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.

I'm thinking we might need to start using a Sportsmanship score for Forum Posting soon...

We've got the Red Triangle!!!

So who Mods the Mods?

sourclams wrote:So who Mods the Mods?

Only truly brave men. Do you really want to try to Mod this guy?
(frazzled, having some light hearted antics with the local fauna)

I'll do it...mod the mods... for food?.... and Frazzled you are doing just fine.

Ugh I have to do a moving run today...

But back on topic: How many points overall in the score is "sportsmanship" worth? In the tourney I went to it was equal parts winning/rules knowing/painting/army comp/sporty... that's easy math, 10/60 = 1/6 but I imagine it varys from tourney to tourney depending on the TO. Is there actually a standard?

I Have never been to big tourney events, just went to gencon and a local store thing as far as bringing my 'big game'. Maybe tis why this discussion is interesting to me, just what different ideas of 'sportsmanship' means according to the math crunchers and WAACers and TFGs out there.

IMO the role of Sports should be limited to an easy way to identify and stop TFG, and break ties on other scores.

'TFG' should be identified by or to a TO or Ref, warned once then kicked out. Best 'sportsmanship score' ever.

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO the role of Sports should be limited to an easy way to identify and stop TFG, and break ties on other scores.

I like this approach, even though TFG can still torpedo scores. However, with it only being a tiebreaker, it shouldn't be a huge issue.

"Sportsmanship" shouldn't be part of the main scprong system. Instead opposing players should be able to "Penalize" opponents for misbehaving. Once enough negative points are accumulated they are ejected from the tourney. This allows a certain amount of "Wiggle room" for people to bring strong lists to a tourney and still be able to win. I mean bringing competitive lists to a tourney... imagine that!!!

Recently in a local tournament I brought my mech vet DKoK IG (Because that's all i have) and took 2 vendettas, won every game and didn't place. I later found out that I was docked for taking an "Abusive list". By every opponent. Which I really felt is wasn't, I didn't even take a PBS or an Inquisitor. But people seem to see Vendettas and scream CHEESE!!!

Red_Lives wrote:"Sportsmanship" shouldn't be part of the main scprong system. Instead opposing players should be able to "Penalize" opponents for misbehaving. Once enough negative points are accumulated they are ejected from the tourney. This allows a certain amount of "Wiggle room" for people to bring strong lists to a tourney and still be able to win. I mean bringing competitive lists to a tourney... imagine that!!!

I like.

All this talk of wanting to stop/get rid of TFG's...The biggest problem with that is the definition of what is a 'TFG' is really loose.

I am someone who consistantly gets the lowest sports scores in tournaments. I don't do anything that I consider to be bad sportsmanship. However, I know the rules really well and use them. I don't allow my opponents to get away with stuff if I see it, plus I'm kind of shy so I don't talk much outside of the game and I don't easily show emotion. When I played 40k, I regularly took powerful lists also. None of that is, in my mind, bad sportsmanship. It is, however, enough to consistantly get your scores tanked.

skyth wrote:All this talk of wanting to stop/get rid of TFG's...The biggest problem with that is the definition of what is a 'TFG' is really loose.

I am someone who consistantly gets the lowest sports scores in tournaments. I don't do anything that I consider to be bad sportsmanship. However, I know the rules really well and use them. I don't allow my opponents to get away with stuff if I see it, plus I'm kind of shy so I don't talk much outside of the game and I don't easily show emotion. When I played 40k, I regularly took powerful lists also. None of that is, in my mind, bad sportsmanship. It is, however, enough to consistantly get your scores tanked.

Yep.

Apparently stopping people from using 4th ed rules makes you a jerk.

I really don't see why it's necessary. If TFG just destroyed everyone in the tournament, he shouldn't be robbed of his rightful victory just because he brought a good list or even because he was being a dick about it. Painting and play should really be two separate categories that deserve separate but equal recognition as well. The Best General category of any given tournament should be given, objectively, to whoever does the best job of winning scenarios, etc.

It's not like you get a bonus for being a nice player, so a Sportsmanship score is just a way to penalize people for bringing a cheesy list, or more likely playing against TFG who thinks everything that beats him is cheesy. When a game has an objective definition of victory and defeat, there is no need for subjective scores to determine who the best player is unless you're actively trying to figure out who is, on average', the best at both.

And this is coming from someone who routinely loses playing against competitive lists. If someone is beating me, why does their attitude matter?

Do you enjoy playing against miserable bastards who make every game a misery?

I don't know how many people there really are like that -- you hear more about from US players than UK, maybe because they are more competitive -- it could be just Internet exaggeration is what I mean.

If it's a tiny proportion it probably isn't worth bothering with.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you enjoy playing against miserable bastards who make every game a misery?

I don't know how many people there really are like that -- you hear more about from US players than UK, maybe because they are more competitive -- it could be just Internet exaggeration is what I mean.

If it's a tiny proportion it probably isn't worth bothering with.

I enjoy it a little less, but it doesn't ruin the game for me. Even if more than half the players I played did that, it wouldn't really bother me. People need to be a little more thick skinned.

I've probably played fewer cheese-infested-list players than players who, upon realizing that they don't have a chance, start giving me gak about my amateur paintjobs. If anything, that sort of crap is way more annoying than someone just being a braggart.

Kevin Nash wrote:They also don't need to monitor the bottom tables unless there is a major dispute. It doesn't matter if the guy cheats his way to 65th place does it?

If I end up in 66th instead of 65th because some guy cheated ahead of me, you bet your sweet ass it matters. Even those of us who are fairly sucky players, like myself, still want a fun and fair experience playing the game.

The 'bottom' tables are just as important as the 'top' tables for the players on those tables.

