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.

So his 'good' argument is that sportsmanship scores work when you make them so inconsequential as to make them irrelevant?

He should be a lawyer.

Fearspect wrote:

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

Well... it's more of a situation where those who are against it have posted appropriate arguments against having it (mostly the fact that it can too easily be gamed and has proven to not be effective) whereas the other camp has effectively put their fingers in their ears while yelling, "LALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

And this post proves that the converse is identically "true."

Actually that seems like a great idea. Pay lip service to the idea so that the 'OMG WE NEED SPORTS' crowd is appeased when they can get '5's across the board for being darned good blokes, and make it less than 1% of the total contribution so that it's totally insignificant.

Fearspect wrote:

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

Well... it's more of a situation where those who are against it have posted appropriate arguments against having it (mostly the fact that it can too easily be gamed and has proven to not be effective) whereas the other camp has effectively put their fingers in their ears while yelling, "LALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

Matter of perspective that I don't agree with - but each to his own.

Those for it - We like it as it helps to reward good sports and gives a mechanism to control TFG. (those that get good sports)

Those against it - it is used to hurt them and punish them (those that don't get good sportsmanship)

Bottom line though - unless we are the one's running the tourney - we either choose to play by the rules of the tourney organizers or not - but they get to make the call if they are doing the work of setting up this organization.

For the record, I am against it and I almost always get full sports scores.

So basically you have come down to saying: "you just don't want it cause it hurts you"

Really? Is that the best argument that you have?


I have never seen it control TFG's. If anything it benefits them, because people try and play nicely with them (so their sports scores aren't hurt) and they take advantage of it, then they tank your scores anyways.

Its usually the case that most people give out full marks on it anyways so it doesn't really benefit you. (basically it can only hurt you if you get a bad opponent)

If you really want it, use it as a tie breaker or something.


The worst is that there are just some socially inept people who play this game. They aren't jerks, just not amazing fun to play against because they are kinda introverted. These are the people who usually suffer the most. And I personally don't think its fair that people like this get picked on like that.

That was exactly the point that I was going to bring up as well. Sports doesn't control TFG, Sports enables TFG to be TFG on an even greater scale.

Which, I think, boils down to:

"LALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

So, suppose a system were discovered which reliably allowed TFG to be banned from the event, would you support it or reject it?

@kilkrazy

It depends. Is TFG cheating? Or is he just using rules to his advantage and being a bit anal about measuring. (making sure you measure 100% correctly and stuff)

Cheating? Yes.

Just being anal about the rules and measurements? Not a chance.

He paid money/time to play too. Just cause you don't like someone or how they play doesn't mean you should kick them from an event.

That is for you to decide.

You have a stark choice -- to label someone as TFG or not.

Would all five opponents label someone as TFG for cheating? Would all of them do it if he hadn't worn deodorant?

Why not just tell the guy he needs to wear deoderant rather than being passive aggressive? I know wargamming draws certain stereotypes in, but a tiny bit of frank discussion can go a long way.

I'm going to go ahead and add 'encourages anti-social behaviour' on top of previous points that it can be gamed, can enable cheating and does not affect behaviour.

How can "cheating" possibly be subjective? If someone is moving a model 1" further than they are supposed to, measuring when they are not allowed to, or "forgetting" about a few extra wounds when removing models, that's cheating. Cheating is obvious when compared to the relevant rules. It's like math. It doesn't change based on situation.

Now, there are enough ambiguities with the rules that the TO needs to make a ruling. If 'TFG' refuses to adhere to the ruling, or protests the ruling to an egregious extent, then that's what makes him TFG.

I like the idea of having a sportsmanship score.
BUT
Its a completely separate category. I had the idea for an event ran with the following categories.

Overall
3 games, 40 battle points each
judges score comp based on a 10 point checklist, the average is what you get.

Best sportsman
10 sportsman ship points a game

Best painting
Best painted and modeled.

Each of these categories would be separate. So if I lose to GBF again and tank his sportsmanship scores that just means he cant win best sportsman, and has no effect on his overall.

Those against it - it is used to hurt them and punish them (those that don't get good sportsmanship)

More proof of just how weak the argument for sportsmanship scoring is. Now the ones pushing it are falling back on "Yeah well you just don't want it because you get low scores!"

If this is what it's come to then I say the thread has pretty much run its course. It's pretty obvious the opposition just isn't listening and is outright making gak up to support themselves.

I don't like sports and in a 5-game tourney I generally have full sports scores and pull in 2 "best sportsman" votes. Don't get me wrong it's a soft score that really helps me out in overall but I wouldn't mind if it got dropped. I've had friends get hammered because they held people accountable to the rules and that person saw them as TFG.

