Thunder dome AKA the easy button.

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.

**Bookwrack**

Vash108 wrote:
How is this dribble still going?

Dman137 wrote:
actually I'm not worried about thunderdome at all, I simply stated that it's a easy button army to play with, I play it yesterday and tabled they guy in 3 turns.

Because it's being propelled by someone who lies about his games played AND what an absolutely fantastic sport he is. There outta be popcorn.

**Chute82**

Dman137 can't beat thunder dome ? LTP

**Experiment 626**

Bookwrack wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
How is this dribble still going?

Dman137 wrote:
actually I'm not worried about thunderdome at all, I simply stated that it's a easy button army to play with, I play it yesterday and tabled they guy in 3 turns.

Because it's being propelled by someone who lies about his games played AND what an absolutely fantastic sport he is. There outta be popcorn.

Digging up the results from Astro Toronto, if what Dman says is true about losing out on Best General by only 3pts, then he was tied for the second lowest Sports score in the event.
Results can be dug up through: http://www.astronomi-con.com/
Just go to 'Events', TO 2015 Results, and then click the link to download the full results.

The Best General winner had 93pts, second place was 90.

And having been to numerous Astros in the past myself, I know that it's a freaking easy as pie event to score at least 55/60 for sportsmanship.

**TheCustomLime**

Got second to last place in sportsmanship? God, I wonder what the last place guy was like.

**Lobokai**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Bookwrack wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
How is this dribble still going?

Dman137 wrote:
actually I'm not worried about thunderdome at all, I simply stated that it's a easy button army to play with, I play it yesterday and tabled they guy in 3 turns.

Because it's being propelled by someone who lies about his games played AND what an absolutely fantastic sport he is. There outta be popcorn.

Digging up the results from Astro Toronto, if what Dman says is true about losing out on Best General by only 3pts, then he was tied for the second lowest Sports score in the event.
Results can be dug up through: http://www.astronomi-con.com/
Just go to 'Events', TO 2015 Results, and then click the link to download the full results.

The Best General winner had 93pts, second place was 90.

And having been to numerous Astros in the past myself, I know that it's a freaking easy as pie event to score at least 55/60 for sportsmanship.

Come on. This thread has been about ignoring evidence and information, not using it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheCustomLime wrote:
Got second to last place in sportsmanship? God, I wonder what the last place guy was like.

He probably played Dman, who gave him a "0".

**Vaktathi**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Bookwrack wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
How is this dribble still going?

Dman137 wrote:
actually I'm not worried about thunderdome at all, I simply stated that it's a easy button army to play with, I play it yesterday and tabled they guy in 3 turns.

Because it's being propelled by someone who lies about his games played AND what an absolutely fantastic sport he is. There outta be popcorn.

Digging up the results from Astro Toronto, if what Dman says is true about losing out on Best General by only 3pts, then he was tied for the second lowest Sports score in the event.
Results can be dug up through: http://www.astronomi-con.com/
Just go to 'Events', TO 2015 Results, and then click the link to download the full results.

The Best General winner had 93pts, second place was 90.

And having been to numerous Astros in the past myself, I know that it's a freaking easy as pie event to score at least 55/60 for sportsmanship.

Awkward...

It's also interesting to point out that fully a third of the top 10 and top 15 armies by battle points are Eldar armies, with only one Eldar army in the placing in the bottom half by battle points (and even that's still very middle of the pack, 30 of 47).

Something else to note, 5 of the 7 armies including Eldar were in the bottom 10 for sports. Dunno if that says anything one way or the other, but it's a thing.

**Vash108**

TheNewBlood wrote:
Dman137 wrote: actually I'm not worried about thunderdome at all, I simply stated that it's a easy button army to play with, I play it yesterday and tabled they guy in 3 turns. It's called adapting, I saw what I did wrong the first time I played them so the second time I didn't make those mistakes, I didn't change my list at all just learned from my mistakes.

And yes your army's might only be a year old or 9 months and what not, you can use allies to help you, I play pretty much everyday and against many different types of players and Ive never toned down my army, it's disrespectful to them, they want to learn how to beat hard army's then you play against hard army's, you learn on how to become a great player. You don't get better by sitting there playing the same 2 people everyday.

