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.

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

You v.s. TFG

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

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

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

Let's turn it around:

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

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

These examples are purely hypothetical and also very much hyperbolic.

G

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

G

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

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

Huh?

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

G

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

How rhetorical.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:How rhetorical.

G

Nice way to not provide an answer.

imweasel wrote:

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

Huh?

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

imweasel wrote:

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

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

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

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

Sports serves no real purpose unless it adds to overall.

G

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

G

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

willydstyle wrote:

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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

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

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

G

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

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

Here is one we used yesterday:

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

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

G

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

G

Judges should wear a Tshirt with their paypal account.

Harrrrrrr!!!!!!

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

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

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

G

That is similimiliminar to Mannahnins' Method 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

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