Vaktathi wrote:Personally I like seeing Sportsmanship as a factor at events, however not in the typical soft score way.

There are some very good events I've been to in the US Pacific NW that handle sportsmanship very well. Basically each player gives a ticket or some sort of token to the player they found to be the best sportsman. Those with the most at the end of the event have their own category of prizes and trophies, often greater than that of best general or the like.

It provides a great incentive to be a good sport, and does so in a way that really can't be cheesed. It's not like you're battle results are going to change based on sportsmanship, but it is a distinct, recognized, and rewarded category of the game that can matters just as much as your battle record when it comes to recognition and prizes.

rednekgunner wrote:I like those ideas.
How about a simple check sheet?
(Y) (N)
1. Was your opponent on time? and were they efficient with deployment, and turns?
2. Did they measure and roll dice correctly?
3. Did they have all the required items to play (dice, codex, etc....)?
4. Was their army WYSIWYG?
5. Would you play this person again?

Scott-S6 wrote:I like that the system OP describes prevents chipmunking - you can't use sports to punish a player that's beaten you.

rednekgunner wrote:I am an avid tournament player, and the shop I game at has a pretty decent tournament system. There is one hangup, and that is sportsmanship. To give you the whole picture I will breakdown the scoring. In the current system there are 3 categories that you get points for battle, paint, and sportsmanship. In it's current incarnation battle points are 10 for a massacre, 7 for a Victory, 5 for a Draw, 3 for a loss, and 1 for getting massacred. The painting is a simple system of either it is painted and based or it is not, and is based on model count (vehicles, and MC's count as 3 models). If your army is 100% painted with 3 colors and based you get 10 points. If your army is 50% painted with 3 colors and based you get 5 points, and if it is less than 50% you get zero. Lastly, at the end of the tournament you rank your games in order of most fun to least fun, and for every person that ranks you as their #1 you get 5 points, #2 you get 3 points, and #3 you get 1 point. Then as for prizes, the person who has the highest total of battle points, sportsmanship, and paint earns Best Overall. The person who has the highest battle points earns Best General, the person who gets 2nd highest battle points gets 2nd General. The person with the highest sportsmanship score gets Best Sport. This system worked well for a while, but there has to be a better way to run sportsmanship, because it is kind of bad when a person is able to loose a game and win a tournament just because his buddies all voted for him.

That all being said, I am turning to y'all dakkaites, and want to know what you think about sportsmanship in tournaments. Should it be weighed heavily? Should it be removed? Is there an effective way to make it work? ect....

warboss wrote:
i'm not seeing the problem with the system you're describing. the person with the most battle points (the one who crushed his enemies the most effiiciently) still gets the best general... the person who was ranked the most fun to play gets the best sportman... and the person who scored consistently high in ALL categories gets best overall. where exactly is the disconnect for you in the scoring system? Losing a single game shouldn't put you out of the running for best overall necessarily if you completely rocked the other categories since it's best OVERALL. are you saying that someone who didn't get the top painting award in a tourney also should be completely ineligible for a best overall award too? while i agree that tournies shouldn't only have a single award that can be chipmunked, an overall award should incorporate the scores of all facets of the tourney/hobby/experience. how is this theoretical person ONLY playing his buddies in the tourney for all 3+ of his games? if you're choosing to go to an event with only 4 or 5 players and most of them are from the same small circle of friends and you're the outsider, there is NO system that won't be able to be gamed. vote with your wallet and attend larger events where one posse can't dominate the experience.

Dashofpepper wrote:
What this comes down to is simply balls.

-More players need to grow balls so that when their opponent does something shady, they SAY something, right then and there. Or if their opponent is being a jerk, they call them on it on the spot. None of this secretive scribbling of scores at the end, or lunch-break gossip-mongering about whether someone was troublesome or not.

*snip*

When I go a tournament, I virtually always get maximum scores for sportsmanship. Even when my opponent and I don't like each other, we both get max sportsmanship. Even after bitter arguments, max sportsmanship. There's no point to it.

pretre wrote:Warboss. I play at the same store as R. The problem really is that if you have 3 awesome games (quite a possibility), you have to score 2 of them down. In the last tourney, I played R, a SW player and a Marine player. All three games were great games that I had a lot of fun playing, but because of the nature of the sports scores, 2 of them got less than max sportsmanship. If it was objective or pass/fail, all three would have gotten max points because they were really good games.

Dakka Article wrote:Why score Sportsmanship?

Since 1999, in playing regularly in competitive leagues and tournaments for Warhammer and Warhammer 40k, I have seen and tried out several different methods of scoring Sportsmanship. Subjective ranges (1-3, 1-5, 1-10), forced ranking (rank your opponents from favorite to least favorite), checklist scoring based on questions about behavior (was my opponent on time for the game? Did he measure accurately?), etc.

In my experience most systems tried work okay; the main purposes of every system are the same: to communicate to the players that good Sportsmanship is expected of them, to reward it (there is often a Best Sportsmanship prize), and to penalize players who are nasty and unpleasant to play with, preventing them from winning tournaments while ruining their opponents’ fun.


What’s wrong with Sportsmanship scoring?

Every system has its flaws, and no system is perfect. Every system is capable of being misused; such as when a player scores a perfectly-nice opponent badly because the player scoring has a bad attitude or feels vindictive after a loss. Or “Chipmunking”, in which a player attempts to cheat/manipulate the event results by scoring dishonestly, marking good opponents low regardless of what those opponents deserve. One can eliminate those problems by eliminating Sportsmanship scoring, and some tournaments do that, but in my opinion you then run the risk of allowing people who are actively unpleasant to dominate your events. I believe the phenomenon of Chipmunking is talked about more than it actually happens, and most players are honest about their opponents, but many are lazy and don’t want to invest more time & consideration into filling out a score sheet than they absolutely need to.

The 1-5pt and 1-10pt scales are prone to a lot of problems with people interpreting and applying them differently, especially if they don’t bother reading the scale on the score sheet (which happens a lot). Some players automatically award maximum scores; some default to giving the maximum and only mark down from the top if something was really wrong; some people try to be really honest and mark most opponents in the middle of the range, but wind up inadvertently penalizing perfectly-decent opponents when half the field is defaulting to giving opponents top scores.

Forced Ranking has the advantages of creating separation in tournament rankings, and of preventing a player from giving all opponents false bad rankings, but it forces people to mark some of their opponents low even if all their opponents were good, and doesn’t stop a Chipmunker from just giving the lowest ranking to their opponent who’s doing the best overall.

Objective checklist systems are decent, although they usually include some subjective questions, so cannot be truly objective. They do wind up making most of the points available even to a jerk, and make the players take time checking boxes over relatively small matters like "did my opponent show up on time" or "did he measure accurately", which I think are fine questions, but are rarely checked “no”, and overall wind up being more ink, time, and work than is really necessary. Forced ranking Pass/fail gets to the heart of the matter, and is quicker and simpler for everyone.


What’s the actual mechanic?

It's pretty simple. On the score sheet, or as a separate piece of paper (or printed on the back of the score sheet) is just one question. Something like the following, though the phrasing is important, and you want to be careful composing it so it's as clear as possible:

"Did my opponent's attitude and/or behavior make the game an UNpleasant experience, overall?"

The thinking behind this question is that we don't want to quibble over minor details, and we're not penalizing people based on their armies. This is about whether the person was unpleasant to be around and to play a game with, and ruined the fun of the game overall.

Each downcheck a given person receives reduces their total tournament points; by a very small amount for the first check, increasing progressively the more checks they get. The idea being that anyone can have a single bad game; it may be an innocent personality clash, or it could be that the person checking the box is "chipmunking", and this minimizes the impact of a "chipmunker" or a single innocent personality clash.

The exact point deductions will depend on the number of rounds and the total possible available points.


Examples

Let's consider a five round tournament and a three round tournament, each with a similar scoring system: 5/10/20 points for a Loss/Draw/Win (or similar); 20pts possible for painting (or 12 for the three round event, to keep the same proportion), and the Sportsmanship points- deductions for downchecks, and +1pt for each Favorite Opponent vote you get. So in the 5 round event that's a total maximum of 100pts for battles, 20 for painting, and 5 for Favorite Opponent votes, making 125 total for a perfect score. For the 3 round event you'd be looking at 60 available for battles, 12 for painting, 3 for Best Opponent votes. Maximum total of 75.

In proportion with the above numbers, in a 5 round event the organizer might set the penalties at -2pts, -5pts, -10pts, Disqualification, and Disinvitation. Let’s look at those and discuss what they mean.


1 check (-2pts). There is a small deduction for one check, as we assume that MOST people checking a box are doing so honestly, but we don't want to cripple a person for one downcheck, as it might be a relatively-innocent personality clash.
2 checks (-5pts). This is a more significant handicap, being the difference between a loss and draw, or a great-looking army and a more average one, but not crippling to the player's total score. Which is appropriate as it's more likely that the player is actually being rude or unpleasant somehow.
3 checks (-10pts). This is the equivalent of one of his Wins turning into a Draw; again, he may still place well, but at this point more than half of his opponents say they actively disliked playing against him.
4 checks (DQ). Disqualification means he can't win any prizes, no matter what his points total is. 80% of his opponents giving the downcheck means it's practically guaranteed that he's being a jerk.
5 checks ( Disinvitation). In the case that every last one of the player’s five opponents thought he was being a jerk, in all likelihood he is the kind of unrepentent jerk that you don't want coming back to the tournament next year. So he's asked not to come back next time.


How about a three round, single-day tournament? In proportion with the numbers for the three round event, the organizer might set the penalties at something like -2pt, -5pts, Disqualification.

