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

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

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

*be careful and take the following with a grain of salt, its just devils advocate*

If winning at all costs is unimportant, then why do you bother if people do that?

Think about it...

Seriously, if you just want to field certain models, then a tournament would be no option for you. Be creative, build a gaming group and plan a campaign or whatever. Write stories, play themed battles.

A tournament by definition is a competition. And it is not a competition about having the most fun.

WAAC guys dont prevent you from fielding your models. (Unless they close your reserve edge though...)

A tournament focuses on generalship most of the time.

And list building and high tactical skill level have NOTHING to do with having less fun and breaking the most important rule. Please do not take this for bad sportsmanship.

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

This will not be the case most of the time.

Of course there are matchup problems, but if you play properly you will not be tabled, you will not be chanceless at about at least 70-80% of your games (estimated of course).
You will lose because you are worse generals than your opponent. I would like you to accept that. A good general wins a tournament even with a casual army.

So most of the time you will lose to your opponent, not to his army. Please dont reduce those people to their lists.
Very often these guys bring innovation to the normal gameplay. Often those guys even paint well, convert and have a good sense of fluff. Why penalizing them for good generalship?!

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

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

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

Politeness should be a requirement, not a graded element. Being civil, being on time, and not cheating should be bare minimums for even being allowed to play - failure to do these basic things should result in expulsion from the event, not being docked a point or two. As for supporting your opponent's enjoyment of the game, I do agree with that being part of sportsmanship.

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

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

Because, while the NFL punishes people for it, they're not really punishing the action because of the rules of the game, but rather as a meta-consideration - their belief that allowing such behaviour is bad for their product, and therefore, their bottom line. The actions that yield 'unsportsmanlike conduct' penalties in the NFL generally occur after a play, and don't really impact game play. Furthermore, these actions can result in ejection from the game - though usually they only result in a 15-yard penalty. These fouls are also somewhat contentious among both players and fans and have resulted in the NFL gaining the derisive moniker of 'the no-fun league'. I'd argue that, while the NFL is trying to implement a sportsmanship system in their game, they're not doing a very good job of it. When a player loses his team fifteen yards for acting like a human being and actually celebrating a touchdown at the superbowl, it just feels wrong. That's not poor sportsmanship, that's paranoia in a league that fears their advertisers might not like it.

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

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

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

How do you propose that we eject every person who is not polite? Do you station a judge at every table to determine who is in the wrong and who is in the right? That's not realistic. Also, it runs into the issue identified earlier in the thread where it may be contrary to the store owner's interest to eject a guy from the store for one day's misbehavior; this can cost him a needed customer. This can easily create a conflict between the TO and the store owner.

IMO my system is much more functional and practicable. It creates a barrier to victory for people who are acting like dicks. It withholds from them their goal (winning the tournament) until and unless they shape up. It gives a minimal penalty if only one opponent found them offensive (and thus could have more easily been an innocent personality conflict or a chipmunker), ramping up if more opponents find them offensive, just as it becomes increasingly probable that the person really is a problem.

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

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

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

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

15 yards can make the difference in who wins a game. Actions we would consider "unsportsmanlike" in a tabletop wargame may or may not impact game play. At any sufficiently well-run event, a TO has the power to eject a player who is excessively obnoxious.

But in an NFL game OR in a wargaming tournament, there can easily be lesser levels of offensiveness that do not rise to the level of justifying the disruption to the game that would be caused by an ejection. In an NFL game they would prefer not to eject a player and cause his team to be handicapped, and his fans to be disappointed at not seeing him play more, unless the behavior is truly egregious. Similarly, in a wargaming tournament we prefer not to eject a player because we don't want to disrupt the pairings and be stuck with a bye, and because we'd rather see the player shape up and become a fun opponent. So we don't chuck him out unless his behavior reaches a level of "totally over the line", in the judgement of the TO.

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

I don't think I've ever seen him refuse to shake hands, except maybe with Mangini.

Belichick had good reason to run up the score. A) The best defense is a good offense; their running game wasn't great, their defense was vulnerable, and keeping the pressure on offensively was the best way to reliably win. B) He needed to salvage their dignity after the videotaping thing and conclusively demonstrate that they weren't just winning because of taping. Even without it, they were able to spank people.

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

I've never seen this system in action. And, it's far less an equation, from what you describe. They might well do it well.

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, allowing the one trouble-maker to remain may cost the TO participation in future tournaments, and the store owner future sales to those customers. A store that gets a rep as a place where the players are jerks sees a quick decline. IMO, it is better to nip that in the bud.

