure from the same stuff that I do. While I, personally, loathe painting, I understand that other people really enjoy that part of the hobby, so I don't mind there being painting elements in the scoring of a tournament. I'm certainly not going to expect tournaments to get rid of the painting element because I can't be bothered to improve my painting skills and can't afford to get someone good to paint them for me.

I do have the option of going to tournaments that give painting little to no impact on the overall winner, though.

The same thing for those who don't like sportsmanship scores. Avoid tournaments where those scores can have significant impact on the overall winner. Just don't try to tell other people which aspects of the hobby should be important to them.

Edited: Grammar.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Seems to me that some gits are only restrained from bending the rules and browbeating their opponents into submission, or outright cheating, by the fact that their unsportsman-like behaviour will cost them. I've seen enough bad behaviour in "friendly" games, and tournaments have prizes and glory to play for.

And why can't this "cost" be administered in a more punitive way (aka warning then booting)? I've played at tournaments with both sports scores and not... and I've not really noticed any difference between the two in terms of how "nice" people played. If anything, I've experienced more TFGs at non-sports-scored tournaments. However, that's purely annecdotal.

Saldiven wrote:

Timmah wrote:How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

You're making the mistake that "the game" = "the hobby."

Some people play the game for "the game." Others play for "the hobby."

There are tournaments out there that are for those who just enjoy "the game;" things like 'Ard Boys. Other tournaments try to explore the hobby more in totality, so will therefore include more soft scores. Some tournaments like to look at the army building aspect of the game, so have composition scores. Some explore the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby and have scores for painting/appearance. Others like to include the social aspect of the hobby, and therefore have sportsmanship scores. Different tournaments all have the ability to mix and match the various aspects that their organizers feel are important in order to explore and reward those players that, in the organizers' opinion, best exemplify the part(s) of the hobby that the organizers value.

There are enough tournaments with different types of scoring systems out there that no single player needs to expect that every tournament needs to adhere to THEIR expectations of scoring. If one does his or her homework before deciding to attend a tournament, that person can discover if the scoring system matches up with what part(s) of the hobby they enjoy the most and would like to see rewarded.

In other words, don't go to Chick-fil-A if you want a Whopper; you'll be disappointed. It's even sillier to then complain that Chick-fil-A doesn't sell Whoppers.

Personally, I play for the game, but I understand that not everyone out there derives pleasure from the same stuff that I do. While I, personally, loathe painting, but I understand that other people really enjoy that part of the hobby, so I don't mind there being painting elements in the scoring of a tournament. I'm certainly not going to expect tournaments to get rid of the painting element because I can't be bothered to improve my painting skills and can't afford to get someone good to paint them for me.

I do have the option of going to tournaments that give painting little to no impact on the overall winner, though.

The same thing for those who don't like sportsmanship scores. Avoid tournaments where those scores can have significant impact on the overall winner. Just don't try to tell other people which aspects of the hobby should be important to them.

But there's always this:

I already said being a good sportsman makes you better at "the hobby" but not "the game" itself.


I'm not expecting hobby tournaments to change. I just said imo you don't need sports scores. And that being a good sportsman doesn't make you better at "the game"

Others say it does.

I understand that. And that's why I was asking for an explanation of how it does.

Placing wagers makes you better at the game.

Timmah wrote:I understand that. And that's why I was asking for an explanation of how it does.

Actually when you ask questions it is a hostile expression of your rage.

G

"Never ask a question you don't know the answer to."
-Some legal guy

The only real problem I have with Sportsmanship is getting chipmunked. I do think that it's a serious enough problem that, ideally, a third neutral party should judge sportsmanship in games. The problem is, where are you going to get all these people?

Thunderfrog wrote:

cerealkiller195 wrote:I have to agree, sometimes people need special rules in place to keep them in check. I wouldn't want someone arguing with me all the time on rules. These type of people tend to be the ones that are really competitive... well guess what if they know it will effect their score/standing in a tournament they will keep in line.

I'm not saying that either one of the players can be right/wrong on a rule. But if every rule they bring up only benefits them and/or is wrong that is when I start to think it effects their sportsmanship score.'

But that is the view of a casual gamer who enjoys the hobby aspects more than the playing part.

To keep people who know the rules in line? Not to sound rude but it sounds like you are one of the types of people that are able to exploit a sportmanship score in the first place. I could be misunderstanding your next to last thought, but I think I understand the first part of what you are saying.

"I play for fun so I don't always follow all the rules. If my opponent is only playing to win and I dont think he cares about the hobby aspect, I'll tank his sportsmanship score for correcting me on every little thing I do wrong."

If one doesnt have a firm grasp of the rules what are they doing entering a tournament full of people who do?

That's why there's a difference between a casual game and a tournament game. In a tournament, no matter what I'm playing, I'm abiding by every rule and expect my opponent to do the same.

No you misunderstood me, I do know the rules and I used to be an active tournament goer for a variety of games GW or not. But if someone constantly misquotes the rules (to their benefit) and they don't seem like someone that is new to the hobby that is when I have to question their motives.

People say there are no sportsmanship scores in Magic or just about any card game, but also they don't have developers explaining "the spirit of the rule" vs "read as written". Simply there are not as many rules to misinterpret as a war game like 40k.

Timmah wrote:I understand that. And that's why I was asking for an explanation of how it does.

You missed the point of my post.

Sports, composition, painting, etc. do not make anyone better at "the game." That's why 'Ard Boys doesn't have any of those elements in their scoring; that's just about winning the games in the tournament.

Other tournaments like to look at the other aspects of "the hobby" in addition to winning "the game."

Good sportsmanship does not necessarily make you better or worse at the game, but it DOES make you better at the hobby. If a tournament wants to give points to the "soft scores," then the organizers obviously think that those elements of the hobby are important to them, and they have chosen to reward those who explore that aspect of the hobby. By default, if a tournament gives any points to "soft" elements, then that tournament is about more than just "the game."

The problem is that Warhammer 40K is about MUCH more than "the game." If it were all about "the game," then GW would spend a heck of a lot more time making a cohesive ruleset with less room for argument. Consequently, it is perfectly valid for a tournament to include the other aspects of "the hobby" in their scoring.

You cited Magic earlier; that is a system with a very tight ruleset. You don't have as many rules arguments because there is so much less room for argument. That company has decided that "the game" is the most important part of "the hobby" (well, maybe second have the collectible aspect of it), so it's not a fair comparison with Warhammer.

I thought they were there just to make sure players didn't act a fool.

I agree with you Saldiven 100%. (minus the last part about 40k being about more than the game, although its valid opinion in my book, I just disagree with it)

What people keep telling me is that being a good sportsman makes you better at playing the game. And I am asking how.

@GBF my questions are not hostile, I wish to become more empathetic and see things from the other side, since I don't. So sometimes I need it spelled out for me.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Seems to me that some gits are only restrained from bending the rules and browbeating their opponents into submission, or outright cheating, by the fact that their unsportsman-like behaviour will cost them. I've seen enough bad behaviour in "friendly" games, and tournaments have prizes and glory to play for.

Some people expect horrible behavior if you remove the sports score, but there is no proof to it.

I have been to tournaments with a sportsmanship score, and those that don't and I can't tell the difference.

If you have cheating gits, they will just manipulate the sportsmanship system. For example: they make a deal with their opponents to give them the maximum sportsmanship score if they return the favor.

The way sportsmanship scores work at my LGS is they don't count for placement. First and second place come purely from winning games. There is a small prize that goes to the best sport with the worst record to keep morale up for people who aren't good enough at the game to win tournaments.

The onus of policing behavior is on the tournament organizers period, end of discussion.

Player based scoring is ridiculous in a competitive environment. Honestly, allowing two people to judge each others sportsmanship when one guy may be a complete tool and ruin the game for the other guy... you think thats going to work out.

Our group has begun running tournaments, and we abhor soft scores. We have a painting competition that is separate from the games. I and at least one other judge, roam the tables. I don't sit and hang out, i don't talk to players or friends. I'm out there, as available as I can possibly be to answer rules disputes. What I am also doing is watching the players for certain signs.

Tension is really easy to spot if you are a socially skilled person. Slumped shoulders, sighing, flushed faces, I'm constantly scanning the room for that stuff. If I see that, or if I just know I have a turd player in the room, I'll just float over that table. Any non appropriate behavior will get called out and warned against. I'll gladly 86 someone who is acting toolish after a warning.

Tourney organizers need to do that kind of thing. Don't be intimidated by players in your own tourney, don't just sit down in the back and talk to your buddy.

And here is why having the player grade sports doesn't help. Recently, a friend of mine had an insanely frustrating very difficult game at a GT. He played a guy I had played against 3 years ago and I still remember his name. From my friends recollections of this tourney, it was next to impossible to find a judge, ad even harder to get that judge to hang out by your table if you were having a game against someone socially slowed. So my friend was on his own. This tool he was playing against was purposefully misinterpreting the rules in order to, well, cheat. My friend exhausted himself arguing every single case. He knew every time that he brought up how the player was wrong, and every time they went to the books, he was losing valuable sportsmanship points. In basically doing the job of the judge, he was hurting himself in these over-valued and mis-understood scores. Knowing that, he essentially gave up, and allowed the player to cheat. In order to retain at least some of his vitally important sportsmanship score.

If there is more presence of authoritative, socially confident judges at a tourney, then there is no need to put your paying customers to work to police themselves. And sportsmanship, is just a tool for annoying players to seek vengeance on their opponents who don't let them play the game "their way".

Its the Salem Witch trials...

"This guy said you were a witch."
"Well, of course he would say that... because HE is a witch!"

And like the salem witch trials, the authorities never sought proof, they just burned them both...

Timmah wrote:

@GBF my questions are not hostile, I wish to become more empathetic and see things from the other side, since I don't. So sometimes I need it spelled out for me.

Okay fair enough. Try using the search function first though. Heh!

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shep wrote:
And here is why having the player grade sports doesn't help. Recently, a friend of mine had an insanely frustrating very difficult game at a GT. He played a guy I had played against 3 years ago and I still remember his name. From my friends recollections of this tourney, it was next to impossible to find a judge, ad even harder to get that judge to hang out by your table if you were having a game against someone socially slowed. So my friend was on his own. This tool he was playing against was purposefully misinterpreting the rules in order to, well, cheat. My friend exhausted himself arguing every single case. He knew every time that he brought up how the player was wrong, and every time they went to the books, he was losing valuable sportsmanship points. In basically doing the job of the judge, he was hurting himself in these over-valued and mis-understood scores. Knowing that, he essentially gave up, and allowed the player to cheat. In order to retain at least some of his vitally important sportsmanship score.

We all have those kind of games and it does not mean sportsmanship does not work. If I am playing a big cheat then to hell with my sports score for that game, I am going to call him on everything and kick his ass. That is the best way to handle those situations.

G

Shep wrote:He knew every time that he brought up how the player was wrong, and every time they went to the books, he was losing valuable sportsmanship points. In basically doing the job of the judge, he was hurting himself in these over-valued and mis-understood scores. Knowing that, he essentially gave up, and allowed the player to cheat. In order to retain at least some of his vitally important sportsmanship score.

I was in a similar situation at a GWGT. In my case, the other player was 100% wrong but 100% convinced he was right. So do you get the judge and argue the case, knowing the other guy's going to dock you? In my case, I let it slide because I didn't think he was going to take it well being told he was wrong. I'm sure lots of us have been there.

With a yellow/red card system or something similar, you just call the judge over and straighten it out without any fear. You get the correct call, the other guy learns that he's wrong, and no one gets docked any points.

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments?

I think if you want to look at and compare to competitive sports, you'd have a ref or judge for every game. It ensures fair play and limits fouls or cheats. That isn't practical for a tourney yet there must be a way to ensure people do not flout the system in which they are competing.

If people are then going on to exploit that system, the one designed to ensure good sportsmanship and fair play, well then they are an arsehole and you just have to hope God or karma gakkers them in the face with a fast moving truck, because being that exploitative at a game of toy soldiers is indicative of a creature so utterly bereft of real enjoyment in their lives that death is, frankly, the best option for them.

Blackmoor wrote:Can someone make an argument of why we need sportsmanship at a tournament?

Players that openly state "I know I'm going to have to make Battle Points up for my comp/paint/whatever soft scores". If all the player is focused on is WINNING then their inner donkey-cave comes out.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Timmah wrote:Nope, there isn't one.

I do not get why you would ever put a score in a tournament just to insure people played by the RULES.

How to play BY THE RULES - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278461.page

Good sportsmen BEND these rules to play the game properly.

@OP

You don't NEED a sportsmanship score. You also don't NEED a painting score. Or a 'Best Themed Army' score. The reason you have them is that many people take different things from the game, and so you include multiple prizes to recognise that. I would much rather have a fun game against a great sportsman, but lose, than have a dull game against a rules lawyer and win.

Because of this, I think the guy that's the most fun to play, or themed his army most imaginatively, deserves a prize just as much as the guy who won all the games. Why? Because THAT's what I like most about the hobby, and what I consider most important. YMMV, but that's the point...

Where I differ from most tournaments is the belief that there should be no overall score. Give prizes for all the different areas of the hobby, and acknowledge people's different prefernces, but don't let the battle points affect the painting scores, or the army theme affect the battle points. That annoys all the people who only care about their aspect of the game...!

That is one outstanding reply - Totally Agree!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Why are people so upset with sports??

G

My guess would be that they got a low sportsmanship score at a tournament and it affected their overall placement in the tourney. Either A) they got chipmunked (it's all those other dicks fault) or b) they either weren't fun to play against, aren't a real sociable person, pulled some crap in a game, played a WAAC game that someone didn't enjoy, etc (it's really my fault - but I don't like it).

Sportsmanship is for the most part something that you can control yourself - I can be cordial to my opponent, not a jerk, not try something that's thin, if it's iffy - don't do it or give it to my opponent, etc.

It's a great check and balance for things in the game - slow players, cheating, rule bending, etc.

To my understanding, Sportsmanship scoring was originally instituted in the US because GW noticed that they had a significant percentage of unpleasant antisocial jerks showing up to GTs.

I’ve played competitive Magic, too, and in my experience, while most players are totally fine, some are actively unpleasant, and in general the games are less sociable and collegial. I remember shenanigans at major Magic events in the 90s which included high-level players using bullying and intimidation, requesting that their opponent arm wrestle them for first turn, and employed other deliberate mind-games to attempt to rattle their opponents.

I do think that GOOD Sportsmanship is an excellent thing to reward.

I do recognize that chipmunking happens, and that it’s something tournament organizers need to look out for and have some system in place to counter. I do believe that it’s prevalence is a bit overblown.

I am not a big fan of the various full-subjective numeric scaled Sports systems, at this point. 1-10 is awful, and even 1-5 has a lot of issues with players who don’t read the sheets, or who always give max, or who chipmunk. I think a 3 point scale might work better- actively unpleasant person / normal competitive person / unusually entertaining or pleasant person. But see 5, below.

I’ve seen some good-looking variant Sports scoring systems come out in the last few years.

1. One of them is the objective/semi-objective checklist, like Adepticon uses. This one seems to work pretty well, IMO, and it's the approach I've used at tournament I've run. It communicates social norms expected of tournament players, and gives one or two subjective questions to give a little tiny bump to more fun people/slightly penalize people who aren’t fun to face.