1 check (-2pts). As above; small deduction for one check.
2 checks (-5pts). This is a mix of 2 & 3 on the five-game format; we don't want it to be a horrible penalty, but at this point MOST of the player's opponents have reported a bad game, so it should be felt.
3 checks (Disqualification). Every one of the player's opponents found him unpleasant; but it's a one-day event, and perhaps he just had a really bad day, so he's free to try again next time. Hopefully he'll be in a better mood.


How About Actually Rewarding Great Sports?

Good question. Many tournaments also like to recognize players who are particularly enjoyable and fun to play with. You (hopefully) know the type- the guys who never lose their smile and good attitude no matter how bad the dice turn. The guys who take a beating with a smile, or make YOU smile and enjoy it while they're kicking your butt all over the table.

An excellent and (IMO) perfectly functional system is the one I mentioned above- Favorite Opponent votes. Each player, at the end of the event (along with their final game's results sheet) indicates which of their opponents was the most enjoyable to play against. You can make this a fixed 1 or 2 tournament points per vote as in the examples above, or if you really want Sportsmanship to be a big deal, you could also make it award a progressive number of points like the bad sport downchecks subtract. Either way, to award Best Sportsmanship prizes simply subtract downchecks from Favorite votes, and award the highest score. In the event of a tie, Battles is a popular choice, the idea being that if two guys both were fun to play against, the guy who managed to be so while winning more is probably the more fun of the two.


Summation
In closing, I offer this system to other tournament organizers as the best option I’ve seen or been able to come up with. I think it’s one of the most resistant to tampering and one of the simplest to use, both for players and organizers.

If you have any feedback on the system, suggestions for adjustments or alterations, please feel free to PM me, to comment in the forum thread, or to start a thread in Tournament Discussions. If you give it a try I’d also love to hear how it goes. Best of luck, and happy gaming!

Ragnar Arneson AKA Mannahnin

Mannahnin wrote:-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Pass_or_Fail_Method_of_Tournament_Sportsmanship_Scoring

Dakka Article wrote:Why score Sportsmanship?

Since 1999, in playing regularly in competitive leagues and tournaments for Warhammer and Warhammer 40k, I have seen and tried out several different methods of scoring Sportsmanship. Subjective ranges (1-3, 1-5, 1-10), forced ranking (rank your opponents from favorite to least favorite), checklist scoring based on questions about behavior (was my opponent on time for the game? Did he measure accurately?), etc.

In my experience most systems tried work okay; the main purposes of every system are the same: to communicate to the players that good Sportsmanship is expected of them, to reward it (there is often a Best Sportsmanship prize), and to penalize players who are nasty and unpleasant to play with, preventing them from winning tournaments while ruining their opponents’ fun.


What’s wrong with Sportsmanship scoring?

Every system has its flaws, and no system is perfect. Every system is capable of being misused; such as when a player scores a perfectly-nice opponent badly because the player scoring has a bad attitude or feels vindictive after a loss. Or “Chipmunking”, in which a player attempts to cheat/manipulate the event results by scoring dishonestly, marking good opponents low regardless of what those opponents deserve. One can eliminate those problems by eliminating Sportsmanship scoring, and some tournaments do that, but in my opinion you then run the risk of allowing people who are actively unpleasant to dominate your events. I believe the phenomenon of Chipmunking is talked about more than it actually happens, and most players are honest about their opponents, but many are lazy and don’t want to invest more time & consideration into filling out a score sheet than they absolutely need to.

The 1-5pt and 1-10pt scales are prone to a lot of problems with people interpreting and applying them differently, especially if they don’t bother reading the scale on the score sheet (which happens a lot). Some players automatically award maximum scores; some default to giving the maximum and only mark down from the top if something was really wrong; some people try to be really honest and mark most opponents in the middle of the range, but wind up inadvertently penalizing perfectly-decent opponents when half the field is defaulting to giving opponents top scores.

Forced Ranking has the advantages of creating separation in tournament rankings, and of preventing a player from giving all opponents false bad rankings, but it forces people to mark some of their opponents low even if all their opponents were good, and doesn’t stop a Chipmunker from just giving the lowest ranking to their opponent who’s doing the best overall.

Objective checklist systems are decent, although they usually include some subjective questions, so cannot be truly objective. They do wind up making most of the points available even to a jerk, and make the players take time checking boxes over relatively small matters like "did my opponent show up on time" or "did he measure accurately", which I think are fine questions, but are rarely checked “no”, and overall wind up being more ink, time, and work than is really necessary. Forced ranking Pass/fail gets to the heart of the matter, and is quicker and simpler for everyone.


What’s the actual mechanic?

It's pretty simple. On the score sheet, or as a separate piece of paper (or printed on the back of the score sheet) is just one question. Something like the following, though the phrasing is important, and you want to be careful composing it so it's as clear as possible:

"Did my opponent's attitude and/or behavior make the game an UNpleasant experience, overall?"

The thinking behind this question is that we don't want to quibble over minor details, and we're not penalizing people based on their armies. This is about whether the person was unpleasant to be around and to play a game with, and ruined the fun of the game overall.

Each downcheck a given person receives reduces their total tournament points; by a very small amount for the first check, increasing progressively the more checks they get. The idea being that anyone can have a single bad game; it may be an innocent personality clash, or it could be that the person checking the box is "chipmunking", and this minimizes the impact of a "chipmunker" or a single innocent personality clash.

The exact point deductions will depend on the number of rounds and the total possible available points.


Examples

Let's consider a five round tournament and a three round tournament, each with a similar scoring system: 5/10/20 points for a Loss/Draw/Win (or similar); 20pts possible for painting (or 12 for the three round event, to keep the same proportion), and the Sportsmanship points- deductions for downchecks, and +1pt for each Favorite Opponent vote you get. So in the 5 round event that's a total maximum of 100pts for battles, 20 for painting, and 5 for Favorite Opponent votes, making 125 total for a perfect score. For the 3 round event you'd be looking at 60 available for battles, 12 for painting, 3 for Best Opponent votes. Maximum total of 75.

In proportion with the above numbers, in a 5 round event the organizer might set the penalties at -2pts, -5pts, -10pts, Disqualification, and Disinvitation. Let’s look at those and discuss what they mean.


1 check (-2pts). There is a small deduction for one check, as we assume that MOST people checking a box are doing so honestly, but we don't want to cripple a person for one downcheck, as it might be a relatively-innocent personality clash.
2 checks (-5pts). This is a more significant handicap, being the difference between a loss and draw, or a great-looking army and a more average one, but not crippling to the player's total score. Which is appropriate as it's more likely that the player is actually being rude or unpleasant somehow.
3 checks (-10pts). This is the equivalent of one of his Wins turning into a Draw; again, he may still place well, but at this point more than half of his opponents say they actively disliked playing against him.
4 checks (DQ). Disqualification means he can't win any prizes, no matter what his points total is. 80% of his opponents giving the downcheck means it's practically guaranteed that he's being a jerk.
5 checks ( Disinvitation). In the case that every last one of the player’s five opponents thought he was being a jerk, in all likelihood he is the kind of unrepentent jerk that you don't want coming back to the tournament next year. So he's asked not to come back next time.


How about a three round, single-day tournament? In proportion with the numbers for the three round event, the organizer might set the penalties at something like -2pt, -5pts, Disqualification.

1 check (-2pts). As above; small deduction for one check.
2 checks (-5pts). This is a mix of 2 & 3 on the five-game format; we don't want it to be a horrible penalty, but at this point MOST of the player's opponents have reported a bad game, so it should be felt.
3 checks (Disqualification). Every one of the player's opponents found him unpleasant; but it's a one-day event, and perhaps he just had a really bad day, so he's free to try again next time. Hopefully he'll be in a better mood.


How About Actually Rewarding Great Sports?

Good question. Many tournaments also like to recognize players who are particularly enjoyable and fun to play with. You (hopefully) know the type- the guys who never lose their smile and good attitude no matter how bad the dice turn. The guys who take a beating with a smile, or make YOU smile and enjoy it while they're kicking your butt all over the table.

An excellent and (IMO) perfectly functional system is the one I mentioned above- Favorite Opponent votes. Each player, at the end of the event (along with their final game's results sheet) indicates which of their opponents was the most enjoyable to play against. You can make this a fixed 1 or 2 tournament points per vote as in the examples above, or if you really want Sportsmanship to be a big deal, you could also make it award a progressive number of points like the bad sport downchecks subtract. Either way, to award Best Sportsmanship prizes simply subtract downchecks from Favorite votes, and award the highest score. In the event of a tie, Battles is a popular choice, the idea being that if two guys both were fun to play against, the guy who managed to be so while winning more is probably the more fun of the two.


Summation
In closing, I offer this system to other tournament organizers as the best option I’ve seen or been able to come up with. I think it’s one of the most resistant to tampering and one of the simplest to use, both for players and organizers.

If you have any feedback on the system, suggestions for adjustments or alterations, please feel free to PM me, to comment in the forum thread, or to start a thread in Tournament Discussions. If you give it a try I’d also love to hear how it goes. Best of luck, and happy gaming!

Ragnar Arneson AKA Mannahnin

Corrode wrote:Sportsmanship is a fething terrible metric for tournament results and really needs to die the death it deserves. If someone is a poor enough sportsman that they deserve a low grade, they're a poor enough sportsman that they deserve to be ejected entirely or at least warned by the TO to calm down.

Dashofpepper wrote:
We're still friends. I bet if there had been sportsmanship scoring, I would have gotten a zero.

pretre wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:
We're still friends. I bet if there had been sportsmanship scoring, I would have gotten a zero.