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

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

Ever consider that the reason people act in these ways is because they've learned that they'll never be significantly punished for their actions, and they believe they're gaining some small advantage from it. I think, you set a minimum behaviour standard, that exists outside of sportsmanship, and you expect people to live up to it, or not play. And you reserve sportsmanship scoring as a way to encourage a more laid back attitude at non-gladiator style events, without needing to resort to comp.

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

the problem is alot of those smaller infractions don't ever get known to a wider audience until maybe after the game and certainly never reach the TO's ears in time. if something is bad enough to turn into a loud verbal argument... sure, your method works. unfortunately, as dash stated, some players don't have the balls or game knowledge to confront a TFG in a tourney; the sportmanship score lets them express that dissatisfaction without the confrontation. can it be abused by unscrupulous players? sure. unless you have a judge for every 2 tables standing inbetween them for the entirety of the event, alot of the doucheness in a tourney will simply be missed by the powers that be.

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

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

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

Mannahnin wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

Do you have an example of their scoring system? I'm honestly interested, not being facetious.



I always thought the idea of penalizing someone based on army duplication/cookie cutter lists was the wrong way to view the issue. Instead, I feel rewarding players for taking unique armies would be the way to go. So, you have a Unique Score which is judged by one of the tournament heads and is based off;

How unique is the army composition? (Units not commonly seen on the table top)
How unique is the theme of the army composition? (Is it based on canon, did they make a cool back story if not, etc)


So, if Mr. Two Demon Princes----Plague Marines----9 Oblits wants to bring his list, good on him. He doesn't get penalized but he's either going to have to a tremendous amount of unique modeling/converting to get his unique score up...or really lay it to his opponents in other categories for best overall.

On the other hand, Mr. Chaos Lord------Noise Marines-----Sonic Dreads might struggle on the tabletop but will be buffed by his unique score. Even more so depending on his converting.



And I never tire of bringing out my old diagram for how I view the hobby;




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dave_Nz wrote:

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

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

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

While I may not agree with your viewpoint, I do respect your right to own it. However, I would point out that stating painting/sportmanship are gimmicks is not a way to move the conversation forward. For example, if someone were to state "I think anyone that views a game as raw skill....where you roll a D6 to determine outcomes is pretty silly, try chess instead"....I would say the same thing.

Remember, the hobby is viewed in different ways among people....and regardless of your own bias you should always afford others the same respect you would ask of them.

Dave_Nz wrote:

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

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

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

@ Dave,
Do you enjoy playing games against unpainted armies?
Do you enjoy playing against an a$$?
Me personally, I think the game is a lot more fun when both armies are painted, because it shows that your opponent is in the game as a hobby as well. Also remember, this system is designed for a store to run, and not some convention. This tournament was made to further the hobby, and at the same time keep the FLGS in business. Lastly, the tourney is based on skill in part, because if all you do is bring the Logan missile spam army that is unpainted and terribly assembled, but are not a complete dick to everyone you can win best general. That being said, I think that in a social environment that a person who spends time building and painting a good looking army, and is a very fun player to play against (win or loose) that they should get rewarded as well. Don't you?

@ Dave_Nz: You are joking right? I think you are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ dash of pepper: I really liked your thread about prepping for the tournament scene by the way.

Raw skill, as stated by the other guy seems like a strong term for playing with toy soldiers by rolling cubes.

I will agree that their are talent levels, but to imply that raw skill is the determining factor . . . hard to buy. Luck is such a prevalent part of the game. I am sure you are an excellent player, and based on your posts you are both intelligent and fun to play. But I still think the game is pretty random.

I guess I trolled there a little bit, sorry if I offended. No harm intended

Dashofpepper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theres only so many times one person can get lucky.
I'm completely with Dash on this one (well, apart from the fact i don't get my other half to paint for me, i don't want pink armies)
While list building is an important aspect of "winning games" its only a fraction of whats needed, other elements include skill and tactics. Of course luck helps to.

That being said, "Dave_nz"'s dismissal of painting and sportsmanship as "stupid gimics" shows about as much insight into good gaming as it does into good spelling and grammar.

It also displays a rather stunning contempt for the thread and everyone in it through his failure to address any of the actual points raised in it. But of course, his need to express his one run-on sentence opinion trumps any value in having a dialogue with his fellow gamers, or learning anything by reading the thread and actually thinking about anything.

Bravo, "Dave_nz". Show us the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

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

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

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

That is sometimes true. But having run events, I can tell you that...

A) TOs often have a lot of other stuff on their plate and not a lot of free time to patrol tables looking for problematic behavior. (But you know this already). You can't be at every table judging whether everyone is "civil".
and
B) You are oversimplifying. IMO there is a significant and substantial range of behavior which is worth censuring but not necessarily worth tossing someone out of an event or a store over.

