Hello my friends!

I was thinking, how the tournaments you people play work?

In my area, sportsmanship takes a huge part in the game( gaming is only 9 pt outta 44), paint is 10, sportsmanship is 15. Another 10 pt depends on the special rule of the tournament, or the theme. Painting is for the effort, not the quality, so as long as you paint the models you get 10 easy points. But sportsmanship is hard to get for some reason. I mean I am always a nice player, I don't make fun of others, I am nice, and I don't argue 99% of the time. But some people are really popular, and they get full points for sportsmanship...I don't really feel its fair. BTW sportsmanship are given by the other players.

Is there other tournaments like that?

Comments please!

That scoring sucks monkey balls. Seriously sports is more then actual game play? Painting is more then actual play too? Hell nebulious points depending on special rules of the tournment is more points then actual playing the game.

That sucks. And its completely unfair.

In my view Sportsmanship should be there to act as a warning to the tournament organizers. Generally speaking as long as you aren't cheating or being a total A-hole most people should be recieving an average rating.

Tournament organizers should take a couple quick tours around players who recieve a negative sportsmanship score after the first round to see if they see anything that may require to them to say something to a player and if they don't see anything make note of that too. If the same player gives multiple negative sportsmanship reports in a row it might be worth keeping an eye on them incase they are tanking peoples sportsmanship scores on purpose, generally those people will do other things you may not want to see at your tournament.

I see to many organizers just sitting at a table chatting it up during a tournament when a couple trips around the room could show some things they could assist with, especially since many people are hesitant to call a judge in fear of having their sportsmanship tanked because of it.

Has a whole week passed already? I thought there was not enough argument in this forum.

I have to say I have never heard of a gaming system where battle points was only 20% of the total score.

With your situation I am not sure that sportsmanship is the issue, but the scoring ratios overall. Even the softest of the soft events I have seen have battlepoints be at least 50% of the total score as well as recognizing best general which is pure win/loss or game scores.

I would see no issue with 10paint/15sport/10theme if 3 games were like 12-20 points a piece or something.

I got average sportsmanship points for every game I played. I did not lose a single game. That should put me in the ranks of good players. And yet when I checked the list I was the 4th last player! I mean even a guy who lost all his games got higher than me, I just feel its not fair...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No really...9 pt for games, 35 for others...

OP:

You guys are on the right track.

To be honest, you guys should probably remove the battle points aspect. Leave it to sportsmanship and painting, just a social event where people look at each others' armies and vote on who is the nicest socializer.

Dashofpepper wrote:OP:

You guys are on the right track.

To be honest, you guys should probably remove the battle points aspect. Leave it to sportsmanship and painting, just a social event where people look at each others' armies and vote on who is the nicest socializer.

The ratios seem quite off to me. If the majority of players there like them the way they are, that's up to you.

I devised a new Sportsmanship scoring relatively recently (link to the article is in my sig), and Adepticon 2011 had a pretty good one too.

Dashofpepper wrote:OP:

You guys are on the right track.

To be honest, you guys should probably remove the battle points aspect. Leave it to sportsmanship and painting, just a social event where people look at each others' armies and vote on who is the nicest socializer.

Hmmm....sarcasm there, but it did bring up a point that maybe everyone here is playing for another purpose, not winning. Maybe they just want to look at cool armies and enjoy the soft games....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think sportsmanship is a very important part of a tournament, but if it takes up too much of the points...whats the point of gaming?

For a second I thought my daughter's tee-ball coach was in Canada running events. They don't keep score because they don't want anyone's feelings hurt. Guess what, no one tries! She asked to "talk" to me about my daughters team "keeping" score and knowing they won a game. I told her "I'm sorry but my daughter and her friends can add."

Competition builds character. Winning and loosing are a fact of life. I think if you want to call it a "tournament" then you need to have winners and loosers based off of ...winning and loosing.

Just my 2 cents.

Dashofpepper wrote:OP:

You guys are on the right track.

To be honest, you guys should probably remove the battle points aspect. Leave it to sportsmanship and painting, just a social event where people look at each others' armies and vote on who is the nicest socializer.

Seriously, that. If they want to have a golden deamons type event, just hold one. What the OP was in wasnt a tournmentr. It was a popularity contest.

OP: The obvious strategy in this format is to purposely lose your games while complimenting your opponent on their skill. This should get you a top three placing so long as you spend some money getting your army professionally painted.

Fearspect wrote:OP: The obvious strategy in this format is to purposely lose your games while complimenting your opponent on their skill. This should get you a top three placing so long as you spend some money getting your army professionally painted.

That is a way to do things, but I really don't like other people painting my models. And sucking up to my opponent is an option, but its one I won't take. I took a minute to think about this, and I've made my mind that later on playing with that group of people I won't be expecting anything.When I want to play competitively, I find a better group of people.

Wings of Light wrote:

Fearspect wrote:OP: The obvious strategy in this format is to purposely lose your games while complimenting your opponent on their skill. This should get you a top three placing so long as you spend some money getting your army professionally painted.

That is a way to do things, but I really don't like other people painting my models. And sucking up to my opponent is an option, but its one I won't take. I took a minute to think about this, and I've made my mind that later on playing with that group of people I won't be expecting anything.When I want to play competitively, I find a better group of people.

I think your on to something there.....

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:

Wings of Light wrote:

Fearspect wrote:OP: The obvious strategy in this format is to purposely lose your games while complimenting your opponent on their skill. This should get you a top three placing so long as you spend some money getting your army professionally painted.

That is a way to do things, but I really don't like other people painting my models. And sucking up to my opponent is an option, but its one I won't take. I took a minute to think about this, and I've made my mind that later on playing with that group of people I won't be expecting anything.When I want to play competitively, I find a better group of people.

I think your on to something there.....

When your local gaming circle doesn't meet your needs consider becoming a gaming nomad. Find a few larger events a year and make an effort to travel. If you are in the US there has to be at least one major event within driving distance.

Sometimes quality is better than quantity.

I like ranking for sportsmanship as it minimizes chipmunking. Mannahnin's sportmanship ideas work well too. But what really works is close supervision by the TOs over sports scores. If someone does give low scores, they better give a good reason. Competitive tournaments can still have sportsmanship scores as you can still have overall and tournament winner share the same prestige. Otherwise might as well call them ard boyz.

I like the way Adepticon does it.

The 40k Championships have a composite ranking system that factors in Battle Points as well as the soft scores, with a second event to evaluate the "best player" from the top 16 generals from the Championships.

That was, at least, the way I understood it.

I think sports points is an increasingly archaic notion in some senses; more and more I find myself leaning toward pass/fail, with best general/overall-caliber prize support for stand-out sportsmen.

I think the more I attend and run tournaments, the more I notice jerks are jerks, norms are norms, and nice guys are nice guys. Not to wax tautological, but donkey-caves are donkey-caves. One guy scored min sports @ the NOVA 2010 ... after the event, he PMed me thanking me for running it, and saying "don't fret sportsmanship, I never do."

My point here ... why do we so heavy handedly try to incentivise good behavior? It reminds me of people praising folks for not being criminals. You're not supposed to be a criminal. Most people are fine or good sports. Simple pass fail, with extra pts in a sports category for a truly amazing person ... increasingly seems to make sense. Point out to donkey-caves that they really are donkey-caves; beyond that, let people be their normal selves without fear of scored retribution for not filling the air with platitudes.

Maybe a Favorite Opponent vote on day one and two (so two votes per person) to spread the field for best sport Mike? Pass/Fail w/Favorite Opponent Votes?

MVBrandt wrote:I think sports points is an increasingly archaic notion in some senses; more and more I find myself leaning toward pass/fail, with best general/overall-caliber prize support for stand-out sportsmen.

I think the more I attend and run tournaments, the more I notice jerks are jerks, norms are norms, and nice guys are nice guys. Not to wax tautological, but donkey-caves are donkey-caves. One guy scored min sports @ the NOVA 2010 ... after the event, he PMed me thanking me for running it, and saying "don't fret sportsmanship, I never do."

My point here ... why do we so heavy handedly try to incentivise good behavior? It reminds me of people praising folks for not being criminals. You're not supposed to be a criminal. Most people are fine or good sports. Simple pass fail, with extra pts in a sports category for a truly amazing person ... increasingly seems to make sense. Point out to donkey-caves that they really are donkey-caves; beyond that, let people be their normal selves without fear of scored retribution for not filling the air with platitudes.

I agree it is archaic. I used to be one of those guys who argued to keep it because I felt it helped to add a more rounded feel to the game. But after playing in quite a few tournaments in Europe where no one uses sportsmanship I have found that nothing is loss by not having sportsmanship score. The games are just as fun without the added factor of guys chipmunking you or in the in case of me at adepticon not reading the scoring correctly

Many people question me about how tournaments are different between Europe and the US. The two big differences are mission objectives and sportsmanship. Most of them like the different objectives but no one even likes the idea of sportsmanship scores.

There is a whole world of 40k out there without sportsmanship and its seems to be doing just fine.

So basically what youre saying is you have to be on your opponents to get full score? Everytime I go to comp and sports tournaments I try to laugh and have a good time because that isnt a competitive tourney. Im going to the Great Escape Games COC in may and expecting to get a 0 on comp an 0 in sports as Im running a PURE DOA list.

Im there to win, I could care less if someone doesnt like the fact they cant touch me until turn 2. I try to never argue because of time concerns, so maybe not the bottom tier of the people who win all their games, but Im already calculating I'll be in the bottom 60.

carmachu wrote:That scoring sucks monkey balls. Seriously sports is more then actual game play? Painting is more then actual play too? Hell nebulious points depending on special rules of the tournment is more points then actual playing the game.

That sucks. And its completely unfair.

Unfair? How is it unfair?

It sounds like these rules are said in advance - nobody is penalised from the outset - everyone has the same chance of winning, it's just that the most important event has changed. It's completely FAIR. You just don't like the idea of a tournament where gameplay isn't the deciding factor.

I could organise a tournament where the you get points for wearing the most hats while playing Warhammer. You start with ten hats, and if you can play six games without them falling off you get points. As long as I tell everyone in advance, and they sign up knowing this, then it's COMPLETELY FAIR.

Sounds like just as much fun, ArbitorIan, considering it would be just as arbitrary. Isn't that kind of the point everyone else is making?

The point is that SOME of the criticisms of the event are off-base.

I agree that the scoring mix seems inappropriate and silly to my personal taste and preference. But that doesn't mean it's unfair.

I like pass/fail sports + fave opponent votes. Dicks still exist even in Europe. Pass/fail keeps them in check without making Sportsmanship the deciding factor for the tournament.

The only reason they made it this way was because a lot of people in the store(a good number of those weaklings) complain that people join tournaments with cheesy armies, for example razorback spam and deathstars. But I mean really, if you wanna play in a freaking tournament, deal with it.
Not a lot of people are actually jerks in my area, this is the thing I don't understand. My friend in California said that some of his local gaming people argued for 10 min over some rule problem...this never happened here. In such a calm area, I don't understand why they make sportsmanship so important.

Wings of Light wrote:The only reason they made it this way was because a lot of people in the store(a good number of those weaklings) complain that people join tournaments with cheesy armies, for example razorback spam and deathstars. But I mean really, if you wanna play in a freaking tournament, deal with it.
Not a lot of people are actually jerks in my area, this is the thing I don't understand. My friend in California said that some of his local gaming people argued for 10 min over some rule problem...this never happened here. In such a calm area, I don't understand why they make sportsmanship so important.

So... some people think that everyone with a razorback army is a jerk? I'm not really sure how sportsmanship, in the spirit of how it is usually enforced, covers this. Seems like more of a composition issue.

If there isn't a comp thread on the first page of this sub-forum, just wait two days and a new one will come to post in

I have ran events with where everyone votes at the end of the day who thier favorite opponent was for the day. Plus I typically do 60% battlescore, 25% painting 15% sportsmanship. Painting is based on effort just a check list did they do this or that to get each point. Sportsmanship you start the day with full sportsmanship you lose points if you forgot to bring things like templates, rulebook etc, or are being a tool. Bottom line is don't make me take points away from you. each favorite opponent vote a person gets adds 1 to their sports score, highest total gets best sport.

Corbett wrote:I have ran events with where everyone votes at the end of the day who thier favorite opponent was for the day. Plus I typically do 60% battlescore, 25% painting 15% sportsmanship. Painting is based on effort just a check list did they do this or that to get each point. Sportsmanship you start the day with full sportsmanship you lose points if you forgot to bring things like templates, rulebook etc, or are being a tool. Bottom line is don't make me take points away from you. each favorite opponent vote a person gets adds 1 to their sports score, highest total gets best sport.

That sounds solid.

