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.

Saldiven wrote:Personally, I believe that the entire premise of this thread's poll is a little invalid.

In terms of the poll, there are only three types of people:

1. People who almost always act in a sporting manner, and would not need to modify their behavior due to the existence of sportsmanship scores.

2. People who occasionally push the envelope of sportsmanship while playing, but are aware enough of their actions that they consciously modify their behavior so as not to be penalized.

3. People who either don't care that they are abrasive and unpleasant to play against, or are completely unaware that they are unpleasant opponents.

In my experience, the majority of players fit into the 1st type above. The smallest number fit into the 3rd type.

When asking whether or not you consciously act differently due to the existence of Sportsmanship scores, the only people who will answer "yes" will be those who fit in the 2nd type I mention above. This being a minority of overall players, it will tend to skew the poll results to make it appear that Sportsmanship scores do not have an effect on modifying people's behavior.

Agreed.

But I also think this is just a push-poll, just like so many others here on dakkadakka in the YMDC section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

its subtle, but I call it like I see it.

Lol, you obviously have no idea what a push poll is...

How is it skewed in any one direction. I just wanted to know how many people play differently when they go to events with sports scores vs non sports scores.

I can randomly make up categories that people fall into and prove that the number of categories of people who do change the way they play is greater than the number of categories of people who don't.

Here, I'll do it for you.

People who respond to this poll fall into 1 of 5 categories

1. Manipulative jerks who will pretend to be nice while pushing the limits so that they can get max sports

2. Anti-social people who will suddenly become very friendly so they can get max sports

3. People who occasionally push the envelop but will stay away from arguing cocked dice/certain grey area rules.

4. People who are nice already and won't change the way they play

5. People who are jerks and won't change the way they play.

OMG THERE IS MOAR CATEGORIES FOR PEOPLE WHO DO CHANGE THE WAY THEY PLAYED!!! THIS POLL IS OBVIOUSLY SKEWED!!111!


There, I hope you have seen how dumb that analysis is of my completely unbiased poll. Heck, I didn't even put and leading sentences into the original question. Like:
"how many people ACTUALLY change the way they play."

Yea, I kept it as unbiased as possible I believe.

And Actually:

Saldiven wrote:
When asking whether or not you consciously act differently due to the existence of Sportsmanship scores, the only people who will answer "yes" will be those who fit in the 2nd type I mention above. This being a minority of overall players, it will tend to skew the poll results to make it appear that Sportsmanship scores do not have an effect on modifying people's behavior.

My poll then proves that the sportsmanship scores do modify behavior but only in the minority of individuals. Thanks, that is what I was trying to prove.

Actually the best push polls are quite subtle, but that is a subject for the Dungeon that is the OT Zone.

Timmah wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
When asking whether or not you consciously act differently due to the existence of Sportsmanship scores, the only people who will answer "yes" will be those who fit in the 2nd type I mention above. This being a minority of overall players, it will tend to skew the poll results to make it appear that Sportsmanship scores do not have an effect on modifying people's behavior.

My poll then proves that the sportsmanship scores do modify behavior but only in the minority of individuals. Thanks, that is what I was trying to prove.

But the poll doesn't address the point that the majority of players do not need to modify their behavior to achieve high Sportsmanship scores.

Most players would readily accept, based on their individual experience, that the majority of their opponents are decent people, regardless of whether or not the game is at a competitive event.

For a real study of the effectiveness of Sportsmanship scoring on the conduct of players, we would need to remove from consideration those who do not need their behavior to be modified. Sportsmanship scores are only valid in as much as they encourage otherwise unpleasant opponents to modulate that unpleasantness that they might otherwise bring to a gaming table; that being the entire point of Sportsmanship scores.

I don't know if I have the skill to do so, myself, but I believe the best study to measure such effectiveness (or lack thereof) would need to isolate those individuals that are generally considered unpleasant to play in non-Sportsmanship environments, and determine their relative "pleasantness" in environments where Sportsmanship is judged.

