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.

And popularity should be it's own reward.

You are telling me that like I made it up. If you have a problem with the name they give it, take it up with the tournament in question.

Dracos wrote: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.

So why are you posting in this thread. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON THAT IS PRO SPORTSMANSHIP SCORE HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR THE NECESSITY OF THE SPORTSMANSHIP SCORE.

Please make an argument for it. Or stop 'wasting time'. Thanks.

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.
...
...

You've obviously never seen one of those complicated lists which goes something like this:

Opponent swears Yes/No
Opponent has dice Yes/No
Opponent has two copies of army list Yes/No

and so on.

Nothing objective about those criteria, eh?

Funnily enough the German Army of the WW1 and WW2 era used a completely subjective system of personnel evaluation which worked like this.

The soldier's immediate commander rated the performance on the following scale; Good/Average/Poor.

It worked pretty well. The German Army produced twice the combat effectiveness per man that their enemies did.

The much more complex and supposedly objective US Army evaluation form was well known for producing biased and ineffective results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:

Dracos wrote: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.

So why are you posting in this thread. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON THAT IS PRO SPORTSMANSHIP SCORE HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR THE NECESSITY OF THE SPORTSMANSHIP SCORE.

Please make an argument for it. Or stop 'wasting time'. Thanks.

Please don't shout.

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

Kilkrazy wrote:

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

1. By promoting a system that can be abused. I don't know how in the long run that supports 'promoting good sportsmanship'. In the end, it could easily be counter-productive.

2. By instituting a system that TFG can also use.

3. Better tie breaks exist that are not subjective, arbitrary and biased that can be implemented.

Note: The OP said 'good', not wishful thinking.

I would say painting score is a better tie breaker, thats something that is more objective and requires more skill then sportsmanship

imweasel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

1. By promoting a system that can be abused. I don't know how in the long run that supports 'promoting good sportsmanship'. In the end, it could easily be counter-productive.

2. By instituting a system that TFG can also use.

3. Better tie breaks exist that are not subjective, arbitrary and biased that can be implemented.

Note: The OP said 'good', not wishful thinking.

You are making a set of assumptions about how a sport scoring system might work, assuming it would work badly, and taking that as a reason not to do it.

If you make different assumptions, it changes the whole perspective on the argument.

Why not start by examining the basis premises?

Is good sportsmanship good?
Self-evidently.

Can it be promoted by a sportsmanship scoring system?

Etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:I would say painting score is a better tie breaker, thats something that is more objective and requires more skill then sportsmanship

Paint scoring's potential use as a tie-breaker does not invalidate sports scoring.

My best events have been the one with no sportsmanship but a judge who will use the yellow card/red card system and throw guys out.

Kilkrazy wrote:You are making a set of assumptions about how a sport scoring system might work, assuming it would work badly, and taking that as a reason not to do it.

No more of an assumption than you are assuming that such a system would work well and taking that as a reason to do it.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you make different assumptions, it changes the whole perspective on the argument.

A subjective, biased and arbitrary system can have 'perspective'? I hardly think so.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why not start by examining the basis premises?

This can only be done by ignoring the fact that one has to assume that a subjective, biased and arbitrary system can be 'fair'.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is good sportsmanship good?
Self-evidently.

This is the only thing we can agree on.

Kilkrazy wrote:Can it be promoted by a sportsmanship scoring system?

Etc.

My response is can anything be 'promoted' via a subjective, arbitrary and biased system?

imweasel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You are making a set of assumptions about how a sport scoring system might work, assuming it would work badly, and taking that as a reason not to do it.

No more of an assumption than you are assuming that such a system would work well and taking that as a reason to do it.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you make different assumptions, it changes the whole perspective on the argument.

A subjective, biased and arbitrary system can have 'perspective'? I hardly think so.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why not start by examining the basis premises?

This can only be done by ignoring the fact that one has to assume that a subjective, biased and arbitrary system can be 'fair'.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is good sportsmanship good?
Self-evidently.

This is the only thing we can agree on.

Kilkrazy wrote:Can it be promoted by a sportsmanship scoring system?

Etc.

My response is can anything be 'promoted' via a subjective, arbitrary and biased system?

You're doing it again.

My point is that people should first decide if sportmanship would be a good thing if a good system could be found to promote it.

You have simply assumed the system would be subjective, arbitrary and biased, and therefore bad. That avoids the core issue.

Eh, you're dealing with it in such broad strokes that the approach to the topic is made meaningless. Finding the 'good system that promotes it' is the hard part, not getting people to agree whether sportsmanship is good or bad.

"If we had a good way of doing it, should we end world hunger?"

Resounding yes.

"Let's simply ship food surpluses to hungry nations so that despot rulers can seize control of aid stockpiles and become tyrants enabled by the generosity of richer nations."