Well you did kind of call him a f'in jerk.
If that doesn't get you a zero, I don't know what does. lol

Monster Rain wrote:
That said, I think Mannahnin's system should be employed at every tournament. Immediately.

warboss wrote:

Corrode wrote:Sportsmanship is a fething terrible metric for tournament results and really needs to die the death it deserves. If someone is a poor enough sportsman that they deserve a low grade, they're a poor enough sportsman that they deserve to be ejected entirely or at least warned by the TO to calm down.

how do you expect that to happen? if people aren't supposed to report their negative experience via a sportsmanship score, how is the TO supposed to know who to warn or eject short of a loud fight witnessed at the table? some people don't give poor sportsmen an appropriately poor score even though its secret half the time; do you really think they'll call the TO over to eject someone due to an unpleasant experience when that is an order of magnitude MORE confrontational?

the last tourney i was in i played a guy who gave his tyrant guards an extra wound all tourney (i was his last game and they did have an extra wound in the previous codex IIRC so its possible it was an honest mistake theoretically), had to call the TO over three times to rule against his blatantly wrong rules arguments, and simply didn't have a fun time at all for that game. NONE of those are serious enough for him to be ejected from the tourney and without a sportmanship score i have ZERO ways of expressing how the game against him was frustrating and by far the ONLY negative experience (i had tons more fun in my previous game in the tourney despite being tabled with zero battle points!). sportmanship scoring isn't perfect and can be gamed but it has a purpose.

Corrode wrote:Maybe tournaments are very different in the US but over here I can't think of a player who wasn't easily dealt with by simply being spoken to like an adult.

Corrode wrote:My belief (and I think I share this with others in the thread) is that sports is too subjective a score to be reliable. Pissy opponents are able to tank the score of someone who beats them through perceived inadequacies on that player's part, regardless of whether that person was actually unsporting. If you start to demand that they then justify a low sports score, you either have the same as no sports (because everyone gives the neutral score) or you have to spend half the tournament discussing whether or not the score is really justified. Better to sack it off altogether and trust your players to act like the adults they probably are.

Corrode wrote:My belief (and I think I share this with others in the thread) is that sports is too subjective a score to be reliable. Pissy opponents are able to tank the score of someone who beats them through perceived inadequacies on that player's part, regardless of whether that person was actually unsporting. If you start to demand that they then justify a low sports score, you either have the same as no sports (because everyone gives the neutral score) or you have to spend half the tournament discussing whether or not the score is really justified. Better to sack it off altogether and trust your players to act like the adults they probably are.

Corrode wrote:

warboss wrote:

Corrode wrote:Sportsmanship is a fething terrible metric for tournament results and really needs to die the death it deserves. If someone is a poor enough sportsman that they deserve a low grade, they're a poor enough sportsman that they deserve to be ejected entirely or at least warned by the TO to calm down.

how do you expect that to happen? if people aren't supposed to report their negative experience via a sportsmanship score, how is the TO supposed to know who to warn or eject short of a loud fight witnessed at the table? some people don't give poor sportsmen an appropriately poor score even though its secret half the time; do you really think they'll call the TO over to eject someone due to an unpleasant experience when that is an order of magnitude MORE confrontational?

the last tourney i was in i played a guy who gave his tyrant guards an extra wound all tourney (i was his last game and they did have an extra wound in the previous codex IIRC so its possible it was an honest mistake theoretically), had to call the TO over three times to rule against his blatantly wrong rules arguments, and simply didn't have a fun time at all for that game. NONE of those are serious enough for him to be ejected from the tourney and without a sportmanship score i have ZERO ways of expressing how the game against him was frustrating and by far the ONLY negative experience (i had tons more fun in my previous game in the tourney despite being tabled with zero battle points!). sportmanship scoring isn't perfect and can be gamed but it has a purpose.

Do you really need a system of rules that says 'talk to the organiser if your opponent is a complete knobjockey' and another system of rules that says 'if you're the TO then players you're constantly being called to speak to probably need a quick word to tell them to cut it out'?

Maybe tournaments are very different in the US but over here I can't think of a player who wasn't easily dealt with by simply being spoken to like an adult.

Monster Rain wrote:

Corrode wrote:My belief (and I think I share this with others in the thread) is that sports is too subjective a score to be reliable. Pissy opponents are able to tank the score of someone who beats them through perceived inadequacies on that player's part, regardless of whether that person was actually unsporting. If you start to demand that they then justify a low sports score, you either have the same as no sports (because everyone gives the neutral score) or you have to spend half the tournament discussing whether or not the score is really justified. Better to sack it off altogether and trust your players to act like the adults they probably are.

First of all, not everyone would give the neutral score unless everyone's game was neutral. And even if they did, it would have no effect on the tournament and so who cares if there was a Sports score or not? Secondly, you don't spend half the tournament discussing your decision to give someone an above/below average score. It takes 15 seconds and really isn't that big of a deal. To me, it's just as much about rewarding outstanding gamers as punishing douchebags.

And that was just my suggestion. Mannahnin's are far more in-depth and are worth a read.

Corrode wrote:I skimmed over Mannahnin's suggestion the first time but having re-read it I quite like it. No room to chipmunk whilst covering all the essentials of sportsmanship.

pretre wrote:As for your main point, DoP, sportsmanship isn't all about getting beat and taking it poorly.

There are ways to beat people without embarassing them or beating them into the ground. Yes, I know, it is a competitive game, etc. Doesn't mean you have to curbstomp every poor fool who sits in front of you.

Of all the things that I have seen Stelek say, the one thing I really, really liked was that his favorite games (the ones he had the most fun with) were the close ones that were turned on the roll of one die.

For one reason or another, I get the impression these aren't your favorite games. Your favorite games are when you crush your enemies before you and hear the lamentation of their women. (At least those are the ones you always talk about.)

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm not sure how you get that impression? I never talk about my wins. It would get old fast. In this case, I referenced an anecdote out of a game related to sportsmanship. I win all the time. Apparently 96% of the time (just did the math). The other 4% are FAR more memorable to me; I remember who they were against, when where, our lists, and what happened. I go into every *tournament* game attempting to kill all of my opponent's models and table them. You'll never see me leave Necron Monoliths alone and go for the phase out.

Monster Rain wrote:

Corrode wrote:I skimmed over Mannahnin's suggestion the first time but having re-read it I quite like it. No room to chipmunk whilst covering all the essentials of sportsmanship.

That's exactly the type of sportsmanship score that would work and also not be easily abused.

It's kind of become this Big Lie that there's no way to have a sports score without it being a way for sore losers to strike back at their wargaming betters (/sarcasm) but there is a way to do it correctly.

As a side note: I just have to say that if you often find yourself in heated situations at tournaments at many different venues with many different people perhaps you should consider the common factor in all of those incidents.

Dashofpepper wrote:That's my point: In this game there is a winner and a loser. Not everyone can be a winner. And until everyone scoring sportsmanship can divorce their feelings about losing from their scoresheet and be impartial about the technical aspects of the game itself (was your opponent professional, courteous, timely, etc), then sportsmanship can't work.

Dashofpepper wrote:Sportsmanship scoring is a sham...What this comes down to is simply balls....-More players need to grow balls

rednekgunner wrote:This is the reason you have a sportsmanship score to make those who bring net lists and are donkeys about tabling people actually shape up or ship out..

skyth wrote:

rednekgunner wrote:This is the reason you have a sportsmanship score to make those who bring net lists and are donkeys about tabling people actually shape up or ship out..

Thank you for pointing out one of the biggest problems with sportsmanship scoring. It's a way for the people who like to falsely claim the moral high ground to hurt people who enjoy playing differently than they do.

skyth wrote:

rednekgunner wrote:This is the reason you have a sportsmanship score to make those who bring net lists and are donkeys about tabling people actually shape up or ship out..

Thank you for pointing out one of the biggest problems with sportsmanship scoring. It's a way for the people who like to falsely claim the moral high ground to hurt people who enjoy playing differently than they do.

Mannahnin wrote:Oh, sure, but I think the issues you're identifying there are all with the player, not the army. Better not to blame the army at all, though you certainly can mention it in the course of explaining HOW an donkey-cave was an donkey-cave.

Sidstyler wrote:Sportsmanship isn't something that should be "scored". Everyone playing in the tournament should already be a good sportsman, and players that start becoming a problem (or players you know will be a problem) should be told to leave or not even allowed to attend. Doesn't really seem that hard to me, make an announcement before the tournament and remind everyone to be polite and respectful, informing them that if they start causing trouble they'll be asked to leave, and you shouldn't have a problem. Let them know beforehand what will be expected of them.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't know why people are so insistent that we need sportsmanship scoring in tournaments, or else chaos and anarchy will reign and the day will be an absolute nightmare.

Sidstyler wrote:And as the plethora of horror stories posted on Dakka and elsewhere will no doubt prove, donkey-caves are going to be donkey-caves regardless, and sporstmanship scores won't stop them. If anything it just gives them yet another way to ruin your day, because they're more than likely going to give you zero points no matter how nice you were to them, just so you don't place.

Sidstyler wrote:Then again, I think the problem is everyone has their own messed-up definition of the word "sportsmanship". I go by the dictionary definition myself, which is basically just being friendly, knowing the rules, and handling your losses well (and not gloating when you win). Obviously things everyone should be practicing in the first place. However, some people go beyond that and think it begins at list construction, completely missing the point of a tournament and often being completely and utterly wrong in their armchair game-balancing or poor observations of fluff.

Sidstyler wrote:All that said I don't mind having players vote for a "favorite opponent" and awarding a prize for it, but it shouldn't have anything to do with who actually wins the event (unless said player also happens to win all his games, lol). I'm not sure how voting for that works though, since you usually don't play against more than 3-5 people at any one event.

imweasel wrote:I'm with dash on the sportsmanship scoring.