As an aside, I did notice that as of right now, roughly a third of respondents say that they do modify their behavior in Sportsmanship events. Considering virtually all events are 3+ games in length, this shows us that just about anyone who goes to a Sportsmanship judged event will face at least one opponent who is making a conscious effort (for whatever reason) to be more pleasant to play against that they might otherwise be. Is having an opponent make an effort to be fun to play against a bad thing?

If my opponent is whiny I walk on egg shells, so yes.

Edit: And I've only not earned full sportsmanship one round of one tourney.

“Countless”? From my observation it's a few others, repeating the same opionions countless times.

Very true words.

G

To be fair, there isn't exactly a large number of people arguing either side of the issue here.

While Dakka's a pretty prominent 40k site, the forum is still a fairly small echo chamber, and we always want to be conscious that the folks here aren't necessarily representative of the larger tournament-going community.

“Countless”? From my observation it's a few others, repeating the same opionions countless times.

Playing dumb undermines your credibility. You're not new here and neither is this topic. The debate about sportsmanship scores and soft scores in general has been raging for years and has surfaced dozens if not hundreds of times on Dakka and elsewhere.

While restrictions on behavior don’t stop ALL people from being dicks, my experience from observation is that sportsmanship scoring does encourage some people who are overly competitive and have dickish tendencies to moderate their attitudes and make a conscious effort to be friendly and pleasant.
IMO this is a positive result.

Unfortunately my experience is that sportsmanship scoring has no effect on how people behave outside of tossing a few empty compliments about an opponent's paint job or conversions in order to curry favor. Subtle manipulation and flattery is not the same as good sportsmanship. That's why anecdotal evidence is a poor basis for your argument. However, chipmunking does indeed occur with soft scores and is impossible without their inclusion.

So we have two sets of conflicting evidence and one objective fact: the inclusion of sportsmanship scores create a whole new problem. Tell me again why they're so clearly necessary? The reason we've been "repeating the same opinions countless times" is because you and others have failed utterly in providing an adequate response to this question. Instead, you simply reply that we need them and insist that the system works, yet cannot provide anything other than the conjecture to support your position. Prove the system works and perhaps we'll be inclined to agree. People seem to get along fine without soft scores in Europe. I'm pretty sure TFGs aren't an American phenomenon.

Not all TFGs chipmunk, and not all chipmunkers are obvious TFGs. While the chipmunking issue is a problem, IME it’s much less common than soft score detractors claim. There are also ways to modify the system to make it significantly harder to do, like using pass/fail sports or an objective checklist. I know you don’t believe in an objective checklist, but IME giving a clear list of good and bad behaviors DOES make it easier for players to score one another consistently and know what kind of behaviors are expected from competitors.

Show me an objective checklist. Please. I've asked several other people to provide one and they have yet to do so. You can't rate something as undefined as "good sportsmanship" objectively because defining anything as "good" requires a value judgment which is, by definition, subjective. Hobby events in the US already use checklists that include specific types of behaviors and they still get chipmunked because coding the behaviors is completely subjective.

But trying to boil down all complaints to one source (“players who don’t like competitive events”) is deeply misguided, IMO. There can’t be that many such people even attending ‘Ard Boyz. It’s not like GW doesn’t clearly label it as a purely competitive event.

I wasn't trying to give the opinion that every complaint is from these players, only that they are responsible for the perceived increase in complaints regarding the event.

While sports scoring does have flaws and weaknesses, it at least communicates clearly the social norm that sportsmanship is important and valued, and that we care enough about it to make the quality of your interaction with your opponent a part of the scoring for the event. IME this does modify behavior for a lot of folks.

Few (if any) participants in this discussion are advocating that sportsmanship is unimportant. What we are saying is that the quantification of sportsmanship is a terrible idea because there is no way to do so in a meaningful way.

And I believe (especially based on observing the different people attending ‘Ard Boyz events compared to other events) does discourage a significant number of TFGs from even coming out to events with soft scores, to the benefit of everyone else.