In all of these threads that pop up nobody is able to explain how their particular voodoo magic brand of moving the numbers around somehow creates a better system to deter poor sportsmanship than "Have the judges pay attention"

Seriously it's a ton of this:

"Well I take 4, then add the number 1 to get 5!"

"Oh yeah? well I take 6 and subtract the number 1 to get 5!"

"Oh wow, your system is awesome! But I prefer to add the number 1 together 5 times to get 5 at my tournaments, that is how I create good sportsmen out of a disparate group of wargamers!"

MikeMcSomething wrote:In all of these threads that pop up nobody is able to explain how their particular voodoo magic brand of moving the numbers around somehow creates a better system to deter poor sportsmanship than "Have the judges pay attention"

Seriously it's a ton of this:

"Well I take 4, then add the number 1 to get 5!"

"Oh yeah? well I take 6 and subtract the number 1 to get 5!"

"Oh wow, your system is awesome! But I prefer to add the number 1 together 5 times to get 5 at my tournaments, that is how I create good sportsmen out of a disparate group of wargamers!"

Sorry I...dont...get it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you guys think it would be a good idea to take out sportsmanship? I mean since its given that EVERYONE in the tournament knows each other pretty well, and that no jerks are there(only so-called cheese lists)

He didn't read the last Sportsmanship thread. Or my article, apparently.

I agree with him that Sports systems are sometimes excessively complicated, and this wastes time and often hurts their utility and validity as players skim them or don't take the time to read them and use them as intended.

A prom king/queen rule sounds bad, un40k and totally highschoolish. Replace it with army creativity or something. Plus I find it very sad that there even has to be a "sportsman" category. I mean c'mon guys. Really? Being a dick in 40k? Be a dick in any video game of choice over anonymous chat, fine. But seriously guys; seriously. 40k? That's like being a tool during a family table meal. "I GET THAT LAST PIECE OF CHICKEN. YOU'VE ALREADY HAD 2 AND I'VE ONLY HAD 1.85 PIECES"
I guess I've been lucky enough not to have encountered one of these "rule" layer types here at my local area.

Ha speaking of creativity I'm going to put light on my Eldar tanks, then have it lit up for the tournament, and get a calculator for the "wow"s

The Magority of tourneys ive played in give multiple awards. A tactical award , painting award , and overall award.

Smitty0305 wrote:The Magority of tourneys ive played in give multiple awards. A tactical award , painting award , and overall award.

I 100% think that's great, and it feels like most tournaments are going that way:

-Minimum 3 colours to play
-Painting Award
-Generalship Award
-Overall (a combo of the above two)

Anytime you leave any scoring out of the hands of the opponents, who are vying for the same prize, you are moving in the right direction.

Yea letting the opponent decide is kinda bad...I always give my opponent a 3 outta 3 for sports, but I never got a 3...

Mannahnin wrote:He didn't read the last Sportsmanship thread. Or my article, apparently.

I agree with him that Sports systems are sometimes excessively complicated, and this wastes time and often hurts their utility and validity as players skim them or don't take the time to read them and use them as intended.

This is, presumably, directed my way. Your system, like every sportsmanship system proposed so far, fails to establish a causal link between "Having a sportsmanship system" and "Transforming people that would have showed up at a given tournament and not have previously been considered good sports into good sports for an afternoon" The fact that you devoted an article page to it doesn't mean that it's a magic bullet to make sports a good system, at best it reduces a small subset of systematic errors produced by illiterates by simplifying the question(s) (to be fair you probably understand that anyway) and your system still lets chipmunks tank a player's tournament ranking.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:He didn't read the last Sportsmanship thread. Or my article, apparently.

I agree with him that Sports systems are sometimes excessively complicated, and this wastes time and often hurts their utility and validity as players skim them or don't take the time to read them and use them as intended.

This is, presumably, directed my way.

Yes. Your last post was dismissive, disrespectful and silly, and the concept you were criticizing (excessively complex and ineffective systems) bore no resemblence to any sports system put forward on this forum this year, as far as I can recall.

MikeMcSomething wrote:[Your system, like every sportsmanship system proposed so far, fails to establish a causal link between "Having a sportsmanship system" and "Transforming people that would have showed up at a given tournament and not have previously been considered good sports into good sports for an afternoon"

It doesn't need to. The preamble to the article clearly explains its purposes. You are setting an invalid standard. There is no need to transform anyone. That being said, I have seen players who have otherwise objectionable behaviors moderate said behaviors and make clear and obvious efforts to be nice when a Sportsmanship system was in effect. It's not necessary, but it sometimes happens.

MikeMcSomething wrote:The fact that you devoted an article page to it doesn't mean that it's a magic bullet to make sports a good system,

This passage seems to presuppose that there is only one sportsmanship system. Which is obviously false, as my article is clearly an attempt to present a more functional alternative to other systems I've encountered.

MikeMcSomething wrote:...at best it reduces a small subset of systematic errors produced by illiterates by simplifying the question(s) (to be fair you probably understand that anyway) and your system still lets chipmunks tank a player's tournament ranking.

No it doesn't. There's something ironic about you offhandedly dismissing players as illiterates while failing to read or comprehend the article you're criticizing.

I found Mannahnin's Sportsmanship article to be well thought out and combative of the common issues most Sportsmanship systems suffer from.

The question of whether or not Sportsmanship systems should or should not exist or if Sportsmanship should any impact on tournament scoring is one that has been gone over a million times.

The adherence to Sportsmanship stems from a recognition of the hobby as a whole and embraces miniature wargaming as simply more than a basic competition. I personally see that as an important aspect of traditional 'soft scores' and something that allows awards to span a larger player base.

I am a firm believer in the pass/fail system and it was something I personally implemented into the 2011 AdeptiCon 40K events (in addition to removing Sportsmanship from the determining factors that went into crowning the tournament champion). While I think we are on a good path, the system relied too much on people reading/understanding the system and using it as it was intended. People are set in their ways, and when giving them a system that is somewhat similar, yet has different goals, they tend to just follow their ingrained instincts. In that regards, the new Sportsmanship system failed, however it illuminated a very clear path towards the next incarnation.

There are definitly two camps when it comes to scoring in tournis. the I dont care about anything but winning camp, and the camp that acknowledges that they play 40k for reasons besides just playing a game to win. Its fun and its a hobby.
That said, i think that it sounds like you might have been shorted on the scoring somehow. Did you ask a tourni org. how you ended up so low. Were the points posted wherer you could see them.?

Mannahin wrote:It doesn't need to

Then it doesn't serve any purpose! If you're failing to moderate bad behavior while introducing a system that can be abused you have created a net loss for the tournament as a whole.

Mannahin wrote:and the concept you were criticizing (excessively complex and ineffective systems)

Emphasis mine. This is incorrect - I am criticizing the tendencies displayed by those in the pro-sports score camp to high-five and praise anyone who has come up with a system that differs only cosmetically from currently existing systems and accomplishes the same thing as previous ones (namely nothing)

Mannahin wrote:There's something ironic about you offhandedly dismissing players as illiterates while failing to read or comprehend the article you're criticizing.

You misunderstood the sentence that led to this quote in your rush to look like a troll. I would mention the irony of a post citing irony in a post regarding illiteracy that in fact mistakes the post it's attempting to mock in the first place but I think you get the point.

Your system creates an incentive for other players to tank your sports score without providing an incentive to actually be a good sport. <--- There is no clearer way to put it. Creating a well-formatted article page (read: adding window dressing to the problematic system) does not correct that fundamental flaw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sennacherib wrote:There are definitly two camps when it comes to scoring in tournis. the I dont care about anything but winning camp

This misunderstanding is a large part of the problem. I am in the "I want to pay money and drive across town (or fly across the country) to meet great new people, play some awesome games, and have a fair tournament that is absent the usual allegations of chipmunking and subjective score nonsense that follows every major tournament" camp. I could lose every game, and wind up in spot #500, and I would be happy, if I did it in a tournament where the #3 guy didn't get passed up by the #4 guy because #3 ran into a couple guys that thought they would improve their chances by tanking his sports score.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:Your system, like every sportsmanship system proposed so far, fails to establish a causal link between "Having a sportsmanship system" and "Transforming people that would have showed up at a given tournament and not have previously been considered good sports into good sports for an afternoon"

It doesn't need to.

Then it doesn't serve any purpose! If you're failing to moderate bad behavior while introducing a system that can be abused you have created a net loss for the tournament as a whole.

Of course, and that's part of what my system is designed to address. But that's not the concept the premises you put forward were advancing. Your reasoning was flawed, and you've just changed your argument/moved the goalposts. Your initial argument has a couple of premises which I think are false.

1. You criticise it for "fail(ing) to establish a causal link" between having a sportsmanship system and people's behavior changing.
2. You set an unnecessarily high bar on the system to "transform" people's behavior.

These are both flawed premises. The first because it's simply unnecessary, as I said before. This isn't a sociological survey. I don't have to conclusively demonstrate causation vs. correlation. The second because there is no need for the system to "transform" anyone. If it prevents dicks from winning tournaments while treating their opponents badly, then it serves one purpose. If it gives us a scoring system to reward GOOD sports/enjoyable players, it serves another purpose. And if in doing those two things it communicates to the players in general that Sportsmanship is valued and important, thus subtly influencing their attitudes at the table, it serves a third.

The fact that I've observed players with objectionable behavior change and moderate that behavior while playing in Sports-scored events is just a bonus. It's not a necessary component. They can choose to a) change their behavior, b) get marked down and substantially impair their own ability to win the event, or c) not attend. In any of the three cases a net good has been achieved. Even if there are NO dicks around, there is a net gain in rewarding good Sports and in communicating to the player base in general that we value, appreciate, and want to reward good attitudes and behavior.

Your newer statement has yet another premise that I think is false: "a system what can be abused". A chipmunker cannot abuse my system. The only way for them to have an impact is if the majority of the opponents faced by a given player are chipmunkers. Which will not be the case.

IME the vast majority of WH & 40k tournament players are perfectly decent, honest people who are not going to try to manipulate the results in a dishonest way. For your premise to be accurate, the majority of the players encountered would have to be score-cheating dicks. If that were actually the case, the tournament would be a failure from the get-go due to the low quality of the participants.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Mannahin wrote:and the concept you were criticizing (excessively complex and ineffective systems)

Emphasis mine. This is incorrect - I am criticizing the tendencies displayed by those in the pro-sports score camp to high-five and praise anyone who has come up with a system that differs only cosmetically from currently existing systems and accomplishes the same thing as previous ones (namely nothing)

Ah. I misunderstood. So you're attacking a straw man, and employing a circular argument.

This argument of yours is a straw man because I don't think you can link to an example (certainly not on this forum) of a single thread in which people supportive of Sportsmanship scoring are generally praising a system which is only cosmetically different from older systems. Please feel free to furnish a link if you'd like to substantiate this claim. I'd recommend trying to come up with multiple threads, though, as I can give you multiple links to prior threads in which Sportsmanship advocates criticise ill-thought-out systems and in which they discuss systems which are more than cosmetically different.

This argument of yours is circular because your premise (that the differences in Sports systems are only cosmetic) depends on your conclusion (that they accomplish nothing). This is poor reasoning. You're starting from a belief/opinion and working backwards to justify it.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

sennacherib wrote:There are definitly two camps when it comes to scoring in tournis. the I dont care about anything but winning camp

This misunderstanding is a large part of the problem. I am in the "I want to pay money and drive across town (or fly across the country) to meet great new people, play some awesome games, and have a fair tournament that is absent the usual allegations of chipmunking and subjective score nonsense that follows every major tournament" camp.

This is interesting. These "usual allegations" you describe are anything but usual, speaking from my ten years of GT experience. They are much more the exception than the rule. Chipmunking is rare. Your perception that they follow "every major tournament" seems indicative of two things. 1) You're not actually attending these events, so are unaware of how well they actually work and are basing your arguments off a small number of complaints, and 2) You have quite a bit of confirmation bias and are not actually paying close attention to most reports; just the few negative ones.

Hey, MikeMcSomething, I wrote an article about how to score sportsmanship. Would appreciate any comments/criticism you may have.

The OP case is extreme. However, I like sportsmanship being included in any tournament I attend (as do most people I know).

Super competitive folks might not... but honestly, there's usually a reason with most people I've met who hate sportsmanship. I.e., they'd get dinged on it!

Just my $0.02, but this is a hobby and if you don't want to paint or have sportsmanship included, there's always 'Ard Boyz and tournies of that nature... which I enjoy attending, but at other events I definitely want a sportsmanship score in there.

My big confusion is, why is it being included at all?

The sportsmanship proponents present their systems, then defend why it should be included. This is backward. If you are adding something like this to the game, the owness should be on you to present why it needs inclusion.

