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.

He didn't read the last Sportsmanship thread. Or my article, apparently.

I agree with him that Sports systems are sometimes excessively complicated, and this wastes time and often hurts their utility and validity as players skim them or don't take the time to read them and use them as intended.

A prom king/queen rule sounds bad, un40k and totally highschoolish. Replace it with army creativity or something. Plus I find it very sad that there even has to be a "sportsman" category. I mean c'mon guys. Really? Being a dick in 40k? Be a dick in any video game of choice over anonymous chat, fine. But seriously guys; seriously. 40k? That's like being a tool during a family table meal. "I GET THAT LAST PIECE OF CHICKEN. YOU'VE ALREADY HAD 2 AND I'VE ONLY HAD 1.85 PIECES"
I guess I've been lucky enough not to have encountered one of these "rule" layer types here at my local area.

Ha speaking of creativity I'm going to put light on my Eldar tanks, then have it lit up for the tournament, and get a calculator for the "wow"s

The Magority of tourneys ive played in give multiple awards. A tactical award , painting award , and overall award.

Smitty0305 wrote:The Magority of tourneys ive played in give multiple awards. A tactical award , painting award , and overall award.

I 100% think that's great, and it feels like most tournaments are going that way:

-Minimum 3 colours to play
-Painting Award
-Generalship Award
-Overall (a combo of the above two)

Anytime you leave any scoring out of the hands of the opponents, who are vying for the same prize, you are moving in the right direction.

Yea letting the opponent decide is kinda bad...I always give my opponent a 3 outta 3 for sports, but I never got a 3...

Mannahnin wrote:He didn't read the last Sportsmanship thread. Or my article, apparently.

I agree with him that Sports systems are sometimes excessively complicated, and this wastes time and often hurts their utility and validity as players skim them or don't take the time to read them and use them as intended.

This is, presumably, directed my way. Your system, like every sportsmanship system proposed so far, fails to establish a causal link between "Having a sportsmanship system" and "Transforming people that would have showed up at a given tournament and not have previously been considered good sports into good sports for an afternoon" The fact that you devoted an article page to it doesn't mean that it's a magic bullet to make sports a good system, at best it reduces a small subset of systematic errors produced by illiterates by simplifying the question(s) (to be fair you probably understand that anyway) and your system still lets chipmunks tank a player's tournament ranking.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:He didn't read the last Sportsmanship thread. Or my article, apparently.

I agree with him that Sports systems are sometimes excessively complicated, and this wastes time and often hurts their utility and validity as players skim them or don't take the time to read them and use them as intended.

This is, presumably, directed my way.

Yes. Your last post was dismissive, disrespectful and silly, and the concept you were criticizing (excessively complex and ineffective systems) bore no resemblence to any sports system put forward on this forum this year, as far as I can recall.

MikeMcSomething wrote:[Your system, like every sportsmanship system proposed so far, fails to establish a causal link between "Having a sportsmanship system" and "Transforming people that would have showed up at a given tournament and not have previously been considered good sports into good sports for an afternoon"

It doesn't need to. The preamble to the article clearly explains its purposes. You are setting an invalid standard. There is no need to transform anyone. That being said, I have seen players who have otherwise objectionable behaviors moderate said behaviors and make clear and obvious efforts to be nice when a Sportsmanship system was in effect. It's not necessary, but it sometimes happens.

MikeMcSomething wrote:The fact that you devoted an article page to it doesn't mean that it's a magic bullet to make sports a good system,

This passage seems to presuppose that there is only one sportsmanship system. Which is obviously false, as my article is clearly an attempt to present a more functional alternative to other systems I've encountered.

MikeMcSomething wrote:...at best it reduces a small subset of systematic errors produced by illiterates by simplifying the question(s) (to be fair you probably understand that anyway) and your system still lets chipmunks tank a player's tournament ranking.

No it doesn't. There's something ironic about you offhandedly dismissing players as illiterates while failing to read or comprehend the article you're criticizing.

I found Mannahnin's Sportsmanship article to be well thought out and combative of the common issues most Sportsmanship systems suffer from.