I disagree completely with this. The few TFGs I've come across attend every tournament that comes around, both the local ones and the independent GTs.

Danny Internets wrote:

“Countless”? From my observation it's a few others, repeating the same opionions countless times.

Playing dumb undermines your credibility. You're not new here and neither is this topic. The debate about sportsmanship scores and soft scores in general has been raging for years and has surfaced dozens if not hundreds of times on Dakka and elsewhere.

Really? Are you sure I’m not new? I just popped up on the forum eleven years ago.

And as I noted in the post immediately above yours, the people arguing both sides of this argument on this forum (and indeed on multiple forums) are small samples of the overall tournament-going population. What I was pointing out was that you and Sourclams and Timmeh (and maybe one or two others) posting the same opinion over and over and over again does not equal “countless” people expressing the same opinion.

Danny Internets wrote:

While restrictions on behavior don’t stop ALL people from being dicks, my experience from observation is that sportsmanship scoring does encourage some people who are overly competitive and have dickish tendencies to moderate their attitudes and make a conscious effort to be friendly and pleasant. IMO this is a positive result.

Unfortunately my experience is that sportsmanship scoring has no effect on how people behave outside of tossing a few empty compliments about an opponent's paint job or conversions in order to curry favor. Subtle manipulation and flattery is not the same as good sportsmanship. That's why anecdotal evidence is a poor basis for your argument. However, chipmunking does indeed occur with soft scores and is impossible without their inclusion.

So we have two sets of conflicting evidence and one objective fact: the inclusion of sportsmanship scores create a whole new problem. Tell me again why they're so clearly necessary?

To my understanding, they were introduced in the US GTs in response to what the organizers saw as an excessive number of a-hole players showing up to the GTs. The sports score was designed to clearly communicate to attendees that they were responsible for their opponent’s good time.

It’s likely that chipmunking was a problem that they didn’t foresee. OTOH, I still don’t see it as being an omnipresent problem.

I do note that I see a number of jerks showing up at ‘Ard Boyz. Some of those jerks also attend other events. Some of them I ONLY see at ‘Ard Boyz, and never see at regular events.

Danny Internets wrote:The reason we've been "repeating the same opinions countless times" is because you and others have failed utterly in providing an adequate response to this question. Instead, you simply reply that we need them and insist that the system works, yet cannot provide anything other than the conjecture to support your position. Prove the system works and perhaps we'll be inclined to agree.

I say that the various systems out there overall have a positive effect. I have repeatedly opined that most of the systems out there have flaws and weaknesses. There’s no way to prove “the system” “works” any more than there is any way to prove that chipmunking is a major or a trivial issue, or that it happens often or rarely.

Danny Internets wrote:People seem to get along fine without soft scores in Europe. I'm pretty sure TFGs aren't an American phenomenon.

Here you’re arguing out of pure ignorance. Why don’t you actually do some research before spouting this stuff? Many European countries DO use soft scores. More accurately, many individual events WITHIN individual countries use them. And many don’t. England, for example, has both events which use and don’t use soft scores.

Danny Internets wrote:Show me an objective checklist. Please. I've asked several other people to provide one and they have yet to do so. You can't rate something as undefined as "good sportsmanship" objectively because defining anything as "good" requires a value judgment which is, by definition, subjective. Hobby events in the US already use checklists that include specific types of behaviors and they still get chipmunked because coding the behaviors is completely subjective.

Both the Adepticon system and the one I used at my tournaments use checklists. They’re not purely objective, and often include a couple of subjective questions, but I maintain that having a checklist and breaking desireable behavior down into elements allows the players to be more objective and consistent in their scoring.

Mine is in the second post here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/153188.page

Adepticon’s is on page 6 here:
http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2010/201040KChampPrimer.pdf

Danny Internets wrote:Few (if any) participants in this discussion are advocating that sportsmanship is unimportant. What we are saying is that the quantification of sportsmanship is a terrible idea because there is no way to do so in a meaningful way.

How about the pass/fail system I’ve described a couple of times now? Optionally combined with favorite opponent votes.