No where else, be it gaming, sports, etc. have I seen a sportsmanship system included where your opponent has the opportunity to affect the outcome of your score. How can you call something a tournament when you are purposely including factors that are determined by the voting of your competitors?

There is a huge gulf between sportsmanship itself, and sportsmanship scoring. They are not mutually inclusive. No one needs to hear about how important sportsmanship is in a game like this, it is evident. Sportsmanship is important in any gaming/competition. Sportsmanship scoring is a system left open to the whims of opponents, and whether you agree or not, no one is 'wrong' for zero-bombing their opponent for any reason, be it losing, or just not enjoying themselves enough.

Yeah, I completely don't get sportsmanship scores since every system I've seen for 40k rewards people strongly for acting anti-sportsmanlike. Chipmunking, that is lying and saying that your opponent practiced poor sportsmanship when really all he did was win, is pretty much directly opposite sportsmanship. Yet every sportsmanship scoring system that I've seen works in such a way that chipmunking either doesn't hurt you or actively helps you. Similarly, the fact that you can mark an opponent down if they call in a TO or argue over rules means that if you cheat, you win either way - either the guy lets you cheat and you get that advantage, or he calls you on it and you tank his sportsmanship score so he can't win.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Yeah, I completely don't get sportsmanship scores since every system I've seen for 40k rewards people strongly for acting anti-sportsmanlike. Chipmunking, that is lying and saying that your opponent practiced poor sportsmanship when really all he did was win, is pretty much directly opposite sportsmanship. Yet every sportsmanship scoring system that I've seen works in such a way that chipmunking either doesn't hurt you or actively helps you. Similarly, the fact that you can mark an opponent down if they call in a TO or argue over rules means that if you cheat, you win either way - either the guy lets you cheat and you get that advantage, or he calls you on it and you tank his sportsmanship score so he can't win.

These examples are all in a vaccum of the internet and don't actually happen in real life for two reasons:

1. Most people are not gaming the system and are not jerks. A severe majority of people are working within the spirit of the sportsmanship scores and they work.

2. TOs actually do pay attention to what is going on and do actually review and check sportsmanships cores. They actually do see when people are being rude or generally bad, and if someone gets an undeserving score or a 0 they question the person who gave it to them for justification, and most times either the person is 'chimpmunking' and it is thrown out or the person deserved the score... vary rarely do these supposed chimpmunking scores ever see the light of day, if they happen at all.

The main beef is people who think they are great people to game with get a full head and then find out they are really unpleasant smelly jerks and get poor scores that they deserved. And then they cry how they were chimpmunked when they really earned what they got.

Sportsmanship scores work and work well and have been working well for years... I have never met a legitimate good player who has gotten a zero but I have met plenty of questionable people who have gotten poor scores for being all around ass-hats at tourneys and then crying when they saw the final scores.

The problem with these internet discussions are the same people make the same fictional scenarios and make it sound like it is not only wide-spread but happens every single game everywhere. I just have never seen it get abused the way people claim it does in real life and many of the people who are for Sportsmanship scoring have years of running tourneys under their belts and seem to still have successful events with legitimate sportsmanship scores... I still believe the number of disenfranchised 'good guys' who got screwed over are still in a massive minority to legitimate people who got bad scores due to their own personal behavior who can't tell the difference between having a rule disagreement and being an abusive rude jerk to someone and just claim 'that is how I am, I am not a bad sport because I have poor social skills.'

I thought Mann expanded on those questions above quite well.

I can say that out of all the tournaments I've played in (both team and singles)---over many years----I can think of one instance where I was 'chip-munked'----and that cost our team a total of one point. And we still won Best Heretical.

Granted however, this is if I were to accept 40k as a sport----which I do not. I consider 40k a game and social contract between players. Not unlike your friendly pick up basketball game with friends over the weekend----yes you all play to win but ultimately you are there for relaxation/enjoyment. And yes there is certainly a sportsmanship score present there as well. It's called---act like an donkey-cave----and they don't ask you back .

Regardless, this is what Games Workshop has always been about---a friendly, social gathering of hobbyists. It shouldn't be surprising that players expect that out of their opponents.

nkelsch: It doesn't matter if these fictitious scenarios happen even only once, that's once more than they needed to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrong, AgeOfEgos. Your basketball scenario would only match Sportsmanship Scoring if your opponents were able to change the final score based on their observation of behaviour, or their own whims.

I fully advocate people who are bad sports being told to leave (and possibly not return). That has nothing to do with Sportsmanship Scoring.

Fearspect wrote:nkelsch: It doesn't matter if these fictitious scenarios happen even only once, that's once more than they needed to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrong, AgeOfEgos. Your basketball scenario would only match Sportsmanship Scoring if your opponents were able to change the final score based on their observation of behaviour, or their own whims.

I fully advocate people who are bad sports being told to leave (and possibly not return). That has nothing to do with Sportsmanship Scoring.

I've seen people told to leave----during a game. It certainly affected their ability to win/relax that afternoon (and future games they were not invited to).

And I would be wary of stating "Wrong" in this line of discussion. While I may not agree with your premise--I don't consider you wrong----just of a different opinion (as ultimately this is what it boils down to---difference of opinion on how we view a tournament's purpose).

Umm... good story, but we were talking about sportsmanship scoring...

edit:
Jeez, you edit, so I have to edit or it looks like I'm responding to your whole post. I said you were wrong about your basketball example, I thought that was clear, because that is what I was discussing.

Fearspect wrote:
I fully advocate people who are bad sports being told to leave (and possibly not return). That has nothing to do with Sportsmanship Scoring.

That is often not a reality due to being unable to remove people from the premises or the event, but you can disqualify them from winning any swag which is basically what happens.

Honestly? people who get legitimatly chipmunked are usually good sports and are not going to get bent out of shape over being chimpmunked... which basically resolves the issue right there which is why I am skeptical when I see someone go apeshit over "WHO DARE GAVE ME A ZERO ON SPORTSMANSHIP! THAT IS THE ONLY WAY I COULD HAVE ENDED UP WITH THAT SCORE RAAAAAAAAAWR!". Really? if someone is going to go that crazy over the scores were they really a good sport or at least as good as the perceived themselves?

If the scores deter one person from being a jerk at an event, then I am fine with the fictional possibility of chimpmunking. It doesn't impact my ability to enjoy the event one bit. If people don't want to have it, they can not have it at their event. I attend non-sportsmanship/softscores events too... there is no 'correct' way to run an event.

I also like that it spreads the swag around to another tier and keeps people invested in the event through all the games even if someone is not 'winning' with battlepoints and isn't the best painter. Nothing is worse when a tourney falls apart because people quit early or mentally check out (both which are part of sportsmanship). Most events will spread the prizes so if the BEST GENERAL also was the best sport, the best sport prize goes to the #2 person. I support spreading swag around.

It works, people enjoy it, it isn't abused even remotely as much as people claim it is.

If you don't like the event's rules, then don't participate... Find events that have the rules you like and go there... Vote with your feet. It is that simple. It is like some people are offended that someone somewhere is playing differently than them and are enjoying themselves and that can't be allowed to stand!

Fearspect wrote:Umm... good story, but we were talking about sportsmanship scoring...

They are both born of a methodology to enhance everyone's experience. You couldn't (accurately) ask someone to leave after one poor score/game---hence just a detriment in points suffices. However, I can't recall the tournament----but I remember one advertised on Dakka that stated if someone was repeatedly scored poor throughout their weekend---they were asked to not return.

Wrong, AgeOfEgos. Your basketball scenario would only match Sportsmanship Scoring if your opponents were able to change the final score based on their observation of behaviour, or their own whims.

Am I mistaken or did I play a bunch of pickup games of basketball in my younger days that my opponents could call fouls?

nkelsch:

1) Im an intrigued that you consider a good sportsman a person who willingly lets people take advantage of him without standing up for himself.

2) Swag can be spread in many other ways.

3) You say it works, I'm not sure what you mean. Is it clearly written out on paper how someone wins it? Yes. Does it work to raise the sportsmanship in a tournament? I have not seen anything that indicates this. Everyone points to the low chance of a chipmunking. I point to a low chance this transforms someone into a good sportsman.

4) Ah, okay, so if anyone disagrees they can go away. You have made up your mind, and don't want to have that opinion confused with a lack of facts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

muwhe wrote:Am I mistaken or did I play a bunch of pickup games of basketball in my younger days that my opponents could call fouls?

That's what you should be doing. If you disagree with your opponent's play or behaviour, you call a foul. You even get the chance to call over a buddy (or in our case, a judge or TO), and explain what happened and have a decision be made.

When you play pick-up basketball, do you instead choose to let the fouls slide, then at the end of the game explain to the other team that you are now deducting points from them?

muwhe wrote:Am I mistaken or did I play a bunch of pickup games of basketball in my younger days that my opponents could call fouls?

Lol, so true

Fearspect wrote:The sportsmanship proponents present their systems, then defend why it should be included. This is backward. If you are adding something like this to the game, the owness should be on you to present why it needs inclusion.

Except that sportsmanship has long since been included in warhammer tournaments. I wasn't there when it "started", but certainly for the last, what, 15 years? It's been the norm. Why do you want to get rid of it so much?

Heartily agree with AgeOfEgos, nkelsch, and Mannahnin. Interesting how people so easily ignore the posters with lots of real life tournament experience, and focus on the hypotheticals and what-ifs. It makes good internets, but it's not the case in reality. And in a social game of dice and toy soldiers, I really am glad to have sportsmanship be a scoring item.

Fearspect wrote:nkelsch:

1) Im an intrigued that you consider a good sportsman a person who willingly lets people take advantage of him without standing up for himself.

What one person calls standing up for themselves against cheaters, another sees as a belligerent, foul-mouthed, angry argumentative git with poor social skills and ruining the event for everyone.

There is a difference between rolling over and being taken advantage of and people who just play how they play and accept the outcome of the scores instead of trying to 'game' the sportsmanship with fake nice behavior.

I find I have a pretty darn good grasp of the rules as well as the contention points of frequently disagreed rules because I read the YMTC forum a lot. This means I am pretty quick to be able to point out mistakes and rule disagreements and I usually make a point to verify the events FAQ before the games start. I find you can easily discuss rule differences without it impacting sportsmanship... that is what some people don't understand is they think that all rule disagreements instantly ruin your score. It isn't disagreeing, it is the *WAY* you disagree which does it and people who can't admit they are belligerent or nasty are the same ones who claim to be being chipmunked.

I am a pretty big rule stickler at events, and it is never really and issue. Most people *WANT* to play by the rules and are really happy to use the rules if it is clearly defined in an FAQ or quick page number reference, and if it can't be resolved... 4+ roll off.

If someone gives me a zero, I am not honestly bothered and I don't feel the need to hunt down and interrogate all my opponents to find the offender... If that is what someone is doing, then I question if they understand sportsmanship.

I simply don't accept these fictional scenarios as common or even rare occurrences as if this mystical guy with a twiddly villain moustache and a black cape is entering all these tourneys and giving people 0s for no reasons and the TOs never notice.

Well, RiTides, just two things in reply to that:

1) In what other social game (I suppose as opposed to solitaire, but isn't any game with two players social?) is sportsmanship scoring handled in this manner?

2) Only people who have played in X Superbowls and have won Y times should be the ones to decide the rules of football, anyone disagreeing should go play X Superbowls before their opinion is valid. Kind of sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

What the OP described isn't a gaming tournament, just as a more "normal" 40k scoring system that allotted 10% of its points to painting and modeling isn't a painting tournament.

And I have yet to take part in any game series that was made better by a sportsmanship score. I have, however, taken part in game series that were made worse by sportsmanship scores, which were used to penalize players for beating other players.

Fearspect wrote:Well, RiTides, just two things in reply to that:
2) Only people who have played in X Superbowls and have won Y times should be the ones to decide the rules of football, anyone disagreeing should go play X Superbowls before their opinion is valid. Kind of sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Sportsmanship penalties are assessed in football and directly affect the game and the scores. If you act unsportsmanlike, your game is impacted and you have a harder chance to win. The only difference is in a professional sport it is judged by a 3rd party ref... in amature events like wargamming they have people police themselves which is fairly common in many many events where the professional level would have a judge or ref and the lower levels have to ump themselves by not being cheaters.

Basically good events have a TO and judges who are 'aware' of the actions at the table and can confirm and validate the scores and check out anomalies... which they do... Which basically equates to having a 3rd party ref handling unsportsmanlike conduct with a penalty that makes it harder to win, exactly like football and other professional sports.