The only cool thing I found in this thread was a neat paint scoring system.

Mannahnin wrote: Obviously a TO should be ready and able to eject a truly awful person, but IRL there is a wide space between "fine" behavior and "eject from store" behavior.

nkelsch wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: Obviously a TO should be ready and able to eject a truly awful person, but IRL there is a wide space between "fine" behavior and "eject from store" behavior.

The problem is many smaller formats are a TO volunteering to run an event within a Store owners gamespace.

TOs often have no authority to eject players or even bar players from participating or even disciplining them. The TO sets rules most people follow but all it takes is one person to complain to the store owner and the TO gets overruled. Soft scores are there to say "you can participate, but you probably won't win anyways." Which is fine for me... if you want to complain to the store owner and crash an event you are breaking rules at or being a jerk or not meeting the appearance requirements, then the soft scores basically deny you from taking anything home for the day.

Much less of an issue when the Tourney is run by a TO who doesn't have to answer to a store owner. Much easier to enforce your own standards when you rent gamespace and control the venue.

rednekgunner wrote:
I completely agree.

As a former FLGS employee, we only ejected 2 people in 2 years. The first was because of theft, and the second was for deliberate cheating in multiple tournaments. It took a lot to boot the cheater, because a cheater will still buy stuff. As a business person it is easier to keep a customer than make a new one. This doesn't even account for all the bad publicity a FLGS will get if they ban someone who feels like they were wronged. There has to be documented proof that this person was guilty of a serious offense.

All that being said, this is why a sportsmanship system that Mannahinn suggested is a great idea. It allows owners and TO's to track who their problem players are and correct a problem before it spins out of control. As a real life example, we had a player who played eldar, and he liked to measure from the center of his tanks. This became an issue because it is difficult to see where exactly the points of measurement are across the table. I simply talked to the player (in private), and told them of the issue. They saw the point of contention, and measured from the front from then on. IMHO, sportsmanship is great in a FLGS environment.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

imweasel wrote:

rednekgunner wrote:
I completely agree.

As a former FLGS employee, we only ejected 2 people in 2 years. The first was because of theft, and the second was for deliberate cheating in multiple tournaments. It took a lot to boot the cheater, because a cheater will still buy stuff. As a business person it is easier to keep a customer than make a new one. This doesn't even account for all the bad publicity a FLGS will get if they ban someone who feels like they were wronged. There has to be documented proof that this person was guilty of a serious offense.

All that being said, this is why a sportsmanship system that Mannahinn suggested is a great idea. It allows owners and TO's to track who their problem players are and correct a problem before it spins out of control. As a real life example, we had a player who played eldar, and he liked to measure from the center of his tanks. This became an issue because it is difficult to see where exactly the points of measurement are across the table. I simply talked to the player (in private), and told them of the issue. They saw the point of contention, and measured from the front from then on. IMHO, sportsmanship is great in a FLGS environment.

I'm gonna have to completely disagree. That sort of system would work if you played enough opponents. It's also hard to disprove bias.

It's as flawed as a comp system.

Mannahnin wrote:Whenever I start to get down about that kind of "criticism", good ol' Teddy Roosevelt puts some spring back in my step.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

I've run a tournament series using an objective checklist Sports system with favorite opponent votes. I've played in literally more tournaments than I can remember or count anymore over the last eleven years, and tried and experienced many variations. The fact is that most Sports scoring systems succeed in reminding players that it is a priority. They succeed in publicly rewarding someone who was a lot of fun to play. And they often succeed at keeping dicks from being dicks while winning trophies. Most systems are flawed and vulnerable to some manipulation, but that's why I put a bunch of work into coming up with my system.

Imweasel, I think you're incorrect. If I'm not mistaken, I've got a lot more experience than you have. I've written detailed posts, and even an article now, and explained my position. And you post uniformly negative, and almost universally unsupported, little snipes. If your attitude is that pessimistic, and your imagination and ingenuity that limited, why do you even post on a website devoted to this hobby, and a forum devoted to tournaments for it? Do you enjoy it?

If I'm mistaken, please feel free to demonstrate that fact by being a little more constructive and sharing in a productive dialogue. Please read my system, and try to game it. Please mount an argument with some substance.

Bertimismaximus wrote:... A rational choice theorist would say that it's in everyones best interest to give their opponent a low score- especially because its confidential.

imweasel wrote:Well since I am insignificant to the almighty, all-knowing, all-wise and experienced mannahnin, my 'criticism' should run off like water off a duck's back.

Your system is 'resilient', but it's not fool proof. It can be 'gamed' in a small tourney by just a couple of unscrupulous people that don't even have to be 'incahoots'. In a small 3 round tourney, you could have 2 guys be total dicks in 2 out of 3 games and ruin 4 people's day. Out of say 10 people. They would hardly get penalized. It's the fact it doesn't do what it's supposed to do and 'enforce' sportsmanship. It's reliant on the scoring system of the tourney, it's 'method' of 'suppressing' 'bad sports' is hardly effective at all. Using your example, it can be as low as 3.2% of your score in a 5 round tourney and 5.3% in a 3 round tourney. Army matchups will have more impact on a final score then someone being a dick to 40% or 67% of their respective opponents.

Hell, you could lose more points due to someone tanking your paint score in one match. But that's another thing entirely.

My question with your 'system' is, why bother? On average, it doesn't prevent someone from being a dick to half of their opponents. HALF! In a small tourney (using my example of 10 players), twice as many 'good' players can be affected as there are 'bad' players.

But of course I don't need to point this out to you. You obviously saw this. I anxiously await your wisdom and experience to 'enlighten' me.

As for the rest of your post, I enjoy discussing tournaments. I just don't like it when someone looks down their nose from their mountain top throne and tell me that they know best.

Battlecannon it phil wrote:i hate sportsmanship (last gt i got none people dont like being tabled NOOBS) but anyways I feel it does have a place, should have seperate award for best painted, most sporting , and over all victor should be the person who won by the most. TOS points system is the worst like beating the average blows.

imweasel wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The fact is that most Sports scoring systems succeed in reminding players that it is a priority. They succeed in publicly rewarding someone who was a lot of fun to play. And they often succeed at keeping dicks from being dicks while winning trophies. Most systems are flawed and vulnerable to some manipulation, but that's why I put a bunch of work into coming up with my system.

Imweasel, I think you're incorrect. If I'm not mistaken, I've got a lot more experience than you have. I've written detailed posts, and even an article now, and explained my position. And you post uniformly negative, and almost universally unsupported, little snipes. If your attitude is that pessimistic, and your imagination and ingenuity that limited, why do you even post on a website devoted to this hobby, and a forum devoted to tournaments for it? Do you enjoy it?

If I'm mistaken, please feel free to demonstrate that fact by being a little more constructive and sharing in a productive dialogue. Please read my system, and try to game it. Please mount an argument with some substance.

Well since I am insignificant to the almighty, all-knowing, all-wise and experienced mannahnin, my 'criticism' should run off like water off a duck's back.

imweasel wrote:Your system is 'resilient', but it's not fool proof. It can be 'gamed' in a small tourney by just a couple of unscrupulous people that don't even have to be 'incahoots'. In a small 3 round tourney, you could have 2 guys be total dicks in 2 out of 3 games and ruin 4 people's day. Out of say 10 people. They would hardly get penalized. It's the fact it doesn't do what it's supposed to do and 'enforce' sportsmanship. It's reliant on the scoring system of the tourney, it's 'method' of 'suppressing' 'bad sports' is hardly effective at all. Using your example, it can be as low as 3.2% of your score in a 5 round tourney and 5.3% in a 3 round tourney. Army matchups will have more impact on a final score then someone being a dick to 40% or 67% of their respective opponents.

imweasel wrote:Hell, you could lose more points due to someone tanking your paint score in one match. But that's another thing entirely.

imweasel wrote:My question with your 'system' is, why bother? On average, it doesn't prevent someone from being a dick to half of their opponents. HALF! In a small tourney (using my example of 10 players), twice as many 'good' players can be affected as there are 'bad' players.

imweasel wrote:As for the rest of your post, I enjoy discussing tournaments. I just don't like it when someone looks down their nose from their mountain top throne and tell me that they know best.

Fearspect wrote:Bertimismaximus won the thread pages ago, and wrote the least to do it:

Bertimismaximus wrote:... A rational choice theorist would say that it's in everyones best interest to give their opponent a low score- especially because its confidential.

You enter into a social contract when you set up across from an opponent to play any game, this includes all basic decencies expected from organized interaction with another human being. If these expectations are not being met, it is your own responsibility to make it clear to your opponent, not to hide a sheet you are writing a '0' on and move on. Be an adult, gather up your balls and say something when you have a problem. If that is something you have difficulty with, you do not belong in a tournament environment, period. Think about what the word tournament usually means if you are confused by it and do not try to obfuscate the point by throwing the word 'casual' in front of it. You are there to play hard and to try to win.

Fearspect wrote:Me personally? I would find someone who bends over backwards to be nice to me, or someone who purposely tries to bring a 'bad' list far more deserving of a 0 from me for sportsmanship as opposed to someone who stuck to their guns and actually played to win. I go to tournaments to play the latter and to try to beat them, otherwise the win is completely hollow.

Fearspect wrote:End of the day, it really comes down to this: In what other competitive system are you required to secretly evaluate how sportsmanlike your opponent was toward you?

Fearspect wrote:End of the day, it really comes down to this: In what other competitive system are you required to secretly evaluate how sportsmanlike your opponent was toward you?