Really? Recognize these words? They're only from your OP:

Dman137 wrote:So this weekend we had a major event first day was doubles 2000pts (1000pts per player) and the next day was singles 1850. Now it's been made clear that everyone on here thinks eldar are crazy amazing and over powered (sure) even tho there hasn't been one major event since they came out that eldar have won. On a even further note the army's that have won are prime examples of over powered lists from codecs that clearly need to be fixed. But this thread is to speak about the thunder dome list, you can't tell me that eldar are broken but 2++ reroll cover (that dosent need to be cast is just happens (asking as you within 6" of the landspeeder, who also gets the 2++ reroll) while everyone says eldar don't need skill to play they are the easy army to use to win, clearly you haven't seen the thunder dome army in action, I could let a two year old use the army and they would win lol so before you all go on about "ohh fix eldar they are broken blah blah blah" you all need to really open your eyes to the fact that there are even more broken things then eldar. Thunder dome shouldn't be allowed, of its needs a big nerf.

On a side note for those who think eldar are unfun to play against, a eldar army with a Lynx on a sky shield with scattbikes and hornets came 4th overall and took home best sports.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this quote gives the impression that you are complaining about Thunderdome and that people should nerf it instead of Eldar. why would you say that if you weren't concerned about that army? If you're going to be a hypocrite, Dman137, do yourself a favor and don't bring it up in the same thread.

Allies is not the be-all answer to army balance. Players should have the ability to stand against other armies using only their own codex. After all, Eldar have no problems in this department; why should any other army? And don't give me the "Imperium allies" BS. That's part of why Thunderdome and other lists are so obnoxious.

Funny as it may seem, not everyone wants to play on a highly competitive level all the time. Maybe people have other ideas of fun. in that case, toning down your army can be seen as a sign of respect for the other player and their sense of fun. The more you spout "L2P", the deeper the hole you dig yourself. Not that you haven't dug yourself a deep enough hole already.

Dat exalt

**Ravenous D**

Helps if you guys knew the sportsmanship scores.

0-5 is "Would you play this person again?"

0-5 is "Would you play this army again?"

He got 29/30 for "Would you play this person again?" and 18/30 for "would you play this army again?" Which 5 of those points were lost from his first opponent giving him a zero. The guy brought a grav heavy cult mech and was just bitter, you could see his boo boo stink face from across the room.

Means he was getting 3s and 4s from everyone else, and considering most tournament players know that the more games you win the more salty the people you play against. Them not giving perfect mitigates their losses.

And way to go all stalker Stephie, you're opinion doesn't mean much considering you've never come in the top half and usually racing for last place. You're a goob and always have been.

Lobukia wrote:

He probably played Dman, who gave him a "0".

That's rather presumptuous.

**Vash108**

Man this thread is fraking bitter

**TheCustomLime**

Ravenous D wrote:
Helps if you guys knew the sportsmanship scores.

0-5 is "Would you play this person again?"

0-5 is "Would you play this army again?"

He got 29/30 for "Would you play this person again?" and 18/30 for "would you play this army again?" Which 5 of those points were lost from his first opponent giving him a zero. The guy brought a grav heavy cult mech and was just bitter, you could see his boo boo stink face from across the room.

Means he was getting 3s and 4s from everyone else, and considering most tournament players know that the more games you win the more salty the people you play against. Them not giving perfect mitigates their losses.

And way to go all stalker Stephie, you're opinion doesn't mean much considering you've never come in the top half and usually racing for last place. You're a goob and always have been.

Lobukia wrote:

He probably played Dman, who gave him a "0".

That's rather presumptuous.

First, the point trying to be made was that Dman didn't get high sportsmanship scores which is true. Your counter-argument is based on a subjective perception on the attitudes of other players. Secondly, it's not being a stalker if you are using publicly available data to verify someone's claims. That's just fact checking. Thirdly, I fail to see how Stephie not placing high makes him any less qualified to hold an opinion. Fourth, the term "Goob" is utterly meaningless and becomes even more so with how many times you and Dman throw it pretty much everyone. It starting to sound like goob means "Someone who disagrees with me".

**Alpharius**

You're probably right about the term "goob" - but either way, EVERYONE needs to STOP with the insults and comply with RULE #1 here.