What I was pointing out was that you and Sourclams and Timmeh (and maybe one or two others) posting the same opinion over and over and over again does not equal “countless” people expressing the same opinion.

That's nice, but what I was pointing out was that we represent a small fraction of the countless others who have argued similar points over the years. I did not restrict my comment to the few threads in the newly created Tournament forum. You either misconstrued this purposely for rhetorical purposes or didn't read it carefully enough.

I do note that I see a number of jerks showing up at ‘Ard Boyz. Some of those jerks also attend other events. Some of them I ONLY see at ‘Ard Boyz, and never see at regular events.

You think that people, TFGs in particular, who have invested in 2500+ points worth of models will only play in 'Ard Boyz every year and skip all of the other tournaments? Really?

There’s no way to prove “the system” “works” any more than there is any way to prove that chipmunking is a major or a trivial issue, or that it happens often or rarely.

The point is that you support a system that has no evidence of being effective and which introduces even more problems into the equation. Simply hoping that it works is not a good reason to perpetuate such a deeply flawed system.

Here you’re arguing out of pure ignorance. Why don’t you actually do some research before spouting this stuff? Many European countries DO use soft scores. More accurately, many individual events WITHIN individual countries use them. And many don’t. England, for example, has both events which use and don’t use soft scores.

I was referring to the UK GT. Last I checked the UK was still part of Europe.

Was my opponent friendly and pleasant?
Did my opponent make at least one tactical decision (a move, shot, or assault) during the game, which was done because it was “in character” for his army or unit, even though another move would clearly have been a better tactical choice?
Did my opponent display willingness to cheerfully and accurately answer questions I had about his units, special rules, or army list?
Was my opponent sullen, unfriendly, or otherwise actively unpleasant?
If there was a rules question or disagreement, did my opponent react negatively to a suggestion to consult the rules or a judge?
Did my opponent play very slowly, delaying the game, possibly for tactical advantage?

My opponent was prompt to report for the start of the round.
My opponent appeared to measure movement and assault distances accurately.
My opponent put forward a good faith effort to play at a timely pace and complete the game in the allotted time.
Rules issues that may have arose during the game were handled amicably by my opponent.
I would voluntarily play this person again.

These are your examples of objective sportsmanship checklists? With all due respect: this is a joke, right? Every single question/criterion in both checklists requires some judgment call and are therefore all subjective. These are no more objective than asking players to simply rate their opponents on a scale of 1-10.

As far as this pass/fail system is concerned, where have you described it? I tried searching this forum and I found several posts where you've made reference to it, but I can find no explanation for how it works in detail. If it works something along the lines of of handing out yellow and red cards then I can see that working very well, but as soon as you let players start contributing to the quantification of sportsmanship you open up the system to abuse.

And don't forget the +3/0/-3 system I described. It does not really reward anyone except for a few exceptions.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:And don't forget the +3/0/-3 system I described. It does not really reward anyone except for a few exceptions.

G

There's nothing from stopping a chipmunk from tanking the score of his final opponent, the one he is most direct competition with for overall placing, in your system. He can cook up any number of reasons why he gave his opponent a bad score. I fail to see how this is an improvement.

Danny Internets wrote:

What I was pointing out was that you and Sourclams and Timmeh (and maybe one or two others) posting the same opinion over and over and over again does not equal “countless” people expressing the same opinion.

That's nice, but what I was pointing out was that we represent a small fraction of the countless others who have argued similar points over the years. I did not restrict my comment to the few threads in the newly created Tournament forum. You either misconstrued this purposely for rhetorical purposes or didn't read it carefully enough.

I do note that I see a number of jerks showing up at ‘Ard Boyz. Some of those jerks also attend other events. Some of them I ONLY see at ‘Ard Boyz, and never see at regular events.

You think that people, TFGs in particular, who have invested in 2500+ points worth of models will only play in 'Ard Boyz every year and skip all of the other tournaments? Really?

There’s no way to prove “the system” “works” any more than there is any way to prove that chipmunking is a major or a trivial issue, or that it happens often or rarely.