Come in without expectations and you can never be disappointed. If someone is being really bad, it is a TO or judge's job to eject them.

Saldiven wrote:

Fearspect wrote:End of the day, it really comes down to this: In what other competitive system are you required to secretly evaluate how sportsmanlike your opponent was toward you?

Come in without expectations and you can never be disappointed. If someone is being really bad, it is a TO or judge's job to eject them.

The problem is that most seriously competitive endeavors (like organized sports) have one or more referees dedicated to each and every game. I play competitive volleyball; I don't have to score my opponent's sportsmanship because I have two referees, each with a set of cards, to make sure my opponent keeps an appropriate level of sportsmanship.

Fearspect wrote:End of the day, it really comes down to this: In what other competitive system are you required to secretly evaluate how sportsmanlike your opponent was toward you?

Come in without expectations and you can never be disappointed. If someone is being really bad, it is a TO or judge's job to eject them.

frgsinwntr wrote:
So TO's should walk around giving scores?

pretre wrote:If there was a 1-to-1 TO/game ratio, that'd be great. Many sports do it this way with the referees and officials giving sports scores at the end of the game.

Monster Rain wrote:

Fearspect wrote:End of the day, it really comes down to this: In what other competitive system are you required to secretly evaluate how sportsmanlike your opponent was toward you?

Most competitive systems have rules considering sportsmanship.

The fact that it is secret doesn't really matter, considering that a well put together sports system would penalize someone for being a douche about it.

pretre wrote:@Fearspect: http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Pass_or_Fail_Method_of_Tournament_Sportsmanship_Scoring

Don't know about 'perfect', but it could certainly put this to rest if everyone used it.

Fearspect wrote:

pretre wrote:@Fearspect: http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Pass_or_Fail_Method_of_Tournament_Sportsmanship_Scoring

The big issue is that with any sportsmanship system, you are going to have people with differing opinions of what a good play experience is and none of these account for it. Who are you (hypothetical you, representing the TO instituting sportsmanship scoring or an opponent) to say that my method of having fun with 40k is wrong, anyway?

On the other hand, I am fully in support of having a best sportsmanship prize that is separate and based on favourite opponent votes. Seems like a fun way to reward someone for being a good guy (though that tends to not be something you can switch on and off in yourself on a whim). Kind of rough on the more socially awkward people that have the exact same right to be there, but what can ya do?

pretre wrote:@Backsplash
I agree with this to a point, but someone is always going to ask for 'Best Overall'. What then?

You put the three scores together and have a Best Overall and you are back where you started.

Fearspect wrote:

pretre wrote:@Backsplash
I agree with this to a point, but someone is always going to ask for 'Best Overall'. What then?

You put the three scores together and have a Best Overall and you are back where you started.

But that system doesn't account for best haircut, best carrying case and best shoes, all equally relevant as best sportsman.

Fearspect wrote:Umm... good job finding websters online I suppose...

Perhaps I was not clear enough with you:

-Why do you need sportsmanship scoring?

You have stated over and over that sportsmanship is good. I agree. Sportsmanship scoring has nothing to do with sportsmanship other than sharing the same name. I suggest a more descriptive name, why not, "Passive Aggressive Secret Opponent Evaluation".

Fearspect wrote:The whole point here is that no TO should be running things alone. If someone is being so bad as to need to be removed, someone will be nearby to notice. Meanwhile, I object to giving an opponent whom I beat fairly some secret opportunity to potentially lower my score.

Here is a good question: If, between the TO and the judges, they are too busy or distracted to be around the general gaming area, why do you think they have time to tally an extra set of scores and act on them? Meanwhile, I don't need to hide behind a piece of paper. If something is bothering me, they will politely hear about it. If it becomes an issue that cannot be resolved, a judge is immediately called over.

I guess it depends on what your definition of TFG is, mine is somewhere along the line of:

Someone who, when he misunderstands a question, actually condescends to linking dictionary definitions of words.

Fearspect wrote:You actually believe that linking dictionary definitions isn't insulting to a person's intelligence?

Fearspect wrote:The whole point here is that no TO should be running things alone. If someone is being so bad as to need to be removed, someone will be nearby to notice.

Fearspect wrote:Here is a good question: If, between the TO and the judges, they are too busy or distracted to be around the general gaming area, why do you think they have time to tally an extra set of scores and act on them?

Fearspect wrote:I need help finding things on the internet, I keep typing words in my address bar but keep getting the same '404: Not Found' website. Could you help me with that too?

Redbeard wrote:I think there is a huge difference between sportsmanship and behaviour.
snip
A lot of this can be summed up as showing some respect to your opponent.

Fearspect wrote:There is no argument because no one has yet given a real reason SPORTSMANSHIP SCORING (hint: different than being sportsmanlike) is required.

If it is an established part of many sports, why does it not affect the overall score at the end?

Fearspect wrote:The whole point here is that no TO should be running things alone. If someone is being so bad as to need to be removed, someone will be nearby to notice. Meanwhile, I object to giving an opponent whom I beat fairly some secret opportunity to potentially lower my score.

Fearspect wrote:Absolutely agree with you, Mannahnin. The behaviour that merits ejection from the store/tournament is what I think needs to be focused on. Absolutely, certain types of people should be sent packing: cheating, openly aggressive, etc.

On the flip side, people who show up and play and are less talkative and 'fun' should not be penalized because of they way they play. Maybe that is just the way that they need to focus to give you a good game. Sportsmanship scoring hurts people like that, because it gives people an unrealistic expectation of what they should be getting out of their games.

Mannahnin wrote:

Fearspect wrote:There is no argument because no one has yet given a real reason SPORTSMANSHIP SCORING (hint: different than being sportsmanlike) is required.

If it is an established part of many sports, why does it not affect the overall score at the end?

Does a 15 yard penalty mid-game have an impact on the score in an NFL or CFL football game?

Tangible, significant penalties for poor sportsmanship are an established part of many sports, including professional ones. If an infraction occurs on a points-scoring play, those points can be and usually are nullified.

Kevin Nash wrote:
I think a more accurate analogy would be giving an NFL team 2 points for congratulating their opponent after they score a touchdown. Having a judge warn or penalize an unsportsmanlike player with a verbal warning or game loss is pretty standard in most competitive games. Giving points to teams on the scoreboard for being a favorite opponent is something else entirely.

Kevin Nash wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Does a 15 yard penalty mid-game have an impact on the score in an NFL or CFL football game?

Tangible, significant penalties for poor sportsmanship are an established part of many sports, including professional ones. If an infraction occurs on a points-scoring play, those points can be and usually are nullified.

I think a more accurate analogy would be giving an NFL team 2 points for congratulating their opponent after they score a touchdown. Having a judge warn or penalize an unsportsmanlike player with a verbal warning or game loss is pretty standard in most competitive games. Giving points to teams on the scoreboard for being a favorite opponent is something else entirely.

pretre wrote:No system is needed for #1 in an ideal world. Ideally, in basketball there will never be a foul. So technically, it is not needed.

In an ideal world, the TO will be on top of everything and keep the first point in line. Technically, it is not needed. So you are right, at any tournament where the TO is able to observe the behavior at every table and stay on top of all of that behavior, it is unnecessary.

As for the second, it doesn't prevent issues with the latter. The latter was an issue you brought up with it. So more appropriately, the two points do not conflict.


Opinion here, correct me if I'm wrong.
Our whole argument comes down to your belief that a TO can handle it themself and my belief that players should have some input into that in case the TO does not see it.

Additionally, you believe that the players should just man up and tell the TO if they have a problem and that the TO will take care of it. I believe that not everyone is that confident and that they may need assistance, additionally the TO may miss some things if they aren't in concrete form.

Sound about right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin Nash wrote:
I think a more accurate analogy would be giving an NFL team 2 points for congratulating their opponent after they score a touchdown. Having a judge warn or penalize an unsportsmanlike player with a verbal warning or game loss is pretty standard in most competitive games. Giving points to teams on the scoreboard for being a favorite opponent is something else entirely.

M's system doesn't have points in addition to your score. It has Favorite Opponent (not part of scoring) and Pass/Fail for Pleasant/UNpleasant which does not affect your score up, only down.

M's system doesn't have points in addition to your score. It has Favorite Opponent (not part of scoring) and Pass/Fail for Pleasant/UNpleasant which does not affect your score up, only down.

OK then so you're docked 2 points for not congratulating your opponent when they score a touchdown?

Kevin Nash wrote: OK then so you're docked 2 points for not congratulating your opponent when they score a touchdown?

TOS Pack for US wrote:Favorite Game Votes
In the final round you must pick one army you fought against as your favorite. This is a completely subjective judgement, and can be based on the quality of the painting, the character of the army, its effectiveness on the tabletop, how nice the opponent was to play against, or a combination of all these qualities – it’s up to you to decide, Remember to keep your vote secret!

In the case of a tie, ‘Favorite Game’ votes will be used to decide the winner. If still tied, the number of ‘Skull Taker’ points will be used to break ties, and after that, if there is still a tie, then the army with the best roster (in the opinion of the tournament organizers) will be deemed the winner.

pretre wrote:Oh and one guy giving you a Unpleasant doesn't affect your score. Did you read his proposal?

Fearspect wrote:Yup, a good objective question to put in instead should probably be:

Did your opponent cheat? (Yes/No)

Fearspect wrote:Right, but let's say I am rolling a bit to close to myself for my opponent's liking but he doesn't say anything. Do I deserve to get docked for that? What happens when all five of my opponents felt that way and I am kicked out? Did justice prevail?