Deafening silence.

"And then we can pump tax dollars into funding military insertions overseas to dismantle the despot tyrants and embroil industrialized nations in 3rd world regional conflicts which only massive expenditures to revamp infrastructure and government making the developing nation into a colonial state in all but name only before we can begin to extract our influence."

Furniture flies.

The topic is whether anyone can make an argument of why we need a sportmanship system.

I have given three arguments in favour.

No-one has refuted them, and people just keep saying it is impossible so it shouldn't be done.

That is not a logical argument.

Claiming no one has refuted them when people clearly have, or have come up with better arguments against a sportsmanship system is not a logical argument.

Kilkrazy wrote:The topic is whether anyone can make an argument of why we need a sportmanship system.

I have given three arguments in favour.

No-one has refuted them, and people just keep saying it is impossible so it shouldn't be done.

That is not a logical argument.

Anyone can make an argument for a sportsmanship system.

The topic is 'can anyone make a good argument for a sportsmanship system'.

I have yet to see anyone to making an even close good argument besides 'sportsmanship is good, therefore it should be promoted'.

I haven't even seen a 'list' of what to even score your opponent on his 'sportsmanship'.

And Killkrazy, I appreciate you playing 'devil's advocate', but at least try to make a good argument or this is just going to go nowhere even faster.

Good sportsmanship is a good thing.

However, Sportsmanship scoring often does not reward actual sportsmanship. Most reward charisma, conformity, and popularity. That is the fundamental disconnect in the argument, and the logical problem of using a different meaning of a word in different part of an argument.

Opponent swears Yes/No
Opponent has dice Yes/No
Opponent has two copies of army list Yes/No

and so on.

Define swearing. Can I penalize you for saying "darn"? Subjective.

And what does having dice or extra copies of an army list have to do with sportsmanship? Might as well add "Is your opponent wearing a blue shirt?" and reward/dock points for that too.

"And so on" is not adequate when asked for exactly what would be on this checklist. Please elaborate. I'm curious to know what your so-called objective checklist about something completely nebulous and without standard definition ("sportsmanship") would look like.

Danny Internets wrote:

Opponent swears Yes/No
Opponent has dice Yes/No
Opponent has two copies of army list Yes/No

and so on.

Define swearing. Can I penalize you for saying "darn"? Subjective.

And what does having dice or extra copies of an army list have to do with sportsmanship? Might as well add "Is your opponent wearing a blue shirt?" and reward/dock points for that too.

"And so on" is not adequate when asked for exactly what would be on this checklist. Please elaborate. I'm curious to know what your so-called objective checklist about something completely nebulous and without standard definition ("sportsmanship") would look like.

He is playing devil's advocate. I don't think he has an idea of what to score or how to score it. He isn't really for soft scores.

imweasel wrote:
He is playing devil's advocate. I don't think he has an idea of what to score or how to score it. He isn't really for soft scores.

This is offensively lazy argumentation. Inevitably those who have been backed into a corner discover some 'hidden truth' on which to float, like jetsam.

If you're going to make claims regard the wasting of time, you should take your own advice and put more effort into your posting.


In any case, the question as posed revolves around possibility. It doesn't require that the implementation of soft scoring be easy, it simply requires that it be possible under a certain set of circumstances. The intent of such an argument being to move beyond idiotic ranting about the quality of particular category; inevitably the sort of thing that devolves into circularity.

"Should we have soft scoring?"

"No!"

"Why?"

"Because soft scoring is bad!"

"Why?"

"Its soft, and soft is bad!"

Stupid. Utterly stupid. More so given the state GW rules.

Nobody is saying all soft scoring is universally bad. But there are few cases in which sportsmanship is better then no sportsmanship scores. And many ways to achieve the desired effect without having the sportsmanship scores. I have seen no serious argument against painting scores in here, and those are soft.

Of course, the thread isn't about painting scores. You only need to do a forum search to find instances in which people complain about having their tournament position determined by painting score.

As with any system of regulation there is the potential for abuse. But that potential has more to do with poor organization and staffing than issues inherent to the points system.

But hey, I think 40k tournaments are a colossal joke, so my opinion doesn't matter much.

That reminds me; what army do you play?

Several.

My largest single collection is an amalgam of various marine chapters. I also have large collections of Eldar, and Orks.

Fantasy makes up the bulk of the horde; including Chaos Warriors, Empire, Orcs, Dwarfs, Lizardmen, and Dogs of War.

But I don't play much, for me its mostly about the modeling.

So far I agree with most of the points brought up in the entire discussion.
1. having a way to be punished for questioning the rules or movement etc, is not right and thats what the sportsmanship score frequently turns into.
2. There are always going to to be some players that are a complete doink and take the fun out of playing the game.
3. There should be a way to reward the players that are truly fun to play.
4. A system to allow formal complaints against an opponent without penalizing you should be in place. That system should be clear and inforced.