I don't mind sportsmanship scores. It is the TO and the fair and honest use of all the scores that make it up. Generally I like it as an incentive to overall champion with best general, best painted and best sportsman and finally best composition (rarely activated) getting lesser prize support. Now if a TO wants to emphasize people not being jerks and over weights in in the overall champion so beit but it doesn't prevent the hyper competitive jerk from winning best general or best painted or best composition( that would be rare as any jerk is going to have a maxed list).

nkelsch: You keep talking about the importance of sportsmanship, I don't think I've seen anyone in any Sportsmanship Scoring thread disagree with that.

Giving out penalties on the spot sounds like a great idea. I have never heard of it being done, but maybe a card system like soccer could work. That being said, sportsmanship scoring does not do this. It is scoring that takes place after the game done by an individual that cannot be objective about what they are scoring.

sennacherib wrote:There are definitly two camps when it comes to scoring in tournis. the I dont care about anything but winning camp, and the camp that acknowledges that they play 40k for reasons besides just playing a game to win. Its fun and its a hobby.
That said, i think that it sounds like you might have been shorted on the scoring somehow. Did you ask a tourni org. how you ended up so low. Were the points posted wherer you could see them.?

The TO had a sheet of paper with him, but everyone had the right to see it if we asked. I asked, but he just said "your opponent gave you that score", and when I asked my opponents, they just told me it was an average/bad game because....and refuse to change the score.

ArbitorIan wrote:

carmachu wrote:That scoring sucks monkey balls. Seriously sports is more then actual game play? Painting is more then actual play too? Hell nebulious points depending on special rules of the tournment is more points then actual playing the game.

That sucks. And its completely unfair.

Unfair? How is it unfair?

It sounds like these rules are said in advance - nobody is penalised from the outset - everyone has the same chance of winning, it's just that the most important event has changed. It's completely FAIR. You just don't like the idea of a tournament where gameplay isn't the deciding factor.

I could organise a tournament where the you get points for wearing the most hats while playing Warhammer. You start with ten hats, and if you can play six games without them falling off you get points. As long as I tell everyone in advance, and they sign up knowing this, then it's COMPLETELY FAIR.

Knowing something in advance does not make it fair. The outcome of the tournament is completely arbitrary and you have little or no control over.

Example:

I tell you in advance that if you show up at an upcoming tournament that you will start at negative 100 points with a maximum chance to score 50 points.

And to not single anyone out, I tell everyone that on an individual basis.

According to your definition of fair, that would be fair since I let everyone know in advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fearspect wrote:Hey, MikeMcSomething, I wrote an article about how to score sportsmanship. Would appreciate any comments/criticism you may have.

Best sportsmanship article ever.

Covered everything in a decisive manner in the best system ever. Despite what other dakkites might say!

Fearspect wrote:Giving out penalties on the spot sounds like a great idea. I have never heard of it being done, but maybe a card system like soccer could work.

The UK GT has been doing this for a while. They do have some issues with dicks. There are always threads on warhammer.org.uk afterward, if you wanted to do any reading.

Fearspect wrote:That being said, sportsmanship scoring does not do this. It is scoring that takes place after the game done by an individual that cannot be objective about what they are scoring

They don't have to be completely objective. They have to be honest. And most players are.

Reading this thread is kind of funny. Everyone is so worked up scoring for a game that is meant to be a fun freindly hobby. Its deffinitly not fair, balanced, or designed to be an equal test of tactical skill. The codex are FAR from equal. The only fair match would be two players playing a uniform board using the same codex.
I'm in favor of painting and sportsmanship scores, as well as best general and best overall. If you dont want to play in a tourni with this set up...dont. Its not a big deal. I didnt play in ardboys recently because i didnt want to participate in that style or play. Its personal preference. Thats all.

Mannahin wrote:I don't have to conclusively demonstrate causation vs. correlation

Most of your post was largely an ad hominem (for example, "I don't think you have been to alot of tournaments" and "Sportsmanship scores make tournaments better" are obviously two very different things, and I would assume that you're smart enough to know that and maybe just forgot when you typed it out) but I thought I would pull out the relevant bit up there.

You seem to be working under some really strange ideas of causality. At best, you don't seem to completely understand it, and at worst you think trumpeting "I don't care about your silly notions of causality" is some sort of badge of honor for your weak sports system.

If you can't demonstrate causality(read: that a thing actually causes other things!) then you haven't produced anything of value. You would be equally well off debating the proper way to sacrifice goats before a tournament (should we cut it in half? set it on fire?), or how many doves you should release in the opening ceremonies, or what position the planets should be in before you start the event, to ensure that the gamers in attendance will be proper sportsmen.

And your system is not ''immune to chipmunking" or whatever you seem to think. Players have score y - penalty x, where x is how many checkboxes they have gotten (with an exponentially increasing penalty) so two given players of score Y will have their placement in a tournament decided by x (however small it is), and while they can attempt to be superbestfriends with everyone to mitigate that, if they are both moderately nice guys then their placement is up to whether someone gave them even a single check mark. Your system also introduces bias, like every other sports system, as I am now directly incentivized via my tournament placement to be offended by things that I would not normally find to be serious offenses.

Mannahin wrote:This isn't a sociological survey

You're putting forth an assertion about how individuals within a group will behave under a given set of conditions and systems. That is exactly what a sociological problem is - they even have a name for the problem systems like yours create (it is a principal-agent problem), and have done empirical studies on it's effect in tournament systems - there are links to them here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent#Tournaments

I like this quote, because it references three peer-reviewed studies in the same sentence:

A major problem with tournaments is that individuals are rewarded based on how well they do relative to others. Co-workers might become reluctant to help out others and might even sabotage others' effort instead of increasing their own effort (Lazear 1989, Rob and Zemsky 1997). This is supported empirically by Drago and Garvey (1997)

But I'm not even sure that a Nobel prize-winning sociologist could convince you of much of anything if you walk around the world under the assumption that causality just doesn't really have to exist when you don't want it to.

I doubt any of those Nobel prize-winning sociologists played in a bunch of GTs, so how can their opinion be trusted?

Fearspect, my main point was that "this is how it's always been" (or has been for a long time). I also pointed out that it makes sense to listen to people who attend lots of tournaments about how it is "on the ground".

You're dancing around those points. The question is to you: why do you want to change it? You bring up football, there are penalties for poor sportsmanship. In fact, there are in almost every sport. And getting a low sportsmanship score can be just that- a penalty.

If you were going to make a change to any competition, wouldn't it make sense to ask those most experienced? I find that people blow these things way out or proportion "in theory", when in practice it's really no big deal as long as you don't act like a douche.

And although I'm responding to it, I think sports analogies are a bit off base for our game of toy soldiers . Even if you view them that way, you need to support why you want to get rid of a part of scoring that has:

1) Been a part of warhammer tournaments for a long time
2) Has widespread support, along with detractors

Given that you obviously don't support it, what would you do instead? Imho, simply adjusting the percentages and/or phrasing of sportsmanship scores can move it along the scale in either direction to people's satisfaction. Do you really think things would be better if you got rid of it altogether?

Honestly, if I ran into the shenanigans common at 'Ard Boyz at "normal" warhammer tournaments, I wouldn't be going to them. Sportsmanship scores go a long way towards discouraging people from gaming the system, taking advantage of loopholes, and breaking a game that is so prone to being broken.

As said many times, I would remove sportsmanship scoring. I would remove any scoring that is controlled by any fellow competitors. Issues that require a judge's/TO's ruling will get it.

You can point to any system of penalties in sports, but it is not the other team that gets to decide what is a penalty and how much of a deduction is taken. Don't you see the obvious flaws in that? And fine, if you don't want to go the sports route, there are no other games that are scored this way either, where your opponent gets to change your score an arbitrary amount at the end of the game for perceived slights.

I played two rounds of 'Ard Boyz last year, and plan on doing the same this year. I did not run into any of the 'common shenanigans'. Your definition of "normal" is not even that substantial, far more are running no sports scoring than those that are. Maybe you meant "old" warhammer tournaments? None of the current GW tournaments include it.

It would be just as fair to let people score their own sportsmanship after a game.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

A major problem with tournaments is that individuals are rewarded based on how well they do relative to others. Co-workers might become reluctant to help out others and might even sabotage others' effort instead of increasing their own effort (Lazear 1989, Rob and Zemsky 1997). This is supported empirically by Drago and Garvey (1997)

But I'm not even sure that a Nobel prize-winning sociologist could convince you of much of anything if you walk around the world under the assumption that causality just doesn't really have to exist when you don't want it to.

So then that means without sportsmanship people are then predisposed to cheating MORE as there is no metric in place to prevent them from doing so or penalizing them for moving 7", arguing advantages interpretation of rules, scooping dice casually for one or two added dice per roll and other subtle cheating techniques that do happen in games. At least in a sportsmanship scenario, if someone is frequently doing such a thing you can mark them down afterwards... But without it, you basically have told people 'cheat as much as you can until you get caught and then only cheat enough to not get thrown out.'

Because if you believe your article, all people are going to cheat and be unethical if given the chance right?

Cheaters will cheat either way... but with sportsmanship scores, they don't get to take home any swag and there is incentive not to cheat. You can't say 'we don't need them because we are all adults who should behave ourselves' and then say 'adults don't behave themselves and chimpunk people out of a deep sociological need to cheat for personal benefit.' They are mutually exclusive arguments.

If a severe majority of people are honest and don't cheat, then there is nothing wrong with sportsmanship scores because the TO can single out the chipmunk scores especially on head tables where the scores actually matter.

If a severe majority of the people DO cheat and makes sportsmanship scores unfair, then without sportsmanship scores, cheating is going to run rampant through the event and we would need a judge for every table to police the game.

Since we know we all seem to be able to play warhammer 1on1 and police ourselves and keep games good... I don't buy this concept of rampant chipmunking exists or is even a problem or hurts anyone or events.

I do feel people play 'different' without sportsmanship... not worse, just different. There is more of an air of seriousness which to many people is a tense and unfun environment. And woe be to you if you are not an Internet troll who knows your rules inside and out, prepare to be schooooooled and often insulted. It happens and ruins events. Vets know when they need to mind their manners and when they can let it all out without it hurting them and they do.

Edit: I find 'ardboyz is never as fun as other events and very much is a crapshoot. It is partially because the hot mess of horrible models often on the tables but I do find people who are actively looking to abuse the rules and the lack of a consistent FAQ means it is more arguments than what I expect at regular events and people have no reason to ever submit or accept a 4+ roll off. It isn't widespread, most people are fine but I have had two incidents at 'ard boyz where the game took a dump and one of them was someone using a specific rule interpretation and refusing to accept anything but GW FAQs for discussion and when the judge enforced a 'ruling' the rest of the game was basically him grousing about how dumb the judge was and how he can't win and this game is a waste of his time. Would this player have performed the same way in a sportsmanship-scored event? Maybe. Would he have Chipmunked me? Maybe. But it was a terrible game but not a threshold to warrant removal from the tourney. He would have deserved a poor score for his unwillingness to simply 4+ roll off, accept it was an ambiguous rule with no clear GW resolution and bitching non-stop about how the judge ruined him and destroyed the game because he didn't get his way. If sportsmanship scores are a magic barrier keeping him out of the event, even better! 'ard boyz is not a shining example of a well-run event with good players acting like adults, especially first round games where people quit after game 1 so they can drive to a different location 'tomorrow' for a better chance of winning or drive to multiple locations to find the place with the weakest competition. Neither of those are my idea of 'good sportsmanship'.

@Ritides

Since when is "well, that's how it's always been" a reasonable argument in support of anything? Shouldn't the burden of support be on those who insist that a sportsmanship system is necessary in the first place, in addition to proving that said system is effective at what it sets out to accomplish?

nkelsch wrote:Because if you believe your article, all people are going to cheat and be unethical if given the chance right?

It is obvious that you did not read the article. Also, hyperbole isn't helpful.

MikeMcSomething wrote:
You're putting forth an assertion about how individuals within a group will behave under a given set of conditions and systems. That is exactly what a sociological problem is - they even have a name for the problem systems like yours create (it is a principal-agent problem), and have done empirical studies on it's effect in tournament systems - there are links to them here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent#Tournaments

I like this quote, because it references three peer-reviewed studies in the same sentence:

A major problem with tournaments is that individuals are rewarded based on how well they do relative to others. Co-workers might become reluctant to help out others and might even sabotage others' effort instead of increasing their own effort (Lazear 1989, Rob and Zemsky 1997). This is supported empirically by Drago and Garvey (1997)

That article/quote was referencing employee competition---where an arbitrary judge (the boss) determines who wins---based off fractional difference between one employee and the next. There is no motivation to cooperate with your employees, else you may elevate them above you in the hierarchy (and they don't judge you anyways). If anything, that is the opposite of an opponent judged system.

