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.

The question is biased, that much is certain.

The term "knee cap" necessarily implies that the act is unjust.

I agree that basing a low sportsmanship score soley on the result or the speed/severity of the result is abuse of the sportsmanship system.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Please refrain from making absolute statements. It makes the discussion less interesting and less friendly, and makes your own opinion look uninformed and hyperbolic.

I voted no, and in my own sportsmanship scoring system I specifically note to the players that the outcome of the game should have no bearing on their vote.

I am interested in that. In your experience has this worked? Do you have a method of enforcing/monitoring it?

IME downchecks in a pass/fail system are rare enough that you can often talk to the guys and find out what's going on. Worst case scenario you can keep an eye on the tables of the guys involved and get a sense of where the problem is.

Most people are honorable if you explain clearly what you expect and don't make it too onerous for them.

There needs to be a poll choice for "Quit being a giant cock," and that's all I'm gonna say about this.

((Not directed at op, just my opinion in general))

I would not. If you won within the rules (Even those that are infuriating, like deploying sideways vehicles on the line, rotating and moving turn 1.) the table is yours. Good job.

....Now, if you're being a <CENSORED> <CENSORED> along the way, like repeatedly calling out "You know what that's called?! A killpoint!" when a vehicle goes down multiple times during the game, even though you have been warned to cool it? Yeaaaa...You're getting dinged, and you and I need to have a discussion after class.

That said, I don't feel sportsmanship should be factored into the placement scores. If it's there so the TOs can try to ID and deal with problem players, that's fine. However I am not a fan of comp/paint/sportsmanship scores being factored in to who gets to take home the trophy, particularly if you are being scored in these areas by other players.

culsandar wrote:There needs to be a poll choice for "Quit being a giant cock," and that's all I'm gonna say about this.

((Not directed at op, just my opinion in general))

I want to sig it.... so badly

lol this could not come at a better time, played a 1750 pont game agianst my brother, He totally gave my orks a thumping which I rarely ever see. he killed about 85-90% of my whole green tide (130+ models) (I deployed in a way where I had 95% of my army on one side of the table, and then I put a 30 man squad on the other side of the table (thinking I could fish hook then around to close in his army. Buuuut nooo he too advantage of my silly tactic andndeployed his intire SW army on the side of my lone 30 man squad. Thats what doomed me. If I had to vote on his sportsmennship, hell, I'd give him a 5 and me a 3 ;D

What a poxy thread. Sports scoring is an abomination and the very premise of this thread illustrates the point nicely.

I think that all sportsmanship scores should have a required comment section if you score someone as Poor/Bad/Awful. If for no other reason than it will give a TO a heads up to watch/observe to prevent any further problems. If say, you claim opponent is cheating, slow playing, being 'forgetful to advantage' or Sailor Language/Actions...

Here is an example: I play an army I call Council of Fear, its "gimmick" is to make your army run away by casting Psychic Powers/Tank Shock/etc. So when I cast a power, it brings out the inner roll player in me, and I enunciate the power saying.. "Booga booga booga, Fear me and run away you xenos/heritic/chaose/etc scum!"

Would enunciating like that upset you? or someone you know?

What about Ork players who talk Orky and WAAAAAGGGH!!

Is that "getting into character?" or "Acting like a douche?"

That's the problem, Landrain. An opponent could think either, or both, and still be right. Any little action can do you in when your tournament standing is held ransom by your opponent.

Many will say, "but most people don't act like that," and I would agree. Still, the mechanism exists and there is both the player downvoting and the TO to blame.

Any downvoted player would be 100% justified to ask for their money back if they found out they got zero bombed, since this is a subjective system and it runs both ways.

I'm not a tournament player, but I would never penalize someone's sportsmanship score based only on getting tabled. Even if your reasoning for doing it is to try to get a competitive edge, I think that is extremely low.

Here is an example: I play an army I call Council of Fear, its "gimmick" is to make your army run away by casting Psychic Powers/Tank Shock/etc. So when I cast a power, it brings out the inner roll player in me, and I enunciate the power saying.. "Booga booga booga, Fear me and run away you xenos/heritic/chaose/etc scum!"

Depends on if you do this before, or after you roll the dice.
If you do your thing before/while rolling; cool. It's not you being a dick, you're just into the game.
You do after my guys have to run; it's a dick move. Unless you know the opponent personely of course.

So the question is: "should I be a classless dick because someone beat me"?


the fact that this even needs to be debated is rather sad and worrisome...

CT GAMER wrote:So the question is: "should I be a classless dick because someone beat me"?


the fact that this even needs to be debated is rather sad and worrisome...