It's funny. I was talking to someone today about it and he pointed out that the more "competitive oriented" the person he is playing with the less issues he generally runs into with them and the better of a game he has. I find it funny that my experiences mirror his. The worst games I've ever had were actually against players at the lower tables in a 5-day event (only personal experience) or people who "aren't competitive" and who are only into the hobby aspect.

It's just my personal experience like I've said but Sportsmanship scores don't make me a better person to play. I'm already fun All it does is give power to people who tend to be passive aggressive or who were going to dock you anyway

Aldonis wrote:So those that don't like - won't ever like it....and those that do like it....will probably continue to like it. It depends on if you are a player who most always gets good sportsmanship - or one that struggles with it.

Good thing that both types of tournaments exist and people can pick which ones they want to play in.

And yet this fails to address anything that this thread is about.

A good argument of why there is a need for sportsmanship scores in tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oshova wrote:Thank you BeefyG, finally someone managed to stop going in circles . . . my dizziness is receding.

Also you make a good point =] double win!

It's true that sportsmanship makes little or no difference to your eventual position. Maybe mid table . . . but generally I find that at the top there is a clear difference in scores.

Oshova

THEN WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU USE A SYSTEM THAT HAS NO IMPACT!!!

Really. Is it that fething hard?

The reason scoring exists at all in tournaments is to quantify the difference in performances in the competition.

At a tournament of any given game, the values of the organizers are reflected in what they decide to score.

For warhammer 40k, many organizers have decided that sportsmanship is an integral part of the game, and will be a factor in deciding the winner and often carry its own prize.

The sportsmanship score itself is needed to compare performances in this category.

Whether you agree with the value of sportsmanship in 40k or not, the scoring system allows officials to attach a value to high performance in this category.

That is the reason why need sportsmanship scores.

Need is a strong word anyways, we don't need to play 40k at all.

Dracos wrote:
The sportsmanship score itself is needed to compare performances in this category.

Whether you agree with the value of sportsmanship in 40k or not, the scoring system allows officials to attach a value to high performance in this category.

That is the reason why need sportsmanship scores.

The thing is that it fails at doing that, as being entirely subjective and not rating actual sportsmanship, but just being a popularity contest.

Dracos wrote:The reason scoring exists at all in tournaments is to quantify the difference in performances in the competition.

At a tournament of any given game, the values of the organizers are reflected in what they decide to score.

For warhammer 40k, many organizers have decided that sportsmanship is an integral part of the game, and will be a factor in deciding the winner and often carry its own prize.

The sportsmanship score itself is needed to compare performances in this category.

Whether you agree with the value of sportsmanship in 40k or not, the scoring system allows officials to attach a value to high performance in this category.

That is the reason why need sportsmanship scores.

Need is a strong word anyways, we don't need to play 40k at all.

So a completely biased, subjective and arbitrary system is how to 'attach a value to high performance in this category'?

Some value.

Just give up man, the fact that this was a lost cause was apparent when someone come out and said "Everyone who hates sportsmanship scoring is TFG!"

While I'm on the fence regarding soft scores, I'm not quite sure if it's fair to dismiss them as completely subjective. Many tournaments I've attended had specific questions on the soft score/sportsmanship front that served as a fairly black or white checklist. As to the argument for sportsmanship, the only one I'm particularly moved by is that a checklist of game etiquette serves as prevention of in game arguments...between players that would not normally be confrontational.

imweasel wrote:So a completely biased, subjective and arbitrary system is how to 'attach a value to high performance in this category'?

Some value.

I do agree that all these value labels are biased, but that is our own human nature. Until a better system is developed to evaluate sportsmanship in a more fair and objective way, the sportsmanship scoring is the best option for organizers who want to put an emphasis on the social aspect of the game.

Whether you agree that the need to evaluate sportsmanship exists or not is a completely separate point - some organizers do feel the need to evaluate performances in the category of sportsmanship, and therefore we have the sportsmanship scoring system.

Again we don't need the game at all, so this thread is really just a waste of time. People who are arguing it is not needed at all are correct, because we don't need this game at all. Therefore the premise is impossible to disprove, and really this thread is about bashing those who like/use sportsmanship scores.

While I'm on the fence regarding soft scores, I'm not quite sure if it's fair to dismiss them as completely subjective. Many tournaments I've attended had specific questions on the soft score/sportsmanship front that served as a fairly black or white checklist. As to the argument for sportsmanship, the only one I'm particularly moved by is that a checklist of game etiquette serves as prevention of in game arguments...between players that would not normally be confrontational.

