The best bloodbowl tournaments play to a simple scheme of

Best score.
Best sport.
Best painted.

The only way that soft scores come into effect is for penalties to your base score.

-1 or -2 Depending on how bad your opponent was to play.

-1's are described as someone throwing a tantrum and not being an enjoyable opponent (some tantrums are funny and are perfectly acceptible...cursing in front of kids and making things un-fun is not however).

-2's are described as someone acting in an unacceptable way...such as deliberate cheating (The rules in bloodbowl are painstakingly clear compared to 40k so this one is quite easy to enforce), throwing dice, damaging opponents miniatures or being threatening. -2's are the kind of score that a tournament judge will come over and talk to people about and check if removal from the tournament is required.

Painting negatives (such as unpainted miniatures) and the lack of minimum standard (4 colours to an acceptable level) do not affect point in game, but give an in game bonus to the opponent - +1 Fame at first level or +1 Reroll at the second.

Its not that hard to implement this kind of system and removes TFG's from the equation. TFG's who give -1's as a form of chipmunking do not work when you factor in the average score at the end.

If the player gives everyone a -1 then it is averaged as a 0 for all players, which means that their game results are not affected. Hooray.

Giving players an average sports score of 3 (out of 5) and assigning 1 player in the tournament a 5 means your vote actually counts and that player is potentially in the running for a sportsmanship prize.

Similarly goons who hand out 5's for everyone average their +'s out to 0 and it has no effect.

Simple and effective. Anything attempted beyond what this system regulates is basically unavoidable and if discovered is the kind of thing to bring up with tournament organisers later.

I feel bad for the guy that couldn't afford to have a professional paint his stuff for him and had an artificial restriction placed on him during all his games...

How does that resolve anything again? I still missed it after reading your point through twice.

Also, it is very easy to give everyone that you played that was good a low score, and handing your one high score off to someone you feel is not in the contention.

With these issues stated above, why even have it?

Fearspect wrote:The best solution to this I have seen was a tournament that was run back in September in my area. You could sign up for one of two events:

Event A) Hard battle points, only thing close to a 'soft' score was requiring your miniatures to not be just primed.

Event B) All soft scores. Casuals even had the joy of being evaluated on a one-page story about their army. No battle points were used at all, as I recall.

Those that went I hear enjoyed the split, and they were able to fill both. The best part was that if someone wanted to enter Event B just to win, there was no real way to do it considering the entire score was based on comp/theme/painting/sportsmanship.

I should have thought it was much easier to win the soft scores. Anyone can nail together a story, follow the comp rules, be nice for a few hours, and put a half decent paint job on their figures. It just takes a bit of effort.

That's assuming that there actually ARE rules for comp that are followed, and that you aren't tanked in sports for playing different/winning/having blue eyes...

I don't think they actually got any points for winning their games. Sounds about as interesting as watching grass grow, but to each their own. Enjoy the casual 'tournament'.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you enjoy playing against miserable bastards who make every game a misery?

I don't know how many people there really are like that -- you hear more about from US players than UK, maybe because they are more competitive -- it could be just Internet exaggeration is what I mean.

If it's a tiny proportion it probably isn't worth bothering with.

No more so than I enjoy playing against someone that doesn't know the basic riules or even the rules for their own army. The 5th or 6th time I have to correct someone on how something really works (And I mean simple basic things, like "No, you cannot assault with your Necrons after they Veil of Darkness since they count as Deep Striking", "NO, rapid fire range for all weapons is 12"", really basic not even up for debate stuff. Well, about then I become TFG. I do NOT enter tournies to teach someone how to play. I do that enough as is.
Point being, even if I don't get exasperated with the idiot across the table from me, well, he's probably going to tank my sportsmanship score because HE doesn't know how to play and I've had to spend most of the game correcting him or telling him that it doesn't matter how they play it whereever he is from, the rules actually say so-and-so!! So I'm punished because I know how to play and my opponnent doesn't. Yeah, I really like that.........................

don_mondo wrote:No more so than I enjoy playing against someone that doesn't know the basic riules or even the rules for their own army. The 5th or 6th time I have to correct someone on how something really works (And I mean simple basic things, like "No, you cannot assault with your Necrons after they Veil of Darkness since they count as Deep Striking", "NO, rapid fire range for all weapons is 12"", really basic not even up for debate stuff. Well, about then I become TFG. I do NOT enter tournies to teach someone how to play. I do that enough as is.
Point being, even if I don't get exasperated with the idiot across the table from me, well, he's probably going to tank my sportsmanship score because HE doesn't know how to play and I've had to spend most of the game correcting him or telling him that it doesn't matter how they play it whereever he is from, the rules actually say so-and-so!! So I'm punished because I know how to play and my opponnent doesn't. Yeah, I really like that.........................

This. After a few corrections things generally devolve into how 2nd/3rd/4th Editions were all better and how all the new rules are stupid, etc. And because you had to correct them so much you are labeled a "rules lawyer." Fun times.

IMO sportsmanship scores are a good thing because they 1) act as a deterrent, preventing rude behaviour, and 2) help build a sense of community among the tourney gamers by forcing people to at least TRY and get along

I've been reading most of this thread, and I have still yet to see a convincing argument as to why sportsmanship scores are an actual "deterrent" for rude behavior, and not just a vehicle for said rude players to screw you with.

At the moment, everyone doesn't agree that good sportmanship is a good thing. Or at least, they say they aren't worried by bad sportmanship.

If you aren't concerned by sportsmanship, obviously there is no purpose in sports scoring.

If you want to achieve either encourage good sportsmen or eliminate bad behaviour, then the means to do so can be discussed.

Just to clarify, I think sportsmanship itself is important, and I think everyone who plans on playing in tournaments (and even those who don't really) should practice good sportsmanship.

Sporstmanship scoring however, is about as stupid and pointless as they come. I really don't see how it deters bad behavior. If someone is being a jerk and you tank their score, big deal, they tank yours, too. And then there are those people who see it as a way to improve their chances of winning and tank everyone's score just because. If you're really that interested in dealing with these people, then you need to call them on their behavior and get the TO to do something about it if it really becomes a problem. The checklist doesn't solve anything, it just gives him another way to ruin your day.

If a method could be designed which avoided the mutual tanking problem, would you support its use for Sports scoring?

I have not yet played at a tournament (I am attending my first in April) and therefore have no experience in whether or not sportsman ship points actually work.
The bigger picture is what is the point?

What I do think though is people here are confusing sportsmanship with cheating.
There is no reason why any player should not question a rule during a tournament. Wagaming is a complex business and often throws up areas which are not clearey defined in the rulebook. Clarifying these descrepancies does not make one a bad sportsman.
A bad sportsman is some one who moans and bitches all the time when the dice go against them and deliberatly bends the rules. This sort of person is an idiot, and it is not usually a pleasant experiance playing them. But should they be penalised in game terms? No. If they think it is worth sacrificing self respect and basic personel skills to do slightly better in a game that is thier choice.
People who actually cheat (i.e people who do something clearly against the rules on purpose) on the other hand should suffer some in game consequences such as conceeding the game or, in severe circumstances, being ejected from the tournament. A paltry points deduction is not going to stop these players and only leaves more avenues open for abuse.

I play 5-a-side and like to conduct myself in a sportsman like manner, i.e I never purposly foul anyone, never argue with the ref and never dive. This hasn't helped the teams results, in fact it has probably hindered them a small amount. But thats not why I do it. The fact that our team has a reputation for being good to play and providing a fair contest is reward enough for me.

Kilkrazy wrote:If a method could be designed which avoided the mutual tanking problem, would you support its use for Sports scoring?

In that purely hypothetical situation, sure I would.

In a perfect world it would be evaluated by a neutral third party.

What do you think of Mannahnin's Type 3 scoring?

If the tournament had a referee for every few tables then sportsmanship would work, cos the referee could keep an eye on it. BUT, I can't see there being that many people up for being a referee, who aren't the organiser, or one of their few assistants. But hypothetically, if a situation arises that TFG is being unsportsmanlike, or anyone for that matter. Then the ref could be called over and a penalty could be given as needed. However, sadly the sportsmanship is left up to the players to decide, and therefore it's pointless and really open for bias.

So yes it is good to have sportsmanship scores in tournaments, but unless they can fulfill my hypothetical requirements, I can't see it being viable. =]

Oshova

Kilkrazy wrote:At the moment, everyone doesn't agree that good sportmanship is a good thing. Or at least, they say they aren't worried by bad sportmanship.

If you aren't concerned by sportsmanship, obviously there is no purpose in sports scoring.

If you want to achieve either encourage good sportsmen or eliminate bad behaviour, then the means to do so can be discussed.

The problem that no one has addressed is that in a lot of (or most) cases, the sportsmanship score doesn't reflect actual sportsmanship, but rather how well personalities match.

What do you call sportsmanship?

Don't cheat, don't brag/gloat.

Lemme chime in here.

The reason I hate sportsmanship scores:

I'm in a game with an opponent. He exploits a grey area of the rules - bringing it up, getting into an argument, calling over a judge will all decrease my sportsmanship score. My opponent moves 6.3 inches instead of 6". Calling them on it will hit my sportsmanship score. I tend to feed off my opponent. If they're laid back, I am laid back. If they're being TFG - I'm also TFG.

Sportsmanship is important, but sportsmanship scoring is not - its a subjective, player driven, clearly abused system with no place in a game unless its being judged by someone watching the game.

Cheating should not enter in - it should lead to an expulsion. This includes 'tactics' such as slow playing.

