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.

As for your main point, DoP, sportsmanship isn't all about getting beat and taking it poorly.

There are ways to beat people without embarassing them or beating them into the ground. Yes, I know, it is a competitive game, etc. Doesn't mean you have to curbstomp every poor fool who sits in front of you.

Of all the things that I have seen Stelek say, the one thing I really, really liked was that his favorite games (the ones he had the most fun with) were the close ones that were turned on the roll of one die.

For one reason or another, I get the impression these aren't your favorite games. Your favorite games are when you crush your enemies before you and hear the lamentation of their women. (At least those are the ones you always talk about.)

I have beaten a few people in my time and been beaten many more times than that. In very few cases did I or the other person get butthurt about it. If you're running into that many examples (I know you said minority, but then listed 7 different examples in your post), you might want to look at your delivery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
That said, I think Mannahnin's system should be employed at every tournament. Immediately.

I second. The motion passes.

One month of grace time will be given to implement before sanctions are delivered.

warboss wrote:

Corrode wrote:Sportsmanship is a fething terrible metric for tournament results and really needs to die the death it deserves. If someone is a poor enough sportsman that they deserve a low grade, they're a poor enough sportsman that they deserve to be ejected entirely or at least warned by the TO to calm down.

how do you expect that to happen? if people aren't supposed to report their negative experience via a sportsmanship score, how is the TO supposed to know who to warn or eject short of a loud fight witnessed at the table? some people don't give poor sportsmen an appropriately poor score even though its secret half the time; do you really think they'll call the TO over to eject someone due to an unpleasant experience when that is an order of magnitude MORE confrontational?

the last tourney i was in i played a guy who gave his tyrant guards an extra wound all tourney (i was his last game and they did have an extra wound in the previous codex IIRC so its possible it was an honest mistake theoretically), had to call the TO over three times to rule against his blatantly wrong rules arguments, and simply didn't have a fun time at all for that game. NONE of those are serious enough for him to be ejected from the tourney and without a sportmanship score i have ZERO ways of expressing how the game against him was frustrating and by far the ONLY negative experience (i had tons more fun in my previous game in the tourney despite being tabled with zero battle points!). sportmanship scoring isn't perfect and can be gamed but it has a purpose.

Do you really need a system of rules that says 'talk to the organiser if your opponent is a complete knobjockey' and another system of rules that says 'if you're the TO then players you're constantly being called to speak to probably need a quick word to tell them to cut it out'?

Maybe tournaments are very different in the US but over here I can't think of a player who wasn't easily dealt with by simply being spoken to like an adult.

Corrode wrote:Maybe tournaments are very different in the US but over here I can't think of a player who wasn't easily dealt with by simply being spoken to like an adult.

Can't you have both?

Why not have points disincentives to being an donkey-cave and also deal with them maturely if it comes up? I think everyone sort of wins in that case.

My belief (and I think I share this with others in the thread) is that sports is too subjective a score to be reliable. Pissy opponents are able to tank the score of someone who beats them through perceived inadequacies on that player's part, regardless of whether that person was actually unsporting. If you start to demand that they then justify a low sports score, you either have the same as no sports (because everyone gives the neutral score) or you have to spend half the tournament discussing whether or not the score is really justified. Better to sack it off altogether and trust your players to act like the adults they probably are.

Corrode wrote:My belief (and I think I share this with others in the thread) is that sports is too subjective a score to be reliable. Pissy opponents are able to tank the score of someone who beats them through perceived inadequacies on that player's part, regardless of whether that person was actually unsporting. If you start to demand that they then justify a low sports score, you either have the same as no sports (because everyone gives the neutral score) or you have to spend half the tournament discussing whether or not the score is really justified. Better to sack it off altogether and trust your players to act like the adults they probably are.

Umm, go back and read Mannahnin's suggestion. He has two in his post. One is subjective checklist, which is easy to compare to see if it has been tampered with. (i.e. Did one opponent say you didn't do X Y Z, but your other 2 didn't?) or Pass/Fail.

His are the opposite of too subjective. They are objective.