When your opponent plays you----during the game there are a number of situations that arise that demand cooperation. Measuring movement for example, is a non-exact method of playing---and unless you walk over to their side of the table (Which I hear the Swedes do)----and watch them move each of their models---you are accepting a degree of cooperation. Determining if a dice is cocked for re-roll, questionable line of sight, etc etc----they are all degrees of cooperation (and perhaps retaliation). At the end of the game, you are essentially conducting a last 'cooperative' step of the game in judging.

Given that----games of 40k are essentially a running game of Tit for Tat---which has been shown by computer models (and observation) to be the most successful style of play in a game where an opponent has the ability to retaliate (Or chipmunk) you. I would also state---in my experience----Tit for Tat is precisely how 40k games against strangers is played. Questionable LOS that goes one way for an opponent---later on that same opponent may be given leeway in a questionable LOS moment----and if he's not---later on he will certainly retaliate when it's his opponents true LOS moment. 40k is one big social Tit for Tat (Especially considering how loose the rules/true LOS can be).


The only way this would not be true---is if the tournament consisted of 51%+ TFGS. Then, yes it would be beneficial to consistently defect----and Ard Boyz is a yearly thing (I kid, I kid!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

I look at the size of the sportsmanship score to be a measure of the maturity of the local gamers. If as a T-organizer, I know that the vast majority of people who play are well behaved and act like adults, they I may reduce to sportsmanship aspect to a simple system (bad, normal, great) where it doesn't go into determing the final victor, but the highest sportsmanship score gets some sort of special recognition and prize.

If, as the TO... I know the gamers in my club are a bunch of whiny d-bags who shouldn't be let out of the house without their mothers, I will greatly increase the relative meaningfulness of the sportsmanship score in order to compel participants to behave themselves (if they want to be competitive).

By the same token, if I want to encourage the hobby aspects of the game (building and painting), I will increase the relative importance of the painting score in relation to the whole.

So the way your TO scores the tournament is a reflection of his or her priorities, and/or a reflection on the character of the likely participants in the event.

nkelsch wrote:Cheaters will cheat either way... but with sportsmanship scores, they don't get to take home any swag and there is incentive not to cheat. You can't say 'we don't need them because we are all adults who should behave ourselves' and then say 'adults don't behave themselves and chimpunk people out of a deep sociological need to cheat for personal benefit.' They are mutually exclusive arguments.

Every player-awarded sportsmanship scoring system I've ever seen supports cheaters, because if you call someone out on rules then they can say you're being a rules lawyer and tank your sportsmanship score, thus sinking your chance in the tournament. The system works as an extreme incentive to ignore cheating unless it's really over the top.

Fearspect wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Because if you believe your article, all people are going to cheat and be unethical if given the chance right?

It is obvious that you did not read the article. Also, hyperbole isn't helpful.

But chipmunking is cheating and unethical... not helping a co-worker in a competitive work environment is not necessarily unethical... So the only way it applies is if you feel they are the same action and that everyone is actively trying to be unethical. People don't cheat because most people simply don't feel the need to. Not correcting a mistake that gives me an advantage is different from chipmunking but the idea is that any advantage that a person can get they will supposedly take it because that is how we are, ethical or not.

I think there are different things that are confused for sportsmanship, and that we suffer from a limited vocabulary that has been handed to us from years of tournaments using the same words but meaning different things.

I've seen at least all of the following:

1) Sportsmanship means being prepared. Showing up on time, bathing before the game, and bringing your own dice and tape measure.

2) Sportsmanship means not cheating. Don't fudge movement, don't use loaded dice, don't model for advantage, don't slowplay.

3) Sportsmanship means ensuring your opponent enjoys the two hours you're spending with them. Don't gloat when you're winning, don't sulk when you're losing, don't throw your dead models, or tip over the table in disgust. Shake hands after the game, win or lose.

4) Sportsmanship means holding back. Don't bring the most powerful units (and certainly not multiples of them). Don't use tactics that are too powerful/too easy to abuse.


As far as I'm concerned, being pprepared should be mandatory. There's no scoring to be had there. Likewise, not cheating should be implied. This isn't an issue that a couple of points solves, cheating should be addressed with immediate disqualification.

Aspect three is where things start to get fuzzy, in my opinion. Cultural shifts change this. Taunting and trash-talking are seen as common, almost required elements by some players, while others find such antics silly at best, and insulting at worst. You see these differences showing up in sports. Ochocinco has a lot of younger fans, but I think he's obnoxious. I prefer the approach where you hand the ball to the ref and act like you've been there before. And we're all human, it's easy to smile when winning, but at what point are you smiling too much when facing an opponent whose clearly having a bad day? Does this need a score?

That leaves part four. From what I've been told, this is why sportsmanship scores were instituted in the first place, and it's a problem that we're constantly dealing with. It's the flip side to comp systems. Some army books simply have better options than others. Some people fall in the camp that says the game progresses best when people use the best stuff. I don't - my belief is that we get a better game if there is more variety in what can be played. But it's a hard line to draw, and comp systems don't change the idea that something can be the best, they only change what happens to be the best when that extra system is applied.

Is is sporting to spam units that are widely considered underpriced or overachieving, or is it simply smart to do so? Is it sporting to get a win by deploying Warp Quakes in such a way that your daemon opponent is unable to play the game, or do you deserve that win by being smart enough to deploy that way (or lucky enough to have drawn that opponent)? Is it more sporting to allow your opponent to land models and risk losing or to take the easy win?

Redbeard wrote:
I think there are different things that are confused for sportsmanship, and that we suffer from a limited vocabulary that has been handed to us from years of tournaments using the same words but meaning different things.

I've seen at least all of the following:

1) Sportsmanship means being prepared. Showing up on time, bathing before the game, and bringing your own dice and tape measure.

2) Sportsmanship means not cheating. Don't fudge movement, don't use loaded dice, don't model for advantage, don't slowplay.

3) Sportsmanship means ensuring your opponent enjoys the two hours you're spending with them. Don't gloat when you're winning, don't sulk when you're losing, don't throw your dead models, or tip over the table in disgust. Shake hands after the game, win or lose.

4) Sportsmanship means holding back. Don't bring the most powerful units (and certainly not multiples of them). Don't use tactics that are too powerful/too easy to abuse.

1) Should be scored, while it may not be sportsmanship, it is still a valid thing to be scored. everyone SHOULD be prepared but they aren't... so you should be penalized in your post-game scoring for not being prepared.

2) The issue is not all cheating warrants being thrown out. Not all cheating can be caught without a 3rd party proctor for every game. While sloppy play and maliciously advantageous play both have the same result, one is cheating and the other may not be. While top tables where results 'matter' are often watched, this leaves nothing but players to police themselves for the lower-level cheating. If someone spends all day 7" assaults, then he should have a lower sportsmanship score.

3) I do think people should be respectful and on good behavior and it sucks that you need to say that. I would say the main offenders are people who gloat. People who insult your tactics or try to tell you how you should play. People who mentally divest themselves of the game and basically 'give up'. People who are waaaaaaay off-task who don't give you or the game their attention. People who are vulgar or curse too much. Those are all sportsmanship things to me.

Now for part 4... there is a difference between playing to break the game wide open and playing with a hard or spammy list. One is a comp issue and the other is an issue which a well-run event should have sorted out with good FAQs. I do believe a good sportsmanship system defines the difference between 1,2,3 and 4 and people respect it. If you are going to try to use mutual cover saves or kroot infiltrate armies off the board when the event clearly has said the FAQ says the rules will not work that way then that is sportsmanship. If you are just taking a leafblower and shooting people off the table in turn 1, that would be handled by comps cores if any... I have to say some of my best games have been when a good player nuked my butt off the table. Not all players instantly say 'oh you beat me... you are a bad sport!'

I find the biggest issues I see are the 'sloppy play' and rude opponents with bad social skills. Both of those tighten up when people mentally are forced to 'think' about it via scores. This is like how people 'think' about playing faster when you announce the time to them. If they don't have to be impacted, they either naturally degrade into sloppy play/rudeness or really go to push the envelope of how much they can get away with before they get called out by a judge.

nkelsch wrote:I do feel people play 'different' without sportsmanship... not worse, just different. There is more of an air of seriousness which to many people is a tense and unfun environment.

And that is the problem with Sports scoring. That playing in a professional/serious manner is considered to be bad sportsmanship. That's typically why I'll score the lowest sports score of any tourney I go to.

Combine this with the effect that Redbeard is talking about where winning by a wide margin is also considered bad sportsmanship. And you have the reason why Sports scoring generally fails in a tourney in my opinion.

Maybe preparedness should be scored, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with sportsmanship, going by a dictionary definition:

"a person who exhibits qualities highly regarded in sport, such as fairness, generosity, observance of the rules, and good humour when losing"

There's nothing there about owning your own tape measure, and in fact, allowing your opponent to borrow your tape measure would demonstrate your generosity


I disagree with the idea that all cheating should not be disqualified. I understand the practical ramifications of monitoring every game, but allowing the cheaters to get away with things encourages them to continue. Sure, players can police themselves, but they can also call a judge over. If a tournament or venue gets a reputation as a place where regulars cheat and get away with it, it quickly loses customers. It is in the best interest of the venue and/or organizer to make it obvious that cheating is not permitted or welcome. If it's someone who is being sloppy, they can be taught, and they will learn. If it is someone who is cheating, they'll continue as long as they perceive it provides them with some sort of benefit. That's what needs to be discouraged.

Redbeard wrote:Maybe preparedness should be scored, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with sportsmanship, going by a dictionary definition:

"a person who exhibits qualities highly regarded in sport, such as fairness, generosity, observance of the rules, and good humour when losing"

There's nothing there about owning your own tape measure, and in fact, allowing your opponent to borrow your tape measure would demonstrate your generosity

I think it should be part of a post-game checklist which is usually where the game results and sportsmanship is done.

I disagree with the idea that all cheating should not be disqualified. I understand the practical ramifications of monitoring every game, but allowing the cheaters to get away with things encourages them to continue. Sure, players can police themselves, but they can also call a judge over. If a tournament or venue gets a reputation as a place where regulars cheat and get away with it, it quickly loses customers. It is in the best interest of the venue and/or organizer to make it obvious that cheating is not permitted or welcome. If it's someone who is being sloppy, they can be taught, and they will learn. If it is someone who is cheating, they'll continue as long as they perceive it provides them with some sort of benefit. That's what needs to be discouraged.

How can I prove you are moving farther than the allocated movement without video evidence of every move? How many times do I need to point it out before it becomes cheating and not just a mistake? How many times does a judge have to see it before the person is removed?

How can I prove someone who is doing sloppy dice management is cheating? How many times can someone 'pick up successes' without letting me inspect them and I explicitly point it out to them before it becomes cheating? How many times should a judge warn them before being thrown out?

Sloppy play is not always cheating but it is always poor sportsmanship. I am unsure how you handle sloppy play VS cheating but having 'nothing' in place doesn't solve it. There is a reason almost every top-table game at every major tourney is now being videotaped for the Internet to watch and people to piss and moan about someone being a cheater... It happens a lot but doesn't become an issue until it is the top table. I think if people are on notice about sloppy play or dice shenanigans, they clean up their act. If there was a system which handled this better and discourages it, I am all ears... because people who cheat with sloppy play usually do horribly in sports scores which usually means it is working as intended.

nkelsch wrote:
1) Should be scored, while it may not be sportsmanship, it is still a valid thing to be scored. everyone SHOULD be prepared but they aren't... so you should be penalized in your post-game scoring for not being prepared.

Or simply not allowed to be let into the tournament. But I agree, this should not be scored under sportsmanship. But then again, I don't believe in sportsmanship scores.

nkelsch wrote:
2) The issue is not all cheating warrants being thrown out. Not all cheating can be caught without a 3rd party proctor for every game. While sloppy play and maliciously advantageous play both have the same result, one is cheating and the other may not be. While top tables where results 'matter' are often watched, this leaves nothing but players to police themselves for the lower-level cheating. If someone spends all day 7" assaults, then he should have a lower sportsmanship score.

The problem is, this is left up to an individual that, even though his best intentions are not biased, they can't be viewed as anything BUT biased. When someone is involved in the game, there is no way to get around this. Period. Hence the major flaw in sportsmanship scores.

nkelsch wrote:
3) I do think people should be respectful and on good behavior and it sucks that you need to say that. I would say the main offenders are people who gloat. People who insult your tactics or try to tell you how you should play. People who mentally divest themselves of the game and basically 'give up'. People who are waaaaaaay off-task who don't give you or the game their attention. People who are vulgar or curse too much. Those are all sportsmanship things to me.