The question of whether or not Sportsmanship systems should or should not exist or if Sportsmanship should any impact on tournament scoring is one that has been gone over a million times.

The adherence to Sportsmanship stems from a recognition of the hobby as a whole and embraces miniature wargaming as simply more than a basic competition. I personally see that as an important aspect of traditional 'soft scores' and something that allows awards to span a larger player base.

I am a firm believer in the pass/fail system and it was something I personally implemented into the 2011 AdeptiCon 40K events (in addition to removing Sportsmanship from the determining factors that went into crowning the tournament champion). While I think we are on a good path, the system relied too much on people reading/understanding the system and using it as it was intended. People are set in their ways, and when giving them a system that is somewhat similar, yet has different goals, they tend to just follow their ingrained instincts. In that regards, the new Sportsmanship system failed, however it illuminated a very clear path towards the next incarnation.

There are definitly two camps when it comes to scoring in tournis. the I dont care about anything but winning camp, and the camp that acknowledges that they play 40k for reasons besides just playing a game to win. Its fun and its a hobby.
That said, i think that it sounds like you might have been shorted on the scoring somehow. Did you ask a tourni org. how you ended up so low. Were the points posted wherer you could see them.?

Mannahin wrote:It doesn't need to

Then it doesn't serve any purpose! If you're failing to moderate bad behavior while introducing a system that can be abused you have created a net loss for the tournament as a whole.

Mannahin wrote:and the concept you were criticizing (excessively complex and ineffective systems)

Emphasis mine. This is incorrect - I am criticizing the tendencies displayed by those in the pro-sports score camp to high-five and praise anyone who has come up with a system that differs only cosmetically from currently existing systems and accomplishes the same thing as previous ones (namely nothing)

Mannahin wrote:There's something ironic about you offhandedly dismissing players as illiterates while failing to read or comprehend the article you're criticizing.

You misunderstood the sentence that led to this quote in your rush to look like a troll. I would mention the irony of a post citing irony in a post regarding illiteracy that in fact mistakes the post it's attempting to mock in the first place but I think you get the point.

Your system creates an incentive for other players to tank your sports score without providing an incentive to actually be a good sport. <--- There is no clearer way to put it. Creating a well-formatted article page (read: adding window dressing to the problematic system) does not correct that fundamental flaw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sennacherib wrote:There are definitly two camps when it comes to scoring in tournis. the I dont care about anything but winning camp

This misunderstanding is a large part of the problem. I am in the "I want to pay money and drive across town (or fly across the country) to meet great new people, play some awesome games, and have a fair tournament that is absent the usual allegations of chipmunking and subjective score nonsense that follows every major tournament" camp. I could lose every game, and wind up in spot #500, and I would be happy, if I did it in a tournament where the #3 guy didn't get passed up by the #4 guy because #3 ran into a couple guys that thought they would improve their chances by tanking his sports score.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:Your system, like every sportsmanship system proposed so far, fails to establish a causal link between "Having a sportsmanship system" and "Transforming people that would have showed up at a given tournament and not have previously been considered good sports into good sports for an afternoon"

It doesn't need to.

Then it doesn't serve any purpose! If you're failing to moderate bad behavior while introducing a system that can be abused you have created a net loss for the tournament as a whole.

Of course, and that's part of what my system is designed to address. But that's not the concept the premises you put forward were advancing. Your reasoning was flawed, and you've just changed your argument/moved the goalposts. Your initial argument has a couple of premises which I think are false.

1. You criticise it for "fail(ing) to establish a causal link" between having a sportsmanship system and people's behavior changing.
2. You set an unnecessarily high bar on the system to "transform" people's behavior.

These are both flawed premises. The first because it's simply unnecessary, as I said before. This isn't a sociological survey. I don't have to conclusively demonstrate causation vs. correlation. The second because there is no need for the system to "transform" anyone. If it prevents dicks from winning tournaments while treating their opponents badly, then it serves one purpose. If it gives us a scoring system to reward GOOD sports/enjoyable players, it serves another purpose. And if in doing those two things it communicates to the players in general that Sportsmanship is valued and important, thus subtly influencing their attitudes at the table, it serves a third.

The fact that I've observed players with objectionable behavior change and moderate that behavior while playing in Sports-scored events is just a bonus. It's not a necessary component. They can choose to a) change their behavior, b) get marked down and substantially impair their own ability to win the event, or c) not attend. In any of the three cases a net good has been achieved. Even if there are NO dicks around, there is a net gain in rewarding good Sports and in communicating to the player base in general that we value, appreciate, and want to reward good attitudes and behavior.

Your newer statement has yet another premise that I think is false: "a system what can be abused". A chipmunker cannot abuse my system. The only way for them to have an impact is if the majority of the opponents faced by a given player are chipmunkers. Which will not be the case.

IME the vast majority of WH & 40k tournament players are perfectly decent, honest people who are not going to try to manipulate the results in a dishonest way. For your premise to be accurate, the majority of the players encountered would have to be score-cheating dicks. If that were actually the case, the tournament would be a failure from the get-go due to the low quality of the participants.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Mannahin wrote:and the concept you were criticizing (excessively complex and ineffective systems)

Emphasis mine. This is incorrect - I am criticizing the tendencies displayed by those in the pro-sports score camp to high-five and praise anyone who has come up with a system that differs only cosmetically from currently existing systems and accomplishes the same thing as previous ones (namely nothing)

Ah. I misunderstood. So you're attacking a straw man, and employing a circular argument.

This argument of yours is a straw man because I don't think you can link to an example (certainly not on this forum) of a single thread in which people supportive of Sportsmanship scoring are generally praising a system which is only cosmetically different from older systems. Please feel free to furnish a link if you'd like to substantiate this claim. I'd recommend trying to come up with multiple threads, though, as I can give you multiple links to prior threads in which Sportsmanship advocates criticise ill-thought-out systems and in which they discuss systems which are more than cosmetically different.

This argument of yours is circular because your premise (that the differences in Sports systems are only cosmetic) depends on your conclusion (that they accomplish nothing). This is poor reasoning. You're starting from a belief/opinion and working backwards to justify it.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

sennacherib wrote:There are definitly two camps when it comes to scoring in tournis. the I dont care about anything but winning camp

This misunderstanding is a large part of the problem. I am in the "I want to pay money and drive across town (or fly across the country) to meet great new people, play some awesome games, and have a fair tournament that is absent the usual allegations of chipmunking and subjective score nonsense that follows every major tournament" camp.

This is interesting. These "usual allegations" you describe are anything but usual, speaking from my ten years of GT experience. They are much more the exception than the rule. Chipmunking is rare. Your perception that they follow "every major tournament" seems indicative of two things. 1) You're not actually attending these events, so are unaware of how well they actually work and are basing your arguments off a small number of complaints, and 2) You have quite a bit of confirmation bias and are not actually paying close attention to most reports; just the few negative ones.

Hey, MikeMcSomething, I wrote an article about how to score sportsmanship. Would appreciate any comments/criticism you may have.

The OP case is extreme. However, I like sportsmanship being included in any tournament I attend (as do most people I know).

Super competitive folks might not... but honestly, there's usually a reason with most people I've met who hate sportsmanship. I.e., they'd get dinged on it!

Just my $0.02, but this is a hobby and if you don't want to paint or have sportsmanship included, there's always 'Ard Boyz and tournies of that nature... which I enjoy attending, but at other events I definitely want a sportsmanship score in there.

My big confusion is, why is it being included at all?

The sportsmanship proponents present their systems, then defend why it should be included. This is backward. If you are adding something like this to the game, the owness should be on you to present why it needs inclusion.

No where else, be it gaming, sports, etc. have I seen a sportsmanship system included where your opponent has the opportunity to affect the outcome of your score. How can you call something a tournament when you are purposely including factors that are determined by the voting of your competitors?

There is a huge gulf between sportsmanship itself, and sportsmanship scoring. They are not mutually inclusive. No one needs to hear about how important sportsmanship is in a game like this, it is evident. Sportsmanship is important in any gaming/competition. Sportsmanship scoring is a system left open to the whims of opponents, and whether you agree or not, no one is 'wrong' for zero-bombing their opponent for any reason, be it losing, or just not enjoying themselves enough.

Yeah, I completely don't get sportsmanship scores since every system I've seen for 40k rewards people strongly for acting anti-sportsmanlike. Chipmunking, that is lying and saying that your opponent practiced poor sportsmanship when really all he did was win, is pretty much directly opposite sportsmanship. Yet every sportsmanship scoring system that I've seen works in such a way that chipmunking either doesn't hurt you or actively helps you. Similarly, the fact that you can mark an opponent down if they call in a TO or argue over rules means that if you cheat, you win either way - either the guy lets you cheat and you get that advantage, or he calls you on it and you tank his sportsmanship score so he can't win.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Yeah, I completely don't get sportsmanship scores since every system I've seen for 40k rewards people strongly for acting anti-sportsmanlike. Chipmunking, that is lying and saying that your opponent practiced poor sportsmanship when really all he did was win, is pretty much directly opposite sportsmanship. Yet every sportsmanship scoring system that I've seen works in such a way that chipmunking either doesn't hurt you or actively helps you. Similarly, the fact that you can mark an opponent down if they call in a TO or argue over rules means that if you cheat, you win either way - either the guy lets you cheat and you get that advantage, or he calls you on it and you tank his sportsmanship score so he can't win.

These examples are all in a vaccum of the internet and don't actually happen in real life for two reasons:

1. Most people are not gaming the system and are not jerks. A severe majority of people are working within the spirit of the sportsmanship scores and they work.

2. TOs actually do pay attention to what is going on and do actually review and check sportsmanships cores. They actually do see when people are being rude or generally bad, and if someone gets an undeserving score or a 0 they question the person who gave it to them for justification, and most times either the person is 'chimpmunking' and it is thrown out or the person deserved the score... vary rarely do these supposed chimpmunking scores ever see the light of day, if they happen at all.

The main beef is people who think they are great people to game with get a full head and then find out they are really unpleasant smelly jerks and get poor scores that they deserved. And then they cry how they were chimpmunked when they really earned what they got.

Sportsmanship scores work and work well and have been working well for years... I have never met a legitimate good player who has gotten a zero but I have met plenty of questionable people who have gotten poor scores for being all around ass-hats at tourneys and then crying when they saw the final scores.

The problem with these internet discussions are the same people make the same fictional scenarios and make it sound like it is not only wide-spread but happens every single game everywhere. I just have never seen it get abused the way people claim it does in real life and many of the people who are for Sportsmanship scoring have years of running tourneys under their belts and seem to still have successful events with legitimate sportsmanship scores... I still believe the number of disenfranchised 'good guys' who got screwed over are still in a massive minority to legitimate people who got bad scores due to their own personal behavior who can't tell the difference between having a rule disagreement and being an abusive rude jerk to someone and just claim 'that is how I am, I am not a bad sport because I have poor social skills.'

I thought Mann expanded on those questions above quite well.

I can say that out of all the tournaments I've played in (both team and singles)---over many years----I can think of one instance where I was 'chip-munked'----and that cost our team a total of one point. And we still won Best Heretical.

Granted however, this is if I were to accept 40k as a sport----which I do not. I consider 40k a game and social contract between players. Not unlike your friendly pick up basketball game with friends over the weekend----yes you all play to win but ultimately you are there for relaxation/enjoyment. And yes there is certainly a sportsmanship score present there as well. It's called---act like an donkey-cave----and they don't ask you back .

Regardless, this is what Games Workshop has always been about---a friendly, social gathering of hobbyists. It shouldn't be surprising that players expect that out of their opponents.

nkelsch: It doesn't matter if these fictitious scenarios happen even only once, that's once more than they needed to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrong, AgeOfEgos. Your basketball scenario would only match Sportsmanship Scoring if your opponents were able to change the final score based on their observation of behaviour, or their own whims.

I fully advocate people who are bad sports being told to leave (and possibly not return). That has nothing to do with Sportsmanship Scoring.

Fearspect wrote:nkelsch: It doesn't matter if these fictitious scenarios happen even only once, that's once more than they needed to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrong, AgeOfEgos. Your basketball scenario would only match Sportsmanship Scoring if your opponents were able to change the final score based on their observation of behaviour, or their own whims.

I fully advocate people who are bad sports being told to leave (and possibly not return). That has nothing to do with Sportsmanship Scoring.

I've seen people told to leave----during a game. It certainly affected their ability to win/relax that afternoon (and future games they were not invited to).

And I would be wary of stating "Wrong" in this line of discussion. While I may not agree with your premise--I don't consider you wrong----just of a different opinion (as ultimately this is what it boils down to---difference of opinion on how we view a tournament's purpose).

Umm... good story, but we were talking about sportsmanship scoring...

edit:
Jeez, you edit, so I have to edit or it looks like I'm responding to your whole post. I said you were wrong about your basketball example, I thought that was clear, because that is what I was discussing.

Fearspect wrote:
I fully advocate people who are bad sports being told to leave (and possibly not return). That has nothing to do with Sportsmanship Scoring.

That is often not a reality due to being unable to remove people from the premises or the event, but you can disqualify them from winning any swag which is basically what happens.

Honestly? people who get legitimatly chipmunked are usually good sports and are not going to get bent out of shape over being chimpmunked... which basically resolves the issue right there which is why I am skeptical when I see someone go apeshit over "WHO DARE GAVE ME A ZERO ON SPORTSMANSHIP! THAT IS THE ONLY WAY I COULD HAVE ENDED UP WITH THAT SCORE RAAAAAAAAAWR!". Really? if someone is going to go that crazy over the scores were they really a good sport or at least as good as the perceived themselves?

If the scores deter one person from being a jerk at an event, then I am fine with the fictional possibility of chimpmunking. It doesn't impact my ability to enjoy the event one bit. If people don't want to have it, they can not have it at their event. I attend non-sportsmanship/softscores events too... there is no 'correct' way to run an event.

I also like that it spreads the swag around to another tier and keeps people invested in the event through all the games even if someone is not 'winning' with battlepoints and isn't the best painter. Nothing is worse when a tourney falls apart because people quit early or mentally check out (both which are part of sportsmanship). Most events will spread the prizes so if the BEST GENERAL also was the best sport, the best sport prize goes to the #2 person. I support spreading swag around.

It works, people enjoy it, it isn't abused even remotely as much as people claim it is.

If you don't like the event's rules, then don't participate... Find events that have the rules you like and go there... Vote with your feet. It is that simple. It is like some people are offended that someone somewhere is playing differently than them and are enjoying themselves and that can't be allowed to stand!

Fearspect wrote:Umm... good story, but we were talking about sportsmanship scoring...

They are both born of a methodology to enhance everyone's experience. You couldn't (accurately) ask someone to leave after one poor score/game---hence just a detriment in points suffices. However, I can't recall the tournament----but I remember one advertised on Dakka that stated if someone was repeatedly scored poor throughout their weekend---they were asked to not return.

Wrong, AgeOfEgos. Your basketball scenario would only match Sportsmanship Scoring if your opponents were able to change the final score based on their observation of behaviour, or their own whims.

Am I mistaken or did I play a bunch of pickup games of basketball in my younger days that my opponents could call fouls?

nkelsch:

1) Im an intrigued that you consider a good sportsman a person who willingly lets people take advantage of him without standing up for himself.

2) Swag can be spread in many other ways.

3) You say it works, I'm not sure what you mean. Is it clearly written out on paper how someone wins it? Yes. Does it work to raise the sportsmanship in a tournament? I have not seen anything that indicates this. Everyone points to the low chance of a chipmunking. I point to a low chance this transforms someone into a good sportsman.

4) Ah, okay, so if anyone disagrees they can go away. You have made up your mind, and don't want to have that opinion confused with a lack of facts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

muwhe wrote:Am I mistaken or did I play a bunch of pickup games of basketball in my younger days that my opponents could call fouls?

That's what you should be doing. If you disagree with your opponent's play or behaviour, you call a foul. You even get the chance to call over a buddy (or in our case, a judge or TO), and explain what happened and have a decision be made.

When you play pick-up basketball, do you instead choose to let the fouls slide, then at the end of the game explain to the other team that you are now deducting points from them?

muwhe wrote:Am I mistaken or did I play a bunch of pickup games of basketball in my younger days that my opponents could call fouls?

Lol, so true

Fearspect wrote:The sportsmanship proponents present their systems, then defend why it should be included. This is backward. If you are adding something like this to the game, the owness should be on you to present why it needs inclusion.

Except that sportsmanship has long since been included in warhammer tournaments. I wasn't there when it "started", but certainly for the last, what, 15 years? It's been the norm. Why do you want to get rid of it so much?

Heartily agree with AgeOfEgos, nkelsch, and Mannahnin. Interesting how people so easily ignore the posters with lots of real life tournament experience, and focus on the hypotheticals and what-ifs. It makes good internets, but it's not the case in reality. And in a social game of dice and toy soldiers, I really am glad to have sportsmanship be a scoring item.

Fearspect wrote:nkelsch:

1) Im an intrigued that you consider a good sportsman a person who willingly lets people take advantage of him without standing up for himself.

What one person calls standing up for themselves against cheaters, another sees as a belligerent, foul-mouthed, angry argumentative git with poor social skills and ruining the event for everyone.

There is a difference between rolling over and being taken advantage of and people who just play how they play and accept the outcome of the scores instead of trying to 'game' the sportsmanship with fake nice behavior.

I find I have a pretty darn good grasp of the rules as well as the contention points of frequently disagreed rules because I read the YMTC forum a lot. This means I am pretty quick to be able to point out mistakes and rule disagreements and I usually make a point to verify the events FAQ before the games start. I find you can easily discuss rule differences without it impacting sportsmanship... that is what some people don't understand is they think that all rule disagreements instantly ruin your score. It isn't disagreeing, it is the *WAY* you disagree which does it and people who can't admit they are belligerent or nasty are the same ones who claim to be being chipmunked.

I am a pretty big rule stickler at events, and it is never really and issue. Most people *WANT* to play by the rules and are really happy to use the rules if it is clearly defined in an FAQ or quick page number reference, and if it can't be resolved... 4+ roll off.

If someone gives me a zero, I am not honestly bothered and I don't feel the need to hunt down and interrogate all my opponents to find the offender... If that is what someone is doing, then I question if they understand sportsmanship.

I simply don't accept these fictional scenarios as common or even rare occurrences as if this mystical guy with a twiddly villain moustache and a black cape is entering all these tourneys and giving people 0s for no reasons and the TOs never notice.

Well, RiTides, just two things in reply to that:

1) In what other social game (I suppose as opposed to solitaire, but isn't any game with two players social?) is sportsmanship scoring handled in this manner?

2) Only people who have played in X Superbowls and have won Y times should be the ones to decide the rules of football, anyone disagreeing should go play X Superbowls before their opinion is valid. Kind of sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

What the OP described isn't a gaming tournament, just as a more "normal" 40k scoring system that allotted 10% of its points to painting and modeling isn't a painting tournament.

And I have yet to take part in any game series that was made better by a sportsmanship score. I have, however, taken part in game series that were made worse by sportsmanship scores, which were used to penalize players for beating other players.

Fearspect wrote:Well, RiTides, just two things in reply to that:
2) Only people who have played in X Superbowls and have won Y times should be the ones to decide the rules of football, anyone disagreeing should go play X Superbowls before their opinion is valid. Kind of sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Sportsmanship penalties are assessed in football and directly affect the game and the scores. If you act unsportsmanlike, your game is impacted and you have a harder chance to win. The only difference is in a professional sport it is judged by a 3rd party ref... in amature events like wargamming they have people police themselves which is fairly common in many many events where the professional level would have a judge or ref and the lower levels have to ump themselves by not being cheaters.

Basically good events have a TO and judges who are 'aware' of the actions at the table and can confirm and validate the scores and check out anomalies... which they do... Which basically equates to having a 3rd party ref handling unsportsmanlike conduct with a penalty that makes it harder to win, exactly like football and other professional sports.