2. Another is the Ranking system, where at the end of the event you simply rank all of your opponents in order of best to worst. This forces everyone to give out the same total numbers, but does have the issue of forcing a player to effectively penalize one or two people even if all them were good. And of course gives chipmunkers the option to just give a bad score to whoever beats them, if anyone.

3. One really solid system I've seen discussed recently is the pass/fail. AKA the “Was my opponent a jerk?” one-question score. And then make it an exponential or geometric progression. One negative mark = -2 pts off your score. Anyone can have a bad game. Two checks = - 4pts off your score. Not looking too good. Three checks = -8pts off your score; you are probably being a jerk, and need to look at your behavior. Four checks = what are you doing here? - 16pts, and DQ from winning any prizes. Five checks = Score zeroed, invited to not return to this event.

4. Favorite opponent votes. This one is really nice because it keeps the number of points capped, but still rewards people who really are a joy to play against. At the end of the event every player is required to submit one of their opponents as the most enjoyable. Make it a requirement that it be written on the score sheet for the final game. You can do this as a simple +1 or +2 or +3pts per vote (depending on your total points scale), or make it a progression, like above. Maybe a bit more limited, though. Like 1 vote = +1pt, 2 votes = +3pts, 3 votes = +5pts, 4 votes = +7pts, 5 votes = +11pts.

5. I personally think that probably the best approach would be a combination of options 3 and 4.

Mannahnin wrote:
To my understanding, Sportsmanship scoring was originally instituted in the US because GW noticed that they had a significant percentage of unpleasant antisocial jerks showing up to GTs.

Sigged!

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
To my understanding, Sportsmanship scoring was originally instituted in the US because GW noticed that they had a significant percentage of unpleasant antisocial jerks showing up to GTs.

Sigged!

I don't see it sigged.

Mannahnin wrote:To my understanding, Sportsmanship scoring was originally instituted in the US because GW noticed that they had a significant percentage of unpleasant antisocial jerks showing up to GTs.

I think the amount of 'Person my list stomped on gave me a 0 on sports even though I got max score against other people' stories would indicate that the system fails. Which makes perfect sense, when you think about it, since these same unpleasant antisocial jerks now have a way to impact a person's event score.

If you have any firm numbers on chipmunking, I'd love to hear them. From my perspective, at the events I attend and hear about, it seems vanishingly rare.

sourclams wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:To my understanding, Sportsmanship scoring was originally instituted in the US because GW noticed that they had a significant percentage of unpleasant antisocial jerks showing up to GTs.

I think the amount of 'Person my list stomped on gave me a 0 on sports even though I got max score against other people' stories would indicate that the system fails. Which makes perfect sense, when you think about it, since these same unpleasant antisocial jerks now have a way to impact a person's event score.

Exactly. It's completely ass-backwards logic. If the problem is that jerks are making the game unpleasant how does it make sense to empower those jerks and allow them to make games even more unpleasant? If you hand your players a way to cheat on a silver platter then it should come as no surprise when cheating occurs.

If you have any firm numbers on chipmunking, I'd love to hear them. From my perspective, at the events I attend and hear about, it seems vanishingly rare.

Our club hosted two tournaments this past year with about 40 players each. In May, we used sportsmanship scoring (checklist-based, 0-5 points per game). In December, our TO decided to do away with the system altogether. Why? Because when he took a close look at the way people scored the games he noticed something: players who performed well and had a shot at taking overall tended to score their opponents lower as the rounds went on. With subjective scoring (and don't kid yourself, checklists are still 100% subjective) players can and will take advantage of the system.

Sportsmanship is absolutely important to competitive events, but it has no place in scoring. It's the responsibility of the TO's to enforce.

Checklists are not 100% subjective. Not if the player is at all honest. And the vast majority are.

Any thoughts whatsoever on the multiple systems I suggested, such as pass/fail + favorite opponent votes?

Mannahnin wrote:Checklists are not 100% subjective. Not if the player is at all honest. And the vast majority are.

Then why need Sportsmanship?

For the record, I think your 3rd and 4th bullet seem the most reasonable way of doing sportsmanship I've seen. I still say the best way to do it is to keep it seperate from the overall standings though.

Mannahnin wrote:Checklists are not 100% subjective. Not if the player is at all honest. And the vast majority are.

Show me a sportsmanship checklist that isn't. I've seen many, but never an objective one.

This discussion isn't focused on the "vast majority" of players who are good sports, but the ones that aren't. The existence of this small minority is the foundation of the pro-sportsmanship scoring camp's reasoning for why this is needed at tournaments, but the system requires players to be honest, something these particular players are not. I can't fathom why some people think putting untrustworthy people on the honor system is a wise decision.

Mannahnin wrote:If you have any firm numbers on chipmunking, I'd love to hear them. From my perspective, at the events I attend and hear about, it seems vanishingly rare.

At the last event with "soft scores" that I attended (approx 9 months ago), a Nidzilla player got max scores from his first two opponents. His third opponent, who he tabled, scored him 0. The difference between max and min scoring from that third person was enough to rank him below the third place person and cost him any chance at prizes.

Edit:

As a second corollary, I have not played in a soft score event since that one, and we seem to have the exact amount of asshattery go on when there is no scoring beyond battle points. At least one round seems to have someone pull a 'TFG' move, but no more and no less than before.

I sigged the quote from Ragnar but apparently it was automatically cropped off since I pasted it at the end of my sig.

Danny is providing what I consider to be valuable insight since the TO he mentioned analyzed the scoring round by round from a large event. Anytime we have actual numbers to look at that is very helpful to determine how a scoring category, such as sportsmanship in this particular example, worked out.

I have another real example I can offer from running a GT last year. I used the following rules for the players to score their opponents' sportsmanship - at the end of the last game each player was given a scorecard. They ranked each opponent from their games 1 to 5, 5 being awarded to the opponent they felt was the best sport and 1 being awarded to the opponent they felt was the worst sport, everyone else inbetween. I had played in a large RTT prior to my GT that used this rubric and I thought it was a great system since it curbs chipmunking & block voting for friends. I went over all these scores by hand as I tallied them and noticed that a group of players from a club outside the state where the GT was held tended to consistently receive lower scores than the rest of the gamers. I had spent a lot of time patrolling the tables during each round and I did not notice any particular problems overall with the club. I also went out to dinner with a lot of gamers from the GT on the Saturday evening and no one in particular had anything bad to say about the club. Later after the scores had been publicly posted I visited the local forum for the club and their gamers who had attended the GT openly complained about their sportsmanship scores stating they didn't remember any bad games over the course of the GT and I had to agree with their assessment. So I decided to drop this particular rubric for any future events I run. I would have never guessed something like this could occur and came to the conclusion that the other players gave the club low sportsmanship scores because they were from outside the area. As it turned out these low scores did not affect any of the awards but still I saw what I consider to be a flaw with that particular rubric.

To me sportsmanship is somewhat a necessary 'evil' needed to help curb cheating and players acting like a jerk. As a TO I always let the gamers know ahead of time what I expect from them when they come to play and that includes sportsmanship and painted armies. If you as a gamer consistently demonstrate poor sportsmanship or don't meet the minimum requirements for a painted army I will them to pack it up and leave. Unfortunately you are not going to catch everything little thing that happens but you should be able to observe certain bad situations if you pay attention... So yes in the end it is the responsibility of the TOs to enforce the rules during the event.

G

One tournament I played in had a "preparation score" rather than sportsmanship. It could only be deducted from in the event a player didn't bring his own supplies (Dice, measure, templates, books ect.) I know some tournaments roll this into sportsmanship but I feel sportsmanship is not needed. As a chaos player my friend was deducted points for telling a tyranid player that "It's after me" doesn't effect his daemon prince. (DP is a MC no where is it called a "character") Save the debate for another thread, but the TO ruled in favor of my friend but was still deducted points for some bogus other reasons the player made up for vindication.

I just give everyone a 1 for sportsmanship as a kind of protest against it, its the most slowed idea ever, it doesnt keep anyone in check, it just lets people blatantly cheat, and if you actually do call them on it they ruin your chances at first place in the tourney because they raped your soft scores ...

So everyone gets a 1 from me so that i dont have to worry about losing my soft scores,ive already accepted them as lost because i will call you on every single shenanigan you try to pull ... and with a scoring system like this, ensuring you actually get to play the game by its actual rules means you have 1s for soft scores.

Danny Internets wrote:This discussion isn't focused on the "vast majority" of players who are good sports, but the ones that aren't. The existence of this small minority is the foundation of the pro-sportsmanship scoring camp's reasoning for why this is needed at tournaments, but the system requires players to be honest, something these particular players are not. I can't fathom why some people think putting untrustworthy people on the honor system is a wise decision.

Whoa there, buddy. That's a might wide brush you're swinging, to paint everyone's argument the same color.

I provided my justification for sportsmanship above, and it's not about punishing unsporting people, any more than painting scores are intended to punish people who can't paint. People who are the most fun to play deserve recognition/reward at least as much as people who have the prettiest models, in my opinion.

I think that using the Olympic filter for sportsmanship can help curb abuse of soft scores. Basically how the Olympic filter works is you eliminate the high score and low score for each player. For example suppose a player received the following sportsmanship scores over the course of five games:

3, 2, 3, 5, 1

Drop the high score (5) and drop the low score (1). So for this particular example the unfiltered total score would have added up to 14 (3+2+3+5+1), or 2.8 points on average per game. The filtered score would have added up to 8 (3+2+3), or 2.67 points per game if you normalize the aggravate score based upon 5 games. The difference is 0.5% based on a perfect overall score of 25 (5*5) or 0.867% based on an average overall score of 15 (5*3). It might not seem like that much but it could possibly make a difference in the outcome based upon the top few players if the total score for best overall was separated by less than one point (i.e., tie breaker).

Looking over this example you can see that using a score of 5 to denote perfect sportsmanship for a single game doesn't seem to have that big of an impact on the top few players. So it would be better to use 10 to denote perfect sportsmanship for a single game. Here is a second example to reflect the difference:

7, 5, 6, 1, 9

The unfiltered aggravate score is 28 or 5.6 points per game. The filtered score is 30 if you multiply the filtered score by 1.67 or 6 points per game. The overall differnce is now 2 points total which could tend to have a more significant impact on the top few gamers.

I arbitrarily selected the individual scores for both examples. Is the filter worth the extra effort? I do think it could make a difference if there was a very tight spread between the top few players.

G

I still don't see the value. Filtering, diluting, or curving sportsmanship scores is simply going to give everybody similar results, unless someone is quite clearly a disgustingly bad sport, which should be glaringly obvious to the TO.

And if a couple points of sportsmanship spread could significantly impact the top three player rankings, why add this arbitrary ranking? If Player A gets first place by a one battlepoint margin and Player B squeaks him because he's two points more sporting on the arbitrary index, I do not feel that B should claim first place and A second.

That'd be like running a race 1 second faster than the next guy, and losing the gold medal because #2 was just the man.

But the guy who was faster might have had a false start.

Anyways I'm not saying i definitely am an advocate of filtering but i think it's valuable to consider their possible merit. If you are in the camp opposed to soft scores then obviously you won't see any potential merit.

G

Sportsmanship is fine as long as it is a separate award. If it goes towards an overall winner it is too easy for someone to just tank you so they can do better.

When sportsmanship is factored in, I metagame by being friendly and nice. Which actually makes me a poor sportsman because I'm using rules to give myself an advantage in order to place higher. I try explain why I'm so nice and ask my opponent to give me a 1, because I'm so ashamed of my rules abuse. Which actually makes me a good sportsmen in some peoples' eyes, so my opponent usually gives me a 10. Which just exacerbates my guilt so then I go to the judge to explain the situation and ask him to change my score to a 1. Most of the time the judges just give me a look.

Reverse psychology strikes back!

I agree that TO's should pay more attention to scores but not all of them do. But honestly how many people want to give up their weekends to "judge" a tourney?

Roaming judges would be nice to be on the look out for any potential cheaters or people that need help interpreting the rules.

You can also have people that are dedicated looking over the score cards, if they see a certain person is always tanking another persons sportsmanship especially if their opponent has had good/great sportsmanship thus far than obviously it's a fluke. But if a particular players sportsmanship is bad from the get go maybe the guy really is just a douche.

I think there should be sportsmanship scores, but they should not affect the battle points. They should just be there so the judges know who needs to be hit with the 'ole yardstick. This keeps the good aspect of sportsmanship scores (preventing cheating) while losing the bad aspect (voting someone down because you lost, don't like their hairstyle, etc.).

I also think it would be nice to have a small prize ($10-20 store credit for instance) for best sportsman, but again it should not affect the winner of the tournament.

Blackmoor wrote:Can someone make an argument of why we need sportsmanship at a tournament?

The UK system works well here by just giving TFG a yellow card as a warning, and a red card and an ejection.

I think you answered your own question.

If TOs uniformly grew a pair and weren't afraid to put their collective foot up a TFG's backside, Sports wouldn't be an issue. In the US, simply make "Zero Tolerance" Sports the norm for Tournament play, sack up, and boot the TFGs without any refunds.

Anybody think its ironic none of the Canadians have commented on this thread?




I slap you with my stick and punch you in yo face!

No, no sir, go sit in the timeout box for 2 whole minutes you bad boy...


just sayin'...

Canadians as a whole are far too polite for any of this discussion to make any sense.

I mean, they apologize to furniture they bump into...

Maybe a set of guidelines such as;

did you opponent measure correctly?

have standards for re-rolling questionable dice lands?

Manage time fairly?

I think it would be advantageous to keep people "honest", and by no means able to be used against them without raising a red flag.
I mean if you get say sports, or whatever we want to call it, score of "x" and then your next round you get "x-5" then there could be a program feature to notify the judge to check that slip of paper and if necessary follow up with the line judge and see why the change is so drastic. You could even go as far as to compare the guy that gave the low score's previous matches as well and see if they dinged people and then perhaps adjust or talk with them separately. That would keep chimpunking to a minimum, BUT require more work/ computer excel code etc and someone willing to enact it.

just my .02 Alan.

I think it is very biased on the part of the judges. Some simple rules are easily judged and continued the game, which is why I have described this as a "gentleman's game". If it's questionable because you know the rules, point it out... if it's questionable about a millimeter or a rule not covered in FAQ, let it go. It makes for a much easier, less anal-retentive game by playing that way. assume your opponent will grant you the same level of politeness. (but often they don't, and argue about every little nitpick... and I think they are jerks... RAW junkies and whiners about dice gods come to mind.

The point of a gathering of gamers is to play games, have fun, not get all crazy about exact wording of rules, or micromeasuring distances. Those are the people who I would score low on sportsmanship. The friendly and not-too-argumentative ones would score higher, it's that simple... but maybe I'm resurected Ghandi or something for feeling that way and all it takes is one bully to ruin the peace.

when ever a little complaint about a millimeter difference, or the length of the barrel of a gun on a tank becomes questioned, that's what the 'sportsman' points are for. You know what the 'intent' was from a player's move, and maybe his model's sword got in the way in distancing, or maybe your extra "hull" modifications make your tank visible, or a tiny terrain piece gets in the way of something trivial, like a millimeter difference between someone being in the open or getting a cover save, when your tank's intention was very obvious to both players. Those things are just a$shole kind of nitpicks used by competetive players, and would deserve a low sportsmanship score.

