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.

Someone hasn't read the thread, lol.

Were I to play in, or run, a 40k tournament (which will never happen) the system that I would like to see implemented would be as follows:

Separate scoring for each category of consideration. We'll call them painting, generalship, and sportsmanship for the sake of argument. Each of these categories would have their own prizes.

An amalgamated score would be utilized in order to determine an overall winner, if there was to be an overall winner at all.

All that is required to enforce this system fairly is an appropriate number of event staff. The vast majority of tournament are understaffed because the vast majority of tournaments are run by people who have no idea how to plan a competitive event.

dogma wrote:Were I to play in, or run, a 40k tournament (which will never happen) the system that I would like to see implemented would be as follows:

Separate scoring for each category of consideration. We'll call them painting, generalship, and sportsmanship for the sake of argument. Each of these categories would have their own prizes.

An amalgamated score would be utilized in order to determine an overall winner, if there was to be an overall winner at all.

Well, that's certainly an option tournaments could implement. However, to be honest, I enjoy the thought of an overall winner. IMHO, that captures someone who likely excelled at the overall hobby more than a particular aspect of it (using game mechanics, painting or being a nice guy). That's not right or wrong, it's simply what I consider 40k tournaments...an exhibition of 'Hobby' excellence.

I agree. Warhammer, in all its forms, is a hobby. It isn't a game akin to Chess, Go, or even Checkers.

That's why I favor soft scoring. It helps keep Warhammer consistent with itself.

dogma wrote:

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.

Really?

Here is a quote from Kilkrazy:

"The problem with soft scores is that they are subjective at best and at worst open to abuse by unscrupulous players.

I understand the idea that soft scores are intended to encourage positive behaviour such as painting your models and being a good sport, however it seems that legislating for these things often brings out the worst in people and is counter productive. "

Anything else you need to fix besides your own preconceptions?

imweasel wrote:
Really?

Here is a quote from Kilkrazy:

"The problem with soft scores is that they are subjective at best and at worst open to abuse by unscrupulous players.

I understand the idea that soft scores are intended to encourage positive behaviour such as painting your models and being a good sport, however it seems that legislating for these things often brings out the worst in people and is counter productive. "

Anything else you need to fix besides your own preconceptions?

Soft scoring is not synonymous with sportsmanship scoring. The confusion in the quoted segment prevents a definitive conclusion from being reached; ergo you are overreaching.

It's suppose to discourage you from being a bad sport, whether it works or not and is needed or not they don't care.

The only discouragement you should need is the fact that everyone will think you're a tool, and that you'll likely get kicked out of the event, or banned from future events/the store if it's bad enough.

How does giving him a "0" on his sportsmanship score stop bad behavior? He's still allowed to play in events, he's still allowed to tank your score and the score of everyone else he plays that day, and if sportsmanship scoring is really as insignificant as some say, he could still end up winning (or ending up in a top spot at least) despite getting straight 0's.

All you need to discourage cheating or donkey-cave behavior is a TO with balls. That, and participants with the balls to call said TO with balls over to the table when TFG starts being a douche, instead of what we have now, which is mostly a bunch of pansies who will bend over and let TFG walk all over them during the tournament, and then wait until they get home and complain about it online when the event is already over and nothing at all can be done about it.

Sidstyler wrote:instead of what we have now, which is mostly a bunch of pansies who will bend over and let TFG walk all over them during the tournament, and then wait until they get home and complain about it online when the event is already over and nothing at all can be done about it.

So sayeth the dude who whines on the internet.

Thanks, Sandra Bullock.

...yes, but, not about people who screw me over during games.

A person who TOs see rack up consistently low sports scores is a person for whom they have documentation of consistently unpleasant behavior/attitude. It's entirely possible that it's easier for TOs who normally wish to avoid confrontation, and who choose to be charitable and give people multiple chances, to eventually ban someone when they see a numeric record of that person's bad sportsmanship show up over time. I've seen it happen.

And if you use the pass/fail sports system I described earlier, you can do it in a single event.

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.

And this is why the debate is worthless. The people who don't like having Sportsmanship scores are not open to any explanation as to why some people like them.

When someone who likes Sportsmanship scoring posts their reasons, an anti- Sportsmanship Scoring advocate replies like the one I just quoted.

Then, a few posts later, another anti-Sportsmanship Scoring advocate will say that the pro-Sportsmanship Scoring advocates won't give any reasons why they need/want/like then.

A little advice: If you're not even remotely willing to entertain the other side's point of view, there is no reason to enter into an argument.

Saldiven wrote:

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.

And this is why the debate is worthless. The people who don't like having Sportsmanship scores are not open to any explanation as to why some people like them.

When someone who likes Sportsmanship scoring posts their reasons, an anti- Sportsmanship Scoring advocate replies like the one I just quoted.

Then, a few posts later, another anti-Sportsmanship Scoring advocate will say that the pro-Sportsmanship Scoring advocates won't give any reasons why they need/want/like then.