**Dman137**

TheCustomLime wrote:
Ravenous D wrote:
Helps if you guys knew the sportsmanship scores.

0-5 is "Would you play this person again?"

0-5 is "Would you play this army again?"

He got 29/30 for "Would you play this person again?" and 18/30 for "would you play this army again?" Which 5 of those points were lost from his first opponent giving him a zero. The guy brought a grav heavy cult mech and was just bitter, you could see his boo boo stink face from across the room.

Means he was getting 3s and 4s from everyone else, and considering most tournament players know that the more games you win the more salty the people you play against. Them not giving perfect mitigates their losses.

And way to go all stalker Stephie, you're opinion doesn't mean much considering you've never come in the top half and usually racing for last place. You're a goob and always have been.

Lobukia wrote:

He probably played Dman, who gave him a "0".

That's rather presumptuous.

First, the point trying to be made was that Dman didn't get high sportsmanship scores which is true. Your counter-argument is based on a subjective perception on the attitudes of other players. Secondly, it's not being a stalker if you are using publicly available data to verify someone's claims. That's just fact checking. Thirdly, I fail to see how Stephie not placing high makes him any less qualified to hold an opinion. Fourth, the term "Goob" is utterly meaningless and becomes even more so with how many times you and Dman throw it pretty much everyone. It starting to sound like goob means "Someone who disagrees with me".

so I get near perfect sports scores for being fun to play against but people don't like my army means I'm a bad sport.? Lmao if I was such a bad sport would both my scores be low.?

**Vaktathi**

Ravenous D wrote:
Helps if you guys knew the sportsmanship scores.

0-5 is "Would you play this person again?"

0-5 is "Would you play this army again?"

He got 29/30 for "Would you play this person again?" and 18/30 for "would you play this army again?" Which 5 of those points were lost from his first opponent giving him a zero. The guy brought a grav heavy cult mech and was just bitter, you could see his boo boo stink face from across the room.

Means he was getting 3s and 4s from everyone else, and considering most tournament players know that the more games you win the more salty the people you play against. Them not giving perfect mitigates their losses.

And way to go all stalker Stephie, you're opinion doesn't mean much considering you've never come in the top half and usually racing for last place. You're a goob and always have been.

That's some rather bitter personal attacks there, jimmies have been rustled apparently.

This data is publicly available and it's simply been used to reference Dman's own statements and debunk his claims.

The only thing stalker-y here is the personal naming & direct attacks like "You're a goob and always have been".

**TheCustomLime**

I'm going to level with you Dman. I don't know you personally. You could be a really nice guy in person but you just come across as a little abrasive on the internet. There are some people who are like that. But we can objectively say that your claim that you had high sportsmanship score was false.

**Dman137**

TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm going to level with you Dman. I don't know you personally. You could be a really nice guy in person but you just come across as a little abrasive on the internet. There are some people who are like that. But we can objectively say that your claim that you had high sportsmanship score was false.

but I did have high sports scores.
The "would you play this army again" had nothin to do with my sports. If someone beats me I could sit there at the end and be like well he beat me so would I want to play that army again nope, it's a stupid score and the fact it's out of 5 is just as dumb

**Vaktathi**

Dman137 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm going to level with you Dman. I don't know you personally. You could be a really nice guy in person but you just come across as a little abrasive on the internet. There are some people who are like that. But we can objectively say that your claim that you had high sportsmanship score was false.
but I did have high sports scores.
The "would you play this army again" had nothin to do with my sports.

Except that it's counted as part of your sports score and towards "Best Sportsmanship". You're moving the goal post there. When people look at sportsmanship scores, they look at that overall ranking.

You can have issues with that score all you want, they may even be valid, but that's different from what you claimed and what people will look at. When you point out how on one part of that score you did very well (29/30), it doesn't help when nobody did significantly worse either, looking at the Excel file literally everyone got 25-30 out of 30. On the other hand, you had the worst "Army" sportsmanship by far. When 34 of 47 people get 27-30 out of 30, 40 out of 47 get at least 25, and you come in at 18 (the only one under 20), it sorta pulls the rug out of the earlier claim.