There are a lot of incongruities in a 40k game, and I think the 'sportsmanship' score would, ideally, represent a person's ability to let that stuff go, because it is not an exact game. Players trying to manipulate the 'sportsmanship' system for their tournament advantage I would think should actually get penalized points, but who is to judge who is playing like a nice guy and who is playing like an a hole... probably some other a hole.

It's the system of who scores you is the problem.

I completely disagree with the other player giving you a score because I have never ever met a loser who is happy about it. I think it should be more based on the judge's observation of the game and how the players treat each other, not the opinion of the loser. But that would require judges who aren't socially awkward competetive dorks too, so that's a difficult equilibrium to find.

Timmah wrote:Nope, there isn't one.

I do not get why you would ever put a score in a tournament just to insure people played by the RULES.

Unfortunately, this statement proves that you don't completely understand what sportsmanship is. By it's very definition, sportsmanship is much more than just "playing by the rules". It is about conduct befitting of a player, including being courteous and being graceful if you lose. Honestly, it's just about being polite. Is it really that hard to be polite to another person?

And as far as tanking sportsmanship scores go, the only way to prevent it is for the judges to look out for it. If someone tanks soft scores because they want an advantage or because they're a sore loser, it's very easy to tell. Judges just have to be on the lookout for it. And it is completely possible to be able to keep track of that kind of thing even in a large scale tournament, just have to know what you're looking for and have enough judges to be able to keep the event on track. That's just the basics of planning and running an event.

At the end of the day, I don't really mind if there's no sportsmanship scores, though I do prefer them. If everyone at an event can be courteous then it's not needed, but it has been proven on multiple occasions that some people are not able to show even a modicum of respect for anyone else. But, if you're not an abrasive person and have a semblance of manners, you have nothing to worry about, so why fight it?

Zomro wrote:And as far as tanking sportsmanship scores go, the only way to prevent it is for the judges to look out for it. If someone tanks soft scores because they want an advantage or because they're a sore loser, it's very easy to tell. Judges just have to be on the lookout for it. And it is completely possible to be able to keep track of that kind of thing even in a large scale tournament, just have to know what you're looking for and have enough judges to be able to keep the event on track. That's just the basics of planning and running an event.

If you have ample judges, and they are being vigilant, they should spend their time patrolling the tables and stopping bad sportsmanship while it is happening. Not sitting behind a table and trying to trace a paper trail of chip-munkers.

I'd appreciate it more if a judge walked over to a table where i was versing a bad apple and told the guy to knock it off or he was out, rather than get an email a week after the tournament from some TO thats telling me that they refunded some of my sportsmanship score because they noticed in their detective work that someone had unfairly docked me.

As a paying tourney attendee its not my job to make sure my opponent is acting like a normal human being... and if I start self-judging my game, because he is cheating or just doesn't know the rules, or i tell the guy that he is acting like a tool and I'm not having fun, what do i get? Docked sports...

Flawed system...

Shep wrote:

Zomro wrote:And as far as tanking sportsmanship scores go, the only way to prevent it is for the judges to look out for it. If someone tanks soft scores because they want an advantage or because they're a sore loser, it's very easy to tell. Judges just have to be on the lookout for it. And it is completely possible to be able to keep track of that kind of thing even in a large scale tournament, just have to know what you're looking for and have enough judges to be able to keep the event on track. That's just the basics of planning and running an event.

If you have ample judges, and they are being vigilant, they should spend their time patrolling the tables and stopping bad sportsmanship while it is happening. Not sitting behind a table and trying to trace a paper trail of chip-munkers.

I'd appreciate it more if a judge walked over to a table where i was versing a bad apple and told the guy to knock it off or he was out, rather than get an email a week after the tournament from some TO thats telling me that they refunded some of my sportsmanship score because they noticed in their detective work that someone had unfairly docked me.

As a paying tourney attendee its not my job to make sure my opponent is acting like a normal human being... and if I start self-judging my game, because he is cheating or just doesn't know the rules, or i tell the guy that he is acting like a tool and I'm not having fun, what do i get? Docked sports...

Flawed system...

You're right, it isn't your job to make sure your opponent is acting a certain way, that'd be silly. If you are polite, you should be acting as such because you believe that how you should be acting. You aren't there to teach your opponent manners. If your opponent has bad sportsmanship, you mark that down on the score, period.

Also, I'm not sure what your point is about self-judging your game. If your opponent is cheating, you don't call it out because you shouldn't be "judging" your game? You just let him do it because it's not your job? Playing by the rules works both ways. Player responsibility is not just you playing by the rules, it's to make sure that your opponent does as well. Pointing out a wrongly played rule does not make you a bad sportsman, it's how you act while doing it.

If a judge is patrolling the gaming area and sees bad sportsmanship going on, what exactly is he supposed to do about it? If you're not cheating, what are they going to do? All your idea is really doing is just wasting a judge's attention when they should be there to do what they're there to do, judge rules disputes. It's far more reasonable to expect the people tabulating scores to see someone tanking scores than it is to expect the judges to be baby sitters.

Zomro wrote:Pointing out a wrongly played rule does not make you a bad sportsman, it's how you act while doing it.

Still will probably get you marked down on sportsmanship, though. Unless the judges do take the time and effort to police all the scores, if you play a TFG, yeah you can hit his score, but he's also dropping yours, so nothing is solved. It just gives TFG a way to mess with your tournament experience beyond the fact that you had to put up with him for two hours. If the judges are policing scores, couldn't that time be better spent just policing players in general and looking for TFG anyway?

I guess one of my big problems with sportsmanship scores is that it can negatively impact regular guys just as bad as it can TFGs. At best, by the time you mark down sports after the game, TFG has already ruined that game for you. I'd just rather the judge come over and tell him to knock it off so I can possibly salvage a decent game out of it.

Zomro wrote:If a judge is patrolling the gaming area and sees bad sportsmanship going on, what exactly is he supposed to do about it? If you're not cheating, what are they going to do? All your idea is really doing is just wasting a judge's attention when they should be there to do what they're there to do, judge rules disputes. It's far more reasonable to expect the people tabulating scores to see someone tanking scores than it is to expect the judges to be baby sitters.

Bogus, and if widespread this sentiment would simply show the amateurish level on which 40k events are run. If a player or a coach, or even a fan, is being flagrantly rude or disrespectful, or interfering in the flow of an event, it is the job of the judge/referee/umpire to call them on it, and if necessary, dock them with an appropriate penalty or remove them from the event.

It's not babysitting, it's the superior method of behavior enforcement than waiting until after the match is over and asking each player how nice they were, and arbitrating any disagreement regarding the niceness rankings.

I run tournaments fairly regularly, and we include: comp, sportsmanship, painting/presentation, etc. and we never have a problem with it.

Wanna know the secret? We give out different prizes for different categories. That's right, I don't care how 'broken' you or the other players think your list is (as long as it's legal) it won't hurt your battle score...don't expect to with the comp prize at the end of the day though with your 3 Rune Priest, and six 5xGrey Hunter w/Razorback spam list.

Are you an excellent painter but a terrible player!? I don't care, one has no impact on the other, thus they are graded in different ways with different rubrics. You paint better, you get painting prize! You play better, you get playing prize! Not the biggest a-hole!? YOU GET SPORTSMANSHIP PRIZE!!!!!!

Ahhh, life is so simple and sweet.


Edit: Fixin' mah grammars.

@RxGhost:

You're my hero!

I think the gripe here is that it all comes down to a judge's ruling which some players think is unfair. Personally, if I played a good game against a good player who was nice and friendly about the whole thing, I would want that guy to score some extra points for not being a sore loser or a rules lawyer or a ref-botherer. But that's just the way I approach this game. Some other people travel a thousand miles to a tournament they prepped for months to enter, and don't want some arbitrary troll-faced ref determine whether they get to the finals or not. That is completely understandable. I reiterate, why don't we all just play nice and then we wouldn't need a ref to tell people what their score is on playing nice.

CitizenPrime wrote:Anybody think its ironic none of the Canadians have commented on this thread?




I slap you with my stick and punch you in yo face!

No, no sir, go sit in the timeout box for 2 whole minutes you bad boy...


just sayin'...

I'm Canadian and I commented. For some reason my little flag is American; how do I change that?

Totally agree... Sound like you got an aweful lot of common sense there RxGhost. A good solid, junk free, answer. You must be from the south.

MorbidlyObeseMonkey wrote:

CitizenPrime wrote:Anybody think its ironic none of the Canadians have commented on this thread?




I slap you with my stick and punch you in yo face!

No, no sir, go sit in the timeout box for 2 whole minutes you bad boy...


just sayin'...

I'm Canadian and I commented. For some reason my little flag is American; how do I change that?

You can't, you have been assimilated. Here's an order of fried cheese sticks with ranch and some terrible reality television.

RxGhost wrote:I run tournaments fairly regularly, and we include: comp, sportsmanship, painting/presentation, etc. and we never have a problem with it.

Wanna know the secret? We give out different prizes for different categories. That's right, I don't care how 'broken' you or the other players think your list is (as long as it's legal) it won't hurt your battle score...don't expect to with the comp prize at the end of the day though with your 3 Rune Priest, and six 5xGrey Hunter w/Razorback spam list.

Are you an excellent painter but a terrible player!? I don't care, one has no impact on the other, thus they are graded in different ways with different rubrics. You paint better, you get painting prize! You play better, you get playing prize! No the biggest a-hole!? YOU GET SPORTSMANSHIP PRIZE!!!!!!

Ahhh, life is so simple and sweet.

I was just going to post something like this, glad I read to the end of the thread.

This is the biggest issue that I see with tournaments - not any sportsmanship score etc, or comp score. Its Best Overall. But does getting rid of it make life any easier?

The issue I see here is what if you get people who go nuts about getting Best General anyway, and so will do ANYTHING to win the game? I mean, they can act like an ass, go slow, whatever, just to win, and now sportsmanship doesn't affect them will their behavior really improve? There needs to be an incentive for some people to act in a social manner.


The only solution I see is having a game check +, check or check minus that sums up whether the person is a fair player, reasonable, prepared, honest etc. Basically, just a bunch of tickboxes. You end up on a positive? Get +1 or +2 points depending on how far you go. You end up with a negative? -1 or -2 for bad cases. This could affect someone enough over 5 games to win or cost them 1 spot, but only if they really are shocking, or indeed are a lovely person. Most people should end up on neutral or a slight positive, which should even out across everyone.

You could even directly proscribe what people were judging - I mean, maybe check for army list for opponent, check for rules/tapemeasure/dice, check for a soft 'social' aspect during the game, check for a few others. Not a 'feeling' score for all of it, in other words. That way, if someone gives you a check minus for preparedness, but you can prove you have all of your gear with you, etc, army list, game started on time and all that, you can say 'well, check it out' etc and have it revoked, or modified by the judges.

Lords2001, how is that any different from the broken checklist method of sportsmanship scoring that already exists, and already gets gamed by the very people that create a "need" for it in the first place? You're proposing the exact same system that already exists, but instead of calling a 5/10 score +5 you call it +0, a 0/10 is called -2, 10/10 called +2 and so on. 1 point is often all it takes to differentiate between first place and second. The point still stands that the solution to people being dishonest jerks is not to give them the power to be even bigger dishonest jerks.

I personally monitor the tournaments while they're going on, and I'm on hand to mediate disputes during the game. Also, I do not tolerate any disrespect to the venue or anyone in it. If a player is acting rude towards a judge or another player, they get a warning. There is no second warning, only ejection from the tournament and a forfeiture of your entry fees.

That being said, I have never had to eject someone from a tourney for cheating or being rude, etc. I have had to issue a few warnings, some soft, some hard, but as the owner of the venue and also a member of the local gaming community, everyone has a pretty good idea how to conduct themselves.

Also, in terms of battle strategy and such in regards to stalling (unintentional or otherwise), it is considered poor tactics to construct and/or play an army whose goal is to run out the tourney timer by turn 3...if you don't know how to organize and move 60 Termagaunts a turn, you should not have brought that many. POOR TACTICAL PLANNING!

Players are notified in advance that the rounds are timed, and that a failure to complete a specific number of turns before that time runs out has penalties to your battle score.

And yes, we do have something similar to the checks/minuses thing as well. When players are filling out post-battle reports, a lot of the questions they will need to answer actually contain the data for many of the prize categories.

I don't think there can really be a 'scorecard' for something as abstract as sportsmanlike conduct, I think it must simply be judged by everyone who has to play against a person in a tournament, and maybe even the onlookers, who all get a secret ballot on whether the guy was a jerk or not. How do you think army creation should effect a 'sportsmanship' award either though? If you stack an army, that's kind of unsporting even before you start playing.

Players are notified in advance that the rounds are timed, and that a failure to complete a specific number of turns before that time runs out has penalties to your battle score.

How do you choose which player to penalize? I'd be pissed if I played an Ork player who slowed down my normally very quick games and then lost points because of something I had no control over to begin with.

I dont think that it should be like something that should put you in the top three if you lost alot but should be something in tounaments on the side because its cool to be recognized as a nice guy I won best sprotmanship twice and its a great feeling to win a box set for being a nice guy.

Sometimes it's as simple as the other player telling me that his opponent is taking too long for his turns either during or after the game.

Usually I go around to every table every half hour or so to check on the progress of the games, so I can usually tell when certain matches are lagging and I can git their buns in gear.

Keep in mind, the fact that there is a known penalty for stalling/running out of time is enough to keep even the most obstinate armies moving at a brisk pace. If your strategy is to run down the turn clock, you will not win the battle prize, the math won't allow it.

Getting rid of Best Overall is a good idea, but the problem is that GW requires it for GTs. The Best Overall award is to choose who goes to Vegas.

MorbidlyObeseMonkey wrote:Getting rid of Best Overall is a good idea, but the problem is that GW requires it for GTs. The Best Overall award is to choose who goes to Vegas.

TBH, I like Best Overall as Battle + Paint, but that's just me.

bah... all these "best this" and "best that" kind of seem like a bunch of guys patting each other on the back about this or that. Best overall just makes it a matter of scoring, and the tourney scores, just like the game, are often arbitrary and questionable. Why don't you just have one prize for "who was the most fun to play against?", but barring that, maybe a bingo game afterwards for who gets the free box set. Too bad gamers tend towards the anal-retentive rulesy bickery whiney people when things don't go their way, but that just proves my point! Argueing about sportsmanship points is a fairly obvious contradiction. Setting up a system by which they can be measured is doubly so.

jbunny wrote:When ever someone scores a low sportsmanship in a game I talk to both players seperately and ask if there were any issues in the game. If the player can not give a valid reason on why they tanked someones score, I penalize them. I also average out the tanked players other scores and replace that with the lower score. This is clear at the start of the tournament so my players need to know if they are going to give a low score they better have a reason for it.

So wait...

Let me see if I got this straight.

You arbitrarily replace arbitrary scores because someone's arbitrary reason was to arbitrary to you?

And you call that fair? That an arbitrary system produces arbitrary results?

Let me get my tinfoil hat and some popcorn. This should be good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:The underlying question is: how do you keep people from chipmunking?

If that's a major concern, I suggest that people that feel that way never, ever leave their living place.

Ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:But the guy who was faster might have had a false start.

And this has to do with what concerning this discussion?