Fearspect wrote:Honestly, if you go talk to anyone that doesn't play warhammer (non-gamer) and try to explain something like sportsmanship in a tournament for them, they will laugh at you. A lot. I have no idea how it has so permeated the souls of past gamers, but it is a relic of old GTs and should just be allowed to die.

Fearspect wrote:So one post higher than this last, you accuse me of not seeing shades of gray, and in this last one you do the same to me with my dice rolling example? How is one to know that a player demands to have dice rolled directly in front of him rather than in the middle.

Fearspect wrote:Sure would be unlucky if I played five people who all thought that way.

Fearspect wrote:What happens when players decide to game your system to get an advantage and mark everyone as unpleasant? What happens if everyone does this? It sure would suck to have everyone banned from participating in your tournament...

Fearspect wrote:The worst thing I am noticing here is that whenever someone has a problem with a sportsmanship scoring system, they must be against actually having sportsmanship in their games.

Fearspect wrote:You forgot to mention in your example of sports "unsportsmanlike conduct penalties" that the players do not have the option of giving them out to their opponents.

Fearspect wrote:How about we agree to disagree? My point of view being based on the evidence presented that no system of sports scoring is actually useful, offering glaring opportunities to be gamed and doing little to support actual sportsmanship, and yours being that you don't want to be wrong.

Fearspect wrote:Am I really so alone in thinking that way? Do boxers hope they had fun in a match? Chessplayers? Anything? You show up, play hard, and take the top spot for your own (if you earn it).

-Nazdreg- wrote:
We had a guy there, who scored 0 to his opponent, with the reason "Eldrad in the army".

Redbeard wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:
We had a guy there, who scored 0 to his opponent, with the reason "Eldrad in the army".

You know, we're at a point where there's a big difference in how many wargamers feel about these things. Some of us still believe in the fluff, in spite of the fact that GW is pushing special characters. Some of us still believe that you should make an army that is somewhat conforms to the background of the game, not just what the rules allow.

Scoring someone 0 for having Eldrad in their army is a bit extreme, even with that mindset. But, was the player fielding an Ulthwé army, or was Eldrad mixed in with his Biel-tan? That might not matter to you, but it might matter to him, or me. To me, that's an example of poor sportsmanship. You're ignoring the established background of your army in order to field a more powerful model.

You may believe, and you have a right to believe, that every player should field the most powerful army they can, and that the fluff is irrelevant. That's your choice. But that doesn't allow you to force that view on other people, or expect that they should conform to your approach to the game. Some of us still believe that the narrative is important. That the color of your army means more than the codex you choose to play. And that Eldrad, Ghazgull, Logan and Mephiston have better things to do than take part in every minor border skirmish in the galaxy. To me, all these things are part of sportsmanship. You could choose to play with the most powerful stuff, just cause the rules say you can, but, it's just not sporting.

Redbeard wrote:
You know, we're at a point where there's a big difference in how many wargamers feel about these things. Some of us still believe in the fluff, in spite of the fact that GW is pushing special characters. Some of us still believe that you should make an army that is somewhat conforms to the background of the game, not just what the rules allow.

Scoring someone 0 for having Eldrad in their army is a bit extreme, even with that mindset. But, was the player fielding an Ulthwé army, or was Eldrad mixed in with his Biel-tan? That might not matter to you, but it might matter to him, or me. To me, that's an example of poor sportsmanship. You're ignoring the established background of your army in order to field a more powerful model.

You may believe, and you have a right to believe, that every player should field the most powerful army they can, and that the fluff is irrelevant. That's your choice. But that doesn't allow you to force that view on other people, or expect that they should conform to your approach to the game. Some of us still believe that the narrative is important. That the color of your army means more than the codex you choose to play. And that Eldrad, Ghazgull, Logan and Mephiston have better things to do than take part in every minor border skirmish in the galaxy. To me, all these things are part of sportsmanship. You could choose to play with the most powerful stuff, just cause the rules say you can, but, it's just not sporting.

Kevin Nash wrote:
In another thread you claimed that you didn't like comp (I believe the word you used was "stupid") but here you are suggesting that it is appropriate to use comp, even in a tournament without it!

Redbeard wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:
In another thread you claimed that you didn't like comp (I believe the word you used was "stupid") but here you are suggesting that it is appropriate to use comp, even in a tournament without it!

I do think comp is stupid. A defined comp system doesn't remove broken lists from tournaments, it simply changes the definition of what the broken list is. It doesn't mean there won't be a "best codex", though it might change what the best codex is.

Restraint, as such, should not be attempted to be controlled via some well-defined system that only throws another equation into the mix when attempting to define what the top lists are. Restraint should be something that should be encompassed in a general sportsmanship score. Three units of long fangs, two units of grey hunters, and zero units of bloodclaws looks nothing like what the space wolf codex puts forth as chapter fluff. It's WAAC power-gaming and nothing more. I don't believe that lists like that encompass good sportsmanship, outside of tournaments that are explicitly defined as hard-core WAAC events - and in that case, what's the point in having a soft-score at all?

A sportsmanship system that asks "was your opponent on time" and "did they appear to not cheat" isn't addressing sportsmanship at all, it's addressing politeness and the ability to follow rules. Sportsmanship is not running up the score. Sportsmanship is recognizing that, while we're at tournaments to win, winning isn't everything. It is better to lose with class, than to win using the same broken units that everyone else on the internet has already recognized as being undercosts and overpowered.

Redbeard wrote:But, was the player fielding an Ulthwé army, or was Eldrad mixed in with his Biel-tan? That might not matter to you, but it might matter to him, or me. To me, that's an example of poor sportsmanship. You're ignoring the established background of your army in order to field a more powerful model.

You may believe, and you have a right to believe, that every player should field the most powerful army they can, and that the fluff is irrelevant. That's your choice. But that doesn't allow you to force that view on other people, or expect that they should conform to your approach to the game. Some of us still believe that the narrative is important. That the color of your army means more than the codex you choose to play. And that Eldrad, Ghazgull, Logan and Mephiston have better things to do than take part in every minor border skirmish in the galaxy. To me, all these things are part of sportsmanship. You could choose to play with the most powerful stuff, just cause the rules say you can, but, it's just not sporting.

Redbeard wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:In another thread you claimed that you didn't like comp (I believe the word you used was "stupid") but here you are suggesting that it is appropriate to use comp, even in a tournament without it!

I do think comp is stupid. A defined comp system doesn't remove broken lists from tournaments, it simply changes the definition of what the broken list is. It doesn't mean there won't be a "best codex", though it might change what the best codex is.

Redbeard wrote:A sportsmanship system that asks "was your opponent on time" and "did they appear to not cheat" isn't addressing sportsmanship at all, it's addressing politeness and the ability to follow rules. Sportsmanship is not running up the score. Sportsmanship is recognizing that, while we're at tournaments to win, winning isn't everything.

Redbeard wrote:It has nothing to do with the rules. By definition, sportsmanship exists outside the rules. It is based on voluntary, not compulsory, actions.

sennacherib wrote:There exist two types of game player. those that do everything possible to maximise their chance of winning by building an army based entirely around the best and hardest units. For these players there is ard boys. Mnay of the rest of us enjoy feilding models we spent a lot of time painting and converting. In order to keep ard boys style gamers from ruining our fun by just slaughtering everyone in their path, they have comp.

Its pretty easy to determine what the societal norm for good behaviore is. we all learn that from kindergarten on. Pg 2 of the BRB mentions the most important rule. both players should have fun, and it even makes mention that Winning at any cost is less important than both players having a good time. seems pretty clear.

There exist two types of game player. those that do everything possible to maximise their chance of winning by building an army based entirely around the best and hardest units. For these players there is ard boys. Mnay of the rest of us enjoy feilding models we spent a lot of time painting and converting. In order to keep ard boys style gamers from ruining our fun by just slaughtering everyone in their path, they have comp.

Is it really so important to win. Is the though that you might loose because your list is not nearly as hard as it could be the real issue. THink how your opponent feels when they sit down at the comped event and see your army and KNOW they will loose, not because their game play or tactics stink. But becuase the list you brought leaves them no option.

Mannahnin wrote:
IMO, that's a feature, not a bug. A defined comp system doesn't remove broken lists. It rewards people for bringing non-broken, or less-broken lists. It narrows the gap between codices. While of course it's impossible to completely eliminate the imbalances between codices, if we can narrow them (and I believe we can) with Comp, then Comp is achieving a manifest good.

I (and most Sportsmanship systems I've ever seen, including at Adepticon) disagree with your definition. Politeness and a conscious awareness of and support of your opponent's enjoyment is most certainly part of sportsmanship.

Redbeard wrote:It has nothing to do with the rules. By definition, sportsmanship exists outside the rules. It is based on voluntary, not compulsory, actions.

How can an NFL fan say that "by definition" Sportsmanship exists outside the rules? You are certainly aware of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" penalties. Why are you acting like you're not?

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:IMO, that's a feature, not a bug. A defined comp system doesn't remove broken lists. It rewards people for bringing non-broken, or less-broken lists. It narrows the gap between codices. While of course it's impossible to completely eliminate the imbalances between codices, if we can narrow them (and I believe we can) with Comp, then Comp is achieving a manifest good.

See, I'm on the other side here. I don't believe we can narrow them. What I see comp "systems" do is invalidate fun, yet non-competitive lists, while simultaneously not really impacting the top codexes simply because they're so full of 'good stuff'. What I see them do is make everyone worse, while making the really bad worse faster than the really good. I haven't seen a comp system yet that I believe escapes this flaw.

Redbeard wrote: Politeness should be a requirement, not a graded element. Being civil, being on time, and not cheating should be bare minimums for even being allowed to play - failure to do these basic things should result in expulsion from the event, not being docked a point or two.