I asked earlier to see an example of a non-subjective checklist and no one was able to provide one. Can you? Every checklist I've ever seen (and I've seen many) has been completely opinion-based. It should be noted that a checklist doesn't have to have "would you play your opponent again?" to be subjective; even something like "did your opponent bring all of the necessary materials?" is subjective. Is it necessary for an opponent to bring vehicle damage dice? How about craters? Cotton balls for popping smoke? How about GW FAQs? The INAT FAQ? Chipmunks can use this subjectivity to their advantage and frequently will.

Until a better system is developed to evaluate sportsmanship in a more fair and objective way, the sportsmanship scoring is the best option for organizers who want to put an emphasis on the social aspect of the game.

Are you purposely ignoring the fact that sportsmanship scores actually allow for people to display even worse sportsmanship? From a sportsmanship emphasis perspective it actually makes much more sense NOT to try and quantify it.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by reminding everyone over and over that we don't "need" to play 40k at all? What does that have to do with the topic of sportsmanship scoring at tournaments?

Hell, going by your logic none of us should even be posting here. We don't need Dakka Dakka, either.

Danny Internets wrote:

While I'm on the fence regarding soft scores, I'm not quite sure if it's fair to dismiss them as completely subjective. Many tournaments I've attended had specific questions on the soft score/sportsmanship front that served as a fairly black or white checklist. As to the argument for sportsmanship, the only one I'm particularly moved by is that a checklist of game etiquette serves as prevention of in game arguments...between players that would not normally be confrontational.

I asked earlier to see an example of a non-subjective checklist and no one was able to provide one. Can you? Every checklist I've ever seen (and I've seen many) has been completely opinion-based. It should be noted that a checklist doesn't have to have "would you play your opponent again?" to be subjective; even something like "did your opponent bring all of the necessary materials?" is subjective. Is it necessary for an opponent to bring vehicle damage dice? How about craters? Cotton balls for popping smoke? How about GW FAQs? The INAT FAQ? Chipmunks can use this subjectivity to their advantage and frequently will.

I find the Adepticon Sportsmanship scoring system fairly objective. To be sure, nefarious individuals could turn something like "Was your opponent prompt to start the round?" into "I consider prompt 15 minutes before and he was not, therefore I will mark him down". However, such individuals are going to make a mess of the game regardless of any checklist. So...I don't feel anyone is actually debating if sports scores will turn TFG into a gaming dream date . However, I do think the argument that it provides structure/etiquette a perfectly valid one.

However, such individuals are going to make a mess of the game regardless of any checklist.

...so the solution is to let them make a mess of the game AND give them a way to dick over their opponent? In what universe does that make sense? Structure is meaningless if its so subjective as to be defined as whatever someone wants it to be.

Please see examples posted further back. The only counter to TFG is for the player to man up and complain. Soft scores help no one against the TFG.

I do think the Yellow Card/Red Card system is the best way to deal with TFG, so this thread has persuaded me that Sportsmanship is rather unnecessary.

I think part of the problem is that people are assuming that a sportsmanship score is there to halt cheaters and TFGs.

A scoring system does not have the power to monitor abusive players, that is up to tournament officials and players themselves. Of course abusive players should be ejected from the event - that goes for any competition, not just 40k.

Sportsmanship does still allow players to communicate the officials in a quantitative way how enjoyable each opponent was to play with. That alone is why a sportsmanship score is "needed" in a tournament where the officials want to reward good sportsmanship.

Yellow card/Red card seems like an excellent way of dealing with cheaters/TFGs, but that is aside from sportsmanship scoring IMO.

Danny Internets wrote:

However, such individuals are going to make a mess of the game regardless of any checklist.

...so the solution is to let them make a mess of the game AND give them a way to dick over their opponent? In what universe does that make sense? Structure is meaningless if its so subjective as to be defined as whatever someone wants it to be.

Well, honestly I consider the entire "TFG" somewhat of an ad absurdum. TFG seems to be an exceptional rarity according to a majority of posters in this thread reporting their tourney experience. If that is the case, then an example such as the Adepticon policy, would only be subjective to a very small minority.

Again, I don't believe in implementing a scoring system as TFG control. It would obviously fail to control an individual with social issues, regardless of how many points you assign good behavior. However, I do find the argument that it provides a structure for players a valid one.

Dracos wrote:
Sportsmanship does still allow players to communicate the officials in a quantitative way how enjoyable each opponent was to play with. That alone is why a sportsmanship score is "needed" in a tournament where the officials want to reward good sportsmanship.

Being enjoyable to play against is not the same as having good sportsmanship. If you want to reward that, call it something else (Like popularity...Which is more appropriate).