Blackmoor wrote:
If you have cheating gits, they will just manipulate the sportsmanship system. For example: they make a deal with their opponents to give them the maximum sportsmanship score if they return the favor.

That was basically the status quo for years. People would fill out their forms in front of each other showing that they were both getting 10's. The checklist was a big improvement because you knew you couldn't get chipmunked but then if a guy was a pain in the ass to play you could only give him an 8 out of 10.

In the first year of Vegas GT Fat Peter from Toledo was just off the charts with the dick headed maneuvers, arguing for and against the same thing at different points in the same game, placing hills on top of crater templates, you name it he was probably doing it at some point that weekend. I watched two of his games at the next table over where I was just speechless at how much of a douche he was being, I can in all serious testify in a court of law about this day, it is seared in my brain.

He got a 27 out of 50 for Sports in that tournament!!!!!!!!! Edit: I should explain a bit. Many players who witnessed his behavior predicted he would get a 15, 10 or even a 0. Surely not more than 20. However apparently only one or two players did so and he played a tournament vet in round 5 who wouldn't let him get away with anything and they probably just gave each other 10's.

Sportsmanship scores as part of your overall score is to me unfair. I'm a decent guy to play, I like to have some fun and I'm not rude or disrespectful. I feel like I'm the average kind of guy when it comes to sports. And we are at a disadvantage to people who schmooze for good scores. There is a whole skill set that some very social people use to subtly get their opponents into giving them full sports. I don't want the overall award to have an element of "how well do you make people like you in 2 hours".

I don't care if someone is not fun to play. I just want to play some good games regardless of my opponents mood. If you have a guy like the one I described above you just remove him from the tournament after game 2.

Shinkaze wrote:
Sportsmanship scores as part of your overall score is to me unfair. I'm a decent guy to play, I like to have some fun and I'm not rude or disrespectful. I feel like I'm the average kind of guy when it comes to sports. And we are at a disadvantage to people who schmooze for good scores. There is a whole skill set that some very social people use to subtly get their opponents into giving them full sports. I don't want the overall award to have an element of "how well do you make people like you in 2 hours".

I don't care if someone is not fun to play. I just want to play some good games regardless of my opponents mood. If you have a guy like the one I described above you just remove him from the tournament after game 2.

That is my main complaint about sportsmanship. If you are a decent guy, playing a good game of 40k, why should you score a lot less than a guy who is good at schmoozing?

You can work on your paint scores and your comp, but should you have to work on your stand up routine to get a good sports score?

RxGhost wrote:I run tournaments fairly regularly, and we include: comp, sportsmanship, painting/presentation, etc. and we never have a problem with it.

Wanna know the secret? We give out different prizes for different categories. That's right, I don't care how 'broken' you or the other players think your list is (as long as it's legal) it won't hurt your battle score...don't expect to with the comp prize at the end of the day though with your 3 Rune Priest, and six 5xGrey Hunter w/Razorback spam list.

Are you an excellent painter but a terrible player!? I don't care, one has no impact on the other, thus they are graded in different ways with different rubrics. You paint better, you get painting prize! You play better, you get playing prize! Not the biggest a-hole!? YOU GET SPORTSMANSHIP PRIZE!!!!!!

Ahhh, life is so simple and sweet.


Edit: Fixin' mah grammars.

I wish I lived close to these tournaments, they sound perfect.

Taken from another thread...

Shinkaze wrote:sportsmanship(whether I am or am not someone you like to play)?

That's the rub. What you mentioned (Whether I am or am not someone you like to play) also has nothing to do with actual sportsmanship. Unfortunately, that is how it is used, so you have people that are a little shy, play with a different style army than you like/use, or different rules interpretations getting marked down when none of that has to do with actual sportsmanship.

Actual sportsmanship is not cheating, not gloating when winning/getting upset when losing, having an army list/supplies available, being consistant with die rolling and rules, and similar things.

Edit - If you are going to score sports, I would say a pass/fail system, and having to give a valid reason for the fail. (rules arguments and power level of the army are NOT valid reasons).

Blackmoor wrote:

That is my main complaint about sportsmanship. If you are a decent guy, playing a good game of 40k, why should you score a lot less than a guy who is good at schmoozing?

You can work on your paint scores and your comp, but should you have to work on your stand up routine to get a good sports score?

I've only been to a couple of events with sportsmanship (never GT level) and each time, I feel like I have to smile the whole game, let things slide, let little rules violations go unchallenged, grin while my opponent moves 7" on 6" moves....all because I don't want to get tanked for sportsmanship.

Like this analogy or don't: I'm a West Point graduate, and to my dying day, the phrase, "A cadet shall not lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do" will be ingrained in my head.

Sportsmanship scores at tournaments are like enforced tolerance of shenanigans.

I don't know. I always give peole the score I think they deserve. You are a chump if you don't.

G

RxGhost wrote:Wanna know the secret? We give out different prizes for different categories. That's right, I don't care how 'broken' you or the other players think your list is (as long as it's legal) it won't hurt your battle score...don't expect to with the comp prize at the end of the day though with your 3 Rune Priest, and six 5xGrey Hunter w/Razorback spam list.

Are you an excellent painter but a terrible player!? I don't care, one has no impact on the other, thus they are graded in different ways with different rubrics. You paint better, you get painting prize! You play better, you get playing prize! Not the biggest a-hole!? YOU GET SPORTSMANSHIP PRIZE!!!!!!

This...makes...too...MUCH...SENSE!!!! NYAARRRGLLL

That does make sense. I do think it should be on the shoulders of impartial observers to rate that kind of thing though. You don't get to assign your opponent his painting score, because it's very subjective. Winning a game is a lot more of an objective and obvious way of scoring. Army list judgements are also very subjective, you don't want to obviously powergame your codex but at the same time you do want it to have an edge to it. How do they score that?

(I have only ever played at one store tournament, never anything big like adepticon or games day, so my experience is limited about how players get so competetive and underhanded about these points things. Maybe I'm too naive, or maybe I'm just not a jerk?)

(I scored well on sportsmanship though! maybe because I wasn't really worried about it? I wasn't really worried about my score in general I was just there to play. That's actually the only thing I scored high on because I'm kind of unconventional with painting and my play is good but not great, and I can't remember the rules differences from edition to edition because I'm a forgetful kind of guy).

Anyhoo back to the point, wouldn't it solve the whole competative scoring about sportsmanship if it was just judged by 3rd parties, instead of players scoring each other?

Gornall wrote:

Zomro wrote:Pointing out a wrongly played rule does not make you a bad sportsman, it's how you act while doing it.

Still will probably get you marked down on sportsmanship, though. Unless the judges do take the time and effort to police all the scores, if you play a TFG, yeah you can hit his score, but he's also dropping yours, so nothing is solved. It just gives TFG a way to mess with your tournament experience beyond the fact that you had to put up with him for two hours. If the judges are policing scores, couldn't that time be better spent just policing players in general and looking for TFG anyway?

I guess one of my big problems with sportsmanship scores is that it can negatively impact regular guys just as bad as it can TFGs. At best, by the time you mark down sports after the game, TFG has already ruined that game for you. I'd just rather the judge come over and tell him to knock it off so I can possibly salvage a decent game out of it.

Mayhaps we're coming from the wrong perspective.

Sportsmanship, in general is a tool attempting to maintain or modify bad behavior or make the game more enjoyable for both players. Can we agree on that?
-Now lets back up from the tool. How can we maintain or modify bad behavior or make the game more enjoyable for both players. As noted here or another thread, I've quit GW tournament play as I run into too much bad personal behavior that creates unenjoyable games that ruin the whole day, and I have a 100 other things I can do than playing some loser that ruins my day.

How can that be improved? These guys:
-The TFG
-The Lump who sits and grunts
-The Guy Who Knows No Rules (Basic rules, like his own codex, not miniutia or items that perople have to discuss)
-The general er

Frazzled wrote: Sportsmanship, in general is a tool attempting to maintain or modify bad behavior or make the game more enjoyable for both players. Can we agree on that?

I agree that is the goal. I just don't know how much of a real deterence factor it has, TBH. Yeah, you can punish TFG after the fact (but he can also nail you too), but I don't know if it really PREVENTS bad behavior. From what I've seen, TFG is going to be TFG, sportsmanship or not. That is just purely my opinion, though.... it and $3 might buy you a gallon of gas.

Gornall wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Sportsmanship, in general is a tool attempting to maintain or modify bad behavior or make the game more enjoyable for both players. Can we agree on that?

I agree that is the goal. I just don't know how much of a real deterence factor it has, TBH. Yeah, you can punish TFG after the fact (but he can also nail you too), but I don't know if it really PREVENTS bad behavior. From what I've seen, TFG is going to be TFG, sportsmanship or not. That is just purely my opinion, though.... it and $3 might buy you a gallon of gas.

Thats why I am suggesting, step back adn think about how to address that. Thoughts?

In many areas, there aren't enough players around to support win-at-all-cost type tournaments.

Without a way to tone down bad behavior and keep from alienating folks who don't want to deal with jerks, a tournament organizer won't have a big enough population of players to draw from to fill an event.

As long as people's definition of 'jerk' is 'anyone who doesn't play like me', there's going to be issues with sports scores.

jshbchnn wrote:In many areas, there aren't enough players around to support win-at-all-cost type tournaments.

Without a way to tone down bad behavior and keep from alienating folks who don't want to deal with jerks, a tournament organizer won't have a big enough population of players to draw from to fill an event.

Nor should they. Who wants to play with a jerk?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:As long as people's definition of 'jerk' is 'anyone who doesn't play like me', there's going to be issues with sports scores.

Strawman. you and I both know there are lots of jerks. If you don't know about the jerks then maybe...

I think Mannahnin's idea no.3 is the best.

It is simple.

It identifies problem characters.

If someone hands out five 'noes' in one event, they are probably a problem character themself and should be investigated.

There is not perfect system and the judges should attempt to review and make final decisions on any results through up by a numerical system.

jshbchnn wrote:In many areas, there aren't enough players around to support win-at-all-cost type tournaments.

Without a way to tone down bad behavior and keep from alienating folks who don't want to deal with jerks, a tournament organizer won't have a big enough population of players to draw from to fill an event.

This.

skyth wrote:As long as people's definition of 'jerk' is 'anyone who doesn't play like me', there's going to be issues with sports scores.

Hey we're all social people here, otherwise we wouldn't be typing on-line for conversation, right? Um... okay bad example. You can tell when you meet TFG when he's argumentative, socially backward, and WAAAY to into needing to win. Bitching about dice, making micromeasurements for LOS (except for when their interest is at stake) and how much time the other guy takes is generally a bad score IMO. I had a wolf player at the store I used to game at who claimed LOS on his turn, and wanted me to measure it on mine, from the same friggin model... Besides that it was LOS on the feathers on the Autarch's head he was using a laser pointer he was that anal. Now that's just plain dumb. I let him take his shot but he didn't let me take mine without using his laser pointer. Okay that is just a jerk. That's not the rules being interpreted differently, it's just a jerk. I didn't mind him taking his shot he thought he had at my Autarch, but he quarrelled about my Autarch's shot (it was a reaper cannon so kind of I felt bad for taking it because it kills stuff easy, and then the whole game would be won-or-lost based on that one call)... but that kind of assholery and blatant micromeasurement (only when it serves your purpose) is what the sporty laws are for.

I heard at gencon once, when I asked for directions... "just go that way, you can smell the wargamer room" or something along those lines.

Truthfully, I think a turn time limit that forced games to finish correctly in 5-7 turns (and enough referees to prevent players from stalling games on opponents turns) would do more to make games fair and fun than any sportsmanship score. But of course, nothing is more annoying to me than stalling to hope for a turn 4 win.

When people play most sports in a competitive environment, there are judges/referees/whatever right there watching the whole game, deciding every rules dispute, etc. They also keep the game moving, but the games aren't typically time limited in a way one player or team can stall anyway.

Even then, there are sportsmanship rules - technical fouls, red cards, ejections or forfeits, etc for particularly egregious violations...but these are all handled by the referee.

With a 40k tournament (and many other game tournaments) this is not the case. It would be pretty difficult to have a trained judge for every table, along with a head referee, etc. But it wouldn't be hard to have a universal turn timer for every game.

Sportsmanship scores are fine in theory, but in reality they're just another way for jerks to cheat. If they were completely handled by the referee at the table (-1 point, swearing at your opponents, -1 point, arguing a rule after the judges decision, blah blah) then it would be fine, it would be like penalties in any other game.

You could expect the players to call over the ref every time they want to report a sportsmanship complaint - have a special sportsmanship ref, and just write it down and signal the referee to come over - or you could do what was mentioned elsewhere in the thread and expect everyone to get 10's in sportsmanship, and discuss with players any time someone doesn't, and reserve the right to reset the score to 10 if their reasons for docking points aren't good enough or are disputed.

All of this is just ironing out kinks though, and don't solve all problems with sports. I will say though, to say there is "no evidence" that it is needed is a little unfair - where is the evidence that it isn't needed? No one has any evidence for anything through their own anecdotal experiences. Some people are nice enough that they easily diffuse jerks, while others, without being jerks themselves, set the jerks off. Some people are or appear easily bullied, so the bully in the opponent comes out, while other people don't have that problem ever because of their physical or social stature. That doesn't make it not a problem, just not one you see.

Frazzled wrote:

skyth wrote:As long as people's definition of 'jerk' is 'anyone who doesn't play like me', there's going to be issues with sports scores.

Strawman. you and I both know there are lots of jerks. If you don't know about the jerks then maybe...

It's not a strawman. I've seen too many people refered to as jerks because of what army they play.

Frazzled wrote:Thats why I am suggesting, step back adn think about how to address that. Thoughts?

I'm not too proud to admit that I honestly don't know how to prevent TFG from wanting to show up. Maybe kick the person with the lowest sportsmanship score in the junk at the end of the tournament?

lambadomy wrote:Truthfully, I think a turn time limit that forced games to finish correctly in 5-7 turns (and enough referees to prevent players from stalling games on opponents turns) would do more to make games fair and fun than any sportsmanship score. But of course, nothing is more annoying to me than stalling to hope for a turn 4 win.

I have a problem with this.

I play mechanized orks.

Turn1 move phase: 2 minutes. Turn1 shoot phase: 5 minutes. Turn1 assault phase: 10 seconds.
Turn2 move phase: 20 minutes. Turn2 shoot phase: 20-30 minutes. Turn2 assault phase: 30 minutes.
Turn3 move phase: 2 minutes. Turn3 shoot phase: 2 minutes. Turn3 assault phase: 10 minutes.

My 40k games are 1-2 turns of maneuvering, 1 turn of solid krumping, and 1-2 turns of cleanup afterwards.

Am I going to be denied my Waaaugh! and assault because its the most time-consuming event in the game?

If everyone just gave everyone a 10 then no problem. So why bother in the first place. If I get points knocked off for saying a naughty word, by someone who wasn't actually offended, just given an excuse to act so to knock my score down, I would be kind of mad enough to use another dirty word, y'know? A lot of that has to do with the age and parental control of some of the younger players, and the store ref's wanting to put on a good face... but if I say "bullsh!t" to a 35 year old I really don't expect him to report me for naughty language. Some of them might though just to up their relative score by lowering mine. fork shoot piz arse etc kind of doesn't matter unless parents are around, where we all play without our explatives. You all know what "sh!t" means, is it really worth docking a point? Of course, I smoke cigs too and go for a smoke break between turns, and have a drink before the game, which some mormons or whatever might be offended by, (why are rich suburbanites with xtian values always the most uptight? never mind... stupid question... it's the gamer breeding ground...) is that a point taken too for all those 'offenses'?