If you don't want to scroll up to read the whole thing, here's his article:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Pass_or_Fail_Method_of_Tournament_Sportsmanship_Scoring

Corrode wrote:My belief (and I think I share this with others in the thread) is that sports is too subjective a score to be reliable. Pissy opponents are able to tank the score of someone who beats them through perceived inadequacies on that player's part, regardless of whether that person was actually unsporting. If you start to demand that they then justify a low sports score, you either have the same as no sports (because everyone gives the neutral score) or you have to spend half the tournament discussing whether or not the score is really justified. Better to sack it off altogether and trust your players to act like the adults they probably are.

First of all, not everyone would give the neutral score unless everyone's game was neutral. And even if they did, it would have no effect on the tournament and so who cares if there was a Sports score or not? Secondly, you don't spend half the tournament discussing your decision to give someone an above/below average score. It takes 15 seconds and really isn't that big of a deal. To me, it's just as much about rewarding outstanding gamers as punishing douchebags.

And that was just my suggestion. Mannahnin's are far more in-depth and are worth a read.

Corrode wrote:

warboss wrote:

Corrode wrote:Sportsmanship is a fething terrible metric for tournament results and really needs to die the death it deserves. If someone is a poor enough sportsman that they deserve a low grade, they're a poor enough sportsman that they deserve to be ejected entirely or at least warned by the TO to calm down.

how do you expect that to happen? if people aren't supposed to report their negative experience via a sportsmanship score, how is the TO supposed to know who to warn or eject short of a loud fight witnessed at the table? some people don't give poor sportsmen an appropriately poor score even though its secret half the time; do you really think they'll call the TO over to eject someone due to an unpleasant experience when that is an order of magnitude MORE confrontational?

the last tourney i was in i played a guy who gave his tyrant guards an extra wound all tourney (i was his last game and they did have an extra wound in the previous codex IIRC so its possible it was an honest mistake theoretically), had to call the TO over three times to rule against his blatantly wrong rules arguments, and simply didn't have a fun time at all for that game. NONE of those are serious enough for him to be ejected from the tourney and without a sportmanship score i have ZERO ways of expressing how the game against him was frustrating and by far the ONLY negative experience (i had tons more fun in my previous game in the tourney despite being tabled with zero battle points!). sportmanship scoring isn't perfect and can be gamed but it has a purpose.

Do you really need a system of rules that says 'talk to the organiser if your opponent is a complete knobjockey' and another system of rules that says 'if you're the TO then players you're constantly being called to speak to probably need a quick word to tell them to cut it out'?

Maybe tournaments are very different in the US but over here I can't think of a player who wasn't easily dealt with by simply being spoken to like an adult.

I am not sure about players where you play, but here a good amount of players are socially awkward and don't handle any type of confrontation well. That is not to say all, but there is a vast majority who will grin and bear it rather than make waves. This is why I think there has to be a outside set of rules to reign in the WAAC, and give the quiet person a way to speak out.

I posted a link to Mannahnin's article on the store's website for them to look at, btw, R. Maybe he'll give it a shot. They did change to add Best General again after dropping it for a couple months based on feedback.

Monster Rain wrote:

Corrode wrote:My belief (and I think I share this with others in the thread) is that sports is too subjective a score to be reliable. Pissy opponents are able to tank the score of someone who beats them through perceived inadequacies on that player's part, regardless of whether that person was actually unsporting. If you start to demand that they then justify a low sports score, you either have the same as no sports (because everyone gives the neutral score) or you have to spend half the tournament discussing whether or not the score is really justified. Better to sack it off altogether and trust your players to act like the adults they probably are.

First of all, not everyone would give the neutral score unless everyone's game was neutral. And even if they did, it would have no effect on the tournament and so who cares if there was a Sports score or not? Secondly, you don't spend half the tournament discussing your decision to give someone an above/below average score. It takes 15 seconds and really isn't that big of a deal. To me, it's just as much about rewarding outstanding gamers as punishing douchebags.

And that was just my suggestion. Mannahnin's are far more in-depth and are worth a read.

I skimmed over Mannahnin's suggestion the first time but having re-read it I quite like it. No room to chipmunk whilst covering all the essentials of sportsmanship.

I am going in this weekend and talking with the store as well.

Corrode wrote:I skimmed over Mannahnin's suggestion the first time but having re-read it I quite like it. No room to chipmunk whilst covering all the essentials of sportsmanship.

That's exactly the type of sportsmanship score that would work and also not be easily abused.