In my opinion there should be a seperate rating for how fun the person is to play. This should translate into its own reward or only used in a tie breaker type situation.

Now that I have added my opinion on the subject I have to explain my limited experience on this paticular subject. I live and work on a U.S. military base in Korea. We play every weekend at the community center on base. Anywhere from 2-8 players show up and we of course have one bad apple in the bunch. The kind of person that tries to twist the rules in the book to fit his paticular situation and convienantly forgetting or making "mistakes" about rules that apply to him. With such a limited number of players available this individual is frequently the only one to play even though everyone avoids it like the plague.

We arranged a mini tournament a few years ago and had almost 100 people show up from all over the country. Our current problem child was not here at the time, but we had others. I was approched as the event organizer that a paticular person was tanking their sportsmanship scores when they were trying to clarify rules. Luckily later in the tournament he was caught using loaded dice and was asked to leave. Unfortunatly we then had to adjust the score sheets and that was a whole new problem. If the sportsmanship score was not involved it would have solved at least some of the problem.

The only sportman awards should be "how bad did I kick my opponents' butt?"

dogma wrote:If you're going to make claims regard the wasting of time, you should take your own advice and put more effort into your posting.

I did. I found that he does not exactly follow the line of thinking he is presenting in this thread, thus the conclusion I came to that he is playing 'devils advocate'.

Yeah to me Sportsmanship is like oh you broke your arm before the arm wrestling match, let's find some other way to compete since you no longer can in this arena. Being sporting is like giving someone a handicap you know is not as good as you are at a game or sport. I mean I'll remind someone to shoot something they forgot to and I don't mind if they want to go back and do something that they obviously would have but forgot to even if it's my turn and I'll take morale tests that they forget about but is that sporting and if so what else is?

What should what these scores that as sportsmanship scores in 40k tournaments be called?

Kilkrazy wrote:The topic is whether anyone can make an argument of why we need a sportmanship system.

I have given three arguments in favour.

No-one has refuted them, and people just keep saying it is impossible so it shouldn't be done.

That is not a logical argument.

I believe that there is a need for a sportsmanship system...to award good sportsmanship prizes.

I believe that all of those arguments still make good reason to try and win the "sportsmanship award" and be supported by "expected gaming ettiquette" of tournament participants.

I did not say it was impossible at all, rather that it was quite successfully implemented in bloodbowl tournaments as an example, where being a bad sport can be the difference between a place or not when the scores are close.

I have to absolutely agree with Hulksmash in his observation that it is generally the less competative players who are socially awkward, haven't taken the time to learn the rules properly and bring assumptions to the gaming table about generosities in the rules that "their normal gaming circle" lets them get away with.
- Though as a caveat there are some awesomely fun guys at the bottom tables sometimes playing less than competative teams and having a blast. These are the guys who should always win the "sportsmanship award" because they are going above and beyond to make having fun the priority.

So to KillKrazy - My argument against the inclusion of a sports score is that it does not go far enough and allows individuals to be blaise about being a good sport at all times when playing with people at a tournament. Sportsmanship is a basic requirement of attending and paying for your entry fee. If you can't be a good sport, then you shouldn't be playing.

Kilkrazy wrote:

1. To promote good sportmanship.
2. To identify and eliminate TFG.
3. As a tie-breaker mechanism.

1. Yes. Promoting good sportsmanship is a good idea. I support this notion if it remains separate from the Best General award, has its own prize and is objectively marked. To judge sportsmanship, we would require sportsmanship scores. The difficulty is making them objective, because unless it's a fair system, you might as well not have it.

2. No. I already went through the possible TFG scenarios a while back, and the consensus was that it cannot counter TFG, because the TFG also has access to the system and will abuse it to dock your score. In any case, you're better off with a yellow/red card system for killing TFG. Definitely not a reason we need sportsmanship scores.

3. There is no reason to make it a tiebreaker for Best General. Best overall? Certainly, but not best General. It makes as much sense as using painting for Best General. Instead, I'd rather split the prize, or have a tiebreaker match. Not the most efficient way to decide it, and thus no pressing need for sportsmanship scores.

1/3, and that's assuming it's objective, which no one has presented yet.

imweasel wrote:
I did. I found that he does not exactly follow the line of thinking that I developed through preconception, thus the conclusion I came to that he is playing 'devils advocate'.

Fixed that for you.

Your point is nonsensical. Either you are referencing Kilkrazy's behavior outside the auspices of this thread, or the standard you are judging for consistency is a self-conceived strawman.

I believe that the latter is more likely.

Well, OP, would you prefer to play against an absolute prick, who completely takes the enjoyment factor out of the game?