You cannot and will not be able to regulate this 'social behavior', ever.

nkelsch wrote:
Now for part 4... there is a difference between playing to break the game wide open and playing with a hard or spammy list. One is a comp issue and the other is an issue which a well-run event should have sorted out with good FAQs. I do believe a good sportsmanship system defines the difference between 1,2,3 and 4 and people respect it. If you are going to try to use mutual cover saves or kroot infiltrate armies off the board when the event clearly has said the FAQ says the rules will not work that way then that is sportsmanship. If you are just taking a leafblower and shooting people off the table in turn 1, that would be handled by comps cores if any... I have to say some of my best games have been when a good player nuked my butt off the table. Not all players instantly say 'oh you beat me... you are a bad sport!'

Just a couple of points here. Rules should have nothing to do with sportsmanship scores. 'Comp' quite often plays a role in sportsmanship scores because of the view point by the opponent that you are a WAAC type player and they can and often do get pre-disposed that you will be a jerk/rules lawyer/cheater before the game even starts.

nkelsch wrote:
I find the biggest issues I see are the 'sloppy play' and rude opponents with bad social skills. Both of those tighten up when people mentally are forced to 'think' about it via scores. This is like how people 'think' about playing faster when you announce the time to them. If they don't have to be impacted, they either naturally degrade into sloppy play/rudeness or really go to push the envelope of how much they can get away with before they get called out by a judge.

In your opinion, of course.

skyth wrote:And that is the problem with Sports scoring. That playing in a professional/serious manner is considered to be bad sportsmanship. That's typically why I'll score the lowest sports score of any tourney I go to.

Combine this with the effect that Redbeard is talking about where winning by a wide margin is also considered bad sportsmanship. And you have the reason why Sports scoring generally fails in a tourney in my opinion.

Obviously, some people could be responding to being beaten just by considering the winner to be a bad sport.

But, like nkelsch, some of the games where I've had a fantastic time were massacres. Others, where I've won big or it's been close, have been miserable.

I'll take this past 'Ard Boyz for an example. I again agree with nkelsch that the atmosphere at an event without sportsmanship scoring seems different. I've had good times in the past. Even this weekend, I had a game where I was tabled except for my general, and it was a blast. Heck, I even got to cast Infernal Gateway on my opponent's unit with the bloody choppa, and take it off the table (thus scoring my only 2 battle points for the game) in the final turn.

On the other hand, my last game was miserable. My opponent did things I've never had someone do in a sports-scored tournament. Rushing my turn while taking time on his own. Repeatedly moving my units to speed up my turn, then holding me to their exact position. Arguing multiple rules to keep me from doing certain things (i.e., once one was resolved allowing me to do the action, he would begin arguing another to the same effect). Refusing to 4+ a ruling that all the participants were split on (and the TO was not a fantasy player and wasn't able to give a ruling on).

In the end, I looked it up, and it turns out I agree with his take on the ruling. But refusing to 4+ it? In a normal tourney, the judge could make a ruling. But I've never had someone repeatedly refuse to 4+ a ruling that is in dispute before.

Sportsmanship takes care of that.

This same opponent then proceeded to complain about sportsmanship in tournaments. Get my point?

The crazy thing is, he was a friendly guy and I really enjoyed talking to him. But once we got into the second half of our game, all of that went out the window... and I found myself really, really wishing I was in a sportsmanship-scored tournament (and also that I had a halfway decent rules judge to call over...).

I think sportsmanship is a great thing, and this is from someone who used to think that sports was a stupid idea.

We all play the game to have fun, and if someone detracts from that in any way I contemplate the bad game/sports hit. Granted this is by my opponents BEHAVIOR only, if my dice betray me I take it up with them (and a lighter/hammer).

At the end of a game I ask myself "Self, would you play that person again". If the answer is a feth no that guy was a dick, they get a bad game vote.

I play Daemons of Chaos in Fantasy, the last GT I went to I got second in sportsmanship. That right there can tell you that sports works. Just be a nice guy, dont gloat/flaunt your success, even when you crush your opponent. Talk to them, and most importantly PLAY TO HAVE FUN. If you play just to win, and winning is all that matters, I honestly wouldnt want to play you.

RiTides wrote:In the end, I looked it up, and it turns out I agree with his take on the ruling. But refusing to 4+ it? In a normal tourney, the judge could make a ruling. But I've never had someone repeatedly refuse to 4+ a ruling that is in dispute before.

Sportsmanship takes care of that.

You don't get it. This is a prime example of why sportsmanship doesn't work and you don't see it.

You were in the wrong. He was in the right. It's your sportsmanship score that should have been tanked by him for this. I am not saying he was a good sport based on your story, but you act like you had nothing to do with this?!?!?

RiTides wrote:This same opponent then proceeded to complain about sportsmanship in tournaments. Get my point?

And you still don't get the point. You would have dinged his sportsmanship score for this even though 'in the end' you agree with his take on the ruling.

RiTides wrote:The crazy thing is, he was a friendly guy and I really enjoyed talking to him. But once we got into the second half of our game, all of that went out the window... and I found myself really, really wishing I was in a sportsmanship-scored tournament (and also that I had a halfway decent rules judge to call over...).

The only part of this post that I can agree with is a judge that knew what they were doing. That alone would have solved most of your problems and points again to the biggest flaw in the tournaments not being in sportsmanship scores but in the judges themselves.

imweasel wrote:You were in the wrong. He was in the right. It's your sportsmanship score that should have been tanked by him for this. I am not saying he was a good sport based on your story, but you act like you had nothing to do with this?!?!?

A 4+ roll off is in the rules... and many rules have no clear definitive answer and if the TO was unwilling to make a call and the room consensus did not have a clear majority than regardless then the *ONLY* valid interpretation is a 4+ roll off even if the interpretation is wrong.

You have a FAQ? fine
You have a TO make a ruling? fine
You have a strong consensus from the room? (which is easy to get in an event usually) fine

If you can't get *ANY* of that then you 4+. Refusing to compromise when 4+ is built into the core rulebook as a rule is being a poor sport.

Personally I know lots of rules which I am fully versed on both interpretations and see how they are both valid (or were before the FAQ came out) and if you can't get a clear agreement, you need to 4+ off even if you know in your heart and the internetz you are right. That is part of being a good sport is being able to accept someone legitimately disagrees with you and accept the reuslt of a roll-off.

Now if you were a good sport, you would accept the roll off and then discuss rules later. I have totally done this too where I was able to show the opposing argument and change minds, but that has no place within a game. It has place as a post-game discussion or maybe exchanging emails or whatever.

This is exactly what I am talking about, people who argue a point to death and *NEVER* compromise because they have no negative impact against them for forever arguing. And they are unable to accept there may be two valid interpretations to a rule and the rules are not as clear as you think they are. I lived through the deffrolla warz as an ork player as well as the boarding plank skirmishes... So I totally know how there can be no real answer to a disagreement until the FAQ came along.

If you combined refusing to accept a dice off EVEN WHEN the TO told them to combined with the measurement and pushiness described, I would say the other player was indeed a poor sport. It is possible to disagree and discuss a rule without being a poor sport. When you refuse to accept a roll off when a judge or consensus wouldn't give an answer that both players could accept you have lost everything even if you were 'technically' correct.

ShivanAngel wrote:I think sportsmanship is a great thing, and this is from someone who used to think that sports was a stupid idea.

We all play the game to have fun, and if someone detracts from that in any way I contemplate the bad game/sports hit. Granted this is by my opponents BEHAVIOR only, if my dice betray me I take it up with them (and a lighter/hammer).

At the end of a game I ask myself "Self, would you play that person again". If the answer is a feth no that guy was a dick, they get a bad game vote.

I play Daemons of Chaos in Fantasy, the last GT I went to I got second in sportsmanship. That right there can tell you that sports works. Just be a nice guy, dont gloat/flaunt your success, even when you crush your opponent. Talk to them, and most importantly PLAY TO HAVE FUN. If you play just to win, and winning is all that matters, I honestly wouldnt want to play you.

Another problem with sports scoring...The whole mentality of 'If I didn't have fun, it's automatically the other person's fault'.

imweasel wrote:You don't get it. This is a prime example of why sportsmanship doesn't work and you don't see it.

You were in the wrong. He was in the right. It's your sportsmanship score that should have been tanked by him for this. I am not saying he was a good sport based on your story, but you act like you had nothing to do with this?!?!?

Wrong. When there's a rules dispute, as there so often is with GW games, you 4+ it or call a judge over. Since there wasn't a "judge" available, you 4+ it.

My saying that, on a 50/50 coin toss ruling, that I later on come to the other side of the 50/50 coin, doesn't mean my opponent was being a "good sport".

If you have a disagreement, you either:

A) Talk it out and come to an agreement
B) If you can't come to an agreement, but want to move on, 4+ it
C) Call a judge over

If you're not doing one of those things, and just insisting on your way, you're being a poor sport and by all means I would ding you on it- regardless of what I later decide my personal interpretation of the unclear rule will be from now on.

The part of being a "good sport" is how you play the game, resolve your rules disagreements, and the like. If you don't do those things reasonably, then by all means you will get a low sports score.

ShivanAngel, if you're rocking daemons in fantasy and getting 2nd in sports, you must be a blast to play . That army eats my breakfast no matter what I take against it. But, again, if the opponent is cool, I'm not going to mind- just rue the day that that book was written!

So it isn't poor sportsmanship to always ask for a 4+ if a rule benefits your opponent with one interpretation and doesn't hurt you either way?

skyth wrote:Combine this with the effect that Redbeard is talking about where winning by a wide margin is also considered bad sportsmanship. And you have the reason why Sports scoring generally fails in a tourney in my opinion.

Excuse me. I said no such thing. Winning by a wide margin is not automatically poor sportsmanship. Not allowing your opponent to actually engage in a game with you is poor sportsmanship.

One of the reasons that sportsmanship scores were originally introduced was, if I recall correctly, back when GW tournaments were first starting up, one of the victory conditions was to get to the opponent's deployment zones. Some races, eldar, I believe, had vehicles that could do this in one move. So, people would literally slow-play the entire time, moving their ships to the other player's deployment zone and netting a win.

There is no rule in the book that prohibits that behaviour. There are no time limits for turns in 40k. We, as a community, have decided that deliberately slow-playing your opponent should be considered cheating, but it's not in the rules.

It is horribly against the spirit of the game, legal or not. A game is a social contract between two people. If one person is locked out of the game, it fails. Now, there are clearly different levels of what constitutes being locked out of a game. Some people believe that alpha-strike lists are, by their nature, not very sporting. Do you really want what is supposed to be a game between two people to be reduced to the luck of the die in rolling for first turn? Some people think that this is part of the game as designed.

Different people go to tournaments for different reasons. Some go to play games with strangers, others go to crush heads and win prizes. Neither are wrong, and it's only where the two situations overlap where you really encounter issues.

Personally, I think having a sportsmanship score, or not, should be used to set expectations for an event. I think events that are designed to prove who the best player of toy soldiers is should not have sportsmanship scores. I don't think they should have painting scores either. I think that such events should be clearly advertised as gaming events only, and that those who choose to participate in them should do so with that in mind.

I also think that more social tournaments - casually competitive events - should have sportsmanship scores that are not just a checklist of good manners, but that actually reflect whether your opponent was there to scratch a notch in his armycase, or whether he actually wanted to engage in a game with you. This expectation should also be set, and those players who just want to bash heads would do well to temper their lists and their approach to this other perspective. Because, in a way, that's what sportsmanship is really about. You can still try to win on the tabletop, without needing to resort to spamming the most broken units in the game...

skyth wrote:So it isn't poor sportsmanship to always ask for a 4+...

Yes, no matter what the case.

If you're asking for a 4+ more than a few times a game, you probably deserved to be dinged on sports score, too. It's just abusing it in the opposite fashion.

Redbeard wrote:

skyth wrote:Combine this with the effect that Redbeard is talking about where winning by a wide margin is also considered bad sportsmanship. And you have the reason why Sports scoring generally fails in a tourney in my opinion.

Excuse me. I said no such thing. Winning by a wide margin is not automatically poor sportsmanship. Not allowing your opponent to actually engage in a game with you is poor sportsmanship (...) If one person is locked out of the game, it fails. Now, there are clearly different levels of what constitutes being locked out of a game. Some people believe that alpha-strike lists are, by their nature, not very sporting. Do you really want what is supposed to be a game between two people to be reduced to the luck of the die in rolling for first turn? Some people think that this is part of the game as designed.

Different people go to tournaments for different reasons. Some go to play games with strangers, others go to crush heads and win prizes. Neither are wrong, and it's only where the two situations overlap where you really encounter issues.

And there you go. Illustrating the problems with Sports scoring. If the expectations don't match, you have an unfun game and it's automatically the other person who is the bad sport and at fault. I wasn't trying to say that you specifically thought winning by a wide margin is bad sportsmanship, but you seem to agree that there are people who do.

skyth wrote:
And there you go. Illustrating the problems with Sports scoring. If the expectations don't match, you have an unfun game and it's automatically the other person who is the bad sport and at fault. I wasn't trying to say that you specifically thought winning by a wide margin is bad sportsmanship, but you seem to agree that there are people who do.