The point is that you support a system that has no evidence of being effective and which introduces even more problems into the equation. Simply hoping that it works is not a good reason to perpetuate such a deeply flawed system.

Here you’re arguing out of pure ignorance. Why don’t you actually do some research before spouting this stuff? Many European countries DO use soft scores. More accurately, many individual events WITHIN individual countries use them. And many don’t. England, for example, has both events which use and don’t use soft scores.

I was referring to the UK GT. Last I checked the UK was still part of Europe.

Was my opponent friendly and pleasant?
Did my opponent make at least one tactical decision (a move, shot, or assault) during the game, which was done because it was “in character” for his army or unit, even though another move would clearly have been a better tactical choice?
Did my opponent display willingness to cheerfully and accurately answer questions I had about his units, special rules, or army list?
Was my opponent sullen, unfriendly, or otherwise actively unpleasant?
If there was a rules question or disagreement, did my opponent react negatively to a suggestion to consult the rules or a judge?
Did my opponent play very slowly, delaying the game, possibly for tactical advantage?

My opponent was prompt to report for the start of the round.
My opponent appeared to measure movement and assault distances accurately.
My opponent put forward a good faith effort to play at a timely pace and complete the game in the allotted time.
Rules issues that may have arose during the game were handled amicably by my opponent.
I would voluntarily play this person again.

These are your examples of objective sportsmanship checklists? With all due respect: this is a joke, right? Every single question/criterion in both checklists requires some judgment call and are therefore all subjective. These are no more objective than asking players to simply rate their opponents on a scale of 1-10.

As far as this pass/fail system is concerned, where have you described it? I tried searching this forum and I found several posts where you've made reference to it, but I can find no explanation for how it works in detail. If it works something along the lines of of handing out yellow and red cards then I can see that working very well, but as soon as you let players start contributing to the quantification of sportsmanship you open up the system to abuse.

This is hilarious!

Countless is like MAYBE 5 guys on both sides of the subject B*tching back and forth about it. The anti Sports guys are so sure they are right. The sports guys are just as confident. One side spouts their propaganda of drivel about how they are right and the other side is "TOTALLY UNABLE TO HAVE A POINT"...then the other side spouts back THEIR propaganda - and this helps the hobby. RIGHT!

Maybe the sides should just run tourneys the way they like them - and let the players choose to come or not and support (and hat's off to GBF for doing just that).

IF sportsmanship makes 1/3 of the players BEHAVE - then that's a good thing. POINT PROVEN from this silly poll. For me - 'nuff said -it's the only sliver of hard factual data you got to go on.

How many people have HONESTLY been chipmunked on sportsmanship? Really and truly? C'mon...take a HARD look in the mirror. If you have...maybe you were a JERK and deserved it. I'd say look EXTREMELY hard if it's happened more than once...maybe the problem lies within.....or maybe you just need to play more than one big tourney.

Countless is like MAYBE 5 guys on both sides of the subject B*tching back and forth about it. The anti Sports guys are so sure they are right. The sports guys are just as confident. One side spouts their propaganda of drivel about how they are right and the other side is "TOTALLY UNABLE TO HAVE A POINT"...then the other side spouts back THEIR propaganda - and this helps the hobby. RIGHT!

Aldonis, it generally helps to read posts before commenting on them. Especially if you're going to quote them.

There are only 5 guys arguing against sportsmanship in the entire community and on the entire internet over the past decade?

Get real.

And you wonder why we tell people like you that they are "totally unable to have a point"...

No.

Every tournament in Oz has a sportsmanship score (in WHBF at least).

So I just play the way I always do.
Occasionally the games can be really lame, and I turn into Mr Grumpy Pants, but fortunately they are few and far between.

Aldonis wrote:
IF sportsmanship makes 1/3 of the players BEHAVE - then that's a good thing. POINT PROVEN from this silly poll. For me - 'nuff said -it's the only sliver of hard factual data you got to go on.