The main thing I like about the sports score is that it cuts down on whining. I've realized that that's what I really like about tournaments as compared to casual play. Your opponent isn't there making you feel sorry about their dice rolls or your new codex or whatever. You just play the game and fight to win. I'm willing to take my chances with somebody hitting my scores in order to enjoy myself more, so I'm all for sports scores even if it means that the best (or luckiest) person may not win the tournament. I'm willing to lose a few points on my less than golden demon painted army in order to get to play against beautifully painted armies too.

In the end, its about culture. Red cards can help create a culture of good sportsmanship, scoring can do it too. In a perfect world innate good manners and honor would do it, but we don't live in that world.

I think some guidelines on what constitutes good sportsmanship is advisable, as most people will want to score accurately but may have different ideas about what is OK.

I would join the chorus in saying that separate prizes is probably a good idea.

The idea that judges should "referee" sportsmanship is ridiculous, IMHO. Barring blatant cheating and misbehavior, how do they really know what is going on without watching your entire game?

but some of us do play with innate good manners and honor... and lose sometimes and win sometimes, based on an arbitrary score policy or win sometimes based on the lack of it. You are right sir, that it puts a 'niceguy' factor into the game, but even that just ends up getting spun and used by the competative crazies... arguing for points about not being argumentative is not very constructive and it does create that controversy that the score exists in the first place. This is not, never has been, and never will be, an exact game... so even having prizes in the first place makes people into gladiators of the mind, all trying to out-do each other but none of them have the balls to just play chess (or poker ) to hash out who is really better... they sit and argue and whoever argues best wins... yay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it is because of that element that a sportsmanship award (or probably penalty in many cases) serves well in the 'overall' category... can you paint? can you win? can you design a good army? can you NOT BE A DICK? yeah that last question would knock off a lot of 40k players from the finals.... but the nature of the game is to be competetive, so we can pat all the nidzilla list guys, or fish-o-fury guys on the head with the fondness of a parent of a slowed child.

They should just turn it around and award sportsmanship points to whoever doesn't have to argue so much about sportsmanship points... or during the game. It might actually make sense then.

anybody here ever won a Dungeons And Dragons tournament? How the heckll do you win a dnd 'tournament'? What you played the best 'stupid fighter' role? scoring on certain things just seems dumb. My shricats shoot 12" and get 2 shots, and come with my sidekick scatterlaser... that's all I know. I prefer to keep the game pure in that way. That's why these scores are taken into account.

Guitardian wrote:If everyone just gave everyone a 10 then no problem. So why bother in the first place. If I get points knocked off for saying a naughty word, by someone who wasn't actually offended, just given an excuse to act so to knock my score down, I would be kind of mad enough to use another dirty word, y'know? A lot of that has to do with the age and parental control of some of the younger players, and the store ref's wanting to put on a good face... but if I say "bullsh!t" to a 35 year old I really don't expect him to report me for naughty language. Some of them might though just to up their relative score by lowering mine. fork shoot piz arse etc kind of doesn't matter unless parents are around, where we all play without our explatives. You all know what "sh!t" means, is it really worth docking a point? Of course, I smoke cigs too and go for a smoke break between turns, and have a drink before the game, which some mormons or whatever might be offended by, (why are rich suburbanites with xtian values always the most uptight? never mind... stupid question... it's the gamer breeding ground...) is that a point taken too for all those 'offenses'?

Maturity also means, you know acting mature. We usually get out of the "look I'm old enough to [insert whatever here] aren't I matuurrreee" thing out when we hit adulthood. Its just sad after that.

You know if you're a disgusting human being I wouldn't be around in Real Life why would I want to be around you in a tournament? If you don't dress or act appropriately then you're out on your ass in any other tournament. GW tournies should be the same.

@Dashofpepper

good point, but nothing says that every turn has to have the same length, or that there can't be ways of breaking up the time limits or having extra time post game for slower games to finish up. A universal clock probably won't work in general, because every turn is different and some people play slower or faster and you'd have a lot of wasted time if people had to wait for the clock. Maybe everyone gets a chess clock and each player gets an hour on their clock, and if you run out of time and your opponent doesn't you're penalized in some way. But an hour for one turn is a long time regardless of what army you're playing.

@frazzled

Oh please, we've all been on a playground before. It's not as if hearing that word that fat smelly guy in the gamer store changed your life. playgrounds happen. I dont think it should be worth a point.... oh yeah, bud... thanks for calling me immature. I take it as a compliment.

I am so bringing a chess clock to my next tournament... I'm actually fairly slow in playing, so it'll hopefully make me play faster.

I wanna just show up with a chess set personally and say "that's right b!tchazz! How you like me now! Nobody cares if your a good sssssport or whatever any more can ya beat me?"

APPOLOGIES FOR APPROXIMATED LINGUISTIC BIT

Dashofpepper wrote:

lambadomy wrote:Truthfully, I think a turn time limit that forced games to finish correctly in 5-7 turns (and enough referees to prevent players from stalling games on opponents turns) would do more to make games fair and fun than any sportsmanship score. But of course, nothing is more annoying to me than stalling to hope for a turn 4 win.

I have a problem with this.

I play mechanized orks.

Turn1 move phase: 2 minutes. Turn1 shoot phase: 5 minutes. Turn1 assault phase: 10 seconds.
Turn2 move phase: 20 minutes. Turn2 shoot phase: 20-30 minutes. Turn2 assault phase: 30 minutes.
Turn3 move phase: 2 minutes. Turn3 shoot phase: 2 minutes. Turn3 assault phase: 10 minutes.

My 40k games are 1-2 turns of maneuvering, 1 turn of solid krumping, and 1-2 turns of cleanup afterwards.

Am I going to be denied my Waaaugh! and assault because its the most time-consuming event in the game?

If you used a chess clock you'd have half the game to make your moves. So in a 2 1/2 hour tournament game you'd have 1 hour and 15 minutes to take your turns and your oppenant would have 1 hour and 15 minutes to take his.

Dash- I don't know if you've ever been slow played but it is one of the worst game experiances out there IMO. 2 years ago in 'ard boys I only got through 2 1/2 turns with a Necron player due to slow play and I was playing Mech Tau!

By having a chess clock you'd be able to show someone that they've taken between 70-80% of the game's time on their turns.

Guitardian wrote: @frazzled

Oh please, we've all been on a playground before. It's not as if hearing that word that fat smelly guy in the gamer store changed your life. playgrounds happen. I dont think it should be worth a point.... oh yeah, bud... thanks for calling me immature. I take it as a compliment.

Correction.
Playgrounds happened. Although my father in law has the record in strung together profanity I'm no slouch. However, its not generally appropriate for a tourney. Bathing is. I've run into gamers who smell worse than the homeless people here.

Frazzled wrote:

Correction.
Playgrounds happened. Although my father in law has the record in strung together profanity I'm no slouch. However, its not generally appropriate for a tourney. Bathing is. I've run into gamers who smell worse than the homeless people here.

I'm actually a song-writer and amateur performer; I've got an album of parodies with a million+ downloads - I've decided to turn my musical talents to 40k. Soon, there will be a thread in General Discussion where I post my songs as I record them for people to listen and laugh.

http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/CurzonDax/Romance_in_Eve.mp3

That's a parody of Breakfast at Tiffanys that I made a couple years ago about Eve Online. I sing better now (promise) and have decided to convert this to Warhammer 40k and my first song will be about stinky gamers. Here's a sneak preview:

Stinky Gamer
You say
Your mom did laundry yesterday
Then how did that food stain say?
You got it there last Saturday

You say
You brush and floss for tournaments
But you need a box of breath mints
I gag whenever you talk to me.

And I said
What about
a sign on the store
No shirt no shoes no
Shower no Service
And I think we would all
Appreciate your help
to stop being such a
Stinky Gamer!

Blackmoor wrote:

That is my main complaint about sportsmanship. If you are a decent guy, playing a good game of 40k, why should you score a lot less than a guy who is good at schmoozing?

You can work on your paint scores and your comp, but should you have to work on your stand up routine to get a good sports score?

Both players should get 10 for sportsmanship. Sportsmanship should be entirely a system of minuses. No one should care if the game was the best game someone played, or the worst. People should only care if people:

tried to cheat
were specifically rude or abusive
played slowly on purpose
did specific other things to make your miserable that are not game related (which would need to be specifically explained to the judges and preferably the opponent before you are able to dock points)
smelled bad (just kidding)

when sportsmanship is full of things like "this game was ok, this game was AWESOME" and they treat them as different scores, it is inherently unfair and can never be fair, it is too subjective and adds too much room for chipmunking

That does NOT mean that sportsmanship scores are bad. It means scores that differentiate "the game was ok" from "the game was GREAT" are bad. None of that has ANYTHING to do with ANY reasonable definition of sportsmanship. It's an extension of the idea of sportsmanship beyond what is necessary or correct.

When a game isn't judged or refereed directly, something needs to happen to keep the more obnoxious players in line, in my opinion. You obviously have a different experience from that, but I think it is important to keep the idea of sportsmanship scores separate from some of the non-sportsmanship scoring that goes on in the guise of sportsmanship. This just clouds the discussion because people are then arguing different things. Are the typical sportsmanship checklists at a GW run tournament terrible? Yes. Is sportsmanship scoring that only worries about good sportsmanship good? Probably.

Sportsmanship scores will never be fair.

They are subjective and arbitrary.

That is my whole argument against them.

If someone could design a system that is not subjective and arbitrary, then I could go along with it.

You can't, so I don't and anyone wanting to be fair shouldn't go along with sportsmanship either.

If someone could design a system that is not subjective and arbitrary, then I could go along with it.

You can't, so I don't and anyone wanting to be fair shouldn't go along with sportsmanship either.

But how else can we keep our feelings from being hurt by the WAAC boogeymen?

Danny Internets wrote:

If someone could design a system that is not subjective and arbitrary, then I could go along with it.

You can't, so I don't and anyone wanting to be fair shouldn't go along with sportsmanship either.

But how else can we keep our feelings from being hurt by the WAAC boogeymen?

Of course! How could I forget?

I would rather play against a jerk than to play in a system that is subjective and arbitrary.

I'm pretty sure sportsman ship scores exist because of all the 'sperging nerds ITT.

the_trooper wrote:I'm pretty sure sportsman ship scores exist because of all the 'sperging nerds ITT.

And I am pretty sure that every tournament that uses sportsmanship scores are not fair.

Irony huh? The scoring system that is intended to encourage friendly games ends up being abused by competative shysters looking to eek out that extra point by any means they can.

If a player is unsporting and there is scoring for sportsmanship then they deserve to lose some points. It's no one's fault other than the player if they give a high score to someone that was unsporting.

G

The problem is, what is unsporting is increadibly subjective.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:

That is my main complaint about sportsmanship. If you are a decent guy, playing a good game of 40k, why should you score a lot less than a guy who is good at schmoozing?

You can work on your paint scores and your comp, but should you have to work on your stand up routine to get a good sports score?

I've only been to a couple of events with sportsmanship (never GT level) and each time, I feel like I have to smile the whole game, let things slide, let little rules violations go unchallenged, grin while my opponent moves 7" on 6" moves....all because I don't want to get tanked for sportsmanship.

Like this analogy or don't: I'm a West Point graduate, and to my dying day, the phrase, "A cadet shall not lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do" will be ingrained in my head.

Sportsmanship scores at tournaments are like enforced tolerance of shenanigans.

Sportsmanship scores at tournaments are in no way meant for you to tolerate any form of unfair play. By letting that sort of stuff slide you are, by definition, not being a good sportsman. Sportsmanship is comprised of playing fair, being courteous, winning / losing gracefully, etc. If you let someone take extra movement without pointing it out, you're a bad sport. If you try to play fair whilst conducting yourself in a polite and courteous fashion, you're a good sport.

I've already accepted your position that people can tank your score (your in a general sense, not directed specifically at you). However, that is not an excuse to let cheating slide as, I've said before, that is bad sportsmanship. Sadly, there's nothing you can do about someone being petty enough to lie and cheat on your sportsmanship. If they're the type to do that, they're probably already trying to cheat you in game, so why let them get away with it?

To be completely honest, and to reiterate what I stated in an earlier post, I would not mind one bit if a tournment didn't have a sportsmanship score, but I do prefer that a tournament has one. I'm mainly just trying to argue the merits of sportsmanlike conduct in a general sense. I hope (a bit naive, I supposed) that people can act in a respectful manner to one another, at least when it comes to a game of plastic and metal soldiers.

If TOs would just make sure they have good judges/refs and enough coverage with them, there is no need for sports scores imo.

But judges are mostly just volunteers or people getting paid store wages plus the cost of the trip. It's not like high incentive to really care that much about getting in other people's arguements.

@zomro's post... I think if you forget a movement or some other thing and have to ask "wait I forgot, can I just do this real quick?" before your fire phase, or actually any move taken out of sequence that has absolutely no effect on the other player... that's not bad sportsmanship. Consider this: I have a farseer with "guide"... I move... then I cast on his own squad which he was with at the beginning of the turn? How does that affects the other guy's decisions... if not at all.. then a good sport wouldn't make a big deal about it because it really didn't matter. The anal rules lawyer might be a jerk about it because he knows it's throwing off your intention just by doing something slightly out of sequence, not allowing you to cast your spell or whatever. That's just anal seeming to me. Everybody makes mistakes during a game, little forgetful bits here and there - but as long as it doesn't effect an opponent decision, or give you an unfair advantage, I think nitpicking like that just makes everyone around know you're an ass for making a big deal about it.

Maelstrom808 wrote:If TOs would just make sure they have good judges/refs and enough coverage with them, there is no need for sports scores imo.

How many judges do you think would be needed?

Would they need to know the rules well, as well as being sensible, diplomatic people?

How much would they be paid?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:If TOs would just make sure they have good judges/refs and enough coverage with them, there is no need for sports scores imo.

How many judges do you think would be needed?
Personally I think 1 per 3 games in progress would be ideal, assuming the tables were not too spread out. This is also assuming they are actually watching the games instead of chatting with friends and only paying attention when called.

Would they need to know the rules well, as well as being sensible, diplomatic people?
Of course. It wouldn't make much sense to put someone in that position if they couldn't properly fulfill the duties required.

How much would they be paid?
It depends on the size, purpose, duration, and ability of the tournament itself. At the local level it would most likely have to be a volunteer basis, whereas if you had a larger tournament with sponserer support you could provide some decent compensation. Also there are alternatives to straight monetary compensation. Store credit and such could be worked out as well.

Most judges are not getting paid.... Unless you meant under hte tables.

G

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:If TOs would just make sure they have good judges/refs and enough coverage with them, there is no need for sports scores imo.

How many judges do you think would be needed?
Personally I think 1 per 3 games in progress would be ideal, assuming the tables were not too spread out. This is also assuming they are actually watching the games instead of chatting with friends and only paying attention when called.