It's kind of become this Big Lie that there's no way to have a sports score without it being a way for sore losers to strike back at their wargaming betters (/sarcasm) but there is a way to do it correctly.

As a side note: I just have to say that if you often find yourself in heated situations at tournaments at many different venues with many different people perhaps you should consider the common factor in all of those incidents.

pretre wrote:As for your main point, DoP, sportsmanship isn't all about getting beat and taking it poorly.

There are ways to beat people without embarassing them or beating them into the ground. Yes, I know, it is a competitive game, etc. Doesn't mean you have to curbstomp every poor fool who sits in front of you.

Of all the things that I have seen Stelek say, the one thing I really, really liked was that his favorite games (the ones he had the most fun with) were the close ones that were turned on the roll of one die.

For one reason or another, I get the impression these aren't your favorite games. Your favorite games are when you crush your enemies before you and hear the lamentation of their women. (At least those are the ones you always talk about.)

I'm not sure how you get that impression? I never talk about my wins. It would get old fast. In this case, I referenced an anecdote out of a game related to sportsmanship. I win all the time. Apparently 96% of the time (just did the math). The other 4% are FAR more memorable to me; I remember who they were against, when where, our lists, and what happened. I go into every *tournament* game attempting to kill all of my opponent's models and table them. You'll never see me leave Necron Monoliths alone and go for the phase out.

That's what this game is - I expect every opponent in a tournament who stands across from me to attempt to wipe out MY army too. Only one of us can be successful. Neither of us should be surprised when one or the other of us beats the other person.

That's my point: In this game there is a winner and a loser. Not everyone can be a winner. And until everyone scoring sportsmanship can divorce their feelings about losing from their scoresheet and be impartial about the technical aspects of the game itself (was your opponent professional, courteous, timely, etc), then sportsmanship can't work.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm not sure how you get that impression? I never talk about my wins. It would get old fast. In this case, I referenced an anecdote out of a game related to sportsmanship. I win all the time. Apparently 96% of the time (just did the math). The other 4% are FAR more memorable to me; I remember who they were against, when where, our lists, and what happened. I go into every *tournament* game attempting to kill all of my opponent's models and table them. You'll never see me leave Necron Monoliths alone and go for the phase out.

Isn't a Phased Out! army, by definition, a "tabled" army?

Monster Rain wrote:

Corrode wrote:I skimmed over Mannahnin's suggestion the first time but having re-read it I quite like it. No room to chipmunk whilst covering all the essentials of sportsmanship.

That's exactly the type of sportsmanship score that would work and also not be easily abused.

It's kind of become this Big Lie that there's no way to have a sports score without it being a way for sore losers to strike back at their wargaming betters (/sarcasm) but there is a way to do it correctly.

As a side note: I just have to say that if you often find yourself in heated situations at tournaments at many different venues with many different people perhaps you should consider the common factor in all of those incidents.

I don't think I've had an argument at a tournament in my life, and only one poor game which after the fact I put down to the guy having had a bad day as he was friendly enough when we saw each other on day 2!

I haven't had one either.

A few rules discussions, sure, but never an argument. I've had some situations where I probably could have gotten into one but I'm not one to start gak with people. I just smile and continue to play the game. If they're being a tool it's just that much more fun to beat them.

Dash, I can totally agree with you that feelings have to be separated from scoring, but the problem is when you play at a shop the majority of people are not as competitive as you or me even. This is the reason you have a sportsmanship score to make those who bring net lists and are donkeys about tabling people actually shape up or ship out. In a Nova type tournament sports isn't relevant because the players attending are clear about what they are traveling to play at. That being said, in the local tournaments that I have been apart of the store wants to further the hobby (and make money if possible). If you don't reel in the jackasses, then your store will get a reputation of being that store, and you will drive away new customers.

Dashofpepper wrote:That's my point: In this game there is a winner and a loser. Not everyone can be a winner. And until everyone scoring sportsmanship can divorce their feelings about losing from their scoresheet and be impartial about the technical aspects of the game itself (was your opponent professional, courteous, timely, etc), then sportsmanship can't work.