Other than that, who cares? Man up and call someone on things if they are acting like a douche, rather than passive-aggressively marking someone for a low score on a sheet without addressing the issues. It seems akin to those types that regularly post on here about how they were cheated, but never seem to say anything to the person's face about it; they just find it easier to slag a guy online.

Kilkrazy wrote:What do you call sportsmanship?

I call it something different than you will, repeat for every other person that gets queried. Another good argument against sportsmanship scoring; if it isn't quantifiable or enforceable in a standardized format, how can anyone possibly be judged against it?

So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

I know players who get good sportsmanship scores (because lets be honest, at most tourneys most players get max or close to max anyways) and they don't think sportsmanship scoring is necessary.

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

Well... it's more of a situation where those who are against it have posted appropriate arguments against having it (mostly the fact that it can too easily be gamed and has proven to not be effective) whereas the other camp has effectively put their fingers in their ears while yelling, "LALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

sourclams wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What do you call sportsmanship?

I call it something different than you will, repeat for every other person that gets queried. Another good argument against sportsmanship scoring; if it isn't quantifiable or enforceable in a standardized format, how can anyone possibly be judged against it?

It certainly is quantifiable and enforceable in a standardized format, though everyone might not agree with that format.

I think you understate the difficulty of execution.

In any form of gaming, having your opponent "grade" your performance , without moderation, is a broken system. As many have indicated, the issue is not "sportsmanship", it's opponent interpretation of sportsmanship and poor sportsmen yield situations that force you to call judges and refs or debate rules which could lead to your opponent "docking" you.

If I am playing a poor sportsman, what incentive does he even have to see me as a good sportsman, even if I am on my best behavior. This sort of scoring also enables adverse collusion. While not making it obvious, one opponent could slightly doc another sportsmanship score, assisting his team-mates chances for best overall. It enables corruption, it doesn't prevent it.

Fearspect wrote:I feel bad for the guy that couldn't afford to have a professional paint his stuff for him and had an artificial restriction placed on him during all his games...

How does that resolve anything again? I still missed it after reading your point through twice.

Also, it is very easy to give everyone that you played that was good a low score, and handing your one high score off to someone you feel is not in the contention.

With these issues stated above, why even have it?

LOL please get this in perspective, Bloodbowl is 11 players on the pitch + a few reserves, in terms of painting standards. That level is just a guide to make sure that you aren't playing against bare metal/plastic or primed models. It is variable.

It resolved sportsmanship scoring bearing almost zero impact on the eventual tournament results. With a scoring system in the 40 points for a win, 20 for a draw and 10 for less than 1 TD loss, the -1's or -2's from being a bad sport impact on results that are very close.

The people that are consistently getting these scores are generally pointed out to a tourney organiser who normally have a polite conversation with the individual at the end and if they can't shape up, then bar them from entering next time.

In all honesty the angst raised by the fear of TFG at tourneyments is not equal by a large margin to the reality of most tourney goers experience. I don't think fear should drive a tournament systems function. Design the system to cater for the vast majority. People who likes sportsmanship scoring...should be trying to win the sportsmanship award, which is a valid incentive to being a good sport.

Minmum behaviour standards and courtesies spealt out by a TO in a tourney pdf serve as the basis for arbitrary rulings should they be infringed.

Thank you BeefyG, finally someone managed to stop going in circles . . . my dizziness is receding.

Also you make a good point =] double win!

It's true that sportsmanship makes little or no difference to your eventual position. Maybe mid table . . . but generally I find that at the top there is a clear difference in scores.

Oshova

So his 'good' argument is that sportsmanship scores work when you make them so inconsequential as to make them irrelevant?

He should be a lawyer.

Fearspect wrote:

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

Well... it's more of a situation where those who are against it have posted appropriate arguments against having it (mostly the fact that it can too easily be gamed and has proven to not be effective) whereas the other camp has effectively put their fingers in their ears while yelling, "LALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

And this post proves that the converse is identically "true."

Actually that seems like a great idea. Pay lip service to the idea so that the 'OMG WE NEED SPORTS' crowd is appeased when they can get '5's across the board for being darned good blokes, and make it less than 1% of the total contribution so that it's totally insignificant.

Fearspect wrote:

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

Well... it's more of a situation where those who are against it have posted appropriate arguments against having it (mostly the fact that it can too easily be gamed and has proven to not be effective) whereas the other camp has effectively put their fingers in their ears while yelling, "LALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

Matter of perspective that I don't agree with - but each to his own.

Those for it - We like it as it helps to reward good sports and gives a mechanism to control TFG. (those that get good sports)

Those against it - it is used to hurt them and punish them (those that don't get good sportsmanship)

Bottom line though - unless we are the one's running the tourney - we either choose to play by the rules of the tourney organizers or not - but they get to make the call if they are doing the work of setting up this organization.

For the record, I am against it and I almost always get full sports scores.

So basically you have come down to saying: "you just don't want it cause it hurts you"

Really? Is that the best argument that you have?


I have never seen it control TFG's. If anything it benefits them, because people try and play nicely with them (so their sports scores aren't hurt) and they take advantage of it, then they tank your scores anyways.

Its usually the case that most people give out full marks on it anyways so it doesn't really benefit you. (basically it can only hurt you if you get a bad opponent)

If you really want it, use it as a tie breaker or something.


The worst is that there are just some socially inept people who play this game. They aren't jerks, just not amazing fun to play against because they are kinda introverted. These are the people who usually suffer the most. And I personally don't think its fair that people like this get picked on like that.

That was exactly the point that I was going to bring up as well. Sports doesn't control TFG, Sports enables TFG to be TFG on an even greater scale.

Which, I think, boils down to:

"LALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

So, suppose a system were discovered which reliably allowed TFG to be banned from the event, would you support it or reject it?

@kilkrazy

It depends. Is TFG cheating? Or is he just using rules to his advantage and being a bit anal about measuring. (making sure you measure 100% correctly and stuff)

Cheating? Yes.

Just being anal about the rules and measurements? Not a chance.

He paid money/time to play too. Just cause you don't like someone or how they play doesn't mean you should kick them from an event.

That is for you to decide.

You have a stark choice -- to label someone as TFG or not.

Would all five opponents label someone as TFG for cheating? Would all of them do it if he hadn't worn deodorant?

Why not just tell the guy he needs to wear deoderant rather than being passive aggressive? I know wargamming draws certain stereotypes in, but a tiny bit of frank discussion can go a long way.

I'm going to go ahead and add 'encourages anti-social behaviour' on top of previous points that it can be gamed, can enable cheating and does not affect behaviour.

How can "cheating" possibly be subjective? If someone is moving a model 1" further than they are supposed to, measuring when they are not allowed to, or "forgetting" about a few extra wounds when removing models, that's cheating. Cheating is obvious when compared to the relevant rules. It's like math. It doesn't change based on situation.

Now, there are enough ambiguities with the rules that the TO needs to make a ruling. If 'TFG' refuses to adhere to the ruling, or protests the ruling to an egregious extent, then that's what makes him TFG.

I like the idea of having a sportsmanship score.
BUT
Its a completely separate category. I had the idea for an event ran with the following categories.

Overall
3 games, 40 battle points each
judges score comp based on a 10 point checklist, the average is what you get.

Best sportsman
10 sportsman ship points a game

Best painting
Best painted and modeled.

Each of these categories would be separate. So if I lose to GBF again and tank his sportsmanship scores that just means he cant win best sportsman, and has no effect on his overall.

Those against it - it is used to hurt them and punish them (those that don't get good sportsmanship)

More proof of just how weak the argument for sportsmanship scoring is. Now the ones pushing it are falling back on "Yeah well you just don't want it because you get low scores!"

If this is what it's come to then I say the thread has pretty much run its course. It's pretty obvious the opposition just isn't listening and is outright making gak up to support themselves.

I don't like sports and in a 5-game tourney I generally have full sports scores and pull in 2 "best sportsman" votes. Don't get me wrong it's a soft score that really helps me out in overall but I wouldn't mind if it got dropped. I've had friends get hammered because they held people accountable to the rules and that person saw them as TFG.

It's funny. I was talking to someone today about it and he pointed out that the more "competitive oriented" the person he is playing with the less issues he generally runs into with them and the better of a game he has. I find it funny that my experiences mirror his. The worst games I've ever had were actually against players at the lower tables in a 5-day event (only personal experience) or people who "aren't competitive" and who are only into the hobby aspect.

It's just my personal experience like I've said but Sportsmanship scores don't make me a better person to play. I'm already fun All it does is give power to people who tend to be passive aggressive or who were going to dock you anyway

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

And yet this fails to address anything that this thread is about.

A good argument of why there is a need for sportsmanship scores in tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oshova wrote:Thank you BeefyG, finally someone managed to stop going in circles . . . my dizziness is receding.

Also you make a good point =] double win!

It's true that sportsmanship makes little or no difference to your eventual position. Maybe mid table . . . but generally I find that at the top there is a clear difference in scores.

Oshova

THEN WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU USE A SYSTEM THAT HAS NO IMPACT!!!

Really. Is it that fething hard?

The reason scoring exists at all in tournaments is to quantify the difference in performances in the competition.

At a tournament of any given game, the values of the organizers are reflected in what they decide to score.

For warhammer 40k, many organizers have decided that sportsmanship is an integral part of the game, and will be a factor in deciding the winner and often carry its own prize.

The sportsmanship score itself is needed to compare performances in this category.

Whether you agree with the value of sportsmanship in 40k or not, the scoring system allows officials to attach a value to high performance in this category.

That is the reason why need sportsmanship scores.

Need is a strong word anyways, we don't need to play 40k at all.

Dracos wrote:
The sportsmanship score itself is needed to compare performances in this category.