So let's declare crushing heads no matter what the cost and not expecting people to be socially respectful the only correct way to play at a tourney and remove all other events from the planet. That solves everything right? Because some people are cheaters and unable to give an ethical sportsmanships core, no one anywhere should ever be punished for their behavior.

This is getting to be a circular argument... one person somewhere supposedly chipmunks so no scores ever should be the standard...

nkelsch wrote:

skyth wrote:
And there you go. Illustrating the problems with Sports scoring. If the expectations don't match, you have an unfun game and it's automatically the other person who is the bad sport and at fault. I wasn't trying to say that you specifically thought winning by a wide margin is bad sportsmanship, but you seem to agree that there are people who do.

So let's declare crushing heads no matter what the cost and not expecting people to be socially respectful the only correct way to play at a tourney and remove all other events from the planet. That solves everything right? Because some people are cheaters and unable to give an ethical sportsmanships core, no one anywhere should ever be punished for their behavior.

This is getting to be a circular argument... one person somewhere supposedly chipmunks so no scores ever should be the standard...

Nice Strawman. I never claimed that. The problem is is that there is NO correct way to play at a tourney, but some people are under the impression that there is and that when these different expectations meet, name calling results and it's automatically the other person's fault that this wasn't a 'fun' game. This is an inherent problem with scoring sportsmanship.

skyth wrote:The problem is is that there is NO correct way to play at a tourney

While I agree with your larger point in the post above about the inherent problem of sportsmanship scoring, I have a problem with this part. No correct way to play?

Certainly, there are norms that can and should be expected in any environment.

I sometimes get frustrated by the fact that I play with several different circles of gamers, all of whom have different expectations of what is normal, so I get where you're coming from. But there are certain standards that you can expect anywhere. And it's in crossing those, imho, that sportsmanship scoring becomes an important deterrent.

nkelsch wrote:

skyth wrote:
And there you go. Illustrating the problems with Sports scoring. If the expectations don't match, you have an unfun game and it's automatically the other person who is the bad sport and at fault. I wasn't trying to say that you specifically thought winning by a wide margin is bad sportsmanship, but you seem to agree that there are people who do.

So let's declare crushing heads no matter what the cost and not expecting people to be socially respectful the only correct way to play at a tourney and remove all other events from the planet. That solves everything right? Because some people are cheaters and unable to give an ethical sportsmanships core, no one anywhere should ever be punished for their behavior.

This is getting to be a circular argument... one person somewhere supposedly chipmunks so no scores ever should be the standard...

It's only circular in your head, because you believe that sportsmanship scoring is the only way people will be punished for bad behaviour. All anyone here has said is that they cannot see any reason why sportsmanship scoring, with it's inherent flaws, actually encourages good sportsmanship. Your reply every time has been to go on for three or four paragraphs about how important sportsmanship is, then throw in a quick sentence along the line of:

...and that's why we need sportsmanship scoring.

Well, you certainly can't argue that it punishes bad sportsmanship... right?

Hard to prove the opposite side (that it encourages good), as you would need to know what they'd do in the other case which doesn't get played out in the tournament.

But it's defniitely a deterrent... and that can go a long way towards encouraging good sportsmanship, whether or not this can actually be proven out (I'm not sure how you could).

The problem arises is that when you are given the opportunity to judge someone else's sportsmanship, things that are your fault...Such as you not having fun because your opponent plays in a serious/professional manner or having the perfect counter to your army...cause you to punish the other person by docking their sports score.

Sports score isn't used to actually judge sportsmanship (Such as playing by the rules, not gloating, etc) but to judge if they play under the same expectations as me which has nothing to do with sportsmanship.

But who else can judge, besides the opponent? They're the only one engaged enough in the game to know. A player would just have to not "act out" while a judge was passing if it were not player-based.

Personally, my favorite system is the one where you rank your opponents- if it's 4 games, you rank them 1 through 4. If someone gets four "4's" from their opponents, it's pretty obvious they're not that much fun to play.

The more subjective "score them on a sliding scale / 0-10" can lead to people tanking others... but a good TO can check up on that and see if there's a problem.

Overall I just think the lowballing of sports scores due to getting beat just isn't that common. I've heard much more of the opposite (max every opponent hoping they'll do the same). But ranking your opponents keeps this from happening, too, and actually puts them in order of your preference.

The way I've approached it, and I think most people do, is just by who I enjoyed playing the most... not who beat me or didn't. I don't think most people automatically score someone low just for losing to them. If they're prone to that, it's entirely likely they're getting low scores themselves

Again, the problem is that Sports scoring isn't judging actual sportsmanship. It's judging the fun in the game and that fun can be more hampered by yourself than your opponent.

That is a good point... although for me, the two have pretty much always gone hand in hand. I.e., if my opponent is a good sport, I'm having fun regardless of almost anything else game-wise.

Fearspect wrote:

nkelsch wrote:So let's declare crushing heads no matter what the cost and not expecting people to be socially respectful the only correct way to play at a tourney and remove all other events from the planet. That solves everything right? Because some people are cheaters and unable to give an ethical sportsmanships core, no one anywhere should ever be punished for their behavior.

This is getting to be a circular argument... one person somewhere supposedly chipmunks so no scores ever should be the standard...

It's only circular in your head, because you believe that sportsmanship scoring is the only way people will be punished for bad behaviour. All anyone here has said is that they cannot see any reason why sportsmanship scoring, with it's inherent flaws, actually encourages good sportsmanship. Your reply every time has been to go on for three or four paragraphs about how important sportsmanship is, then throw in a quick sentence along the line of:

...and that's why we need sportsmanship scoring.

Nkelsch, myself and AgeofEgos put forward perfectly straightforward and valid explanations of why and how Sportsmanship is important and why it works more often than not earlier in the thread. I even went to the trouble of writing an article.

The counter-arguments mostly don't address the actual points we've put forward; they largely criticize unspecified other systems which aren't what we're talking about. The repeated refrain about how Sports scoring hurts events because it allows cheaters to chipmunk, for example. My system specifically compensates for (or eliminates, if you set it to 0 penalty for one downcheck) chipmunkers, and largely or completely eliminates their ability to impact results. But that goes ignored in the rush to reiterate an old talking point.

MikeMcSomething wants statistical proof of causation, and tries to make a comparison with a survey of a non-similar sociological situation. When the truth is (as was ably explained by other posters) that the comparison is unrelated and invalid. And we really don't need statistical proof. Any given TO just needs sufficient evidence to justify to themselves (and their players) the inclusion of any given scoring metric. While detailed player surveys haven't been done, the existing evidence comparing behavior at non-sports-scored events like Ard Boyz with that at only judge-scored like the UKGT, and player-scored like Adepticon, seems clearly to indicate that the sports-scored events evince a lower incidence rate of bad behavior. Overall most players are good and fine and totally cool at any of them, of course. But dicks get away with more shenanigans atonly- judge-scored events. And even moreso at no-sports events.

If players don't like any part of an event's scoring, of course, they can always vote with their feet, and/or engage the organizer in constructive dialogue. Matthias, for example, has taken feedback on his (IMO good but flawed) system from this year's Adepticon and is planning to change it. All conscientious and competent organizers accept player feedback and modify their systems as appropriate to the attendees.

The biggest kick back from Sports scoring is that it is judging if two people get along...Basically if they play with the same expectations.

Add into that the judgement and name calling that goes along with it...Talking about banning people from events, etc...Basically saying that they are bad people for playing under different expectations.

This is especially prevalent when a serious (In outlook/game play) gamer with an optimized list goes against a 'casual' player with a silly list. Neither player is neccessarily a bad sport, but likely the serious gamer will get marked as a bad sports because the casual player didn't enjoy themselves (Even though it's also the casual player's fault). Now the Casual player goes and complains to people about the 'bad person' that 'ruined his game' and the mood of his opponents start dampered because of his new reputation.

The situation above leaves the serious gamer pissed off about sportsmanship scoring because he didn't do anything wrong, but is labeled as a bad sport.

skyth wrote: The problem is is that there is NO correct way to play at a tourney, but some people are under the impression that there is and that...

I have to dispute this.

There ARE some easily agreed-upon common standards of good behavior. Be polite and friendly with your opponent. Be open and honest with your army list and questions about your army's equipment and special rules. Measure accurately and consistently. Be consistent in your dice procedures, and in rolling them where your opponent can see them and in agreeing on the results. Hold yourself to the same standards as your opponent regarding things like LOS, taking back forgotten moves, etc. Don't insult or mock or belittle your opponent. Don't walk away from the table (unless it's with your opponent's consent) or waste time. Play at a reasonable rate of speed so you can complete the game in the alloted time. Don't display an actively BAD and unpleasant attitude, swearing profusely at bad dice and making your opponent uncomfortable and worried that you have anger issues. These are all pretty universal.

I agree with you that different people have different personal tastes in what kind of opponent affect and behavior they prefer. Some folks prefer to be quiet and "professional". Some folks like to be jovial and joking. Some like to roleplay, hamming it up with sound effects and battlecries. (At different times, I'm all of these types).

I agree with you that no one should be marked down for being quiet, or for enjoying the game in a different way than their opponent. Unless the way they do it makes the entire experience unenjoyable and a chore for their opponent.

This is why I set such a high standard for a downcheck in my system. Only if your opponent's behavior and attitude were so unpleasant as to entirely ruin the fun of the game, making the experience overall an unpleasant waste of time, are you asked to downcheck them. And a disclaimer specifically notes that the result of the game and the person's army list should have NO bearing on the mark.

skyth wrote: ...when these different expectations meet, name calling results and it's automatically the other person's fault that this wasn't a 'fun' game. This is an inherent problem with scoring sportsmanship.

Here, I have to suggest, that you are universalizing one or two personal negative experiences inappropriately. I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences. I've gotten low/mediocre marks myself in a few subjective 1-5 or 1-10 scored events, where I was quiet, or in a bad mood, or cursing my dice. But IME the majority of opponents are good, honest folks, and most people don't resort to namecalling or other childish and bad behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:Add into that the judgement and name calling that goes along with it...Talking about banning people from events, etc...Basically saying that they are bad people for playing under different expectations.

If that is happening, then it's the fault of those people being immature and nasty people. It doesn't have anything to do with Sportsmanship scoring. If there was no Sports scoring at all they could do exactly the same things; badmouthing players and talking about banning them.

Mannahnin wrote:
There ARE some easily agreed-upon common standards of good behavior. Be polite and friendly with your opponent.

Polite yes. Friendly has nothing to do with Sportsmanship.

This is why I set such a high standard for a downcheck in my system. Only if your opponent's behavior and attitude were so unpleasant as to entirely ruin the fun of the game, making the experience overall an unpleasant waste of time, are you asked to downcheck them. And a disclaimer specifically notes that the result of the game and the person's army list should have NO bearing on the mark.

So in other words, the person has to follow the instructions of your system in order for it to work? Therein lies the problem of all Sports Scoring systems. People don't read and/or pay attention the actual criteria listed in a sports system a large portion of the time. They go by a gut feeling. Not to mention that people with different expectations meeting could result under a downcheck even under your system through not doing anything wrong even if the instructions were followed.

Yes, as with all scoring systems, players are expected to read the instructions and follow the rules. If you both hand in 20s for your battle points when 20 is a massacre win, that's a problem too.

One of the major points of my system is that it simplifies Sports scoring to make it easy and quick.

Friendly is an expected norm in most social activities. Smile, shake the person's hand, be willing to respond to conversation. If a player can't engage in at least a minimum level of social interaction, tabletop wargaming tournaments and events are probably a bad fit. Anyway, I think you're nitpicking a bit, here. Do you dispute my other nine or ten criteria?

One of the biggest problem with all sports systems is that people don't read the instructions for them. How many people give 'Best Game Ever' out like candy when they simply had a decent game? How many people will ignore the 'don't base on the army list' part of yours?

Shaking the other person's hand and responding to conversation is polite, not friendly.

Smiling shouldn't be a requirement to win a warhammer tournament.

skyth wrote:One of the biggest problem with all sports systems is that people don't read the instructions for them. How many people give 'Best Game Ever' out like candy when they simply had a decent game? How many people will ignore the 'don't base on the army list' part of yours?

Shaking the other person's hand and responding to conversation is polite, not friendly.

Smiling shouldn't be a requirement to win a warhammer tournament.

So now people don't read the instructions along with people are all predisposed to cheat and do anything to give themselves a personal advantage. My opponents are too dishonest or stupid to be allowed to judge me.