I think you're entirely wrong. IME most gamers I've encountered are adults, and recognize this is a game with a winner and a loser. People who've been bad sports or jerks are rare, IME. And most of them are able to be objective when you give them questions and a format that supports that. 1-5 and 1-10 sliding scale fail to do so, IME. Objective Checklist does a pretty good job, but honestly I think it takes up more words and time than it really needs to, and still gives most of the points even to guys who act like donkey-caves.

If you look at my system, it really focuses on phrasing that single, solitary sportsmanship question very clearly. A given TO could even add more clarification under it, if needed. Something like "Please be sure that this box is not checked based on your opinion of the person's army, or who won or lost the game." The question is phrased such that an average or even mildly problematic game doesn't check the box unless the person's behavior and attitude actually ruined the game. Turning it from an enjoyable pastime to an UNenjoyable waste of time.

This is part of why the system is paired with Favorite Opponent votes, as I fully expect that in many tournaments there will be no downchecks at all.

Dashofpepper wrote:Sportsmanship scoring is a sham...What this comes down to is simply balls....-More players need to grow balls

Dash of Pepper, outstanding, you are my hero!

rednekgunner wrote:This is the reason you have a sportsmanship score to make those who bring net lists and are donkeys about tabling people actually shape up or ship out..

Thank you for pointing out one of the biggest problems with sportsmanship scoring. It's a way for the people who like to falsely claim the moral high ground to hurt people who enjoy playing differently than they do.

skyth wrote:

rednekgunner wrote:This is the reason you have a sportsmanship score to make those who bring net lists and are donkeys about tabling people actually shape up or ship out..

Thank you for pointing out one of the biggest problems with sportsmanship scoring. It's a way for the people who like to falsely claim the moral high ground to hurt people who enjoy playing differently than they do.

You've got a reasonable point there, Skyth. Rednekgunner, please note that this system isn't about punishing people for their army lists, or preferred way to play the game. The question is specifically phrased to be about their behavior and attitude, and make sure they're not actively ruining the fun by being donkey-caves. Being "donkeys about tabling people" may be a reasonable thing to downcheck, as being a donkey is what we want to curtail.

That said, Skyth, the persecution thing does get a little old, too. I don't think sportsmanship is generally an evil plot for people who "like to falsely claim the moral high ground to hurt people". If you're playing with people who are deliberately dishonest, or who like to hurt people, stop playing with those people. The odds of encountering more than a rare few of such dastardly folks in tournaments are pretty low, IME.

I think Red's point was less about the list and more about that kind of donkey.

skyth wrote:

rednekgunner wrote:This is the reason you have a sportsmanship score to make those who bring net lists and are donkeys about tabling people actually shape up or ship out..

Thank you for pointing out one of the biggest problems with sportsmanship scoring. It's a way for the people who like to falsely claim the moral high ground to hurt people who enjoy playing differently than they do.

I used the list as a way to point out the WAAC player. I could care less what list a person brings to a tournament (hell I have played many times against lists that were tailored for me and still played). I was making the point that nobody likes to play TFG.

I will use a real life example. There is a player that frequents my FLGS, and he has a Nazi themed SM army (complete with SS and swastikas). I don't know about you but that is typically the person I don't want to play. I would mark him down for sportsmanship.

Another example (same player funny enough), made a tervigon spam list. He had 5 tervigons, and spawned so many gaunts that his opponent was only able to play 12 minutes of the game. You may ask yourself why did it take so long? Well, the tervigon player every turn ran every guant (even if it only ran 1/100 of an inch), and wasted time.

Last example, we actually booted someone for a few offenses. The first was he was never on time for a round. His opponents waited around 5 minutes for him to show up. Also, he never measured correctly. He had a fabric tape that was stretched out, and was assaulting at least 7 to 8 inches a turn. It got so bad that the GF9 tac template was named the Shawn template in our store.

I am not trying to be argumentative, I am merely pointing out that there is an element that most people do not want at their tournaments.

Oh, sure, but I think the issues you're identifying there are all with the player, not the army. Better not to blame the army at all, though you certainly can mention it in the course of explaining HOW an donkey-cave was an donkey-cave.

Mannahnin wrote:Oh, sure, but I think the issues you're identifying there are all with the player, not the army. Better not to blame the army at all, though you certainly can mention it in the course of explaining HOW an donkey-cave was an donkey-cave.

Fair enough, I was wrong to mention the army list, but you know now what I am getting at.