Would they need to know the rules well, as well as being sensible, diplomatic people?
Of course. It wouldn't make much sense to put someone in that position if they couldn't properly fulfill the duties required.

How much would they be paid?
It depends on the size, purpose, duration, and ability of the tournament itself. At the local level it would most likely have to be a volunteer basis, whereas if you had a larger tournament with sponserer support you could provide some decent compensation. Also there are alternatives to straight monetary compensation. Store credit and such could be worked out as well.

Adepticon's 40k Championship has 240 players this year. 40 full-time referees, plus the staff running the event, huh?

They should award big belt just like pro wrestling. Diamond Dallas Paige FTW!!!

when I learned to game, it was just a buncha guys with some figs, having fun after class once in a while playing with toys. I think the 'winner' category in general, and all the trappings associated with tournament ranks kind of ruin that vibe. Worrying about it in the first place sort of ruins the intent of such a score. I'll just stay with my fun basement table games and say "just entering a tournament makes you a competition oriented mind, and therefore not someone I want to play with..."

Adepticon's 40k Championship has 240 players this year. 40 full-time referees, plus the staff running the event, huh?

In a word...yes.

imweasel wrote:

the_trooper wrote:I'm pretty sure sportsman ship scores exist because of all the 'sperging nerds ITT.

And I am pretty sure that every tournament that uses sportsmanship scores are not fair.

Eh, I've never really had any problems with it. Comp can get a little funny but sportsmanship is pretty clear.

I use tournaments as a way for motivation to paint and get 3 games in during a day. It's also a great way to see who is worth playing during normal 40k nights.

I've won quite a few sportsmanship prizes as well as won tournaments in battle points.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If a player is unsporting and there is scoring for sportsmanship then they deserve to lose some points. It's no one's fault other than the player if they give a high score to someone that was unsporting.

G

Yet some people wrongly think that sportsmanship scores are somehow 'fair' and 'necessary'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_trooper wrote:Comp can get a little funny but sportsmanship is pretty clear.

Huh?

Both are subjective and arbitrary.

How is that 'pretty clear'?

There's nothing necessary about a game, and 'fair' is subjective. If I throw a frisbee and you catch it and throw it back that's playing a game. If you are a bad sport you don't throw it back or throw it high over my head just so you can say you 'won'. Isn't that the same kind of arguement for something like a sportsmanship score? The guy who doesn't throw the frisbee back is a dick and nobody wants to play with him again, where the guy that plays along with the GAME gets awarded by other people recognizing that and therefore wanting to play with him again, based on his reputation as a 'good' sport.

Wait a second, let's just get this straight.

You v.s. TFG

Without comp
1. You play a tournament-ranked game with a WAAC guy.
2. The guy cheats, you lose.
3. You get an unfairly lost match on your record and move on to the next round.

With Comp
1. You play a tournament-ranked game with a WAAC guy.
2. The guy cheats, you lose.
3. You mark him down on soft-scores.
4. The guy wants to win, so he marks you down on soft-scores.
5. You get an unfairly lost match and low sportsmanship on your record and move onto the next round.

In both cases, the player gets the short end of the stick, but in the comp one, he gets hurt worse.

Let's change it so the player has balls and sticks up for himself, shall we?

Without comp
1. You play a tournament-ranked game with a WAAC guy.
2. The guy cheats, you call him on it, you win or lose, fairly. (Or he's booted)
3. You get a fairly lost/won match on your record and move on to the next round.

With Comp
1. You play a tournament-ranked game with a WAAC guy.
2. The guy cheats, you call him on it, you win or lose, fairly. (Or he's booted)
3. You mark him down on soft-scores.
4. The guy wants to win, so he marks you down on soft-scores.
5. You get a fairly lost/won match and low sportsmanship on your record and move onto the next round.

In all of these, sportsmanship scores are abused. If you get WAAC players at the tournament, they will view the scores as part of the game and play to win on them by marking everyone down. The best option out of these is for the player to have balls and confront the opponent in-game as opposed to afterwards.

imweasel wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:If a player is unsporting and there is scoring for sportsmanship then they deserve to lose some points. It's no one's fault other than the player if they give a high score to someone that was unsporting.

G

Yet some people wrongly think that sportsmanship scores are somehow 'fair' and 'necessary'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_trooper wrote:Comp can get a little funny but sportsmanship is pretty clear.

Huh?

Both are subjective and arbitrary.

How is that 'pretty clear'?

It requires honesty but so does putting down the correct score on the sheets while submitting it.

Why bother going to tournaments anyway? Your opponent could be sleeping with one of the judges.

Green Blow Fly wrote:They should award big belt just like pro wrestling. Diamond Dallas Paige FTW!!!

The Boulder knows how to put the hurt in the dirt!

While I agree that sportsmanship scoring is often overly arbitrary, and it is hard to find a good method to actually score sportsmanship because of it, I can offer a good reason to score sportsmanship, based on well-researched psychological theory.

Current behavioral psychology tells us that positive reinforcement of wanted behavior is effective at increasing the frequency of the wanted behavior. Punishment of unwanted behavior, while it can be effective, is not nearly as effective as reinforcing the wanted behavior. Also, punishments can often simply increase hiding of the unwanted behavior, rather than actually decreasing the frequency of the behavior. Therefore, sportsmanship scores can be used as a way to increase the behaviors that you want. It is also interesting to note that given this theory, it does not particularly matter if the person who wins best sportsmanship was actually the "best sportsman." As long as the people who played in the tournament can observe that sporting behavior was rewarded, it is more likely to increase their sporting behavior in the future.

I do not think that sportsmanship scores should *ever* be tied into an overall ranking, or determine the winner of the tournament in any way. Therefore, sportsmanship should be its own prize. This also reduces the incentive of the WAAC gamer to tank his opponent's scores, and increases the incentive to score your opponent accurately.

willydstyle wrote:I do not think that sportsmanship scores should *ever* be tied into an overall ranking, or determine the winner of the tournament in any way. Therefore, sportsmanship should be its own prize. This also reduces the incentive of the WAAC gamer to tank his opponent's scores, and increases the incentive to score your opponent accurately.

I would be ok with a sportsmanship, army comp, paint scores as long as it's not tied into anything but prizes for those specifically.

It still doesn't stop TFG from screwing anyone over.

How does that figure into the 'current behavioral psychology' approach.

Because the TFG has little incentive to screw someone over, and that screwing over has less impact on the tournament overall.

Granted getting people used to scoring their opponents accurately will probably require enough reeducation that it will be too complicated to be worth it...

Pika_power wrote:Wait a second, let's just get this straight.

You v.s. TFG

Without comp
1. You play a tournament-ranked game with a WAAC guy.
2. The guy cheats, you lose.
3. You get an unfairly lost match on your record and move on to the next round.

With Comp
1. You play a tournament-ranked game with a WAAC guy.
2. The guy cheats, you lose.
3. You mark him down on soft-scores.
4. The guy wants to win, so he marks you down on soft-scores.
5. You get an unfairly lost match and low sportsmanship on your record and move onto the next round.

Comp/Sports does nothing to prevent cheating. It is the judges' role in any competitive event to enforce the rules. If you as a player don't have the balls to call TFG on his BS, and bring a judge over to arbitrate a rules-based dispute, then marking somebody's niceness score down is a mere pabulum.

Let's turn it around:

Without Comp
1. You play the Grognard who has been playing 40k since Rogue Trader, and whose uber tactics compensate for not using a 'cheese build'.
2. Your better knowledge of the rules and superior list table the Grognard.
3. You go on to play Table 1, Grognard goes on to play other Grognards.

With Comp
1. You play the Grognard who has been playing 40k since Rogue Trader, and whose uber tactics compensate for not using a 'cheese build'.
2. Your better knowledge of the rules and superior list table the Grognard.
3. Grognard docks you 10 points for running another 'cheese build'; take more Ogryn.
4. You go on to play Table 4, Grognard still goes on to play other Grognards.

These examples are purely hypothetical and also very much hyperbolic.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:These examples are purely hypothetical and also very much hyperbolic.

G

Using the same comparative format, how would you predict them to play out?

willydstyle wrote:Because the TFG has little incentive to screw someone over, and that screwing over has less impact on the tournament overall.

Huh?

TFG just dropped your sportsmanship, comp and whatever else he felt like because he could or he knew that it would happen to him anyways.

It's still going to affect any of your 'soft scores', perhaps by enough to drop you out of contention for any of the above prizes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:These examples are purely hypothetical and also very much hyperbolic.

G

So how does a biased, subjective and arbitrary system be fair?

How rhetorical.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:How rhetorical.

G

Nice way to not provide an answer.

imweasel wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Because the TFG has little incentive to screw someone over, and that screwing over has less impact on the tournament overall.

Huh?

TFG just dropped your sportsmanship, comp and whatever else he felt like because he could or he knew that it would happen to him anyways.

It's still going to affect any of your 'soft scores', perhaps by enough to drop you out of contention for any of the above prizes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:These examples are purely hypothetical and also very much hyperbolic.

G

So how does a biased, subjective and arbitrary system be fair?

That statement was given a system where said sportsmanship score does *not* tie into the "overall" winner of the tournament.

willydstyle wrote:That statement was given a system where said sportsmanship score does *not* tie into the "overall" winner of the tournament.

Sure, but it still affects the outcome of some part of a tournament.

And there are few tourneys where soft scores do not affect the 'overall winner'.

And no one so far has made a good argument of why sportsmanship scores are needed in tournaments.

I understand that. Last time I ran a tournament, and in the monthly league that I currently run, I had sportsmanship scoring, but it was not attached to the battle points in any way.

There are some problems with scores being somewhat arbitrary, and there are one or two players who still give their opponents max, despite scoring guidelines that say not to, but overall I think the system does its job of encouraging "friendly" play, but without determining who wins the tournament, and without encouraging people to tank their opponent's score to increase their own likelyhood of winning.

willydstyle wrote:I understand that. Last time I ran a tournament, and in the monthly league that I currently run, I had sportsmanship scoring, but it was not attached to the battle points in any way.

There are some problems with scores being somewhat arbitrary, and there are one or two players who still give their opponents max, despite scoring guidelines that say not to, but overall I think the system does its job of encouraging "friendly" play, but without determining who wins the tournament, and without encouraging people to tank their opponent's score to increase their own likelyhood of winning.

If you have 'one or two' players who still give their opponents max, you will probably have 'one or two' players that will give their opponents little if any 'soft scores'. I still don't see how that is a lcompelling argument for having the need for sportsmanship scores in a tourney.

Because of the reasons I said before: rewarding good behavior encourages further good behavior.

willydstyle wrote:Because of the reasons I said before: rewarding good behavior encourages further good behavior.

The old 'positive reinforcement' thing? I don't think that's a compelling/good argument and it does nothing to stop TFG at all. It even gives out a venue for him to be TFG.

A lot of good reasons have been provided. You can't make a blind man see though.

G

A lot of good reasons not to have also been provided. Leading a horse to water, and all that.

imweasel wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Because of the reasons I said before: rewarding good behavior encourages further good behavior.

The old 'positive reinforcement' thing? I don't think that's a compelling/good argument and it does nothing to stop TFG at all. It even gives out a venue for him to be TFG.

Considering operant conditioning is one of the more well-supported psychological theories, it does have some backing.

As long as you don't tie the sportsmanship scoring into overall, then you limit the amount of damage a person who wishes to abuse the system can do.

Sports serves no real purpose unless it adds to overall.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Sports serves no real purpose unless it adds to overall.

G

If it adds to overall, it doesn't actually encourage good sportsmanship.

willydstyle wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Sports serves no real purpose unless it adds to overall.

G

If it adds to overall, it doesn't actually encourage good sportsmanship.

Hey now, that's dangerous thinking. I suggest we follow GBF's example and just keep repeating that sportsmanship scoring promotes a better tournament experience until it becomes truth.

willydstyle wrote:Considering operant conditioning is one of the more well-supported psychological theories, it does have some backing.

Given the small sampling, just how many tournaments do you think it's going to take to 'condition' TFG? Or should we say decades?

willydstyle wrote:As long as you don't tie the sportsmanship scoring into overall, then you limit the amount of damage a person who wishes to abuse the system can do.

This works right up to the point where one low score kicks you out of any prizes, even if it's not going into an overall score.

One reason might be the aspiring TFGs holding their mannerisms back in fear of getting tanked scores. Take away the stick...and there could be a sudden surge in unpleasant games. I'm just tossing thoughts out, I'm agnostic over Sportsmanship scores.

AgeOfEgos wrote:One reason might be the aspiring TFGs holding their mannerisms back in fear of getting tanked scores. Take away the stick...and there could be a sudden surge in unpleasant games. I'm just tossing thoughts out, I'm agnostic over Sportsmanship scores.

However sad that it may be, I think AoE's got it right...

Probably scoring for sportsmanship can be improved upon but that does not mean it's a bad thing. If everyone was a gentleman and we all had the exact same mindset about how to behave then we wouldn't need it but obviously that's not the case. Maybe most TOs include because of the monkey see monkey do syndrome. Obviously if that is the case that in and of itself is not a very good reason but it's there.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:we all had the exact same mindset about how to behave then we wouldn't need it

And there is one of the biggest reasons that sports is a bad idea.

Green Blow Fly wrote:These examples are purely hypothetical and also very much hyperbolic.

G

We're discussing hypothetical systems, so we're proposing scenarios that break the systems. They're not uncommon scenarios either.

Challenge for you: In the same format as we've done, post a situation ("purely hypothetical and also very much hyperbolic" if you wish) that shows comp scores working out for the good of a player facing off against TFG. Oh, and run-of-the-mill comp systems only. e.g the 1-10 style ranking.

Here is one we used yesterday:

+5 - One of my best games ever! Opponent was awesome.
0 - Average game.
-5 - Horrible game; would not play this person again.

If you scored anyone +5 or -5 you had to explain why to the judge.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Most judges are not getting paid.... Unless you meant under hte tables.

G

Judges should wear a Tshirt with their paypal account.

Harrrrrrr!!!!!!

Green Blow Fly wrote:Here is one we used yesterday:

+5 - One of my best games ever! Opponent was awesome.
0 - Average game.
-5 - Horrible game; would not play this person again.

If you scored anyone +5 or -5 you had to explain why to the judge.

G

That is similimiliminar to Mannahnins' Method 3.

Over the course of the event, TFG will probably collect a seriously negative score and won't be allowed back in.

Meanwhile it is very hard if not impossible either for a nice guy to collect a lot of minuses.

If TFG hands out all minuses he will get investigated and by cross-reference to his own score, he will be found out and his biased scorings can be removed from consideration.

Killkrazy, a smart chipmunk won't mark down all of his opponents, only the ones who have a shot at competing with him (usually the last one or two). He can still play the nice guy while dicking over his opponents, earning top marks on sportsmanship in the process. All sportsmanship scoring does is push TFG behavior from the foreground to the background, and only in the best case scenarios.

Like in all of the other systems proposed, if he's ever questioned on it by a judge he can claim any number of reasons why he gave the low score because the system is completely subjective. For instance, he could claim that the other player was consistently sloppy in his measurements and slow in playing but didn't say anything during the game for fear of sportsmanship score retaliation.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Here is one we used yesterday:

+5 - One of my best games ever! Opponent was awesome.
0 - Average game.
-5 - Horrible game; would not play this person again.

If you scored anyone +5 or -5 you had to explain why to the judge.

G

This is fair and reasonable. It's how all of the tournaments were run at my LGS when I first picked up the hobby and I miss it tremendously. Anything more subjective than this is subject to abuse which I have unfortunately witnessed on several occasions.

I don't subscribe to the idea of needing Sportsmanship Scores though. I'd like to think that even when I have a rules dispute it ends up being settled amicably. I also have had run-ins with a few TFGs and really, as long as the game is played according to the rules, I could care less. They are a minority in my experience, and beating them is much more fun than tabling some poor guy that you actually like.

Danny Internets wrote:All sportsmanship scoring does is push TFG behavior from the foreground to the background, and only in the best case scenarios.

I know what you're attempting to say, but I translate it as bringing TFG behavior to the foreground (Sports/Comp) rather than the background (non-Sports/Comp).

Without Sports/Comp, TFG is just a single, somewhat annoying game. I say this assuming that you as a player and the TO as a judge have balls and do not allow cheating.

With Sports/Comp, TFG can ding your score all over the place, which takes it from 'annoying' to 'an annoying problem'.

What I meant by the foreground/background phrasing was that instead of risking losing points by being a jerk during a game (foreground), TFGs will wait until after the game where they can be a jerk more discretely by tanking soft scores after the game is over (background).

I agree 100% with your breakdown of tournaments with comp/sports to ones without.

Good TOs and a scoring system like I suggested can mitigate TGF chipmunking. It's not like no one doesn't know who the TFGs are going into an event. Grow a pair.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good TOs and a scoring system like I suggested can mitigate TGF chipmunking. It's not like no one doesn't know who the TFGs are going into an event. Grow a pair.

G

Please explain how your system mitigates TFG chipmunking. You dodged the question the first time. Simply repeating that your system works doesn't make it true.

3+ if it's your most favorite game... You should rarely ever see that score. If someone is handing it out like candy you know something is up.

0 points for a typical game, So basically only a very small % of players should score any poi ts.

-3 points if your opponent was a TFG. if you see people handing out a lot of -3s the last round again you know something is up.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Here is one we used yesterday:

+5 - One of my best games ever! Opponent was awesome.
0 - Average game.
-5 - Horrible game; would not play this person again.

If you scored anyone +5 or -5 you had to explain why to the judge.

G

So wait a minute...

I could score someone +4 or -4 and not explain myself?

WTF kind of system is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good TOs and a scoring system like I suggested can mitigate TGF chipmunking. It's not like no one doesn't know who the TFGs are going into an event. Grow a pair.

G

Please explain how your system mitigates TFG chipmunking. You dodged the question the first time. Simply repeating that your system works doesn't make it true.

That's all GBF has been doing this whole thread.

Okay so now everyone knows that you are slowed. Lead paint will do that.

G

imweasel wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Here is one we used yesterday:

+5 - One of my best games ever! Opponent was awesome.
0 - Average game.
-5 - Horrible game; would not play this person again.

If you scored anyone +5 or -5 you had to explain why to the judge.

G

So wait a minute...

I could score someone +4 or -4 and not explain myself?

WTF kind of system is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Good TOs and a scoring system like I suggested can mitigate TGF chipmunking. It's not like no one doesn't know who the TFGs are going into an event. Grow a pair.

G

Please explain how your system mitigates TFG chipmunking. You dodged the question the first time. Simply repeating that your system works doesn't make it true.

That's all GBF has been doing this whole thread.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay so now everyone knows that you are slowed. Lead paint will do that.

G

So you are saying that if I scored someone +4 or -4 that I would have to explain that?

Please, what were the rules again?

Hey thanks for validating what said.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Hey thanks for validating what said.

G

Ok. So now you change the rules and are being purposely obtuse. Epic fail.

Soft scores should be used for individual sportsmanship/painting/whatever awards only. If somehow multiple people end up with the same record and the same strength of schedule, they can be a last resort option for a tie breaker. That's it.

This whole "I want to reward the guy I had fun playing against" Carebear mentality is a bunch of BS. If you're at a tournament, it's meant to be a competition. The victor should be determined purely through win/loss record and strength of schedule, rather than by whether or not he gave you a reach around as he railed you. If it was a pleasant game, buy him a beer afterwards and nominate him for the sportsmanship award , but a person's demeanor should have nothing to do with whether they win best general or not. I've yet to see anyone get a gold medal at the Olympics for just being a great guy.

I also think some people's definition of TFG is a bit warped. If he insists you follow the rules to the letter, well, you should be doing that in the first place. If he's cheating, don't bother arguing with him, and just call over the TO and have him thrown out. If he's just generally a dick, take comfort in the fact that you never have to talk or play with him again. Or better yet, crush him and drink deeply of his tears of sorrow and nerdrage. If you simply can't handle rudeness, well, with internet shopping even applying to groceries these days, you don't have to ever leave your mom's basement. The real world is obviously not for you.

Please explain. If I'm running a tournament of 240 people, how do I get enough manpower to check every score and go and have a nice heart-to-heart chat with the chipmunkers? Ideally, I'd have a judge on every table, watching the game hawk-eyed. But that's impractical.

Green Blow Fly wrote:3+ if it's your most favorite game... You should rarely ever see that score. If someone is handing it out like candy you know something is up.

0 points for a typical game, So basically only a very small % of players should score any poi ts.

-3 points if your opponent was a TFG. if you see people handing out a lot of -3s the last round again you know something is up.

G

So your grand strategy is basically to use a rating scale or checklist and then just hope that the judges can sort things out without providing any method for them to do so. This is exactly what every tournament already does and it is exactly why they are all flawed, as the huge attention garnered by this thread demonstrates.

Like in my story earlier about our local TO, analyzing the scores lets you easily identify when the system is experiencing a widespread problem, but it does jack squat to fix it. Just because you know lots of people are chipmunking doesn't mean you can differentiate between those who are and those who may have legitimately had issues with their opponents in later rounds.

Modquisition on.

There has already been one suspension related to this thread. lets all remember Dakka Rule #1 or further suspensions will be enforced.

Ah! Doxie spin! Hope she didn't hurl on that nice equipment.

imweasel wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Hey thanks for validating what said.

G

Ok. So now you change the rules and are being purposely obtuse. Epic fail.

Wow, GBF's idea isn't that complicated.

There are exactly three options for, say, Sportsmanship:

Awesome!!!! = +5 points
Average = 0 points
Le Suckfest! = -5 points

Those are the only options. There is no way to give the +4 or -4 that was asked about in an earlier post.

The definition for the highest and lowest points totals would be such that they should only be given out in a VERY small percentage of cases. They had to be, literally, one of the absolute best or worst opponents to play against in your entire life.

A TO would only have to skim through the scores given to and by players to see if a lot of +/-5 scores were given out. If one person were giving out several of these scores, then that player probably isn't being honest and it needs to be addressed. If someone is getting or receiving a lot of these scores, then we know that this person is either the most awesome person to play against in the world, or the biggest TFG on the planet.

Now, I dunno how well this system would work in practice, but there isn't a way (under this type of system) to give someone a +/-4 (for example) to try to avoid closer scrutiny by the judges.

Don't need to skim. Most TOs wil put this on a spreadsheet. Easy to see and could even do a simple formula for such.

What about:
"was this game fun?" = 5 points
"did this game bore you?" = 0 points
"was the guy an a hole? just trying to WAAC" (subjective, have to ask 3rd parties) = -5 points

that simplifies things...

plus... you could add in....
"was the guy drunk?" +1 point
"did he bring his girlfriend?" -1 point
"does he smoke and go out for breaks between turns" (I do that all the time) -1 point
"does he smoke and offer to share some of the 'good' smoke between turns? (I do that too) +1 point
"does he stink?" -1 point

wow you could establish some official sh!t with all of these parameters....

I don't get why playing nice is even a needed requirement.

As long as your opponent plays by the rules it shouldn't matter what he is like to play.

Maybe some people think people who are overly fake nice at a tournament are just as annoying as people who don't care what you think about them.

If you want to play a fun game, play casual.

If you want to have fun because its a competition, then play in a competitive environment (a tournament).


Wow, what a concept.

Timmah wrote:I don't get why playing nice is even a needed requirement.

As long as your opponent plays by the rules it shouldn't matter what he is like to play.

Maybe some people think people who are overly fake nice at a tournament are just as annoying as people who don't care what you think about them.

If you want to play a fun game, play casual.

If you want to have fun because its a competition, then play in a competitive environment (a tournament).


Wow, what a concept.

But, man, I hate to say it, but even "real" sports have Sportsmanship rules.

In volleyball, if you yell an obscenity at a ref or an opponent (or even your own team mate or yourself), the referee is instructed by the rules to issue a yellow card. This can result in a loss of a point; this definitely can affect the outcome of a game.

In baseball, throwing at an opponent can get you kicked out of the game (whether you hit them or not).

In football, Unsportsmanlike Conduct (including such little things as excessive celebration) results in a 15 yard penalty.

In tennis, "racket abuse" is considered, among other things, to be "unsportsmanlike." This can be punished by a loss of a point, or eventually expulsion.

In basketball, unsportsmanlike conduct results in a technical foul and a free throw for the opponent.

The only difference between how real competitive sports and 40K tournaments address "Sportsmanship" is that real sports have a referee. I understand that having an impartial referee at every game in a 40K tournament is impractical, but is it really hard to just not be a D!ck to your opponent? Personally, that's all I ask of my opponent.

But, anyway, my point is that it's a big, fat myth to think that real, competitive games do not or should not have a sportsmanship element to them. 'Cuz they do, all over the world.

Timmah wrote:I don't get why playing nice is even a needed requirement.

As long as your opponent plays by the rules it shouldn't matter what he is like to play.

Maybe some people think people who are overly fake nice at a tournament are just as annoying as people who don't care what you think about them.

If you want to play a fun game, play casual.

If you want to have fun because its a competition, then play in a competitive environment (a tournament).


Wow, what a concept.

Others disagree. You're interpretation of why people go to tourneys is only ONE interpretation. There are multiple reasons.

Saldiven wrote:But, anyway, my point is that it's a big, fat myth to think that real, competitive games do not or should not have a sportsmanship element to them. 'Cuz they do, all over the world.

I'll agree with that... if you can see that in every example you've given, the official or referee is responsible for spotting and penalizing the infraction.

How many 15 yard penalties would there be in a game of football if the players were the ones throwing the flags?

To play games?

Actually those sports references are all rules. Following the rules =! sportsmanship though.

Note, in my original post I said as long as you follow the rules.

And plenty of people agree with me frazzled. (check the poll)

The rules are obviously flawed though and everyone knows it. They weren't meant for chess-tourney style exactness. People who blatantly take advantage of rules flukes are obviously not good 'sporty' people... bickering about stuff, generally would lose you points in my book, if I am being easy-going and granting you benefit of the doubt about all the nitpickings you may bring up. Besides I get a +1 to this score for only playing against kids while drunk...

You know, I keep hearing this about the rules but don't think I have ever had a problem with them. The ones that are usually broken deal with obscure units that no one uses anyways.

Blatantly taking advantage of rules flukes? How do you know that they are a fluke. One person's fluke is another person's 'how the game is played'.

The only issue with rules is if they play it one way when it's against them, and another way when it's against thier opponent.

Three months ago playing with a Deffrolla ramming a vehicle would have made you a WAAC powergaming jerk in about 50% of the gaming circles of the Dakka membership if those polls were at all accurate.

Now it's the norm. "Rules flukes" tend to be declared at the discretion of the least-powerful-interpretation crowd. Looking at how Deffrollas, Lash of Submission, and Jaws of the World Wolf GW's FAQ record tends to lean toward the more powerful interpretation.

But, anyway, my point is that it's a big, fat myth to think that real, competitive games do not or should not have a sportsmanship element to them. 'Cuz they do, all over the world.

As Shep already pointed out, what you're equating to sportsmanship is actually part of the rules in professional sports. When a penalty/personal foul is committed, it is not up to the players to self-police, but rather the event judge or referee.

Sportsmanship in gaming is generally a social issue and should be dealt with socially. Exclude knobends, be nice to nice people, and eject cheaters if you catch them. Know your rules, stand up for yourself, and abide by judge rulings if they have to be made.
It's not that hard.

Sports and Comp scores are what I refer to as exclusionary scores. In a lot of cases, they are included with the intent to exclude people who play differently.

Shep wrote:

Saldiven wrote:But, anyway, my point is that it's a big, fat myth to think that real, competitive games do not or should not have a sportsmanship element to them. 'Cuz they do, all over the world.

I'll agree with that... if you can see that in every example you've given, the official or referee is responsible for spotting and penalizing the infraction.

How many 15 yard penalties would there be in a game of football if the players were the ones throwing the flags?

That's a pretty good question, but it depends on where you are and what sport you're talking about. I know some pick-up basketball players who call "foul" if you even look at them when they're going at the hoop. Other guys don't call anything.

In volleyball "friendship tournaments," where no certified referees are present, you almost never see any judgment calls made by the third party team who is tasked with officiating.

Honestly, I don't know what the right answer is as far as judging Sportsmanship in 40K tournaments. My only point is that it is incontrovertible that sportsmanship is something that is definitely defined and adjudicated upon at all levels of competitive sport.

I think the problem with 40K is that the designers just plain haven't bothered to address this (among many other things) item that should be addressed if you wish to engage in serious competitive play.

I mean, heck, even Chess has rules for player conduct during tournament play. From the FIDE web site:

14. The conduct of the players

(a) Once a player has formally accepted an invitation, he must play except in cases of force majeure, such as illness or incapacity. Acceptance of another invitation is not considered to be a valid reason for withdrawal.

(b) In his reply a player may, if he wishes, mention pre-existing medical conditions such as diabetes and special dietary requirements.

(c) All the participants should be dressed in a suitable manner.

(d) A player who does not wish to continue a game and leaves without resigning or notifying the arbiter is discourteous. He may be penalised, at the discretion of the CA, for poor sportsmanship.

(e) A player may speak only as permitted in the Laws of Chess and Tournament Regulations.

(f) All complaints concerning the behaviour of players or captains must be made to the arbiter. A player is not permitted to complain directly to his opponent.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Three months ago playing with a Deffrolla ramming a vehicle would have made you a WAAC powergaming jerk in about 50% of the gaming circles of the Dakka membership if those polls were at all accurate.

Now it's the norm. "Rules flukes" tend to be declared at the discretion of the least-powerful-interpretation crowd. Looking at how Deffrollas, Lash of Submission, and Jaws of the World Wolf GW's FAQ record tends to lean toward the more powerful interpretation.

But, anyway, my point is that it's a big, fat myth to think that real, competitive games do not or should not have a sportsmanship element to them. 'Cuz they do, all over the world.

As Shep already pointed out, what you're equating to sportsmanship is actually part of the rules in professional sports. When a penalty/personal foul is committed, it is not up to the players to self-police, but rather the event judge or referee.

But GW has left the entire issue of Sportsmanship completely up in the air with their lack of attention to it in their rules. As I mentioned previously, this is another example of how GW has not made any serious attempt to design the game for competition.

I assume by many of these posts that the precedent that virtually EVERY OTHER COMPETITIVE GAME/SPORT IN THE WORLD has set that sportsmanship is important and should be adjudicated should be set aside merely because GW hasn't bothered to address it in their rules?

Saldiven wrote:

But, man, I hate to say it, but even "real" sports have Sportsmanship rules.

In volleyball, if you yell an obscenity at a ref or an opponent (or even your own team mate or yourself), the referee is instructed by the rules to issue a yellow card. This can result in a loss of a point; this definitely can affect the outcome of a game.

In baseball, throwing at an opponent can get you kicked out of the game (whether you hit them or not).

In football, Unsportsmanlike Conduct (including such little things as excessive celebration) results in a 15 yard penalty.

In tennis, "racket abuse" is considered, among other things, to be "unsportsmanlike." This can be punished by a loss of a point, or eventually expulsion.

In basketball, unsportsmanlike conduct results in a technical foul and a free throw for the opponent.

The only difference between how real competitive sports and 40K tournaments address "Sportsmanship" is that real sports have a referee. I understand that having an impartial referee at every game in a 40K tournament is impractical, but is it really hard to just not be a D!ck to your opponent? Personally, that's all I ask of my opponent.

But, anyway, my point is that it's a big, fat myth to think that real, competitive games do not or should not have a sportsmanship element to them. 'Cuz they do, all over the world.

If you yell an obscenity at a ref or your opponent in a tournament, you'll be asked to stop or go away, the same as anywhere.
If you throw stuff at someone, then it's a form of assault. If someone starts chucking their GUO at me, I'm not calling for a ref, I'm calling the cops.
For football, the unsportsmanlike conduct is decided by the ref, an impartial party. You cannot ask opposing sides to judge each other. Furthermore, this deals with the problem in-game, as opposed to knocking them down a few placings after the game.
If my opponent breaks their minis in frustration, they now lack a mini to put on the table and will possibly be kicked out, depending on how much of a scene he makes.
For basketball, it's the same as football.

Even if you're not a dick to your opponent, you're playing with a good list, or you're beating them too hard, or you're making use of cover and would allocation. Nothing against the rules, but if your opponent personally considers it cheap, they'll dock you. It's as if using a fancy manoeuvre in Basketball counted as unsportsmanlike conduct. How do you think football would be if you couldn't call your opponent out on picking up the ball for fear of losing 15m?

Pika_power wrote:Please explain. If I'm running a tournament of 240 people, how do I get enough manpower to check every score and go and have a nice heart-to-heart chat with the chipmunkers? Ideally, I'd have a judge on every table, watching the game hawk-eyed. But that's impractical.

In most competitive games judges will roam tables and then will get called over to watch if there is a rules dispute or if somebody is potentially cheating. Judges don't have to monitory every game at all times and they don't have to monitor games where players are getting along without issue. They also don't need to monitor the bottom tables unless there is a major dispute. It doesn't matter if the guy cheats his way to 65th place does it?

The problem with this in 40k is that if you feel your opponent is cheating or isn't following the rules calling over a judge can be considered offensive and get your sportsmanship score docked. That doesn't happen in Chess or Magic: The Gathering. It happens all the time in 40k.

@saldiven

GW doesn't need to implement these rules, a TO could very easily.

However, notice that these rules don't effect the outcome of the game, they are just there to ensure people play nice.

Totally fine imo, as long as they don't effect the game score.


Its gotten to the point where people are scared to call their opponents out for fear of a loss of soft scores.

Kevin Nash wrote:

Pika_power wrote:Please explain. If I'm running a tournament of 240 people, how do I get enough manpower to check every score and go and have a nice heart-to-heart chat with the chipmunkers? Ideally, I'd have a judge on every table, watching the game hawk-eyed. But that's impractical.

In most competitive games judges will roam tables and then will get called over to watch if there is a rules dispute or if somebody is potentially cheating. Judges don't have to monitory every game at all times and they don't have to monitor games where players are getting along without issue. They also don't need to monitor the bottom tables unless there is a major dispute. It doesn't matter if the guy cheats his way to 65th place does it?

The problem with this in 40k is that if you feel your opponent is cheating or isn't following the rules calling over a judge can be considered offensive and get your sportsmanship score docked. That doesn't happen in Chess or Magic: The Gathering. It happens all the time in 40k.

Actually, in Chess, you can be penalized in tournaments for doing obnoxious stuff. Heck, in Chess, you're not even supposed to speak to your opponent except for specific game things, like saying, "Check."

The difference is that there are rules that address this in Chess competition, but none that address it in the BrB. Then, for some reason, if a tournament tries to implement some sort of Sportsmanship monitoring, some people get all up in arms.

Now, I do get it. The big problem is that one player really shouldn't rate the sportsmanship of another. There is a conflict of interest inherent in such a system. The best system would be to have at the minimum one disinterested judge per every 6 tables who moved unobtrusively between them and listened in to the game play while keeping notes on the players and their interactions. The absolute best would be to have one judge for every table. Unfortunately, that's impractical.

But, just because adjudicating Sportsmanship is difficult doesn't mean that such adjudications have no place in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timmah wrote:@saldiven

GW doesn't need to implement these rules, a TO could very easily.

However, notice that these rules don't effect the outcome of the game, they are just there to ensure people play nice.

Totally fine imo, as long as they don't effect the game score.


Its gotten to the point where people are scared to call their opponents out for fear of a loss of soft scores.

Actually, they can and do affect the outcome of the game. The sanctions a Chess judge can levy can include forfeiture of a match. In most sports, violation of Sportsmanship rules can directly put points on the board, make it easier for the opponent to score, or remove players from the game. It's hard to argue against the fact that these things definitely do have a direct affect on the outcome of a game.

Timmah wrote:I don't get why playing nice is even a needed requirement.

As long as your opponent plays by the rules it shouldn't matter what he is like to play.

Maybe some people think people who are overly fake nice at a tournament are just as annoying as people who don't care what you think about them.

If you want to play a fun game, play casual.

If you want to have fun because its a competition, then play in a competitive environment (a tournament).


Wow, what a concept.

I'm curious as to where the connection between being polite and being "fake nice" comes from? I do take issue with the generalization that people who treat others with respect are "fake". Some people are polite and courteous because they were raised to be or believe that's how they should act in a public setting. How is that fake? What thought process makes you believe that no one can be genuinely courteous to another person?

I use a fairly simple set of guidelines when I deal with people. To me, respect is a privelage. I will give it to you without any hesitation, but if you don't return the favor, I can rescind it just as easily. I treat people with courtesy because I would like to be treated as such. But, unfortunately, according to your logic, I'm just being "fake nice", not becaues of my belief structure.

I pose a very simple and honest question. Do you conduct yourself any different when you're at a tournament with sportsmanship than you do at one without? I don't see why not being scored on it makes it more acceptable to be a bad sport.

Actually, in Chess, you can be penalized in tournaments for doing obnoxious stuff. Heck, in Chess, you're not even supposed to speak to your opponent except for specific game things, like saying, "Check."

The difference is that there are rules that address this in Chess competition, but none that address it in the BrB. Then, for some reason, if a tournament tries to implement some sort of Sportsmanship monitoring, some people get all up in arms.

I'm not saying that people should be able to be horrible jerks and cheat their way to victory (fudge inches, touch models in the wrong phase or turn, argue about LOS constantly, take back moves). What I'm saying is that if my opponent acts that way I should be able to call over a judge to closely observe the game and not have to fear my opponent docking my soft scores in retaliation.

So yeah, if poor sportsmanship is defined as cheating then it can impact actual battle results if a person does it with reckless abandon, but in 40k just something as simple as calling over a judge can poorly impact YOUR sportsmanship score and that's a real problem.

Sports rules as well as chess rules are not the same as sportsmanship.

If you break a rule in sports you are cheating and penalized just like chess and just like 40k.

There are no sportsmanship rules in sports. You don't lose 5 points if you don't shake hands after a football game. Sheesh.

@zomro
Plenty of people are nice and pleasant at tournaments. However its not like I know the person I am playing or will ever even see him again. So if I treat him like I would one of my friends who I have known for 10-20 years, well I am obviously exaggerating and being fake nice.

Timmah wrote:

@zomro
Plenty of people are nice and pleasant at tournaments. However its not like I know the person I am playing or will ever even see him again. So if I treat him like I would one of my friends who I have known for 10-20 years, well I am obviously exaggerating and being fake nice.

That's a bit of a stretch, though, isn't it? Who treats strangers the same as they do long time friends? Why would you ever do such a thing in the first place? It makes no sense. But, at least we have the definition of "fake nice", and I agree that is a bit odd for someone to do. But, how does this affect sportsmanship in general? Because earlier, you were saying that sportsmanship is just being "fake nice", but now you've defined it as something that doesn't actually fit in the base definition of sportsmanlike conduct.

Timmah wrote:Sports rules as well as chess rules are not the same as sportsmanship.

If you break a rule in sports you are cheating and penalized just like chess and just like 40k.

There are no sportsmanship rules in sports. You don't lose 5 points if you don't shake hands after a football game. Sheesh.

@zomro
Plenty of people are nice and pleasant at tournaments. However its not like I know the person I am playing or will ever even see him again. So if I treat him like I would one of my friends who I have known for 10-20 years, well I am obviously exaggerating and being fake nice.

40K is not a sport though. That analogy is false. The whole game involves randomness and ambiguity.
It would be better associated with a ballroom competition or such where etiquette is a big deal.

Frazzled wrote:

Timmah wrote:Sports rules as well as chess rules are not the same as sportsmanship.

If you break a rule in sports you are cheating and penalized just like chess and just like 40k.

There are no sportsmanship rules in sports. You don't lose 5 points if you don't shake hands after a football game. Sheesh.

@zomro
Plenty of people are nice and pleasant at tournaments. However its not like I know the person I am playing or will ever even see him again. So if I treat him like I would one of my friends who I have known for 10-20 years, well I am obviously exaggerating and being fake nice.

40K is not a sport though. That analogy is false. The whole game involves randomness and ambiguity.
It would be better associated with a ballroom competition or such where etiquette is a big deal.

Hahaha...well, a ballroom competition might not be the best comparison. I'm was training for competition in International Standard until my partner moved away to finish school last year. It's surprisingly cut-throat at the highest levels, and it would make you laugh to hear how catty some of the competitors are

They just don't let you see it through the painted on phony smiles on the dance floor....

Hrm...on second thought, that might be exactly the best comparison to some 40K tournaments......

Actually in football there is quite a bit of ambiguity in rules as well.

I have heard announcers and refs make up rules on the spot to justify their ruling. Even when the rulebook says otherwise.

This just in! There is always some ambiguity in every competition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zomro wrote:

Timmah wrote:

@zomro
Plenty of people are nice and pleasant at tournaments. However its not like I know the person I am playing or will ever even see him again. So if I treat him like I would one of my friends who I have known for 10-20 years, well I am obviously exaggerating and being fake nice.

That's a bit of a stretch, though, isn't it? Who treats strangers the same as they do long time friends? Why would you ever do such a thing in the first place? It makes no sense. But, at least we have the definition of "fake nice", and I agree that is a bit odd for someone to do. But, how does this affect sportsmanship in general? Because earlier, you were saying that sportsmanship is just being "fake nice", but now you've defined it as something that doesn't actually fit in the base definition of sportsmanlike conduct.

They do it so that they can try for max sportsmanship scores. You are forced to be overtly friendly at tournaments because of soft scores. Personally this annoys the crap outa me.

Thats why there are Hard Boyz Tourneys now, so you can be as unfriendly as you want. Bathing is strictly optional as well.

1 tournament a year? Also, I never said unfriendly Frazzled.

I know you don't like me, but could you at least stop putting words in my mouth and then acting like I'm some kinda jerk for saying said thing.

Timmah wrote:1 tournament a year? Also, I never said unfriendly Frazzled.

I know you don't like me, but could you at least stop putting words in my mouth and then acting like I'm some kinda jerk for saying said thing.

Didst thou not seeist the holy orkmoticons O young one?
You're wrong on all counts there Timmah. How could I dislike someone who's board name is my favorite Southpark character and I have to stop myself from blurting out TIMMAH!!!

I'm just disagreeing with you in line with the original post intent-an argument for comp.

timmah...

Timmah wrote:
They do it so that they can try for max sportsmanship scores. You are forced to be overtly friendly at tournaments because of soft scores. Personally this annoys the crap outa me.

I tank the scores of people that are so blatantly trying to be cordial. They annoy me just as much, or perhaps more so, than TFG.

The argument for and against sportsmanship in tournaments is the same one:

People are stupid.

Timmah wrote:
There are no sportsmanship rules in sports. You don't lose 5 points if you don't shake hands after a football game. Sheesh.

Someone tell this to the Head Coach of the Ravens, who lost 15 yards(and arguably the game) to an Unsportsmanlike Conduct call from the refs.

Akin to the TO throwing somebody out for excessive profanity.

Sports/Comp the way it's implemented in 40k would be more similar to Bill Belichick docking Tom Coughlin 1 Field Goal for not congratulating him, or something.

More akin to docking someone a field goal for asking for a ruling to be reviewed by the refs...

9 pages of whining about sportsmanship scores? Really??

If you don't like it, complain to the people who run the tournament and make the rules/scoring system. Talking about it on here ain't getting nothing done.

Is it needed? Not really. Can you deal with it if you want to win? Sure.

Ironhide wrote:9 pages of whining about sportsmanship scores? Really??

If you don't like it, complain to the people who run the tournament and make the rules/scoring system. Talking about it on here ain't getting nothing done.

Is it needed? Not really. Can you deal with it if you want to win? Sure.

9 pages that you didn't bother to read, apparently.

Reading is hard.

The problem is that all the examples for sportsmanship are based on complete fallacy. Show me a game or sport where, rather than the referee handing out a punishment, the opponents sit down afterward and score each other on a scale without any definition.

Why is there an assumption that with no sportsmanship the world would fall apart? Just man up and confront someone if you have a problem with them. Kind of a useful skill for life in general:

Frazzled wrote:Didst thou not seeist the holy orkmoticons O young one?
You're wrong on all counts there Timmah. How could I dislike someone who's board name is my favorite Southpark character and I have to stop myself from blurting out TIMMAH!!!

I'm just disagreeing with you in line with the original post intent-an argument for comp.

timmah...

@Frazzled: Doesn't look like disagreement. Looks like you were acting out of line and someone had the guts to stand up for themselves and call you on it. Also looks like a forum moderator is encouraging a behaviour where people post to fill a thread they do not agree with by means of comments that do absolutely nothing to move the issue forward either way.

Ironhide wrote:9 pages of whining about sportsmanship scores? Really??

If you don't like it, complain to the people who run the tournament and make the rules/scoring system. Talking about it on here ain't getting nothing done.

Is it needed? Not really. Can you deal with it if you want to win? Sure.

I'm sure there are TOs mixed in with this thread, so it does make sense to have the conversation.

(My earlier inane response not included, of course)

Fearspect wrote:The problem is that all the examples for sportsmanship are based on complete fallacy. Show me a game or sport where, rather than the referee handing out a punishment, the opponents sit down afterward and score each other on a scale without any definition.

I've played in a few tournaments where there was a defined checklist to determine the sportsmanship score.

There was a TFG there that was still giving people hideous scores when they beat him. The bottom line is that more active participation from a TO would eliminate the need for sportsmanship scores. Anyone can tell if someone is being a Knob after watching a game for a minute or two.