Now your making the assumption that everyone who changes how they play are jerks to begin with. Maybe some of them just let things slide, don't get into rules debates even if they know their opponent is wrong, allow their opponent to premeasure, ect...

Aldonis wrote:
How many people have HONESTLY been chipmunked on sportsmanship? Really and truly? C'mon...take a HARD look in the mirror. If you have...maybe you were a JERK and deserved it. I'd say look EXTREMELY hard if it's happened more than once...maybe the problem lies within.....or maybe you just need to play more than one big tourney.

Are you seriously even asking this? A lot of people do especially at big events.

Aldonis wrote:Maybe the sides should just run tourneys the way they like them - and let the players choose to come or not and support (and hat's off to GBF for doing just that).

I've been advocating this idea since the first post of this most recent round of this debate showed up a month or so ago.

There are enough different tournaments that use different scoring systems (with & without soft scores, with Sports, without Sports, Painting or Painting optional, etc., etc.), that there really is no reason for people to get upset about whether or not a given tournament uses Sportsmanship scoring, because there will be another one which does not use Sportsmanship.

(Here's where I get snarky.) Despite this, every so often, someone who hates Sportsmanship scores will start a thread saying Sportsmanship scoring needs to be done away with in its entirety. You'll notice that it is never the pro-Sportsmanship crowd that crops up and says that events like 'Ard Boys, or other purely competitive events (like Gladiator events), need to institute a Sportsmanship score. Face it: different people derive enjoyment out of different parts of the hobby and find different things to be important for their tournament experience. Please stop trying to make everyone else adhere to your own view of how the hobby should be enjoyed, on a competitive level or otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timmah wrote:

Aldonis wrote:
How many people have HONESTLY been chipmunked on sportsmanship? Really and truly? C'mon...take a HARD look in the mirror. If you have...maybe you were a JERK and deserved it. I'd say look EXTREMELY hard if it's happened more than once...maybe the problem lies within.....or maybe you just need to play more than one big tourney.

Are you seriously even asking this? A lot of people do especially at big events.

I have to admit that I have been chipmunked. Exactly once, about 3 years ago.

I play the same regardless. And to add my voice to the discussion: I don't see a need for sportsmanship scores in tournaments. Banning cheaters and completely antisocial fools and social excluding the less irritating ones is enough for me. I'm pretty well able to stand up for myself in a game without the need for a passive aggressive scoring system.

Saldiven wrote:
There are enough different tournaments that use different scoring systems (with & without soft scores, with Sports, without Sports, Painting or Painting optional, etc., etc.), that there really is no reason for people to get upset about whether or not a given tournament uses Sportsmanship scoring, because there will be another one which does not use Sportsmanship.

(Here's where I get snarky.) Despite this, every so often, someone who hates Sportsmanship scores will start a thread saying Sportsmanship scoring needs to be done away with in its entirety. You'll notice that it is never the pro-Sportsmanship crowd that crops up and says that events like 'Ard Boys, or other purely competitive events (like Gladiator events), need to institute a Sportsmanship score. Face it: different people derive enjoyment out of different parts of the hobby and find different things to be important for their tournament experience. Please stop trying to make everyone else adhere to your own view of how the hobby should be enjoyed, on a competitive level or otherwise.

Because this is a forum where we discuss stuff maybe? Seriously though, outside of ard boyz (barely competitive given the scenarios that pop up each year) and the Adepticon gladiator events (woow I has more money than you, I win!) what large tournaments are there without sports scores?

Is there even 1 on the GW approved circuit that doesn't have them?

So please tell me which no soft score, competitive event I should attend?

See a lot of TO's are either stubborn, clueless or just want to be in control. Meaning if anything is to ever change, you need to persuade them through countless discussions.

Saldiven wrote:
I have to admit that I have been chipmunked. Exactly once, about 3 years ago.

Well, it usually only happens near the upper tables....

Danny Internets wrote:

I do note that I see a number of jerks showing up at ‘Ard Boyz. Some of those jerks also attend other events. Some of them I ONLY see at ‘Ard Boyz, and never see at regular events.