Ostrakon wrote:I really don't see why it's necessary. If TFG just destroyed everyone in the tournament, he shouldn't be robbed of his rightful victory just because he brought a good list or even because he was being a dick about it.

Thats why some prefer Hard Boys where there isn't Sportsmanship, and some prefer other tournaments where this is sportsmanship.

Some people don't like people that play different styles than they do and want to be in a situation where they can punish people that play differently.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:They also don't need to monitor the bottom tables unless there is a major dispute. It doesn't matter if the guy cheats his way to 65th place does it?

If I end up in 66th instead of 65th because some guy cheated ahead of me, you bet your sweet ass it matters. Even those of us who are fairly sucky players, like myself, still want a fun and fair experience playing the game.

The 'bottom' tables are just as important as the 'top' tables for the players on those tables.

Ok fine it technically matters to players at those specific tables, but not for prize payouts or tournament invitational slots. It's a lower priority in the grand scope of the tournament.

The point is if you prioritize correctly you don't need a judge at every table for the entire duration of the tournament.

skyth wrote:Some people don't like people that play different styles than they do and want to be in a situation where they can punish people that play differently.

Some people don't like people with big ears. Whats your point besides playing Wizard of Oz name that scarecrow?

skyth wrote:Some people don't like people that play different styles than they do and want to be in a situation where they can punish people that play differently.

It seems that a lot of these people are TOs who use comp systems to enforce their own playstyles on everyone else.

comp-yea. thats a separate item though.

I'd probably participate in tournaments more if it wasn't for the prevalence of comp and sportsmanship crap. It's not like I'd have a shot at winning anyway, it just irks me when people other than the obvious best player wins because other players are butthurt about their own losses.

Frazzled wrote:Same applies to you boyo.

You forgot the emoticon. Now you look all super sereal.

The best solution to this I have seen was a tournament that was run back in September in my area. You could sign up for one of two events:

Event A) Hard battle points, only thing close to a 'soft' score was requiring your miniatures to not be just primed.

Event B) All soft scores. Casuals even had the joy of being evaluated on a one-page story about their army. No battle points were used at all, as I recall.

Those that went I hear enjoyed the split, and they were able to fill both. The best part was that if someone wanted to enter Event B just to win, there was no real way to do it considering the entire score was based on comp/theme/painting/sportsmanship.

Fearspect wrote:The best solution to this I have seen was a tournament that was run back in September in my area. You could sign up for one of two events:

Event A) Hard battle points, only thing close to a 'soft' score was requiring your miniatures to not be just primed.

Event B) All soft scores. Casuals even had the joy of being evaluated on a one-page story about their army. No battle points were used at all, as I recall.

Those that went I hear enjoyed the split, and they were able to fill both. The best part was that if someone wanted to enter Event B just to win, there was no real way to do it considering the entire score was based on comp/theme/painting/sportsmanship.

Yeah, this really is the best way to do it.

Frazzled wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:I really don't see why it's necessary. If TFG just destroyed everyone in the tournament, he shouldn't be robbed of his rightful victory just because he brought a good list or even because he was being a dick about it.

Thats why some prefer Hard Boys where there isn't Sportsmanship, and some prefer other tournaments where this is sportsmanship.

Isn't that the ultimate answer to the whole conversation?

Different strokes for different folks; agree to disagree; Free to be you and me?

If you can't find a tourney that suits your needs, organize one that does.

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:I really don't see why it's necessary. If TFG just destroyed everyone in the tournament, he shouldn't be robbed of his rightful victory just because he brought a good list or even because he was being a dick about it.

Thats why some prefer Hard Boys where there isn't Sportsmanship, and some prefer other tournaments where this is sportsmanship.

Isn't that the ultimate answer to the whole conversation?

Different strokes for different folks; agree to disagree; Free to be you and me?

If you can't find a tourney that suits your needs, organize one that does.

Yep.

skyth wrote:Some people don't like people that play different styles than they do and want to be in a situation where they can punish people that play differently.

That is exactly what I'm thinking. Using sportsmanship scrore to raise your chance of 'winning' (whoopee!) just shows how scoring sportsmanship is kind of dumb from the moment of conception, since it is yet another system that can be abused, which was the entire point of 'sportsmanship' was to not abuse system holes, and play by the spirit instead of insisting on the letters and so on.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you enjoy playing against miserable bastards who make every game a misery?

I don't know how many people there really are like that -- you hear more about from US players than UK, maybe because they are more competitive -- it could be just Internet exaggeration is what I mean.

If it's a tiny proportion it probably isn't worth bothering with.

I just enjoy kicking the gak out of TFG. I don't need soft scores to settle my score.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:I really don't see why it's necessary. If TFG just destroyed everyone in the tournament, he shouldn't be robbed of his rightful victory just because he brought a good list or even because he was being a dick about it.

Thats why some prefer Hard Boys where there isn't Sportsmanship, and some prefer other tournaments where this is sportsmanship.

Isn't that the ultimate answer to the whole conversation?

Different strokes for different folks; agree to disagree; Free to be you and me?

If you can't find a tourney that suits your needs, organize one that does.

Except that doesn't follow the scope of the thread. It's about making a good argument for the need of sportsmanship in a tournament.

Most folks in the soft score camp state that you need soft scores to control TFG.

Most of the folks outside of the soft score camp are competitive players and don't need soft scores to control TFG. We just kick the gak out of him and move on.

Other folk apparently need a handicap to do that. For us competitive players, we don't think that's a good enough reason, but apparently the soft score folks don't want to raise the level of their game to compete in a competitive environment and prefer to damper TFG with soft scores.

Of course TFG can tank their soft scores as well.