Sportsmanship is largely a non-issue with me. I will generally max scores unless I know the guy deliberately tried to abuse the game or outright cheat.

I like the approach some talked about with ranking or pass/fail

It does come down to tourney organizers make sure to watch for chipmunking.

Sportsmanship is really only alright when everyone sees it as what it really is, an excuse to hand out more prize and to expand the prize structure.

I don't really see why good behavior needs to be given an incentive to exist.

Here's my opinion, I have been on the receiving end of what I will call 'sore loser syndrome' where the guy loses and gives a person 0 sportsmanship. I had one guy tell me it was because i killed his skaven lord ... really? I am sorry your broken unit ran away and was ran down by my lowly free company but ... i still gave him max cause it was a great down to the last turn game, and I just got lucky. Maybe I am looking at it the wrong way but by this point both of us were down enough on the score lists we weren't gonna win anything without some form of divine/chaotic intervention so ... *shrug*

So I think I am in the camp of it'd be awesome to use if it was a reliable system, like the pass/fail or the questionaire type ideas posted earlier. But otherwise I think it either shouldn't have any impact or be seperate from the main points.

Granted I should've said something to the TOs (it was a chicago gt many years ago) but it really wouldn't have mad a big difference either way.

Sportsmanship isn't something that should be "scored". Everyone playing in the tournament should already be a good sportsman, and players that start becoming a problem (or players you know will be a problem) should be told to leave or not even allowed to attend. Doesn't really seem that hard to me, make an announcement before the tournament and remind everyone to be polite and respectful, informing them that if they start causing trouble they'll be asked to leave, and you shouldn't have a problem. Let them know beforehand what will be expected of them.

I don't know why people are so insistent that we need sportsmanship scoring in tournaments, or else chaos and anarchy will reign and the day will be an absolute nightmare. And as the plethora of horror stories posted on Dakka and elsewhere will no doubt prove, donkey-caves are going to be donkey-caves regardless, and sporstmanship scores won't stop them. If anything it just gives them yet another way to ruin your day, because they're more than likely going to give you zero points no matter how nice you were to them, just so you don't place.

Then again, I think the problem is everyone has their own messed-up definition of the word "sportsmanship". I go by the dictionary definition myself, which is basically just being friendly, knowing the rules, and handling your losses well (and not gloating when you win). Obviously things everyone should be practicing in the first place. However, some people go beyond that and think it begins at list construction, completely missing the point of a tournament and often being completely and utterly wrong in their armchair game-balancing or poor observations of fluff.

All that said I don't mind having players vote for a "favorite opponent" and awarding a prize for it, but it shouldn't have anything to do with who actually wins the event (unless said player also happens to win all his games, lol). I'm not sure how voting for that works though, since you usually don't play against more than 3-5 people at any one event.

I am not a fan of sportsmanship at all.

My understanding of good sportsmanship is having a nice game with your opponent.

Why do you have to insist on sportsmanship as a TO?

1. You have to clarify wich kind of tournament it will be.
If it is a competitive one: Why do you need sports score? Competitive players know the rules anyways and most of the time have a good game (that is just my experience, I never faced a competitive player that was trying to cheat on purpose) and sports score is just one more possibility to take a subjective influence.

If it is a casual tournament, address explicitly newcomers or fluff players, write some nice stories, maybe even have some unbalanced but funny missions.
You will be certain that no competitive player will be there with the intention to win at all costs. And honestly: Does a competitive player have fun bashing newcomers into the ground?

That said, if you have still issues with unfair guys, then encourage your players to say something. You are free to disqualify them on the spot if necessary. The players should know this.
Or would you want your favourite i.e. basketball team to vote their opponents sportsmanship objectively (in order to lose some important points)?

I like Mannahnin's system because it does the only thing that I would want out of a sportsmanship scoring: establishes an expectation of adequate behavior and then provides clear "penalties" for failing in that expectation. There are rules of behavior in any other contest or sport--penalties in football, technical fouls in basketball, ejections in baseball, and so on--and none of it is the "pat you on the back" kind of reward. That's enough for me. But if you want to partner that with some kind of wholly separate "best sportsman" award where you can nominate your favorite game of the day into a lottery or something, then fine, I have no problem with accounting for that in a prize pool.