**Dman137**

Vaktathi wrote:
Dman137 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm going to level with you Dman. I don't know you personally. You could be a really nice guy in person but you just come across as a little abrasive on the internet. There are some people who are like that. But we can objectively say that your claim that you had high sportsmanship score was false.
but I did have high sports scores.
The "would you play this army again" had nothin to do with my sports.
Except that it's counted as part of your sports score and towards "Best Sportsmanship". You're moving the goal post there. When people look at sportsmanship scores, they look at that overall ranking.

You can have issues with that score all you want, they may even be valid, but that's different from what you claimed and what people will look at. When you point out how on one part of that score you did very well (29/30), it doesn't help when nobody did significantly worse either, looking at the Excel file literally everyone got 25-30 out of 30. On the other hand, you had the worst "Army" sportsmanship by far. When 34 of 47 people get 27-30 out of 30, 40 out of 47 get at least 25, and you come in at 18 (the only one under 20), it sorta pulls the rug out of the earlier claim.

that 18/30 is strictly because people don't like losing.

**Akiasura**

Dman137 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Dman137 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm going to level with you Dman. I don't know you personally. You could be a really nice guy in person but you just come across as a little abrasive on the internet. There are some people who are like that. But we can objectively say that your claim that you had high sportsmanship score was false.
but I did have high sports scores.
The "would you play this army again" had nothin to do with my sports.
Except that it's counted as part of your sports score and towards "Best Sportsmanship". You're moving the goal post there. When people look at sportsmanship scores, they look at that overall ranking.

You can have issues with that score all you want, they may even be valid, but that's different from what you claimed and what people will look at. When you point out how on one part of that score you did very well (29/30), it doesn't help when nobody did significantly worse either, looking at the Excel file literally everyone got 25-30 out of 30. On the other hand, you had the worst "Army" sportsmanship by far. When 34 of 47 people get 27-30 out of 30, 40 out of 47 get at least 25, and you come in at 18 (the only one under 20), it sorta pulls the rug out of the earlier claim.
that 18/30 is strictly because people don't like losing.

But you're the only one you did that bad there, and you didn't even win the tournament...

**Vaktathi**

Dman137 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Dman137 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm going to level with you Dman. I don't know you personally. You could be a really nice guy in person but you just come across as a little abrasive on the internet. There are some people who are like that. But we can objectively say that your claim that you had high sportsmanship score was false.
but I did have high sports scores.
The "would you play this army again" had nothin to do with my sports.
Except that it's counted as part of your sports score and towards "Best Sportsmanship". You're moving the goal post there. When people look at sportsmanship scores, they look at that overall ranking.

You can have issues with that score all you want, they may even be valid, but that's different from what you claimed and what people will look at. When you point out how on one part of that score you did very well (29/30), it doesn't help when nobody did significantly worse either, looking at the Excel file literally everyone got 25-30 out of 30. On the other hand, you had the worst "Army" sportsmanship by far. When 34 of 47 people get 27-30 out of 30, 40 out of 47 get at least 25, and you come in at 18 (the only one under 20), it sorta pulls the rug out of the earlier claim.
that 18/30 is strictly because people don't like losing.

I would posit that the other armies that scored highly on generalship (80+), while often also lower rated (though not universally so), were not tanked anywhere near as hard, even the Best General.

**DarkLink**

TheCustomLime wrote:
Ravenous D wrote:
Helps if you guys knew the sportsmanship scores.

0-5 is "Would you play this person again?"

0-5 is "Would you play this army again?"

He got 29/30 for "Would you play this person again?" and 18/30 for "would you play this army again?" Which 5 of those points were lost from his first opponent giving him a zero. The guy brought a grav heavy cult mech and was just bitter, you could see his boo boo stink face from across the room.

Means he was getting 3s and 4s from everyone else, and considering most tournament players know that the more games you win the more salty the people you play against. Them not giving perfect mitigates their losses.

And way to go all stalker Stephie, you're opinion doesn't mean much considering you've never come in the top half and usually racing for last place. You're a goob and always have been.

Lobukia wrote:

He probably played Dman, who gave him a "0".

That's rather presumptuous.

First, the point trying to be made was that Dman didn't get high sportsmanship scores which is true. Your counter-argument is based on a subjective perception on the attitudes of other players. Secondly, it's not being a stalker if you are using publicly available data to verify someone's claims. That's just fact checking. Thirdly, I fail to see how Stephie not placing high makes him any less qualified to hold an opinion. Fourth, the term "Goob" is utterly meaningless and becomes even more so with how many times you and Dman throw it pretty much everyone. It starting to sound like goob means "Someone who disagrees with me".