You think that people, TFGs in particular, who have invested in 2500+ points worth of models will only play in 'Ard Boyz every year and skip all of the other tournaments? Really?

I’m reporting what I see. Some of the TFGs I just don’t see at other local tournaments at all. Some of them apparently also don’t paint, so that’s probably another reason why they don’t attend other events, which generally require painted models. Some of them must just play at home or play pick-up games at stores. Other venues where their opponents won’t grade them on their behavior.

Danny Internets wrote:

There’s no way to prove “the system” “works” any more than there is any way to prove that chipmunking is a major or a trivial issue, or that it happens often or rarely.

The point is that you support a system that has no evidence of being effective and which introduces even more problems into the equation. Simply hoping that it works is not a good reason to perpetuate such a deeply flawed system.

I’m saying that from my observation, it seems to have a net positive effect, despite the flaws I see and openly acknowledge. I am saying that IME chipmunking is talked about much more than it is seen. And I am saying that the number of people I see complaining about sportsmanship scoring is a small enough percentage of the larger tournament-going population that I don’t see it as a major problem.

Danny Internets wrote:

Here you’re arguing out of pure ignorance. Why don’t you actually do some research before spouting this stuff? Many European countries DO use soft scores. More accurately, many individual events WITHIN individual countries use them. And many don’t. England, for example, has both events which use and don’t use soft scores.

I was referring to the UK GT. Last I checked the UK was still part of Europe.

So when you said Europe in general, you meant one specific event in one specific country? How about you just admit the error and concede that particular point, as you were basing it on a substantially inaccurate generalization?

Danny Internets wrote:

(Checklists)

These are your examples of objective sportsmanship checklists? With all due respect: this is a joke, right? Every single question/criterion in both checklists requires some judgment call and are therefore all subjective. These are no more objective than asking players to simply rate their opponents on a scale of 1-10.

No joke. While there is, as I’ve already repeatedly stated, a subjective element to some of the questions, I am quite convinced that breaking down and talking about specific sportsmanlike behaviors is much better and produces more consistent and accurate results than scoring 1-10, which is honestly a mess.

Danny Internets wrote:As far as this pass/fail system is concerned, where have you described it? I tried searching this forum and I found several posts where you've made reference to it, but I can find no explanation for how it works in detail. If it works something along the lines of of handing out yellow and red cards then I can see that working very well, but as soon as you let players start contributing to the quantification of sportsmanship you open up the system to abuse.

Here’s the first time I described it on the new tournament forum here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/280263.page#1361029

Timmah wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
I have to admit that I have been chipmunked. Exactly once, about 3 years ago.

Well, it usually only happens near the upper tables....

Actually, I won that tournament. It was in game 2 when I tabled an opponent playing the old Ulthwe Strike Force by surrounding his portal after I killed the guy carrying it, thereby preventing him from bringing on any more of his army.

Hrm...maybe that was four years ago.

Either way, he zero'd me on Sports, 'cuz he didn't like me exploiting that weakness in his army's rules.

But, nicely veiled attempt at discrediting my contribution by insinuating that I don't usually play at top tables.

Saldiven wrote:

Timmah wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
I have to admit that I have been chipmunked. Exactly once, about 3 years ago.

Well, it usually only happens near the upper tables....

Actually, I won that tournament. It was in game 2 when I tabled an opponent playing the old Ulthwe Strike Force by surrounding his portal after I killed the guy carrying it, thereby preventing him from bringing on any more of his army.

Hrm...maybe that was four years ago.

Either way, he zero'd me on Sports, 'cuz he didn't like me exploiting that weakness in his army's rules.

But, nicely veiled attempt at discrediting my contribution by insinuating that I don't usually play at top tables.

So the time you were chipmunked on softscores was when you were at the top tables? Which is exactly what I said?

Oh man, you showed me...