It doesn't need to be debated as its a clear violation of what sportmanship scoring is supposed to be. It's a ridiculous premise for a thread that is being used by people who don't like the idea of sportmanship scoring to throw the baby out with the bath water. I could go to a small tourney with a few friends next week where I'm guaranteed to play each of them at least once and I could completely throw every game against them, giving my friends a shutout with max KP/VP every time. Should we get rid of battle scoring or tournies in which you know anyone else playing because that can be gamed by players dedicated to doing so? I've seen some really bad mission rules/parameters posted by tourny organizers/attendees that really benefit a specific army build with accusations it was done to help their friends... obviously the idea of games with missions can be broken by having an organizer tailor the missions to support his friends that are playing. Missions must go the way of the dinosaurs! [/sarcasm]

Scoring and requirements for ANYTHING in a tourney setting (including missions and battlepoints) can't be used without at least some interaction and oversight by a tourney organizer with some common sense if you expect to have few or no problems. If you're recording the results in some way (like in a tourney), all scoring needs to be monitored as gaming the system isn't specific to just sportmanship.

I voted no. It is never ok to claim bad sportsmanship because you got owned. I personally hate soft scores like sportsmanship and comp. I have been to at least 20 different tournaments and never won once. I choke when I am at top table. Never once have I given someone a bad sports score. All the people I have played where nice as they creamed me or took their pounding well. I have run several tourneys as well and we did sports, but not comp (comp is dumb and should have no place). All bad sportsmanship scores were required to explain. Sometimes they came out valid, but most often I found that people just scored bad on purpose or were poor losers.

Why does one have to do with the other?


Someone gets the points, then thats it. Otherwise, why score at all?

Attitude, in lue of the game itself has nothing to do with the scoring. Yeah, you can say that sportsmanship counts, but as you watch time and again, people either pad the stats, or undercut someone just for winning... ( And this is Biased on the store you play in, because it is your personal crowd)

The tool running around spouting off "FOR THE EMPAHHA!!" or "WAAAAGGGHHH!!" are just being mutts. They shouldn't have these actions be any part of the scoring, becuase that screaming and yelling around has nothing to do with the rules of the game. If they did, then you would have to include a costume score, or WAGHH score, for spouting off like the biggest tool award, or something like that.

Based on premis, the "Sportsmanship" score is based on how well you play the game. "Hey, good game, bro. You really got me on turn 2, I should have moved those guys up to so and so..." as Opposed to " Hey, you need to look under page so and so for rule so and so, because you can't move those guys there...", or "Your dice was cocked, Your f!@^@ed. NO, I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm in it to WIN it..."

It's about attitude, and playing by the unwritten code of playing a game. Your both there to have a good time, talk a little stuff, and play by a standard.

If you want to be a Page 5 cat, with all of the trappings of a D-bag, theres always contact sports, tough guy.

Giving someone a low sportsmanship score for ANYTHING other than being a poor sport makes you the poor sport.

hungryp wrote:I'm not sold either way on being pro or con for comp scores, but when it comes to stuff like sportsmanship, which are completely subjective, it's just a bad idea.

Giving someone a low sportsmanship score because they beat you in terrible ways is like giving them a low painting score because their GD quality army makes your grey hordes jealous.

They're not always completely subjective. I run tournaments on a regular basis, and when I do, I use a checklist system. There is a bit of subjectivity involved, but that minimizes it. For example, asking a question like "did your opponent arrive at the table on time?" isn't subjective at all, it's a yes or no question. Admittedly if someone's bound and determined to be a prick they can still sandbag opponent scores, but those people would find a way to be dicks no matter what.

Mark

We've had many threads and the general pros and cons of Sportsmanship scoring, but that's off-topic for this thread.

Please keep any further posts on the original topic.

I think it depends on the nature of the sportsmanship score.

For example, it makes sense to me to see a situation where you can give your opponent good sportsmanship scores and it acts as a 'bonus' to his hard score, but if you give him low sportsmanship, it doesn't actually count against him. That way he can still win the grand prize or whatever for being a WAAC douche, but the soft score prizes will never go to him, rather, the guys that are there clearly being good sports.

That said, I could go to a tournament and get tabled by a total gentleman and still give him good sports scores, and I could thrash an annoying whining neckbeard and still give him low scores.

But one should be careful to recognize that a personality clash does not necessarily mean they are malicious or bad sports. Any comment, however gracious, can grate on you with the taste of a loss in your mouth.

Mannahnin wrote:We've had many threads and the general pros and cons of Sportsmanship scoring, but that's off-topic for this thread.

Please keep any further posts on the original topic.

Obviously you can try to sanitize the true nature of this conversation as a mod but I don't think it is off-topic at all.

In fact the attitudes of tourney players, how they approach such events, how organizers choose to structure such events, the pros/cons and limitations of trying to play a game like 40k as if it is a competative sport are all vital and directly related parts of a much large issue and conversation that surround topic like this very thread.

Threads like this arise out of a player culture (tournament players) that is directly impacted and shaped by issues such as the validity/fairness of sportsmanship scoring and the possible dangers of it's abuse and misuse like described in this thread.

This thread was given birth by the very issues you want to prevent people from discussing...

Giving your opponent a low sports (or comp for that matter) simply because you lost/are bitter/want to lower their chances of winning is called "chipmunking". It's lame, dishonest, immoral and is akin to shop lifting. I say that because it undermines the integrity of the system and of what it is trying to accomplish much like shop lifting undermines a businesses' ability to make an honest buck.

Nobody should do it.