If you are entering every game with that level of distrust and skepticism, then that attitude and level of base disrespect towards your fellow man will pour out of you like a dense fog and everyone will pick up on it. And then you claim, 'this is how I am, I am playing technically correct and fair so you can't say anything' is dehumanizing at its core. You can't play 40k like it is a RTS on battle.net against an anonymous kid from Korea who you never have to interact with except for killing his 1s and 0s off the map. But this is the attitude I see and it is no wonder opponents are turned off by the whole interaction with those people.

Lots of behavior that shows contempt or disrespect counts as unsportsmanlike... and that is often what TFG actually does. You spend the whole game wondering 'Why are you here if this is your attitude?' when playing them and it has nothing to do with winning or losing.

I guess what bothers me is how black and white some people try to make this issue when this whole issue is by definition about shades of grey because it is human interaction. I honestly think these people can't see shades of grey and they always end up being judged poorly and they simply can't figure it out but are too unwilling to accept maybe it is their actions that are wrong. Removing everything and having no standard solves nothing... except for the person who correctly is being impacted by the sportsmanship policy. Those who are truly good sports succeed fine in the sportsmanship scoring arena. Those who claim to be excellent sports but constantly fail and claim chimpmunking might have other issues... In my experience I have yet to meet someone who was chipmunked unfairly and the people who got low scores from my observations deserved it and it was corroborated by multiple players and the TO. I am not ready to accept there are people falsely convicted of being TFG through false scores is common or even happens on a rare occasion.

But since we mostly don't know each other in real life it is hard to know if these harsh-word posts on the internet are just internet toughguy talk or really how people are in real life. So we have to agree to disagree... Vote with your feet.

I will be at NOVA this year if some of you non-sports crowd want to convince me you are naturally a good sport and the event is just as good without the scoring. I am pretty flexible for tourney format as long as I get to look at pretty figures across from me.

If you want to play a game that is all tactics and strategy, play chess. 40k is meant to be played for fun. Thats the "Most Important Rule", its right there in the rule book. If you want to play without all the rules, or think that sportsmanship isnt part of the game, there is always ard boys.

Many of the posts i have seen here make the claim that sportsmanship scores do nothing to change peoples behavior. I can tell you from first hand experience that this is not the case. Lots of smart tourni players work the system to gain as many sportsmanship points as they can. They are nicer, freindlier etc. Who cares if its fake, if it makes the game more fun then its a good thing.

One of the biggest powergamers in my area suddenly became the most fun to play games with. He repeatedly won tournis sportsmanship award. This was a surprise to me since i was used to hearing him say " your tears are like a fine wine". Why. Sportsmanship scores baby. He was just working the system.

Running up the score also came up earlier. In profootball this is considered to be poor form. I feel like its poor form in 40k too. If your going to achieve a massacre no matter what, then feeding the looser a unit or two so he wont find some reason to tank your sportsmanship score is really not a big deal. The ONLY time i have gotten a zero for sportmanship, i deserved it for a total massacre of my foes army, when i knew i had the game in the bag. I got what i deserved.

The only player i know that really will play the system by tanking your sportsmanship score to win, is a total putz. He is also the only person i know that scores a zero in sportsmanship almost every match. He deserves it. He looses often because of it. even though sportsmanship is worth only 10% of your total score locally, he still looses because he reaps what he sow's.

RiTides wrote:

skyth wrote:So it isn't poor sportsmanship to always ask for a 4+...

Yes, no matter what the case.

If you're asking for a 4+ more than a few times a game, you probably deserved to be dinged on sports score, too. It's just abusing it in the opposite fashion.

So your 'un-biased' opinion, that even though you didn't understand the rule correctly, but he did, he should have just caved in rather than you and agree to a 4+ die roll just because you say so?

And he is the bad sport?

Ya. Sportsmanship isn't arbitrary or biased at all.

nkelsch wrote:So now people don't read the instructions along with people are all predisposed to cheat and do anything to give themselves a personal advantage. My opponents are too dishonest or stupid to be allowed to judge me.

Mannahnin's sports system wrote: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).

By the way, nice ad hominum. Obviously anyone against sportsmanship scoring must be a bad sportsman...

@imaweasel: Agreeing to a 4+ isn't caving in. If you view it that way, you're probably going to have a hard time playing at any tournament scored with sportsmanship... and I can see why you're taking the position that you are.

You also continue to argue as if a rule is "right" or "wrong" when, if it's in dispute, it's likely one of the grey areas that you have to make a judgement call on until GW FAQs it. Otherwise, simply looking it up would solve the issue. If you exhaust looking it up, discussing it, and asking for a judge ruling... then you 4+ it. Simple as that.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse, so I'll stop re-stating this point now. It's pretty simple and I think the reason you're having to resort to hyperbole is that you can't argue the simple point of how you solve a rules dispute in this game: looking it up, discussing it, and if it is still in dispute doing one of two things. 1) Getting an outside ruling by a judge or, if one is not available 2) D6'ing it.

In my view a sportsmanship score should exist but for the tournament organizers not for scoring. It should act as an alert system for potential problem people that the organizers need to keep an eye on.

The problem with integrating it with the scoring system is that while there is a chance it might make someone who is a jerk normally be a good sport for the duration of the game, that person is still a jerk and will chipmunk their opponent. Sportsmanship doesn't all of a sudden make them a good person, they are still as ass hat, they're just going to go about being one within the bounds of the rules.

So basically you ensured a relatively friendly game at the cost of points for the person. Better outcome? Maybe, that would depend heavily on who you ask. IMHO it would be better if it was not included in scoring, a jerk may not care at that point and act like an ass hat because it won't affect his score but after the first game the TO should be keeping an eye on them and telling them that they can kindly leave if they can't act like a civil human being. In my opinion many TO's use a sportsmanship score to absolve themselves of having to do that with a person, which is not the way to go.

My 2 cents.

skyth wrote:

nkelsch wrote:So now people don't read the instructions along with people are all predisposed to cheat and do anything to give themselves a personal advantage. My opponents are too dishonest or stupid to be allowed to judge me.

By the way, nice ad hominum. Obviously anyone against sportsmanship scoring must be a bad sportsman...

No, claiming people who claimed to get chipmunked must be bad sportsmanship is more like it, which is my observation. And then people regurgitate the bad sports Internet stories as evidence that it doesn't work without ever verifying first hand that thisnperson who claims to be chipmunked earned a legitimate score or if he was dun wrong. If opponents are to biased to judge your sportsmanship, than you are too biased to your own sportsmanship as well. So claims of chipmunking are biased on their face. At least most sports scores are confirmed by multiple players and a TO so I will take that standard over someone calling themselves a good sport.

Saying you were chipmunked is valid when you didn't do anything that was actually bad sportsmanship. That's the whole problem with Sports scoring...That when people go in with different expectations, the other person is automatically in the wrong and it's solely their fault that you didn't have a good time.

No, claiming people who claimed to get chipmunked must be bad sportsmanship is more like it, which is my observation.

I've been chipmunked before and I've won Best Sportsman at several tournaments, including the NOVA Open (well, tied).

It might be time to re-evaluate your assumptions about sportsmanship in general...

Redbeard wrote:

One of the reasons that sportsmanship scores were originally introduced was, if I recall correctly, back when GW tournaments were first starting up, one of the victory conditions was to get to the opponent's deployment zones. Some races, eldar, I believe, had vehicles that could do this in one move. So, people would literally slow-play the entire time, moving their ships to the other player's deployment zone and netting a win.

You mean the original problem was slow play, and instead of implementing timed rounds that are unambiguous and easily understood and adjusted, the community opted for the continuous abomination of 'sportsmanship' scoring?

Danny Internets wrote:I've been chipmunked before and I've won Best Sportsman at several tournaments, including the NOVA Open (well, tied).

I thought you won Renaissance Man?

Which seemed kind of ironic after seeing how much you dislike soft scores . Although it was good to see that, even though that's your preference, you can do so well with them...

sourclams wrote:

You mean the original problem was slow play, and instead of implementing timed rounds that are unambiguous and easily understood and adjusted, the community opted for the continuous abomination of 'sportsmanship' scoring?

Sorry, timed rounds is garbage and has no place in 40k because the game is not designed around or balanced for it. Too many of the actions on each players turn is interactive especially the assault phase. All i would have to do is 'be slow' during your turn with my reactive actions and then I have no ability for you to 'play faster' during my turn. And some army builds totally remove whole phases of the game which means balanced time is not necessarily fair or intended by the game designers.

There is a difference between 'slow play' and 'phases taking a long time'. Slow play is rude 'at best' and like pornography, it can't be defined but we all know it when we see it. I have yet to see a valid functional time system that is actually fair or works with 40k. I just see systems who clearly benefit specific army playstyles and people who play those armies wanting another advantage by further unbalancing the meta by adding another set of composition guidelines to the game which is not supported by the rules... But it isn't 'arbitrary comp' right? Adding timed rounds is no different than any other form of composition rules that give benefits or penalties for taking specific builds and units. I shouldn't be punished because I am moving 20 orks on foot opposed that takes 45 seconds to move VS pushing a trukk across the table which takes 5 seconds. If you want to punish that, then bring on punishing leafblow and longfang spam too!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

No, claiming people who claimed to get chipmunked must be bad sportsmanship is more like it, which is my observation.

I've been chipmunked before and I've won Best Sportsman at several tournaments, including the NOVA Open (well, tied).

It might be time to re-evaluate your assumptions about sportsmanship in general...

My observation is my observation based upon events I have attended. I will be going to NOVA this year so I can add that to my observations and see how that is.

I say the assumptions are people over exaggerating chimpunking and peoples natural inclination to always cheat for personal advantage. Those are assumptions I don't believe are valid and do not match up to my interactions over the years.

RiTides wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:I've been chipmunked before and I've won Best Sportsman at several tournaments, including the NOVA Open (well, tied).

I thought you won Renaissance Man?

Which seemed kind of ironic after seeing how much you dislike soft scores . Although it was good to see that, even though that's your preference, you can do so well with them...

I won Renaissance Man and tied for Best Sportsman.

My observation is my observation based upon events I have attended. I will be going to NOVA this year so I can add that to my observations and see how that is.

I say the assumptions are people over exaggerating chimpunking and peoples natural inclination to always cheat for personal advantage. Those are assumptions I don't believe are valid and do not match up to my interactions over the years.

You're entitled to both your opinions and your observations. However, I'm presenting evidence that runs directly contrary to the absolutist conclusion that you have drawn from a limited set of data (your personal observations). Sometimes we all need to broaden our horizons, lest we become unreasonably entrenched in supporting demonstrably false arguments.

nkelsch wrote

"Sorry, timed rounds is garbage and has no place in 40k because the game is not designed around or balanced for it. . "

FInally level heads prevail. Timed rounds have no place in 40k since the system was designed or balanced for it.
The same holds true for 40k as a competative tournament system. The game was designed around "the most important rule" a contract whereby two players essentially agree to have fun playing together. Thus... sportsmanship.

To try to make 40k into a wholey competative WAAC tournament scene leads to some inevitable conclusions. There are certain codex that suck. Newer codex tend to overrepresent at WAAC events because they perform better. By emphasizing this in a tournament setting you reduce turnout by those who play underpowered codex. You are also likely to attract more WAAC gamers and less hobby gamers. I personally dont enjoy WAAC events as much as i do events with painting, sportsmanship and comp. Thats why we have two styles of play. Ard boys for those who like playing against powergamers with grey legion armies and then tournis for the rest of us who like the hobby, not just the act of winning.
Just my .02$

Danny Internets wrote:

Nkelsch wrote:My observation is my observation based upon events I have attended. I will be going to NOVA this year so I can add that to my observations and see how that is.

I say the assumptions are people over exaggerating chimpunking and peoples natural inclination to always cheat for personal advantage. Those are assumptions I don't believe are valid and do not match up to my interactions over the years.

You're entitled to both your opinions and your observations. However, I'm presenting evidence that runs directly contrary to the absolutist conclusion that you have drawn from a limited set of data (your personal observations). Sometimes we all need to broaden our horizons, lest we become unreasonably entrenched in supporting demonstrably false arguments.

That last sentence is very well said.

I will note that Sportsmanship scoring advocates are saying that Sportsmanship scoring can and does (on the whole) have more beneficial than negative effects.

We have readily conceded that it can be flawed, and can be mishandled, and that many of the systems used in the past had serious problems worth honest assessment and revision. Many of us have attended and run tournaments for a decade or more, and are still open to new ideas and refining the events we run and the systems we use.

When one talks about absolutist conclusions drawn from limited sets of data, one cannot help but immediately be reminded of those people who claim Sportsmanship scoring can "never" work, that it "always" is a bad idea, and that it "invariably" is, or can be, sabotaged by cheaters. These are absolutist statements, and they're all false.