(btw, it was just a little joke, I am sure you are a fine player. Its just your or anyone's personal experiences aren't really good evidence)

Timmah wrote:Because this is a forum where we discuss stuff maybe? Seriously though, outside of ard boyz (barely competitive given the scenarios that pop up each year) and the Adepticon gladiator events (woow I has more money than you, I win!) what large tournaments are there without sports scores?

Is there even 1 on the GW approved circuit that doesn't have them?

So please tell me which no soft score, competitive event I should attend?

See a lot of TO's are either stubborn, clueless or just want to be in control. Meaning if anything is to ever change, you need to persuade them through countless discussions.

So, here's some advice. Instead of telling all of us that we need to abandon things that we like to do things the way you like, why don't you approach tournament directors directly and ask that they offer non-Sports events as well as Sportsmanship based events? Why don't you ask the people putting together major events all over the country, as well as those putting together smaller events in your locality, to make the addition of more 'Ard Boys style tournaments?

There is room enough for both Sports and Non-Sports events to exist in the hobby. If you were attempting to get more non-Sports events started up, rather than attacking those of us who actually like having Sportsmanship scored, you'd be getting a lot more support rather than having people (like me) posting on the opposite side of the position.

There are a LOT of people who like non-sports events, just like there are a LOT of people who like the opposite. Pander to those who share your views as opposed to attacking the position of people who don't.

Edit: I'm serious about this. I live in the Metro Atlanta area. If you're even remotely close to here, and you want to get more non-Sports scored events started up around here, I would be happy to help you out with that, even if I didn't play in them (I might or might not, depending on time and such). The Atlanta area has a lot of very competitive events, including the Atlanta tournament circuit. I know a lot of the guys who play in that are very competitive, and would have no problem playing in tournaments that discard Sportsmanship scoring.

Timmah wrote:
Its just your or anyone's personal experiences aren't really good evidence

If that's not evidence then what's the point here? Ideally tournaments are run a certain way to be better for the players whose personal experience isn't a good guide to go by somehow?

@Saldiven

Oh, I do approach a lot of TO's in the area and discuss non soft score tournaments.

But I still would like to have a discussion on it here so I can see where others stand as well.


@cannerus
Personal experience doesn't really prove anything. Why? Because 1 person could randomly run into TFG 3 times at every tournament or never. Now if you are going to compile a very large extensive survey on how many tournaments you've played in during the last 2 years, how many TFG's you ran into, were they soft scored, ect. That would be statistically valid. But not 1 persons experiences.

Right, but if everyone gives their experiences, doesn't that ultimately accomplish the same thing on a smaller scale?

I'm usually pretty concerned with how I come across in general, even when I'm in a situation like a toy soldier's nerd fest. It's honestly more important to me that my opponent and I get along than that I win.

I play the same either way, but it is nice having a way to stick it to a d-bag. though when I type it out it is pretty passive/aggressive looking...

Timmah wrote:@Saldiven

Oh, I do approach a lot of TO's in the area and discuss non soft score tournaments.

But I still would like to have a discussion on it here so I can see where others stand as well.

Ok, well, here's where I stand:

I think there is plenty of room in the 40K/WFB community to have both Sports and Non-Sports scored tournaments.

If, at this time, there are a disproportionately small number of non-Sports scored tournaments, then we, as a community, need to do something to increase the number of this type of event.

Just like I am totally fine with tournaments that have Composition rules and tournaments that have no Composition rules, I believe that a variety of Sports/non-Sports scored tournaments contributes to keepting the game interesting and fun to play. Events with widely disparate scoring methods make me stretch as a player in the effort to maximize my "skills."

While I would never want to entirely do away with Sportsmanship scoring in all tournaments, I also do not believe it is appropriate (or even desirable) to force Sportsmanship scoring onto every tournament in existence.

And, seriously, Tim, if there's anything I can do to help you get more non-Sports scored events created, especially at the larger events, let me know. I think there are definitely enough players out there that dislike Sportsmanship scoring that there should be events that cater to the aspects of the hobby they enjoy.

I think it's time to lock this thread and let it cool down... then we can all reset.

: )

G