One thing I can say about tournaments, is that 99% of the time people get pretty much perfect sportsmanship, or close to it. You might get a point knocked off here or there. Conversely, people very, very, very rarely give 0's. People who act like total dicks will usually still walk away with plenty of points. It'll be noticeably lower than the rest of the games, but you can have an actual shouting match at a table and often both players will walk away with, say, a 10/15 on sports, while the non-argumentive games will get 14-15/15's.

Something I've noticed from having a very active local tournament scene with heavy sportsmanship components and several well-know TFG's.

**TheCustomLime**

I kind of guessed that people scored each other highly out of politeness.

**scommy**

Full sportsmanship points are expected to be awarded by default in my experience. Only way you don't get full sportsmanship points is if something major happens ie: an argument, plus the TO would want to know why the points were deducted.

**Dman137**

Well if I was such a bad sport then my sports score wouldn't have been 29/30 so clearly I'm a nice person to play against just people don't like the army I play, and like I have posted before people bomb scores based on the list you take.

**Ghazkuul**

It's pretty cut and dry, if your old army can't take on the new army's that come out then you have two options either don't play against them or update your army. I shouldn't have to tone down my army just because you like to live in the past, get with the times bro

My Ork codex being a 7th edition codex and about 15 months old is considered old now? Good lord then what must my last codex have been labeled? We went all of 5th edition and 6th edition without a new codex so it was about 6 years old by then

and what about the codex before that one? that one was 9 years old before they replaced it.

As far as updating my army, the only models I dont have are the Stompa a Gorkanaut (Failsauce) Killa Kanz (garbage). And storm Boyz (more failsauce) ohh and Flash Gitz, because you know, a 6+ nobz is really tough to kill.

So if I need to update my army does that mean I should go buy units that are considered sub par? and that would somehow update my army and make it better?

The only realistic way for me to compete against an Eldar list is to buy a 2nd army, either Eldar, Necrons or Space Marines, and then field my Orks more as a side show which destroys the entire purpose of me playing orks.

**Yoyoyo**

As a member of the Ordo Maellus, I sense the dark power of Chaos in this thread. It warps all who touch it, into little but melodramatic and joyless shadows of their former selves! Neither Orks, Blood Angels or Imperial Guard has shown themselves immune, and even the ancient Eldar have given themselves over willingly to an orgy of meaningless fury, signifying nothing! (well, nothing important!)

I declare this thread heretical! All those who dare defy my Imperial sanction will be sentenced to death!!! And snu-snu is not an available execution option for you jokers, either!

Flee you fools! Exterminatus arrives (or at least the inevitable mod lock)!

**TheNewBlood**

Vaktathi wrote:
Dman137 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Dman137 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm going to level with you Dman. I don't know you personally. You could be a really nice guy in person but you just come across as a little abrasive on the internet. There are some people who are like that. But we can objectively say that your claim that you had high sportsmanship score was false.
but I did have high sports scores.
The "would you play this army again" had nothin to do with my sports.
Except that it's counted as part of your sports score and towards "Best Sportsmanship". You're moving the goal post there. When people look at sportsmanship scores, they look at that overall ranking.

You can have issues with that score all you want, they may even be valid, but that's different from what you claimed and what people will look at. When you point out how on one part of that score you did very well (29/30), it doesn't help when nobody did significantly worse either, looking at the Excel file literally everyone got 25-30 out of 30. On the other hand, you had the worst "Army" sportsmanship by far. When 34 of 47 people get 27-30 out of 30, 40 out of 47 get at least 25, and you come in at 18 (the only one under 20), it sorta pulls the rug out of the earlier claim.
that 18/30 is strictly because people don't like losing.
I would posit that the other armies that scored highly on generalship (80+), while often also lower rated (though not universally so), were not tanked anywhere near as hard, even the Best General.

At least now we have more context to that "casual players shouldn't go to tournaments" thread. (Here, for convenience: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/662514.page)

Dman137 wrote:Well if I was such a bad sport then my sports score wouldn't have been 29/30 so clearly I'm a nice person to play against just people don't like the army I play, and like I have posted before people bomb scores based on the list you take.