Whether you agree with the value of sportsmanship in 40k or not, the scoring system allows officials to attach a value to high performance in this category.

That is the reason why need sportsmanship scores.

The thing is that it fails at doing that, as being entirely subjective and not rating actual sportsmanship, but just being a popularity contest.

Dracos wrote:The reason scoring exists at all in tournaments is to quantify the difference in performances in the competition.

At a tournament of any given game, the values of the organizers are reflected in what they decide to score.

For warhammer 40k, many organizers have decided that sportsmanship is an integral part of the game, and will be a factor in deciding the winner and often carry its own prize.

The sportsmanship score itself is needed to compare performances in this category.

Whether you agree with the value of sportsmanship in 40k or not, the scoring system allows officials to attach a value to high performance in this category.

That is the reason why need sportsmanship scores.

Need is a strong word anyways, we don't need to play 40k at all.

So a completely biased, subjective and arbitrary system is how to 'attach a value to high performance in this category'?

Some value.

Just give up man, the fact that this was a lost cause was apparent when someone come out and said "Everyone who hates sportsmanship scoring is TFG!"

While I'm on the fence regarding soft scores, I'm not quite sure if it's fair to dismiss them as completely subjective. Many tournaments I've attended had specific questions on the soft score/sportsmanship front that served as a fairly black or white checklist. As to the argument for sportsmanship, the only one I'm particularly moved by is that a checklist of game etiquette serves as prevention of in game arguments...between players that would not normally be confrontational.

imweasel wrote:So a completely biased, subjective and arbitrary system is how to 'attach a value to high performance in this category'?

Some value.

I do agree that all these value labels are biased, but that is our own human nature. Until a better system is developed to evaluate sportsmanship in a more fair and objective way, the sportsmanship scoring is the best option for organizers who want to put an emphasis on the social aspect of the game.

Whether you agree that the need to evaluate sportsmanship exists or not is a completely separate point - some organizers do feel the need to evaluate performances in the category of sportsmanship, and therefore we have the sportsmanship scoring system.

Again we don't need the game at all, so this thread is really just a waste of time. People who are arguing it is not needed at all are correct, because we don't need this game at all. Therefore the premise is impossible to disprove, and really this thread is about bashing those who like/use sportsmanship scores.

While I'm on the fence regarding soft scores, I'm not quite sure if it's fair to dismiss them as completely subjective. Many tournaments I've attended had specific questions on the soft score/sportsmanship front that served as a fairly black or white checklist. As to the argument for sportsmanship, the only one I'm particularly moved by is that a checklist of game etiquette serves as prevention of in game arguments...between players that would not normally be confrontational.

I asked earlier to see an example of a non-subjective checklist and no one was able to provide one. Can you? Every checklist I've ever seen (and I've seen many) has been completely opinion-based. It should be noted that a checklist doesn't have to have "would you play your opponent again?" to be subjective; even something like "did your opponent bring all of the necessary materials?" is subjective. Is it necessary for an opponent to bring vehicle damage dice? How about craters? Cotton balls for popping smoke? How about GW FAQs? The INAT FAQ? Chipmunks can use this subjectivity to their advantage and frequently will.

Until a better system is developed to evaluate sportsmanship in a more fair and objective way, the sportsmanship scoring is the best option for organizers who want to put an emphasis on the social aspect of the game.

Are you purposely ignoring the fact that sportsmanship scores actually allow for people to display even worse sportsmanship? From a sportsmanship emphasis perspective it actually makes much more sense NOT to try and quantify it.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by reminding everyone over and over that we don't "need" to play 40k at all? What does that have to do with the topic of sportsmanship scoring at tournaments?

Hell, going by your logic none of us should even be posting here. We don't need Dakka Dakka, either.

Danny Internets wrote:

While I'm on the fence regarding soft scores, I'm not quite sure if it's fair to dismiss them as completely subjective. Many tournaments I've attended had specific questions on the soft score/sportsmanship front that served as a fairly black or white checklist. As to the argument for sportsmanship, the only one I'm particularly moved by is that a checklist of game etiquette serves as prevention of in game arguments...between players that would not normally be confrontational.

I asked earlier to see an example of a non-subjective checklist and no one was able to provide one. Can you? Every checklist I've ever seen (and I've seen many) has been completely opinion-based. It should be noted that a checklist doesn't have to have "would you play your opponent again?" to be subjective; even something like "did your opponent bring all of the necessary materials?" is subjective. Is it necessary for an opponent to bring vehicle damage dice? How about craters? Cotton balls for popping smoke? How about GW FAQs? The INAT FAQ? Chipmunks can use this subjectivity to their advantage and frequently will.

I find the Adepticon Sportsmanship scoring system fairly objective. To be sure, nefarious individuals could turn something like "Was your opponent prompt to start the round?" into "I consider prompt 15 minutes before and he was not, therefore I will mark him down". However, such individuals are going to make a mess of the game regardless of any checklist. So...I don't feel anyone is actually debating if sports scores will turn TFG into a gaming dream date . However, I do think the argument that it provides structure/etiquette a perfectly valid one.

However, such individuals are going to make a mess of the game regardless of any checklist.

...so the solution is to let them make a mess of the game AND give them a way to dick over their opponent? In what universe does that make sense? Structure is meaningless if its so subjective as to be defined as whatever someone wants it to be.

Please see examples posted further back. The only counter to TFG is for the player to man up and complain. Soft scores help no one against the TFG.

I do think the Yellow Card/Red Card system is the best way to deal with TFG, so this thread has persuaded me that Sportsmanship is rather unnecessary.

I think part of the problem is that people are assuming that a sportsmanship score is there to halt cheaters and TFGs.

A scoring system does not have the power to monitor abusive players, that is up to tournament officials and players themselves. Of course abusive players should be ejected from the event - that goes for any competition, not just 40k.

Sportsmanship does still allow players to communicate the officials in a quantitative way how enjoyable each opponent was to play with. That alone is why a sportsmanship score is "needed" in a tournament where the officials want to reward good sportsmanship.

Yellow card/Red card seems like an excellent way of dealing with cheaters/TFGs, but that is aside from sportsmanship scoring IMO.

Danny Internets wrote:

However, such individuals are going to make a mess of the game regardless of any checklist.

...so the solution is to let them make a mess of the game AND give them a way to dick over their opponent? In what universe does that make sense? Structure is meaningless if its so subjective as to be defined as whatever someone wants it to be.

Well, honestly I consider the entire "TFG" somewhat of an ad absurdum. TFG seems to be an exceptional rarity according to a majority of posters in this thread reporting their tourney experience. If that is the case, then an example such as the Adepticon policy, would only be subjective to a very small minority.

Again, I don't believe in implementing a scoring system as TFG control. It would obviously fail to control an individual with social issues, regardless of how many points you assign good behavior. However, I do find the argument that it provides a structure for players a valid one.

Dracos wrote:
Sportsmanship does still allow players to communicate the officials in a quantitative way how enjoyable each opponent was to play with. That alone is why a sportsmanship score is "needed" in a tournament where the officials want to reward good sportsmanship.

Being enjoyable to play against is not the same as having good sportsmanship. If you want to reward that, call it something else (Like popularity...Which is more appropriate).

And popularity should be it's own reward.

You are telling me that like I made it up. If you have a problem with the name they give it, take it up with the tournament in question.

Dracos wrote:I do agree that all these value labels are biased, but that is our own human nature. Until a better system is developed to evaluate sportsmanship in a more fair and objective way, the sportsmanship scoring is the best option for organizers who want to put an emphasis on the social aspect of the game.

Whether you agree that the need to evaluate sportsmanship exists or not is a completely separate point - some organizers do feel the need to evaluate performances in the category of sportsmanship, and therefore we have the sportsmanship scoring system.

Again we don't need the game at all, so this thread is really just a waste of time. People who are arguing it is not needed at all are correct, because we don't need this game at all. Therefore the premise is impossible to disprove, and really this thread is about bashing those who like/use sportsmanship scores.

So why are you posting in this thread. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON THAT IS PRO SPORTSMANSHIP SCORE HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR THE NECESSITY OF THE SPORTSMANSHIP SCORE.

Please make an argument for it. Or stop 'wasting time'. Thanks.

Danny Internets wrote:

While I'm on the fence regarding soft scores, I'm not quite sure if it's fair to dismiss them as completely subjective. Many tournaments I've attended had specific questions on the soft score/sportsmanship front that served as a fairly black or white checklist. As to the argument for sportsmanship, the only one I'm particularly moved by is that a checklist of game etiquette serves as prevention of in game arguments...between players that would not normally be confrontational.

I asked earlier to see an example of a non-subjective checklist and no one was able to provide one. Can you? Every checklist I've ever seen (and I've seen many) has been completely opinion-based.
...
...

You've obviously never seen one of those complicated lists which goes something like this:

Opponent swears Yes/No
Opponent has dice Yes/No
Opponent has two copies of army list Yes/No

and so on.

Nothing objective about those criteria, eh?

Funnily enough the German Army of the WW1 and WW2 era used a completely subjective system of personnel evaluation which worked like this.

The soldier's immediate commander rated the performance on the following scale; Good/Average/Poor.

It worked pretty well. The German Army produced twice the combat effectiveness per man that their enemies did.

The much more complex and supposedly objective US Army evaluation form was well known for producing biased and ineffective results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:

Dracos wrote:I do agree that all these value labels are biased, but that is our own human nature. Until a better system is developed to evaluate sportsmanship in a more fair and objective way, the sportsmanship scoring is the best option for organizers who want to put an emphasis on the social aspect of the game.

Whether you agree that the need to evaluate sportsmanship exists or not is a completely separate point - some organizers do feel the need to evaluate performances in the category of sportsmanship, and therefore we have the sportsmanship scoring system.