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Redbeard wrote:It has nothing to do with the rules. By definition, sportsmanship exists outside the rules. It is based on voluntary, not compulsory, actions.

How can an NFL fan say that "by definition" Sportsmanship exists outside the rules? You are certainly aware of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" penalties. Why are you acting like you're not?

Because, while the NFL punishes people for it, they're not really punishing the action because of the rules of the game, but rather as a meta-consideration - their belief that allowing such behaviour is bad for their product, and therefore, their bottom line. The actions that yield 'unsportsmanlike conduct' penalties in the NFL generally occur after a play, and don't really impact game play. Furthermore, these actions can result in ejection from the game - though usually they only result in a 15-yard penalty.

Redbeard wrote:Also, you'll note the NFL has pretty much ignored a lot of truly unsportsmanlike behaviour from its coaches. I don't recall Belichick ever being punished (except, perhaps, by the football gods) for running up the score on opponents in 2007, or for refusing to shake hands with an opposing coach after a game.

Mannahnin wrote:
I think a good Comp Council handicapping specifically for power can do an functional job. I've seen it done, in the NE Independent WH GT circuit (The Colonial, Conflict and Crossroads GTs).

Redbeard wrote: Politeness should be a requirement, not a graded element. Being civil, being on time, and not cheating should be bare minimums for even being allowed to play - failure to do these basic things should result in expulsion from the event, not being docked a point or two.

How do you propose that we eject every person who is not polite? Do you station a judge at every table to determine who is in the wrong and who is in the right? That's not realistic.

Also, it runs into the issue identified earlier in the thread where it may be contrary to the store owner's interest to eject a guy from the store for one day's misbehavior; this can cost him a needed customer. This can easily create a conflict between the TO and the store owner.

But in an NFL game OR in a wargaming tournament, there can easily be lesser levels of offensiveness that do not rise to the level of justifying the disruption to the game that would be caused by an ejection.

Redbeard wrote:Sure. So issue a warning, and the next time, ask him to leave. Lots of smaller infractions can result in just as unpleasant an environment for the other participants as one major one.

rednekgunner wrote:I am an avid tournament player, and the shop I game at has a pretty decent tournament system. There is one hangup, and that is sportsmanship. To give you the whole picture I will breakdown the scoring. In the current system there are 3 categories that you get points for battle, paint, and sportsmanship. In it's current incarnation battle points are 10 for a massacre, 7 for a Victory, 5 for a Draw, 3 for a loss, and 1 for getting massacred. The painting is a simple system of either it is painted and based or it is not, and is based on model count (vehicles, and MC's count as 3 models). If your army is 100% painted with 3 colors and based you get 10 points. If your army is 50% painted with 3 colors and based you get 5 points, and if it is less than 50% you get zero. Lastly, at the end of the tournament you rank your games in order of most fun to least fun, and for every person that ranks you as their #1 you get 5 points, #2 you get 3 points, and #3 you get 1 point. Then as for prizes, the person who has the highest total of battle points, sportsmanship, and paint earns Best Overall. The person who has the highest battle points earns Best General, the person who gets 2nd highest battle points gets 2nd General. The person with the highest sportsmanship score gets Best Sport. This system worked well for a while, but there has to be a better way to run sportsmanship, because it is kind of bad when a person is able to loose a game and win a tournament just because his buddies all voted for him.

That all being said, I am turning to y'all dakkaites, and want to know what you think about sportsmanship in tournaments. Should it be weighed heavily? Should it be removed? Is there an effective way to make it work? ect....

Mannahnin wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:IMO, that's a feature, not a bug. A defined comp system doesn't remove broken lists. It rewards people for bringing non-broken, or less-broken lists. It narrows the gap between codices. While of course it's impossible to completely eliminate the imbalances between codices, if we can narrow them (and I believe we can) with Comp, then Comp is achieving a manifest good.

See, I'm on the other side here. I don't believe we can narrow them. What I see comp "systems" do is invalidate fun, yet non-competitive lists, while simultaneously not really impacting the top codexes simply because they're so full of 'good stuff'. What I see them do is make everyone worse, while making the really bad worse faster than the really good. I haven't seen a comp system yet that I believe escapes this flaw.

I think a good Comp Council handicapping specifically for power can do an functional job. I've seen it done, in the NE Independent WH GT circuit (The Colonial, Conflict and Crossroads GTs).

Dave_Nz wrote:

rednekgunner wrote:I am an avid tournament player, and the shop I game at has a pretty decent tournament system. There is one hangup, and that is sportsmanship. To give you the whole picture I will breakdown the scoring. In the current system there are 3 categories that you get points for battle, paint, and sportsmanship. In it's current incarnation battle points are 10 for a massacre, 7 for a Victory, 5 for a Draw, 3 for a loss, and 1 for getting massacred. The painting is a simple system of either it is painted and based or it is not, and is based on model count (vehicles, and MC's count as 3 models). If your army is 100% painted with 3 colors and based you get 10 points. If your army is 50% painted with 3 colors and based you get 5 points, and if it is less than 50% you get zero. Lastly, at the end of the tournament you rank your games in order of most fun to least fun, and for every person that ranks you as their #1 you get 5 points, #2 you get 3 points, and #3 you get 1 point. Then as for prizes, the person who has the highest total of battle points, sportsmanship, and paint earns Best Overall. The person who has the highest battle points earns Best General, the person who gets 2nd highest battle points gets 2nd General. The person with the highest sportsmanship score gets Best Sport. This system worked well for a while, but there has to be a better way to run sportsmanship, because it is kind of bad when a person is able to loose a game and win a tournament just because his buddies all voted for him.

That all being said, I am turning to y'all dakkaites, and want to know what you think about sportsmanship in tournaments. Should it be weighed heavily? Should it be removed? Is there an effective way to make it work? ect....

IMHO painting and sport should be removed, the games should be based on raw skill, no extra points for stupid gimics.

Dave_Nz wrote:

rednekgunner wrote:I am an avid tournament player, and the shop I game at has a pretty decent tournament system. There is one hangup, and that is sportsmanship. To give you the whole picture I will breakdown the scoring. In the current system there are 3 categories that you get points for battle, paint, and sportsmanship. In it's current incarnation battle points are 10 for a massacre, 7 for a Victory, 5 for a Draw, 3 for a loss, and 1 for getting massacred. The painting is a simple system of either it is painted and based or it is not, and is based on model count (vehicles, and MC's count as 3 models). If your army is 100% painted with 3 colors and based you get 10 points. If your army is 50% painted with 3 colors and based you get 5 points, and if it is less than 50% you get zero. Lastly, at the end of the tournament you rank your games in order of most fun to least fun, and for every person that ranks you as their #1 you get 5 points, #2 you get 3 points, and #3 you get 1 point. Then as for prizes, the person who has the highest total of battle points, sportsmanship, and paint earns Best Overall. The person who has the highest battle points earns Best General, the person who gets 2nd highest battle points gets 2nd General. The person with the highest sportsmanship score gets Best Sport. This system worked well for a while, but there has to be a better way to run sportsmanship, because it is kind of bad when a person is able to loose a game and win a tournament just because his buddies all voted for him.

That all being said, I am turning to y'all dakkaites, and want to know what you think about sportsmanship in tournaments. Should it be weighed heavily? Should it be removed? Is there an effective way to make it work? ect....

IMHO painting and sport should be removed, the games should be based on raw skill, no extra points for stupid gimics.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:@ Dave_Nz: You are joking right? I think you are.

Raw skill and 40K have very little in common beyond the list building. Most of it is luck with the dice and a few clever tactics. But skill? Hmmm . . .

Dashofpepper wrote:

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:@ Dave_Nz: You are joking right? I think you are.

Raw skill and 40K have very little in common beyond the list building. Most of it is luck with the dice and a few clever tactics. But skill? Hmmm . . .

Luck with dice? Raw skill has nothing to do with 40k?

Why are my Necrons undefeated? Why are my Dark Eldar 56 wins and 2 losses? Why am I famous for my Orks? I have *exceptionally* bad luck with dice - to the point of being legendary for it. Getting 2/26 hits on a 3+ with your anti-tank weapons is a "bad game" but I manage to do it consistently. All the time. To the point of a special thread looking for better dice. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/346793.page

So you're telling me that I'm extremely lucky, never have bad dice, and have a few clever tactics, and that aside from my ability to build a list, there's no *skill* involved?
-------------------------------------------------------------
I love 40k. I love playing it. I have no interest in painting models. My wife paints my stuff for the most part, and I'd play with grey stuff if I could. Ideally, GW would sell assembled and painted models and I wouldn't have to worry about it. I have no interest in sportsmanship scoring either. I'm a good player, very sociable, and I expect the people I play against to not be an ass. If they are, and its a friendly game, I'll try getting them to fix their attitude or not play again. If its a tournament, I'll try getting them to fix their attitude, or ask the TO to intervene. I don't need a scoresheet to decide if someone is a decent person or not.

People are attracted to different portions of the hobby, and that's our right - to each their own. Please avoid generalizing statements like, "Raw skill and 40k have very little in common beyond the list building." They just make people like me disregard what you say as having any value. Skill and 40k have EVERYTHING to do with each other. Its what elevates some gamers and their ability to win above others.

That's like saying that skill has nothing to do with winning in an FPS video game - its all luck and the size of your TV or computer monitory. Poppycock.

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Redbeard wrote: Politeness should be a requirement, not a graded element. Being civil, being on time, and not cheating should be bare minimums for even being allowed to play - failure to do these basic things should result in expulsion from the event, not being docked a point or two.

How do you propose that we eject every person who is not polite? Do you station a judge at every table to determine who is in the wrong and who is in the right? That's not realistic.