I'll actually agree on a point you make: people bombing players' sportsmanship scores is a douche move, and sportsmanship scores themselves are stupid. It should be a binary thumbs-up thumbs-down system. The thing is, you make your arguments in such an abrasive and dismissive way that you just come off badly to most people. The hypocrisy and elitist attitude aren't helping either.

Here's the problem, Dman137: you intentionally misrepresented your sportsmanship score on the assumption that nobody would be thorough enough to check. Now what little credibility you have left on this forum is dwindling. As if anybody cared. Lock this thread already so we cna move onto the next one.

**Dman137**

TheNewBlood wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Dman137 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Dman137 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm going to level with you Dman. I don't know you personally. You could be a really nice guy in person but you just come across as a little abrasive on the internet. There are some people who are like that. But we can objectively say that your claim that you had high sportsmanship score was false.
but I did have high sports scores.
The "would you play this army again" had nothin to do with my sports.
Except that it's counted as part of your sports score and towards "Best Sportsmanship". You're moving the goal post there. When people look at sportsmanship scores, they look at that overall ranking.

You can have issues with that score all you want, they may even be valid, but that's different from what you claimed and what people will look at. When you point out how on one part of that score you did very well (29/30), it doesn't help when nobody did significantly worse either, looking at the Excel file literally everyone got 25-30 out of 30. On the other hand, you had the worst "Army" sportsmanship by far. When 34 of 47 people get 27-30 out of 30, 40 out of 47 get at least 25, and you come in at 18 (the only one under 20), it sorta pulls the rug out of the earlier claim.
that 18/30 is strictly because people don't like losing.
I would posit that the other armies that scored highly on generalship (80+), while often also lower rated (though not universally so), were not tanked anywhere near as hard, even the Best General.

At least now we have more context to that "casual players shouldn't go to tournaments" thread. (Here, for convenience: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/662514.page)

Dman137 wrote:Well if I was such a bad sport then my sports score wouldn't have been 29/30 so clearly I'm a nice person to play against just people don't like the army I play, and like I have posted before people bomb scores based on the list you take.

I'll actually agree on a point you make: people bombing players' sportsmanship scores is a douche move, and sportsmanship scores themselves are stupid. It should be a binary thumbs-up thumbs-down system. The thing is, you make your arguments in such an abrasive and dismissive way that you just come off badly to most people. The hypocrisy and elitist attitude aren't helping either.

Here's the problem, Dman137: you intentionally misrepresented your sportsmanship score on the assumption that nobody would be thorough enough to check. Now what little credibility you have left on this forum is dwindling. As if anybody cared. Lock this thread already so we cna move onto the next one.

my sports score was not misrepresented, I said I got perfect , well 29/30 for sports. The would you play this army again isent a sports score, I could sit there and just give you zeros all day in that part for no reason. And since everyone is up in arms saying look you didn't win, I lost overall by 3pts because my first opponent hated eldar and bombed my score, so really the people that bomb people's scores are the bad sport.
And someone on here was saying everyone gets near perfect on sports, that's because it's the most abused score, there's no way for anyone to tell if that person was a good sport or not the score is just random and people just give what ever they feel like. That's why from now on at events I'm just going to tell people that I'm giving them a zero and it's upto them to convince me that they deserve more

**niv-mizzet**

"I'm the best sport ever, look at these numbers!"
"These numbers are random and people give whatever they feel like."

Dman, you are your own worst enemy. XD

Good luck on that unconventional approach. I'd love to see the data for how that turns out. I have the initial presumption that people won't particularly like being told that they need to impress you to earn your sportsmanship approval, or they're getting docked. Seems like most people I know would take that negatively and be encouraged to return the favor golden rule style.

**Frozocrone**

If you were competitive you would have bombed everyones score to give yourself the best chance of winning lol.

Don't think soft scores should even taken into account when determining a winner personally though.

**Ghazkuul**

Frozocrone wrote:
If you were competitive you would have bombed everyones score to give yourself the best chance of winning lol.

Don't think soft scores should even taken into account when determining a winner personally though.

I do, it keeps most people from being complete donkey caves at events. even professional sports assess penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct