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.

No, I don't.

This isn't an exercise in RAW, whereby one needs an exhaustive list of things that will be penalized.

The fact is, it's going to take at least 5 people to get someone kicked:
- 2 opponents
- at least 2 Judges,
- plus the TO.

And quite frankly, when you go to court, even that is subjective tied to the opinion of the Judge and perhaps a Jury.

If you're not comfortable with subjectivity, then don't attend any such events.

But don't think that subjectivity isn't out there, or that it's wrong.

Since you defined a TFG in another thread as someone who doesn't play by your interpretation of the rules, I'd say you DO need to have what is 'good behavior' explained.

You also never pointed out it would take 2 opponents. In fact in your arguements to me John you specifically used the example of someone being booted after one game. No where did you state how it would occur. Also you did state gentleman conduct but as I pointed out you'd need to further expand on it. Much like Polinius (I think) did. And by post anything I meant at the event itself John, not on this thread

Okay.
Everyone's right and everyone's wrong.

Can you get back on topic and stop making posts that are nothing but argumentative, now, guys?

Sheesh!

Modquisition on:

People, lets move on from the definition of TFG. Almost no can recollect someone actually being thrown out. If a situation arises where a person's behavior reaches that level then, like obscenity everyone will know it and it doesn't need to be defined. Lets move move on to the remaining 99.999% of situations.

Honestly, I really think we could move away from the issue of possible ejections.

This type of a tournament, which focuses so heavily upon painting/modeling, artistry, sportsmanship, army composition, and all the other parts of the hobby other than actually winning on the table top will not attract the same type of aggressive, "I gotta win every game!!" type player that another type of tournament might attract.

I would love to enter this kind of tourney... but i'm on the other side of the pond :(

I pride myself on having a well-themed and well presented/painted army, coupled with the intention of having a good time (i can enjoy myself even when my forces are being annihlated). Sadly, i have come across a couple of opponents who- even when they were winning?!- somehow found it neccessary to throw their dice against my models, question my knowledge of the rules, try to move their pieces from the front of the base to the back of the base etc etc... People who will do anything to annoy their opponent unless, shock-horror, a judge/TO is watching (when they wil be as nice as pie).

I'm not a needs-to-win-at-all-costs player and would much rather have an opponent who is as at ease with the RAW as much as i am. I fully appreciate that there are people out there who DO just want to win at all costs and, when i play someone like that, i try to match their competitiveness (think i just made that word up ).

It would take a 'fantastic' TO (with trustworthy judges to help them) to be able to observe all the games going on at a regular evening session and keep a consistent, impartial eye on all the going's on.

To sum up; the OP has a great idea for a tourney but, i think, an almost impossible job keeping everyone happy. without having a (subjectively 'trustworthy') judge on every table.

I'd like to see something on the checklist that allows for a written comment, limited to a sentance or two, to help define why you score the way you do for each category.

It wouldn't be required element, but something encouraged by the TO. A comment that stands out as defining that particular category in a meaningful way might be worth an extra 1% or help to justify a judge's +3%.

I think good, honest, earnest judging would suffice, just as with any other event.

The Judges would rove, but they'd keep an eye out for "trouble", and maybe linger a bit longer at tables that seem to generate issues, or with players that gave and received lower sports scores, etc.

Basically, I think one can reasonably expect the best, but keep an eye out for problems, just like at any normal event.