My system does have a related mechanism built-in, however, that if a sufficient threshold of a player's opponents find him offensive, he is barred from any awards. And in a five game event, if all of them do, he's asked not to return next time.

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

Of course. Which is why my system deducts from their overall tournament score, to remove that advantage.

And as I pointed out above, my system does include a cumulative mechanic which adds up to DQ and/or invitation to not come back next time.

Of course, if a given player has recurrent behavioral problems, there is absolutely no reason you can't talk to them directly as well, with the Sportsmanship records as your personal corroboration and documentation, to confront them about their behavior and/or ban them from your events. I think having your own records of Sportsmanship scores can serve as very useful and objective evidence for a store owner or TO (who may need to convince themselves that it's worth confronting a customer over) to take that step and realize that yes, that person really is that big a problem.

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

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

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

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

Yeah, that would be poppycock.

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

Monster Rain wrote:

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

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

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

Yeah, that would be poppycock.

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

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

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

The scaling penalties is specifically built to handle this. Penalties grow larger as more opponents perceive a problem. Penalties are minimized if most opponents do not consider the person a problem. As discussed earlier in the thread, the TO could easily calibrate his scale to make a single downcheck no penalty at all, if he's really worried about chipmunkers.

As with any Sports system, the judge/TO can also keep an eye out for scoring abberations (player x marked down ALL of his opponents, but no one else marked any of those three guys down? Maybe the problem is with player x) if necessary. But the scaling penalties make this less necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fearspect wrote:

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

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

Agreed. Note that luck is a real factor in individual games. I could easily have a run of cold dice and lose a game vs a decent opponent, and that could easily prevent me from winning any given individual tournament. Luck's just not a major factor in the long run, since dice rolls even out over time.

Right, but when top spots are sometimes decided by just a couple points (not always, but it definitely happens), a top player can literally be tanked by even a single score. The way you describe it, everything seems so cut and dry (Did you get an unfun score? You lose points, no discussion). There needs to be something in your article describing that a TO must be open to discussing these reductions and possibly amending them.

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

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

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

Fearspect wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

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

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

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

Yeah, that would be poppycock.

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

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

It isn't strange at all. I didn't say skill didn't play a part, I said that luck of the dice does. I've seen (and it's happened to me) that there have been games that should have been won by someone except for their dice failing at a key moment.

To suggest otherwise is foolishness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fearspect wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rednekgunner wrote:

Fearspect wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A possible, but harsh, solution to the chipmunking problem could be to apply Mannahin's grade system to your tournament games instead of your tournament opponents.
Simply put the idea is that there's 2 players to a game and if the game wasn't fun, most of the time it's both players who share the blame for that and in that light it doesn't seem unreasonable to mark them both down.
In a 5 round tournament, this would give each player a possible 10 downchecks, 5 of which he controls himself and the other 5 controlled by his 5 opponents.
As the TO you could implement a penalty system not too dissimilar from the one in Mannahin's article (although with double the number of possible checks), like this:

0-2 checks (-0pts) This person obviously had fun and made the tournament fun for his opponents.
3-4 checks (-2pts). There is a small deduction for one check, as we assume that MOST people checking a box are doing so honestly, but we don't want to cripple a person for a few downchecks, as it might be a relatively-innocent personality clash.
5-6 checks (-5pts). This is a more significant handicap, being the difference between a loss and draw, or a great-looking army and a more average one, but not crippling to the player's total score. Which is appropriate as it's more likely that the player is actually being rude or unpleasant somehow.
7-8 checks (-10pts). This is the equivalent of one of his Wins turning into a Draw; again, he may still place well, but at this point more than half of his opponents say they actively disliked playing against him.
9-10 checks (DQ). Disqualification means he can't win any prizes, no matter what his points total is. Atleast 80% of his opponents giving the downcheck means it's practically guaranteed that he's being a jerk.

Ofcourse the penalties are only given at the TO's discretion: When someone acts like a jerk and marks down all his games, you could always choose not to add the downchecks to his opponents total number of checks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like a system like this for a number of reasons:

1) It strongly discourages unsporting behavior in tournament play.
2) Aside from the rare DQ, it has zero impact on generalship scoring.
3) It doesn't really endorse turning 40k into a political shmooze-fest. Positive marks result in a limited reward.

I'm not sure I agree with a fixed cap on negative marks but I do like the idea of recording them and then allowing for judge's discretion to determine whether a player is reprimanded or not. Some players maybe are not bad people or unsporting players but sometimes have aloof or asocial personalities. I would hope they wouldn't receive negative remarks for being mildly aspergers or whatever afflicts them. I think DQ power should be squarely with the judges, and as a judge wouldn't want to be forced to DQ someone based on player(s) feedback alone.