Having run events, I can tell you that you don't need a judge stationed at every table to identify who is causing problems.

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:But in an NFL game OR in a wargaming tournament, there can easily be lesser levels of offensiveness that do not rise to the level of justifying the disruption to the game that would be caused by an ejection.

Sure. So issue a warning, and the next time, ask him to leave. Lots of smaller infractions can result in just as unpleasant an environment for the other participants as one major one.

Ever consider that the reason people act in these ways is because they've learned that they'll never be significantly punished for their actions, and they believe they're gaining some small advantage from it.

Dashofpepper wrote: I don't need a scoresheet to decide if someone is a decent person or not.

Dashofpepper wrote: That's like saying that skill has nothing to do with winning in an FPS video game - its all luck and the size of your TV or computer monitory. Poppycock.

Monster Rain wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: I don't need a scoresheet to decide if someone is a decent person or not.

It's not to evaluate whether someone is a decent person. It's to add penalties for being a dick and possibly a reward for improving the tournament experience for your fellow gamers.

Dashofpepper wrote: That's like saying that skill has nothing to do with winning in an FPS video game - its all luck and the size of your TV or computer monitory. Poppycock.

Yeah, that would be poppycock.

It's not a good analogy though. FPS videogames don't include dice.

Fearspect wrote:Mannahnin: Your entire system puts the entire burden of proof on the accused as opposed to the other way around. What mechanic do you have in place to prevent that? I suppose I may have glossed over it and it has been mentioned.

Fearspect wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's not a good analogy though. FPS videogames don't include dice.

Sure is strange though how the same people keep consistently making the top tables in tournaments, considering how luck is the determining factor. The same thing seems to happen in poker, backgammon, etc. all of which have a large 'luck' factor if you just take a very cursory glance at the game.

Fearspect wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: I don't need a scoresheet to decide if someone is a decent person or not.

It's not to evaluate whether someone is a decent person. It's to add penalties for being a dick and possibly a reward for improving the tournament experience for your fellow gamers.

Dashofpepper wrote: That's like saying that skill has nothing to do with winning in an FPS video game - its all luck and the size of your TV or computer monitory. Poppycock.

Yeah, that would be poppycock.

It's not a good analogy though. FPS videogames don't include dice.

Sure is strange though how the same people keep consistently making the top tables in tournaments, considering how luck is the determining factor. The same thing seems to happen in poker, backgammon, etc. all of which have a large 'luck' factor if you just take a very cursory glance at the game.

Mannahnin wrote:I just edited it to point out that the TO (as we discussed earlier) can make a single downcheck no penalty if he's worried about chipmunking.

As my article specifically says, I decided to make the first downcheck a small penalty because I believe MOST gamers are honest.

I'll be happy to expand on my article; there are a couple of points raised in this thread that have made me want to expand on a couple of ideas. I do appreciate feedback and criticism.

Fearspect wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I just edited it to point out that the TO (as we discussed earlier) can make a single downcheck no penalty if he's worried about chipmunking.

As my article specifically says, I decided to make the first downcheck a small penalty because I believe MOST gamers are honest.

I'll be happy to expand on my article; there are a couple of points raised in this thread that have made me want to expand on a couple of ideas. I do appreciate feedback and criticism.

That is one of my issues with your scoring system, and all sports scoring in general. I still think the first downcheck should hold no penalty whatsoever, making this situation moot.

On the other hand, you and I will never agree on the greater concept I have a problem with here and I accept that:

Rationally, in a gaming system where I have control over my opponent's overall score so easily, there is a large incentive to just mark down the strong players. There is no accounting, in any system I have ever heard described, for a good player who is otherwise pleasant still getting docked for winning. Yes, you believe MOST gamers are honest, but this is the glaring hole (for me) in every sportsmanship scoring system. It is for this reason that I have immediately dismissed every sportsmanship scoring system I have been presented. Everyone glosses over this point as 'no big deal' because everyone is honest, but that cannot be true if you have a system to try to control specific behaviours. Those same people you are trying to control, or even others seeing an opportunity can take advantage of this. On the other hand, a player may also have completely unrealistic expectations having come to a tournament (only wanted to play non-competitive people for fun), and he is not incorrect to mark every difficult opponent in the same way.

Does the good outweigh the bad? Possibly. Is there a better system than what you are proposing? I think so, but cannot come up with it having given it some thought.

rednekgunner wrote:

Fearspect wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I just edited it to point out that the TO (as we discussed earlier) can make a single downcheck no penalty if he's worried about chipmunking.

As my article specifically says, I decided to make the first downcheck a small penalty because I believe MOST gamers are honest.

I'll be happy to expand on my article; there are a couple of points raised in this thread that have made me want to expand on a couple of ideas. I do appreciate feedback and criticism.

That is one of my issues with your scoring system, and all sports scoring in general. I still think the first downcheck should hold no penalty whatsoever, making this situation moot.

On the other hand, you and I will never agree on the greater concept I have a problem with here and I accept that:

Rationally, in a gaming system where I have control over my opponent's overall score so easily, there is a large incentive to just mark down the strong players. There is no accounting, in any system I have ever heard described, for a good player who is otherwise pleasant still getting docked for winning. Yes, you believe MOST gamers are honest, but this is the glaring hole (for me) in every sportsmanship scoring system. It is for this reason that I have immediately dismissed every sportsmanship scoring system I have been presented. Everyone glosses over this point as 'no big deal' because everyone is honest, but that cannot be true if you have a system to try to control specific behaviours. Those same people you are trying to control, or even others seeing an opportunity can take advantage of this. On the other hand, a player may also have completely unrealistic expectations having come to a tournament (only wanted to play non-competitive people for fun), and he is not incorrect to mark every difficult opponent in the same way.

Does the good outweigh the bad? Possibly. Is there a better system than what you are proposing? I think so, but cannot come up with it having given it some thought.

That is why I suggested that for someone to mark down their opponent, they must provide a legitimate reason why they chose to do so to the TO. This would help eliminate people screwing their opponents.

I do disagree with your thinking on why a person would mark down their opponent, because if you beat your opponent why would you mark them down? Inversely, if you lose what advantage would you gain from sticking it to your opponent? The concept with sportsmanship in my view is to not reward people who play right, but penalize people who insist on acting like dicks every tournament.

++ SPORTSMANSHIP MARKS ++
After each qualifier game, you will be required to evaluate your opponent’s sportsmanship. Secretly choose one of the following marks:

Average: Perfectly Decent Game of Warhammer. This should encompass a majority of your marks. This covers most normal games of Warhammer. Your opponent was relatively sporting, came prepared to play and put forth a good effort to amicably resolve rules disputes.

Positive: Fantastically Brilliant Game! Reserved for the truly special games of Warhammer. Your opponent went well beyond the call of duty, was incredibly sporting and honestly made additional effort of provide a fantastic game. This is just the type of person you would want in your local gaming club. Players receiving the most positives mark are eligible to win Best Sportsmanship.

Negative: Just A Terribly Awful Game! While difficult to describe, these games are bound to happen. Reserved for the worst of the worst, you should only ‘award’ this mark in the direst of circumstances. This mark should be an evaluative negative on your opponent’s sportsmanship only and should NEVER be a reflection on the final results of the game.

Judge’s Marks: The Head Rules Judge may assign additional negative sportsmanship marks throughout the tournament. These marks are in addition to those you receive from your opponents and will count towards disqualification. Additionally, player’s who negligently give out a large number of positive or negative sportsmanship scores will have their marks called into question by the judges and will be required to explain their marks. The judges reserve the right to nullify any sportsmanship marks that they deem were not awarded in the spirit of the system outlined above.

Disqualification: Players who receive 3 or more negative sportsmanship marks on Friday will be disqualified from the event and will no longer be eligible to receive any awards or qualify for Sunday’s finals.

Mannahnin wrote:I note that Adepticon is using a somewhat-similar system this year, although they obviously were working on it a long time before I wrote my article. Theirs does not affect the Overall score, however, unless you hit 3 downchecks out of 4 games.

http://www.adepticon.org/11rules/201140Kchamp.pdf

++ SPORTSMANSHIP MARKS ++
After each qualifier game, you will be required to evaluate your opponent’s sportsmanship. Secretly choose one of the following marks:

Average: Perfectly Decent Game of Warhammer. This should encompass a majority of your marks. This covers most normal games of Warhammer. Your opponent was relatively sporting, came prepared to play and put forth a good effort to amicably resolve rules disputes.

Positive: Fantastically Brilliant Game! Reserved for the truly special games of Warhammer. Your opponent went well beyond the call of duty, was incredibly sporting and honestly made additional effort of provide a fantastic game. This is just the type of person you would want in your local gaming club. Players receiving the most positives mark are eligible to win Best Sportsmanship.

Negative: Just A Terribly Awful Game! While difficult to describe, these games are bound to happen. Reserved for the worst of the worst, you should only ‘award’ this mark in the direst of circumstances. This mark should be an evaluative negative on your opponent’s sportsmanship only and should NEVER be a reflection on the final results of the game.

Judge’s Marks: The Head Rules Judge may assign additional negative sportsmanship marks throughout the tournament. These marks are in addition to those you receive from your opponents and will count towards disqualification. Additionally, player’s who negligently give out a large number of positive or negative sportsmanship scores will have their marks called into question by the judges and will be required to explain their marks. The judges reserve the right to nullify any sportsmanship marks that they deem were not awarded in the spirit of the system outlined above.

Disqualification: Players who receive 3 or more negative sportsmanship marks on Friday will be disqualified from the event and will no longer be eligible to receive any awards or qualify for Sunday’s finals.