Again we don't need the game at all, so this thread is really just a waste of time. People who are arguing it is not needed at all are correct, because we don't need this game at all. Therefore the premise is impossible to disprove, and really this thread is about bashing those who like/use sportsmanship scores.

So why are you posting in this thread. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON THAT IS PRO SPORTSMANSHIP SCORE HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR THE NECESSITY OF THE SPORTSMANSHIP SCORE.

Please make an argument for it. Or stop 'wasting time'. Thanks.

Please don't shout.

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

Kilkrazy wrote:

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

1. By promoting a system that can be abused. I don't know how in the long run that supports 'promoting good sportsmanship'. In the end, it could easily be counter-productive.

2. By instituting a system that TFG can also use.

3. Better tie breaks exist that are not subjective, arbitrary and biased that can be implemented.

Note: The OP said 'good', not wishful thinking.

I would say painting score is a better tie breaker, thats something that is more objective and requires more skill then sportsmanship

imweasel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

1. By promoting a system that can be abused. I don't know how in the long run that supports 'promoting good sportsmanship'. In the end, it could easily be counter-productive.

2. By instituting a system that TFG can also use.

3. Better tie breaks exist that are not subjective, arbitrary and biased that can be implemented.

Note: The OP said 'good', not wishful thinking.

You are making a set of assumptions about how a sport scoring system might work, assuming it would work badly, and taking that as a reason not to do it.

If you make different assumptions, it changes the whole perspective on the argument.

Why not start by examining the basis premises?

Is good sportsmanship good?
Self-evidently.

Can it be promoted by a sportsmanship scoring system?

Etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:I would say painting score is a better tie breaker, thats something that is more objective and requires more skill then sportsmanship

Paint scoring's potential use as a tie-breaker does not invalidate sports scoring.

My best events have been the one with no sportsmanship but a judge who will use the yellow card/red card system and throw guys out.

Kilkrazy wrote:You are making a set of assumptions about how a sport scoring system might work, assuming it would work badly, and taking that as a reason not to do it.

No more of an assumption than you are assuming that such a system would work well and taking that as a reason to do it.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you make different assumptions, it changes the whole perspective on the argument.

A subjective, biased and arbitrary system can have 'perspective'? I hardly think so.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why not start by examining the basis premises?

This can only be done by ignoring the fact that one has to assume that a subjective, biased and arbitrary system can be 'fair'.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is good sportsmanship good?
Self-evidently.

This is the only thing we can agree on.

Kilkrazy wrote:Can it be promoted by a sportsmanship scoring system?

Etc.

My response is can anything be 'promoted' via a subjective, arbitrary and biased system?

imweasel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You are making a set of assumptions about how a sport scoring system might work, assuming it would work badly, and taking that as a reason not to do it.

No more of an assumption than you are assuming that such a system would work well and taking that as a reason to do it.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you make different assumptions, it changes the whole perspective on the argument.

A subjective, biased and arbitrary system can have 'perspective'? I hardly think so.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why not start by examining the basis premises?

This can only be done by ignoring the fact that one has to assume that a subjective, biased and arbitrary system can be 'fair'.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is good sportsmanship good?
Self-evidently.

This is the only thing we can agree on.

Kilkrazy wrote:Can it be promoted by a sportsmanship scoring system?

Etc.

My response is can anything be 'promoted' via a subjective, arbitrary and biased system?

You're doing it again.

My point is that people should first decide if sportmanship would be a good thing if a good system could be found to promote it.

You have simply assumed the system would be subjective, arbitrary and biased, and therefore bad. That avoids the core issue.

Eh, you're dealing with it in such broad strokes that the approach to the topic is made meaningless. Finding the 'good system that promotes it' is the hard part, not getting people to agree whether sportsmanship is good or bad.

"If we had a good way of doing it, should we end world hunger?"

Resounding yes.

"Let's simply ship food surpluses to hungry nations so that despot rulers can seize control of aid stockpiles and become tyrants enabled by the generosity of richer nations."

Deafening silence.

"And then we can pump tax dollars into funding military insertions overseas to dismantle the despot tyrants and embroil industrialized nations in 3rd world regional conflicts which only massive expenditures to revamp infrastructure and government making the developing nation into a colonial state in all but name only before we can begin to extract our influence."

Furniture flies.

The topic is whether anyone can make an argument of why we need a sportmanship system.

I have given three arguments in favour.

No-one has refuted them, and people just keep saying it is impossible so it shouldn't be done.

That is not a logical argument.

Claiming no one has refuted them when people clearly have, or have come up with better arguments against a sportsmanship system is not a logical argument.

Kilkrazy wrote:The topic is whether anyone can make an argument of why we need a sportmanship system.

I have given three arguments in favour.

No-one has refuted them, and people just keep saying it is impossible so it shouldn't be done.

That is not a logical argument.

Anyone can make an argument for a sportsmanship system.

The topic is 'can anyone make a good argument for a sportsmanship system'.

I have yet to see anyone to making an even close good argument besides 'sportsmanship is good, therefore it should be promoted'.

I haven't even seen a 'list' of what to even score your opponent on his 'sportsmanship'.

And Killkrazy, I appreciate you playing 'devil's advocate', but at least try to make a good argument or this is just going to go nowhere even faster.

Good sportsmanship is a good thing.

However, Sportsmanship scoring often does not reward actual sportsmanship. Most reward charisma, conformity, and popularity. That is the fundamental disconnect in the argument, and the logical problem of using a different meaning of a word in different part of an argument.

Opponent swears Yes/No
Opponent has dice Yes/No
Opponent has two copies of army list Yes/No

and so on.

Define swearing. Can I penalize you for saying "darn"? Subjective.

And what does having dice or extra copies of an army list have to do with sportsmanship? Might as well add "Is your opponent wearing a blue shirt?" and reward/dock points for that too.

"And so on" is not adequate when asked for exactly what would be on this checklist. Please elaborate. I'm curious to know what your so-called objective checklist about something completely nebulous and without standard definition ("sportsmanship") would look like.

Danny Internets wrote:

Opponent swears Yes/No
Opponent has dice Yes/No
Opponent has two copies of army list Yes/No

and so on.

Define swearing. Can I penalize you for saying "darn"? Subjective.

And what does having dice or extra copies of an army list have to do with sportsmanship? Might as well add "Is your opponent wearing a blue shirt?" and reward/dock points for that too.

"And so on" is not adequate when asked for exactly what would be on this checklist. Please elaborate. I'm curious to know what your so-called objective checklist about something completely nebulous and without standard definition ("sportsmanship") would look like.

He is playing devil's advocate. I don't think he has an idea of what to score or how to score it. He isn't really for soft scores.

imweasel wrote:
He is playing devil's advocate. I don't think he has an idea of what to score or how to score it. He isn't really for soft scores.

This is offensively lazy argumentation. Inevitably those who have been backed into a corner discover some 'hidden truth' on which to float, like jetsam.

If you're going to make claims regard the wasting of time, you should take your own advice and put more effort into your posting.


In any case, the question as posed revolves around possibility. It doesn't require that the implementation of soft scoring be easy, it simply requires that it be possible under a certain set of circumstances. The intent of such an argument being to move beyond idiotic ranting about the quality of particular category; inevitably the sort of thing that devolves into circularity.

"Should we have soft scoring?"

"No!"

"Why?"

"Because soft scoring is bad!"

"Why?"

"Its soft, and soft is bad!"

Stupid. Utterly stupid. More so given the state GW rules.

Nobody is saying all soft scoring is universally bad. But there are few cases in which sportsmanship is better then no sportsmanship scores. And many ways to achieve the desired effect without having the sportsmanship scores. I have seen no serious argument against painting scores in here, and those are soft.

Of course, the thread isn't about painting scores. You only need to do a forum search to find instances in which people complain about having their tournament position determined by painting score.

As with any system of regulation there is the potential for abuse. But that potential has more to do with poor organization and staffing than issues inherent to the points system.

But hey, I think 40k tournaments are a colossal joke, so my opinion doesn't matter much.

That reminds me; what army do you play?

Several.

My largest single collection is an amalgam of various marine chapters. I also have large collections of Eldar, and Orks.

Fantasy makes up the bulk of the horde; including Chaos Warriors, Empire, Orcs, Dwarfs, Lizardmen, and Dogs of War.

But I don't play much, for me its mostly about the modeling.

So far I agree with most of the points brought up in the entire discussion.
1. having a way to be punished for questioning the rules or movement etc, is not right and thats what the sportsmanship score frequently turns into.
2. There are always going to to be some players that are a complete doink and take the fun out of playing the game.
3. There should be a way to reward the players that are truly fun to play.
4. A system to allow formal complaints against an opponent without penalizing you should be in place. That system should be clear and inforced.

In my opinion there should be a seperate rating for how fun the person is to play. This should translate into its own reward or only used in a tie breaker type situation.

Now that I have added my opinion on the subject I have to explain my limited experience on this paticular subject. I live and work on a U.S. military base in Korea. We play every weekend at the community center on base. Anywhere from 2-8 players show up and we of course have one bad apple in the bunch. The kind of person that tries to twist the rules in the book to fit his paticular situation and convienantly forgetting or making "mistakes" about rules that apply to him. With such a limited number of players available this individual is frequently the only one to play even though everyone avoids it like the plague.

We arranged a mini tournament a few years ago and had almost 100 people show up from all over the country. Our current problem child was not here at the time, but we had others. I was approched as the event organizer that a paticular person was tanking their sportsmanship scores when they were trying to clarify rules. Luckily later in the tournament he was caught using loaded dice and was asked to leave. Unfortunatly we then had to adjust the score sheets and that was a whole new problem. If the sportsmanship score was not involved it would have solved at least some of the problem.

The only sportman awards should be "how bad did I kick my opponents' butt?"

dogma wrote:If you're going to make claims regard the wasting of time, you should take your own advice and put more effort into your posting.

I did. I found that he does not exactly follow the line of thinking he is presenting in this thread, thus the conclusion I came to that he is playing 'devils advocate'.

Yeah to me Sportsmanship is like oh you broke your arm before the arm wrestling match, let's find some other way to compete since you no longer can in this arena. Being sporting is like giving someone a handicap you know is not as good as you are at a game or sport. I mean I'll remind someone to shoot something they forgot to and I don't mind if they want to go back and do something that they obviously would have but forgot to even if it's my turn and I'll take morale tests that they forget about but is that sporting and if so what else is?

What should what these scores that as sportsmanship scores in 40k tournaments be called?

Kilkrazy wrote:The topic is whether anyone can make an argument of why we need a sportmanship system.

I have given three arguments in favour.

No-one has refuted them, and people just keep saying it is impossible so it shouldn't be done.

That is not a logical argument.

I believe that there is a need for a sportsmanship system...to award good sportsmanship prizes.

I believe that all of those arguments still make good reason to try and win the "sportsmanship award" and be supported by "expected gaming ettiquette" of tournament participants.

I did not say it was impossible at all, rather that it was quite successfully implemented in bloodbowl tournaments as an example, where being a bad sport can be the difference between a place or not when the scores are close.

I have to absolutely agree with Hulksmash in his observation that it is generally the less competative players who are socially awkward, haven't taken the time to learn the rules properly and bring assumptions to the gaming table about generosities in the rules that "their normal gaming circle" lets them get away with.
- Though as a caveat there are some awesomely fun guys at the bottom tables sometimes playing less than competative teams and having a blast. These are the guys who should always win the "sportsmanship award" because they are going above and beyond to make having fun the priority.

So to KillKrazy - My argument against the inclusion of a sports score is that it does not go far enough and allows individuals to be blaise about being a good sport at all times when playing with people at a tournament. Sportsmanship is a basic requirement of attending and paying for your entry fee. If you can't be a good sport, then you shouldn't be playing.

Kilkrazy wrote:

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

1. Yes. Promoting good sportsmanship is a good idea. I support this notion if it remains separate from the Best General award, has its own prize and is objectively marked. To judge sportsmanship, we would require sportsmanship scores. The difficulty is making them objective, because unless it's a fair system, you might as well not have it.

2. No. I already went through the possible TFG scenarios a while back, and the consensus was that it cannot counter TFG, because the TFG also has access to the system and will abuse it to dock your score. In any case, you're better off with a yellow/red card system for killing TFG. Definitely not a reason we need sportsmanship scores.

3. There is no reason to make it a tiebreaker for Best General. Best overall? Certainly, but not best General. It makes as much sense as using painting for Best General. Instead, I'd rather split the prize, or have a tiebreaker match. Not the most efficient way to decide it, and thus no pressing need for sportsmanship scores.

1/3, and that's assuming it's objective, which no one has presented yet.

imweasel wrote:
I did. I found that he does not exactly follow the line of thinking that I developed through preconception, thus the conclusion I came to that he is playing 'devils advocate'.

Fixed that for you.

Your point is nonsensical. Either you are referencing Kilkrazy's behavior outside the auspices of this thread, or the standard you are judging for consistency is a self-conceived strawman.

I believe that the latter is more likely.

Well, OP, would you prefer to play against an absolute prick, who completely takes the enjoyment factor out of the game?

Someone hasn't read the thread, lol.

Were I to play in, or run, a 40k tournament (which will never happen) the system that I would like to see implemented would be as follows:

Separate scoring for each category of consideration. We'll call them painting, generalship, and sportsmanship for the sake of argument. Each of these categories would have their own prizes.

An amalgamated score would be utilized in order to determine an overall winner, if there was to be an overall winner at all.

All that is required to enforce this system fairly is an appropriate number of event staff. The vast majority of tournament are understaffed because the vast majority of tournaments are run by people who have no idea how to plan a competitive event.

dogma wrote:Were I to play in, or run, a 40k tournament (which will never happen) the system that I would like to see implemented would be as follows:

Separate scoring for each category of consideration. We'll call them painting, generalship, and sportsmanship for the sake of argument. Each of these categories would have their own prizes.

An amalgamated score would be utilized in order to determine an overall winner, if there was to be an overall winner at all.

Well, that's certainly an option tournaments could implement. However, to be honest, I enjoy the thought of an overall winner. IMHO, that captures someone who likely excelled at the overall hobby more than a particular aspect of it (using game mechanics, painting or being a nice guy). That's not right or wrong, it's simply what I consider 40k tournaments...an exhibition of 'Hobby' excellence.

I agree. Warhammer, in all its forms, is a hobby. It isn't a game akin to Chess, Go, or even Checkers.

That's why I favor soft scoring. It helps keep Warhammer consistent with itself.

dogma wrote:

imweasel wrote:
I did. I found that he does not exactly follow the line of thinking that I developed through preconception, thus the conclusion I came to that he is playing 'devils advocate'.

Fixed that for you.

Your point is nonsensical. Either you are referencing Kilkrazy's behavior outside the auspices of this thread, or the standard you are judging for consistency is a self-conceived strawman.

I believe that the latter is more likely.

Really?

Here is a quote from Kilkrazy:

"The problem with soft scores is that they are subjective at best and at worst open to abuse by unscrupulous players.

I understand the idea that soft scores are intended to encourage positive behaviour such as painting your models and being a good sport, however it seems that legislating for these things often brings out the worst in people and is counter productive. "

Anything else you need to fix besides your own preconceptions?

imweasel wrote:
Really?

Here is a quote from Kilkrazy:

"The problem with soft scores is that they are subjective at best and at worst open to abuse by unscrupulous players.

I understand the idea that soft scores are intended to encourage positive behaviour such as painting your models and being a good sport, however it seems that legislating for these things often brings out the worst in people and is counter productive. "

Anything else you need to fix besides your own preconceptions?

Soft scoring is not synonymous with sportsmanship scoring. The confusion in the quoted segment prevents a definitive conclusion from being reached; ergo you are overreaching.

It's suppose to discourage you from being a bad sport, whether it works or not and is needed or not they don't care.

The only discouragement you should need is the fact that everyone will think you're a tool, and that you'll likely get kicked out of the event, or banned from future events/the store if it's bad enough.

How does giving him a "0" on his sportsmanship score stop bad behavior? He's still allowed to play in events, he's still allowed to tank your score and the score of everyone else he plays that day, and if sportsmanship scoring is really as insignificant as some say, he could still end up winning (or ending up in a top spot at least) despite getting straight 0's.

All you need to discourage cheating or donkey-cave behavior is a TO with balls. That, and participants with the balls to call said TO with balls over to the table when TFG starts being a douche, instead of what we have now, which is mostly a bunch of pansies who will bend over and let TFG walk all over them during the tournament, and then wait until they get home and complain about it online when the event is already over and nothing at all can be done about it.

Sidstyler wrote:instead of what we have now, which is mostly a bunch of pansies who will bend over and let TFG walk all over them during the tournament, and then wait until they get home and complain about it online when the event is already over and nothing at all can be done about it.

So sayeth the dude who whines on the internet.

Thanks, Sandra Bullock.

...yes, but, not about people who screw me over during games.

A person who TOs see rack up consistently low sports scores is a person for whom they have documentation of consistently unpleasant behavior/attitude. It's entirely possible that it's easier for TOs who normally wish to avoid confrontation, and who choose to be charitable and give people multiple chances, to eventually ban someone when they see a numeric record of that person's bad sportsmanship show up over time. I've seen it happen.

And if you use the pass/fail sports system I described earlier, you can do it in a single event.

imweasel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

1. By promoting a system that can be abused. I don't know how in the long run that supports 'promoting good sportsmanship'. In the end, it could easily be counter-productive.

2. By instituting a system that TFG can also use.

3. Better tie breaks exist that are not subjective, arbitrary and biased that can be implemented.

Note: The OP said 'good', not wishful thinking.

And this is why the debate is worthless. The people who don't like having Sportsmanship scores are not open to any explanation as to why some people like them.

When someone who likes Sportsmanship scoring posts their reasons, an anti- Sportsmanship Scoring advocate replies like the one I just quoted.

Then, a few posts later, another anti-Sportsmanship Scoring advocate will say that the pro-Sportsmanship Scoring advocates won't give any reasons why they need/want/like then.

A little advice: If you're not even remotely willing to entertain the other side's point of view, there is no reason to enter into an argument.

Saldiven wrote:

imweasel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

1. By promoting a system that can be abused. I don't know how in the long run that supports 'promoting good sportsmanship'. In the end, it could easily be counter-productive.

2. By instituting a system that TFG can also use.

3. Better tie breaks exist that are not subjective, arbitrary and biased that can be implemented.

Note: The OP said 'good', not wishful thinking.

And this is why the debate is worthless. The people who don't like having Sportsmanship scores are not open to any explanation as to why some people like them.

When someone who likes Sportsmanship scoring posts their reasons, an anti- Sportsmanship Scoring advocate replies like the one I just quoted.

Then, a few posts later, another anti-Sportsmanship Scoring advocate will say that the pro-Sportsmanship Scoring advocates won't give any reasons why they need/want/like then.

A little advice: If you're not even remotely willing to entertain the other side's point of view, there is no reason to enter into an argument.

ABSOLUTELY!

This is pretty silly thread - Blackmoor should be kicked in the what-nots for even starting it in the first place.

Those that don't like it fuss about it, those that do like it fuss about it. No one's going to agree.

There's a really vocal group here that doesn't care for them - as far as I know either haven't played in a lot of tourneys or haven't done very well in them - or had a bad experience. Whatever - sorry if you had a bad time.

Personally, I've played in GT's since '99 and a boatload of other tourneys (Adepticon, Big Waagh, RTT's, etc). I think the most fun tourneys were the early one's in 99 and 2000. They had Comp, Sportsmanship, painting, etc. But - they were fun. Not the drama around cheating that is today, not the win at all costs mentality - and they were FUN! It's not hard to get a good sports score. Be decent to people, give them what you would expect, be nice. Out of 100+ tourney opponents I had a handful that weren't fun to play and maybe 2 that were even close to being jerks.

This whole thing about all the drama about bad players, cheating, win at all costs, TFG, etc - it's REALLY getting blown all out of proportion. A bunch of internet drama queens have really made it into some huge conspiracy thing. I suggest that we has a hobby group collective STOP it - enjoy the d@mn games - play and have fun, thank the tourney organizers for the effort they put on for US to have fun - and stop the crap. I'm guilty of feeding this as well by even replying to these threads.

Played in a tournament this weekend and got bumped from 7/32 to 9/32 because of sportsmanship. (7/8/9 were tired & the only remaining way to decide was sportsmanship). My sportsmanship scores were 12/12 12/12 & 6/12 being W/L/W. Now let me explain why I lost those 6 points.

My opponent was a dark angels player fielding 2 LR & 1 LRC with 5 squads of terminators (2 reg 3 assault) and belial.

Composition: "You were fielding a hammerhead with a rail gun & 2 broadsides as your only heavy support. And your only troops were 45 fire warriors, that doesn't show a lot of diversity"
For non Tau players, we have 2 troop choices, FW or kroot and I don't have enough kroot models to field a legal squad. For heavy support we have HH, Broadside, snipers and a skyray missile defense gunship. I don't have a skyray & my snipers were cut due to it being 1850 instead of 2,000 pt game.

The other 3 points were for playing by the rules in-game. His LR wanted to shoot my hammerhead However there was terrian blocking the Lascannons (It was a rock formation with a hole in it) and the height of the heavy bolters would allow it to shoot through the hole but the lascannons could not. I argued that LoS on vehicle weapons were drawn from the weapon & even got my laser pointer & showed him no matter how I maneuvered it, he clearly did not have LoS. He then got the TO over who agreed with me. But he still said "The fact that you'd even bring that up when playing someone using as bad a book as dark angels shows poor sportsmanship." My reply was "I play T'au Empire, our book isn't good either"

Finally he mentioned:
"Well when you placed objectives (I won the roll to place all 3 objectives, as a balance he picked the primary one) you placed them all out in the open which is unfair for me as you can easily shoot me to death"
tl;dr I got dropped from tied for 7th, to 9th based on a reduced sportsmanship score for playing by the rules & making good tactical decisions. I feel if they must have a sportsmanship score it should be completely separate from the overall standings, much like painting.

Threads are never about convincing the other people who post in the thread; trying to do so is futile 90% of the time. When you post in a thread your real audience is the "lurkers:" those whose opinions are not quite formed yet.

And there's been plenty of arguing past one another on both sides. I do think there have been a lot of good, valid, and useful thoughts expressed on both sides, even if the thread has tended to be a bit circular.

Mannahnin wrote:A person who TOs see rack up consistently low sports scores is a person for whom they have documentation of consistently unpleasant behavior/attitude. It's entirely possible that it's easier for TOs who normally wish to avoid confrontation, and who choose to be charitable and give people multiple chances, to eventually ban someone when they see a numeric record of that person's bad sportsmanship show up over time. I've seen it happen.

And if you use the pass/fail sports system I described earlier, you can do it in a single event.

Exactly. Moreover, a person who consistently receives low sportsmanship scores can be directly observed by tournament officials, overtly or otherwise; allowing the number of necessary staff to be reduced. Which is always a good thing in an environment which is typically understaffed to an obscene degree.

As a rule, competitive events should not dip below an official:participant ratio of 1:4. Typically I see ratios of 1:20 or more.

Saldiven wrote:And this is why the debate is worthless. The people who don't like having Sportsmanship scores are not open to any explanation as to why some people like them.

Except that's the only argument for sportsmanship scores. It's because they are 'liked'. Not because they are fair. Not because they achieve the objective of forcing people to be 'sporting'. It's...just because.

Saldiven wrote:When someone who likes Sportsmanship scoring posts their reasons, an anti- Sportsmanship Scoring advocate replies like the one I just quoted.

Give a good argument that can't be reasonably refuted, and we can and will listen.

Saldiven wrote:Then, a few posts later, another anti-Sportsmanship Scoring advocate will say that the pro-Sportsmanship Scoring advocates won't give any reasons why they need/want/like then.

Something you still have not done.

Saldiven wrote:A little advice: If you're not even remotely willing to entertain the other side's point of view, there is no reason to enter into an argument.

If you are not willing to debate with substance, perhaps you should take your own advice.

Here is a definition of sportsmanship from the Merriams-Webster online dictionary:

conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport

Okay so sports and playing a game of toy soldiers is not one in the same but many of the principles still hold true. To me sportsmanship is more than just a score handed out at the end of your game. Sportsmanship is also a state of mind you bring to the table. The notorious TFG is trying to manipulate you and take you out of your game plan and all that entails. If you can keep your wits about you and not lose your cool then he has at least partially failed at the least.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Here is a definition of sportsmanship from the Merriams-Webster online dictionary:

conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport

Okay so sports and playing a game of toy soldiers is not one in the same but many of the principles still hold true. To me sportsmanship is more than just a score handed out at the end of your game. Sportsmanship is also a state of mind you bring to the table. The notorious TFG is trying to manipulate you and take you out of your game plan and all that entails. If you can keep your wits about you and not lose your cool then he has at least partially failed at the least.

G

Well said. Add kicking his ass and you win and TFG is epic fail.

Orky-Kowboy wrote:IMO sportsmanship scores are a good thing because they 1) act as a deterrent, preventing rude behaviour, and 2) help build a sense of community among the tourney gamers by forcing people to at least TRY and get along

On the con side, it makes people hesitate calling out blatant rules abuses for fear of being tanked on their scores, it allows donkey-cave players to just tank your score regardless of how you acted during the game, and forced nicety is no way to build a sense of community. In the U.S., tournaments are not about holding hands and singing koombaya, it's about showing your chops and wtfpwning the other guy's face.

Thanks I really appreciate that a lot.

: )

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Terminus wrote:

Orky-Kowboy wrote:IMO sportsmanship scores are a good thing because they 1) act as a deterrent, preventing rude behaviour, and 2) help build a sense of community among the tourney gamers by forcing people to at least TRY and get along

On the con side, it makes people hesitate calling out blatant rules abuses for fear of being tanked on their scores, it allows donkey-cave players to just tank your score regardless of how you acted during the game, and forced nicety is no way to build a sense of community. In the U.S., tournaments are not about holding hands and singing koombaya, it's about showing your chops and wtfpwning the other guy's face.

Well that is certainly one way to look at it. I don't think everyone will agree though. You can win just as well with class and it never hurts to show some respect to a gracious opponent. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. You've lost and now your opponent is gloating. That's a sure way to ensure they mark you down on sportsmanship. Now if you can win and be gracious to the loser there is the chance they'll appreciate the kind overture.

G

Have you bought Lunahound that box of Devastators yet for losing your bet over the new Baal Predator kit?

You know, sportsmanship and all.

Why are you bringing that up here? It has nothing to do with this conversation. To answer your question I plan to send her a box of Devastators.

G

imweasel wrote:
Give a good argument that can't be reasonably refuted, and we can and will listen.

Refutation is an informal process. A point which rebuts another does not negate the validity of the original statement. Its essentially a defense from aesthetics.

All arguments can be reasonably refuted.

I still can not see the point in quanitifing Sportsmanship' even if a system that actually did that worked. 40k is a game, at a tournament the idea is to find the best person at that game. Interacting with people whilst playing the game is real life. If you act like a complete turdwit, then you are a complete turdwit, why do we need rules to cover this? Why not have rules to cover telling the gf/wife that you are booked into a tournament for the weekend. Maybe somekind of table....

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:What in the hell is donkey cave.

It's how Dakka censors "a-hole".

I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.

I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.

I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.

imweasel wrote:

Saldiven wrote:And this is why the debate is worthless. The people who don't like having Sportsmanship scores are not open to any explanation as to why some people like them.

Except that's the only argument for sportsmanship scores. It's because they are 'liked'. Not because they are fair. Not because they achieve the objective of forcing people to be 'sporting'. It's...just because.

I don't think it's the only argument for sportsmanship scores. As a competitor in a tournament, my main reason for being there is to have fun playing lots of new people and face armies I've never faced before. Of course, I play to win, but I don't go in expecting to win, tbh.

I'd rather play six guys who are great sportsmen and lose a lot than play six TFGs and win a lot. I'll have a more enjoyable tournament this way. Since the conduct of my opponents affects my enjoyment of the event so much, I think there should be a prize for being the best opponent. It's just as important a prize as Best General, to me.

So the 'reason' for Sportsmanship scores is that, without them, we'd have no Sportsmanship prize. And I think being a good opponent and playing in a civilised manner is the DEFINING factor in my enjoyment of a tournament, and therefore deserves a prize...

I DON'T think the Sportsmanship score should affect Best General points. Two separate scores for two separate (equal) prizes.

Blackmoor wrote:
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.

I lolled. This is probably the most angsty hobby in existence...

When every forum about it drug down by its readers (Dakkas General is still kickin) it's a pretty grumpy hobby. Not that the hobby doesnt have its fair share of equally amazing people,

imweasel wrote:

Saldiven wrote:And this is why the debate is worthless. The people who don't like having Sportsmanship scores are not open to any explanation as to why some people like them.

Except that's the only argument for sportsmanship scores. It's because they are 'liked'. Not because they are fair. Not because they achieve the objective of forcing people to be 'sporting'. It's...just because.

Thanks for proving my point.

The post that I responded to included three reasons that someone believed that Sportsmanship scoring is a good thing, followed by a poster refuting all of them out of hand.

Your response ignores all of that.

Just admit that your mind is already made up and there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to change it. Remember, your dislike for sportsmanship scoring is merely your opinion, and is no more right or wrong than the other side's opinion.

If you don't like sportsmanship scoring, you have the option to avoid tournaments that include them as any significant portion of total scores. That's your prerogative.

But please stop trying to tell those of us who believe that sports scoring is important that we are wrong and we all need to adhere to your version of how tournaments should be run. I'm not trying to tell you that 'Ard Boys needs sportsmanship scoring, so please stop telling me that RTT's should drop it.

@Saldiven - Your argument is short-sighted and fallacious. Many have stated specific reasons why sportsmanship scoring in its current state has issues. The issues I have discussed are logically valid. These include its subjective nature, it's inability to actually inhibit poor sportsmanship, and its ability to adversely impact the score of a good sportsman. This is not an opinion. You may deny the premise that fairness and objectivity should be an essential aspect of a public tournament, but then I would say that is an opinion. Furthermore, you statement regarding avoiding tournaments that have sportsmanship is childish at best. In this statement, you are implying that being critical of an event and voicing important concerns with the hope of influencing change is wrong. Again, this may be your opinion. However, many of us seek to improve the scene by providing constructive criticism. I do have fun at events that have Sportsmanship Scoring, but not because it has Sportsmanship Scoring. It is for reasons of "fairness" that I actually suggest the removal of opponent scored sportsman scores from public events. This is a suggestion, not a mandate. I will promote non-sportsman scoring events by hosting and co-hosting events that are such, that is my hand of change. I have presented clear and logical reasons for its removal in this and other threads. I don't expect people to listen or change I only hope. In the end, I still have fun. In the future, please do not push the "if you don't like it don't go" position as it only demonstrates your own lack of consideration for others trying to improve the scene. Maybe you truly have hatred in your heart for those of us that don't like sportsmanship scoring, but there are other criticisms we all have for improving the scene and simply saying if you dont like it dont go, does nothing for its improvement and only promotes stagnation and decay.

It is, I believe, not anyone's place to tell someone else "If you don't like it you don't have to play". Everybody plays because they like to play. Everyone ultimately is just playing for their own enjoyment in their own way. Some folks derive their enjoyment from being very competative and winning as best they can, and this score holds them back from feeling their sense of 'winning' sometimes. That's fair. It's fun to win. Nobody can deny that. (I just like playing with toys personally) But if a standard of rules makes for those 'winners' to lose enjoyment of their hobby of wanting to win, because some unscrupulous people found a way to pervert it and abuse it, it serves to reason then that the solution is to petition TO s for a change of the way the score is assigned. This makes the sportsmen happy, and the abusive have to find yet a new way to ruin everyone's fun. (Personally I think they should hire a kindergarten class to judge the painting scores, just as a for instance. If a 5 year old likes it, you know it's cool)

I personally don't care if I win or lose or what a ranking is or anything it's just fun to play. It's not as if discussions like this are doing anything to cure cancer or find a solution to world poverty, however, they are ways for people to express their opinions about a well-intentioned, yet poorly thought out system that exists. It would be nice to change the way such points are alotted, or make it a separate category unto itself, unrelated to the tournament score. Then you could tell pretty quickley who was rigging it and who was honest. Bingo.

It is, I believe, not anyone's place to tell someone else "If you don't like it you don't have to play". Everybody plays because they like to play. Everyone ultimately is just playing for their own enjoyment in their own way.

Sadly, this is a point over-looked more often than not. The tired old "if you don't like it you don't have to play" rebuttal always gets vomited up by people when their argument runs out of steam or simply falls apart (or if they don't have an argument to begin with).

People generally don't like change even if it's for the better and will often fiercely argue to conserve the status quo. They like the system not because it is a good system, but because it is the system. It's a system that was dreamed up not by themselves, but by some authoritative person or group that must know best because they have authority, and they have authority because they know best. What it really boils down to is an intense fear of having to think for oneself--it's much easier to go on intellectual autopilot.

Well isn't that human nature? We do what we are told. The people who we assume know what is going on generally try to act like it, to keep us calm (they're called middle-management I believe, at least in the workplace).
" If this is the rules I STICK TO THEM " sort of mentality, which is why nobody shows up at a tournament with green plastic army men, but instead with GW Imperial Guard figs that total cost more than my car.

I have been in situations (and am actually in one now) where NOBODY KNOWS what to do, and it's the authority that exists in whoever takes the initiative, which doesn't even know if it's right either, that people want to cling to.... but if there's already RULES to make sense of things... suddenly life is calm and understandable, right? Even if those rules are dumb... (why does California only get 2 senators and so does Rhode Island, which has about 1/100 of the pop of cali, for instance? because that's just the way the rules were made, so people cling to them... but I digress (even further)...

If I'm in a room full of people on a burning train wreck and someone asks "what should we do?" I'll PRETEND I know what to do, for better or worse, right? If they are all saved, then I'm the middle-management hero of the day, if they all die then I guess I probably died too so I won't have to care about consequences or opinions anyway.

And then people may follow whatever hairbrained idea I had to get out of a train wreck just because I was being authoritative, a 'human rulebook for the situation at hand' sort of thing so people will flock to my idea to maybe save their lives... This has become a far more philosophical discussion than I had imagined it would be... thanks Danny Internets for putting it in perspective.

Give them rules and they will follow.
Because if not, the insanity of life would wrap its tendrils around your mind and nothing would make sense any more...

why do people go to church? you may as well ask...

AbsoluteBlue wrote:@Saldiven - Your argument is short-sighted and fallacious.

Really? What parts, specifically? My post merely pointed out that there are people, specifically the person I quoted, who is completely unwilling to entertain the idea that some people might be right in believing Sportsmanship scoring to be a good thing. If you read his/her posts in this thread, you will see that my assertion is supported by those posts. No fallacy there.

I further went on to request that those people stop trying to foist their views on me. I also stated that I am not trying to foist my views on them. How is that short sighted?

Personally, I have made absolutely no attacks on people who want tournaments without sportsmanship or made any demands that sportsmanship scoring must be part of all tournaments. My only issue is with those individuals who, for some reason, seem to believe that I am somehow less of a serious, competitive gamer because I prefer events with Sportsmanship scoring.

Also, my suggestion to avoid tournaments with sportsmanship scoring is only directed at those people who are as adamantly against it as the person I quoted. It's a free country. You can pick and choose what you do. It's not childish to suggest that someone who doesn't like something to avoid that thing; it's merely realistic.

I cannot count the times that I have suggested on this thread and many others that those individuals who dislike soft scoring of any type to go ahead and create their own events. The people who have done all the WORK and spent all the MONEY to create the existing events that include soft scores are the ones who get to determine how it is run. That is a simple fact.

The beauty of the almost-free-market system that we have is that those who believe things should be run differently have all the freedom they need to build a tournament with a competing business model and see how well they do. I honestly hope they do very well, as I believe having as wide a variety of different types of tournament as possible is good for the hobby as a whole.

The issue I have is the people who are too lazy to create the type of event they like who try to get other people to change.

Once again, I will go on the record (for at least the 5th time) in stating that I will gladly help anyone in the metro Atlanta area create and run a non-soft score event(s) here as long as you stop complaining about the soft score events I prefer.

My only issue is with those individuals who, for some reason, seem to believe that I am somehow less of a serious, competitive gamer because I prefer events with Sportsmanship scoring.

By preferring events with sportsmanship scoring you prefer tournaments that place less emphasis on competition in their methodology for selecting a winner. You really don't understand why this leads people to believe you are less of a competitive gamer?

The issue I have is the people who are too lazy to create the type of event they like who try to get other people to change.

Please explain how people who want to play in a competitive event without soft scores can do so by creating their own tournament. Is it acceptable for people to both run an event and compete in it at the same time? That doesn't strike you as a conflict of interests?

There is no need to classify people as "less" or "more" competitive by the type of tournament they like to attend. That's being careless with the English language.

A tournament, by its very definition, is a competitive event, it's just that you're going to have a hard time winning if you're acting like "that guy" and there's a sportsmanship score.

I win almost all friendly games I play, friendly being two friends taking their toughest lists and sending them for each others throats.
I win almost all tournament games I play in events with out soft scores.
I win almost all tournament games I play in events with soft scores.

I see a connection here.

Yes, less interested in competition would be a more accurate phrasing. Either way, my intention was not to say that the poster is more less interested in competition, simply point out why he is being seen as such.

it's just that you're going to have a hard time winning if you're acting like "that guy" and there's a sportsmanship score.

People act like dicks in these events too. It happens often enough that there's actually a name for the behavior: chipmunking. Furthermore, as many posters have pointed out sportsmanship scores can have the opposite effect on bad behavior. People are often less likely to call out bad behavior or cheating during the game because they fear their opponent retaliating by dinging them on sportsmanship.

EDIT: Typos

Sportsmanship is competitive, in the sense that it is a subjective competition, based on the whims of your opponent. Yes, it's competitive, just not objective.

I rank it up there with voting for prom queen. Yes it's a competition, but its subjective and based on taste.

So I ask, what's worse... having the rare TFG, that in my opinion sportsmanship scoring doesn't actually prevent, or the possibility that your scores are being "chipmunked"?

I prefer playing the rare TFG, reality of them being a TFG is better than the illusion that they are not, only to haev that illusion destroyed when you realized they dinged you arbitrarily.

In the last big tournament I went too, I gave my opponent a bad sportsmanship score, because he was a horrible player, his demeanor, rules knowledge, play speed, etc were all deficient. Having sportsmanship scoring didnt change his attitude or play style at all, so I ask what was the point of it? He didn't win, but he wasn't going to win anyways, since he was a horrible player with horrible list. Am I occasionally going to play that type of guy? Yes. Without sports, I play the guy, eat it, and move on. As it stands, I play him, I ding him, he dings me... not only did I have a bad play experience, now I have my score dinged too. Yay. Lose, Lose.

I digress though. By applying logic and the premise that objectivity is prefered, how can one condone the use of opponent scored sportsmanship?

For those that say put up or shut up... (which is also an poor position to take)

KevinNash and I will be hosting the second "Sprue Posse" RTT at Aero Hobbies in Santa Monica, CA on April 24th. We do not employ the use of sportsmanship scoring.

http://www.chaoswins.com/2010/03/playing-sprue-posse-rtt-at-aero-boyz.html

While its only an RTT, it is just one step towards us learning the TO role more and maybe someday working up towards larger events. In the first event, we had no sportsmanship realted issues, everybody had a good time and no issues were mentioned.

@AgeOfEgos - Fun picture, and I totally agree. However, if the picture is arguing for sportsmanship scoring, I would argue that sportsmanship scoring is not a requirements or even an enabler of being social. From home games, FLGS, to Indy GT I consider myself social, so not sure what the angle is here

Saldiven wrote:Really? What parts, specifically? My post merely pointed out that there are people, specifically the person I quoted, who is completely unwilling to entertain the idea that some people might be right in believing Sportsmanship scoring to be a good thing. If you read his/her posts in this thread, you will see that my assertion is supported by those posts. No fallacy there.

Believing. Belief is not proof or even a good argument.

Saldiven wrote:I further went on to request that those people stop trying to foist their views on me. I also stated that I am not trying to foist my views on them. How is that short sighted?

Right when you said if you don't like sportsmanship scores in a competitive environment, you shouldn't play.

Saldiven wrote:Personally, I have made absolutely no attacks on people who want tournaments without sportsmanship or made any demands that sportsmanship scoring must be part of all tournaments. My only issue is with those individuals who, for some reason, seem to believe that I am somehow less of a serious, competitive gamer because I prefer events with Sportsmanship scoring.

It's hard to be 'competitive' in an unfair environment.

Saldiven wrote:Also, my suggestion to avoid tournaments with sportsmanship scoring is only directed at those people who are as adamantly against it as the person I quoted. It's a free country. You can pick and choose what you do. It's not childish to suggest that someone who doesn't like something to avoid that thing; it's merely realistic.

Did you actually read and comprehend the title to this thread?

Saldiven wrote:I cannot count the times that I have suggested on this thread and many others that those individuals who dislike soft scoring of any type to go ahead and create their own events. The people who have done all the WORK and spent all the MONEY to create the existing events that include soft scores are the ones who get to determine how it is run. That is a simple fact.

And how does this argument answer the question posed in this thread?

Saldiven wrote:The beauty of the almost-free-market system that we have is that those who believe things should be run differently have all the freedom they need to build a tournament with a competing business model and see how well they do. I honestly hope they do very well, as I believe having as wide a variety of different types of tournament as possible is good for the hobby as a whole.

Read the title of the thread and get help comprehending it if you need to.

Saldiven wrote:The issue I have is the people who are too lazy to create the type of event they like who try to get other people to change.

I have run a couple of tournaments. That's not the point though, is it?

Saldiven wrote:Once again, I will go on the record (for at least the 5th time) in stating that I will gladly help anyone in the metro Atlanta area create and run a non-soft score event(s) here as long as you stop complaining about the soft score events I prefer.

As soon as you head to the midwest, I will concede this as a valid 'argument'.

Reply by: Sidstyler - click to view full reply 

10093

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/10 20:40:05

Post by: Sidstyler

AbsoluteBlue wrote:In the last big tournament I went too, I gave my opponent a bad sportsmanship score, because he was a horrible player, his demeanor, rules knowledge, play speed, etc were all deficient. Having sportsmanship scoring didnt change his attitude or play style at all, so I ask what was the point of it? He didn't win, but he wasn't going to win anyways, since he was a horrible player with horrible list. Am I occasionally going to play that type of guy? Yes. Without sports, I play the guy, eat it, and move on. As it stands, I play him, I ding him, he dings me... not only did I have a bad play experience, now I have my score dinged too. Yay. Lose, Lose.

But but but, sportsmanship scores identify and root out TFG! If we didn't have them everyone would be TFG because everyone who plays competitively is a dick anyway!

Reply by: anooci - click to view full reply 

23297

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/10 22:56:46

Post by: anooci

Sidstyler wrote:
But but but, sportsmanship scores identify and root out TFG! If we didn't have them everyone would be TFG because everyone who plays competitively is a dick anyway!

Yes, they do root out TFG, but I honestly doubt everyone would be one if Sportsmanship scores were taken out. Believe it or not, there are decent people out there that just want a clean, fun game. And yes, some of those people are competitive.

Reply by: Backdraft005 - click to view full reply 

14461

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/10 23:15:30

Post by: Backdraft005

olympia wrote: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.

'Former American'? 'More mature and less socially awkward'?

I guess we know how gets the 'arrogant pisshead award' of week. Italy now? Don't come crying back to the states when the mafioso step on your rights or the government collapses under its socialist system.

I think the sportsmanship scoring is a joke. All we need is a composition score and it should be enough. I normally win sportsmanship and composition awards at the tourneys I go to because I don't power house and I am always joking around and having fun. And if I am getting punked by a power gamer, I just hold my tongue and grade him poorly for his 3 Deathrollers, 9 Oblits, or Raider spam. Game is about fun, and sporting a list that makes sense.

(Oh yeah, and if people are softscoring people, I make sure other players know when they play them to be sure the reciprocate, balances out in the end, and the sportsman score doesn't matter.)

Reply by: Sidstyler - click to view full reply 

10093

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/10 23:28:24

Post by: Sidstyler

Game is about fun, and sporting a list that makes sense.

What if the list "makes sense" to me? What if I find the list fun to play?

I'm sorry, this is just so much bs, telling me I have to play what you like or I can't play.

All that really matters is that the list is legal. If you don't like the game or just can't handle it then don't play in tournaments, don't rewrite the rules to suit yourself with comp or institute lame sportsmanship scoring designed to punish people for winning games.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/10 23:34:46

Post by: Monster Rain

Backdraft005 wrote:

olympia wrote: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.

'Former American'? 'More mature and less socially awkward'?

I guess we know how gets the 'arrogant pisshead award' of week.

That is the greatest thing I've ever read. Especially when you consider the flags of some of the people making asses of themselves in the OT forum. Seems to be just as many European flags as there are stars and stripes. Seems like there's not a whole lot of difference when you get right down to it.

Sidstyler wrote:

Game is about fun, and sporting a list that makes sense.

What if the list "makes sense" to me? What if I find the list fun to play?

I'm sorry, this is just so much bs, telling me I have to play what you like or I can't play.

+1

Also, I don't get why people who hate competition even show up at tourneys. Maybe so they can punish others for being good at the game? Subjective scores in the hands of your opponents is the worst idea of all time.

Reply by: Sidstyler - click to view full reply 

10093

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/11 03:14:38

Post by: Sidstyler

Douchebaggery knows no nationality. lol

Reply by: I grappled the shoggoth - click to view full reply 

24528

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/11 03:19:37

Post by: I grappled the shoggoth

Sidstyler wrote:Douchebaggery knows no nationality. lol

truer words have scarcely been spoken.

Reply by: Murray - click to view full reply 

27260

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/11 03:25:07

Post by: Murray

encourages good sportsmanship? people act nicer..?

Reply by: I grappled the shoggoth - click to view full reply 

24528

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/11 03:31:12

Post by: I grappled the shoggoth

Part of the problem might be the tiered victory system. I never enjoyed having to outright table people. It gets old after a while, hunting down there last few guys. Id much rather try to play for a win and call it at that. The most fun ive had at events though have been small LGS ones.

Reply by: Sidstyler - click to view full reply 

10093

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/11 03:39:04

Post by: Sidstyler

Murray wrote:encourages good sportsmanship? people act nicer..?

Honestly, I'd like to know how many people out there only act nice if there's a sportsmanship score, because everyone keeps coming in here and posting stuff like this (after obviously not having read the rest of the thread) and it makes me wonder...

If you're that type of guy then I'd say you have no place at tournaments in the first place. Good sportsmanship is something you should be practicing anyway, you should already be playing nice and not have to be "forced" to with a subjective checklist.

Then again it seems as if some people's idea of "good sportsmanship" is apparently not bringing a hard army to a tournament...if you can even consider three deff rolla wagons or 9 oblits "hard" to begin with.

Reply by: insaniak - click to view full reply 

99

Can someone make a good argument of why we need a sportsmanship score in tournaments? @ 2010/04/11 11:46:59

Post by: insaniak

Well, that went downhill. I think we're done here.

◄ 1 2 Pg# Go to page...