I've seen people do it, talk about it and even do it to me and it's just childish, I mean its like blacklisting (but not as impactful obviously), haha... A vert coward like thing to do IMO. =)

Perhaps I missed it since I have been away from Dakka for a few days but I don't believe any of the 13 people who said "yes" to the poll have bothered to chime in and explain why...

They are too busy figuring out a way to mark the rest of the people down for sports for posting pure win on this thread...

OverwatchCNC wrote:Perhaps I missed it since I have been away from Dakka for a few days but I don't believe any of the 13 people who said "yes" to the poll have bothered to chime in and explain why...

Because they're sarcastic gag votes... I suspect if you started a poll that asked "Is it ok to steal your opponent's dice and replace them with cooked ones that roll only 1s?" that you'd have a few people that answer yes just because they think they're funny.

When a moderator gives a general announcement about a topic, it's a violation of Dakka rules to disregard that guidance. Further, it's a violation of the rules to use the word "slowed" as a pejorative. Don't do it again.

warboss wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:Perhaps I missed it since I have been away from Dakka for a few days but I don't believe any of the 13 people who said "yes" to the poll have bothered to chime in and explain why...

Because they're sarcastic gag votes... I suspect if you started a poll that asked "Is it ok to steal your opponent's dice and replace them with cooked ones that roll only 1s?" that you'd have a few people that answer yes just because they think they're funny.

I don't think so. I made this thread/poll because we were having this argument in another thread on Sports that got locked. I only brought it up because there were people advocating this.

On a related note let's please keep the absolute remarks and defamation to a minimum I would prefer the thread stay open for discussion and not get locked by a mod.

I've been to several tournaments where the 'sportsmanship' score was rather a question of whether it was an enjoyable game, usually on some sort of scale. If I get tabled, it probably wasn't an enjoyable game, so I would probably mark the score low. I don't consider that a sportsmanship score, but it does seem to be used as a replacement for sportsmanship.

As another poster mentioned, there is also sometimes a separate score for ranking your favorite opponent. By default, my favorite opponent would definitely be the guy that I had a close game with, not the guy who tabled me.

So, I voted yes, because in some situations you may expect to be docked if you table someone (I also answered the actual poll question, not the question in the thread subject, they are quite different).

This discussion as brought up a good point. Let's say you are playing American Football. You're winning by 3 touchdowns and you have the ball in the last 2 mins of the game. Your opponent has a time out, but since they have no chance to win, you just take a knee, to end the game. The alternative being that you call a long bomb in order to tack on a few more points to the already lopsided score.
The opponents call a time out. The game would have ended but for the time out they called. Rather than take another knee, you throw the long bomb and score yet another touchdown to end the game.

Personally I feel that taking on points at the end will rub many people the wrong way. Nothing like having your opponent win the game on turn 2, but take the next 3 turns to wipe you out, and or get all of his extra points for positioning.

In this situation, if I had lost by turn 2, I'd play turn 3 and if it didn't go well, I'd just give the other guy max points (first asking if he wanted to play the rest of the game) and call it a day or ask for a quick rematch. If they have clearly won, and I start being a douche, then I'm the one with the sportsmanship problem.

IMO it really depends on the "no kidding" sportsmanship involved.

Putting the TO hat on here:
I have noticed a difference in the level of civility when there are sportsmanship scores, versus when there are none. It is no question that it makes our jobs easier, because people are more careful about being jackasses when they are afraid of losing points by getting dinged. Even the false smile kind of antics that people like Dash employ (no offense to him) help make our jobs easier, because it means they are expending effort on at least _pretending_ to be nice.

In an ideal world, we would have the time and energy to go around and police all the tables, making sure that people are not being cheating douche nozzles, but in a practical sense, we don't and its a nice lazy solution to pass the buck by making an imperfect system do the work for us. Part of it is the competitive nature of the 40k player base, often bringing out the worst in certain people. For every Reece out there, who plays tough armies in a tough manner but make you enjoy the game, there are a dozen Steleks who absolutely push the boundries of descency and suck all of the fun out of the game. So, we trade the risk of chipmunking for some self imposed civility that sportsmanship systems bring. Its a lazy trade, to be sure, but the last thing I want to be doing all day is carefully making sure the half dozen Steleks in the room behave themselves. I want to be watching Reece and Yak having a good game, while answering the occasional rules question.

As a player:
The only perfect sportsmanship or comp system that can ever work is one where the outcome of the game has no impact on it, for better or for worse. The guy who zeros someone out for tabling them is just as bad as the winner giving the dude he just prison raped max scores to soften the blow. Opinions differ on Comp and no perfect comp score system can ever exist, really, because the game evolves too fast and no one can keep up with all aspects of it. The basics of human behavior are easy to assess, but all that needs to be graded are whether someone behaved themselves or not, not whether they were giving you a happy ending under the table. Simple sports systems work; complex ones invite subjective retaliation.

I guess if you had the game lost and the guy did not need to do anything else to secure the maximum score from that round and he insisted on continuing to play just to rub your face in it, then thats another matter. Who tabled who should never impact the sports score, ever. The score is there (in my view) to punish the rules exploiting jerk who makes things unfair or unfun for others with "creative" and argumentative rules interpretations.