A little advice: If you're not even remotely willing to entertain the other side's point of view, there is no reason to enter into an argument.

ABSOLUTELY!

This is pretty silly thread - Blackmoor should be kicked in the what-nots for even starting it in the first place.

Those that don't like it fuss about it, those that do like it fuss about it. No one's going to agree.

There's a really vocal group here that doesn't care for them - as far as I know either haven't played in a lot of tourneys or haven't done very well in them - or had a bad experience. Whatever - sorry if you had a bad time.

Personally, I've played in GT's since '99 and a boatload of other tourneys (Adepticon, Big Waagh, RTT's, etc). I think the most fun tourneys were the early one's in 99 and 2000. They had Comp, Sportsmanship, painting, etc. But - they were fun. Not the drama around cheating that is today, not the win at all costs mentality - and they were FUN! It's not hard to get a good sports score. Be decent to people, give them what you would expect, be nice. Out of 100+ tourney opponents I had a handful that weren't fun to play and maybe 2 that were even close to being jerks.

This whole thing about all the drama about bad players, cheating, win at all costs, TFG, etc - it's REALLY getting blown all out of proportion. A bunch of internet drama queens have really made it into some huge conspiracy thing. I suggest that we has a hobby group collective STOP it - enjoy the d@mn games - play and have fun, thank the tourney organizers for the effort they put on for US to have fun - and stop the crap. I'm guilty of feeding this as well by even replying to these threads.

Played in a tournament this weekend and got bumped from 7/32 to 9/32 because of sportsmanship. (7/8/9 were tired & the only remaining way to decide was sportsmanship). My sportsmanship scores were 12/12 12/12 & 6/12 being W/L/W. Now let me explain why I lost those 6 points.

My opponent was a dark angels player fielding 2 LR & 1 LRC with 5 squads of terminators (2 reg 3 assault) and belial.

Composition: "You were fielding a hammerhead with a rail gun & 2 broadsides as your only heavy support. And your only troops were 45 fire warriors, that doesn't show a lot of diversity"
For non Tau players, we have 2 troop choices, FW or kroot and I don't have enough kroot models to field a legal squad. For heavy support we have HH, Broadside, snipers and a skyray missile defense gunship. I don't have a skyray & my snipers were cut due to it being 1850 instead of 2,000 pt game.

The other 3 points were for playing by the rules in-game. His LR wanted to shoot my hammerhead However there was terrian blocking the Lascannons (It was a rock formation with a hole in it) and the height of the heavy bolters would allow it to shoot through the hole but the lascannons could not. I argued that LoS on vehicle weapons were drawn from the weapon & even got my laser pointer & showed him no matter how I maneuvered it, he clearly did not have LoS. He then got the TO over who agreed with me. But he still said "The fact that you'd even bring that up when playing someone using as bad a book as dark angels shows poor sportsmanship." My reply was "I play T'au Empire, our book isn't good either"

Finally he mentioned:
"Well when you placed objectives (I won the roll to place all 3 objectives, as a balance he picked the primary one) you placed them all out in the open which is unfair for me as you can easily shoot me to death"
tl;dr I got dropped from tied for 7th, to 9th based on a reduced sportsmanship score for playing by the rules & making good tactical decisions. I feel if they must have a sportsmanship score it should be completely separate from the overall standings, much like painting.

Threads are never about convincing the other people who post in the thread; trying to do so is futile 90% of the time. When you post in a thread your real audience is the "lurkers:" those whose opinions are not quite formed yet.

And there's been plenty of arguing past one another on both sides. I do think there have been a lot of good, valid, and useful thoughts expressed on both sides, even if the thread has tended to be a bit circular.

Mannahnin wrote:A person who TOs see rack up consistently low sports scores is a person for whom they have documentation of consistently unpleasant behavior/attitude. It's entirely possible that it's easier for TOs who normally wish to avoid confrontation, and who choose to be charitable and give people multiple chances, to eventually ban someone when they see a numeric record of that person's bad sportsmanship show up over time. I've seen it happen.

And if you use the pass/fail sports system I described earlier, you can do it in a single event.

Exactly. Moreover, a person who consistently receives low sportsmanship scores can be directly observed by tournament officials, overtly or otherwise; allowing the number of necessary staff to be reduced. Which is always a good thing in an environment which is typically understaffed to an obscene degree.

As a rule, competitive events should not dip below an official:participant ratio of 1:4. Typically I see ratios of 1:20 or more.

Saldiven wrote:And this is why the debate is worthless. The people who don't like having Sportsmanship scores are not open to any explanation as to why some people like them.

Except that's the only argument for sportsmanship scores. It's because they are 'liked'. Not because they are fair. Not because they achieve the objective of forcing people to be 'sporting'. It's...just because.

Saldiven wrote:When someone who likes Sportsmanship scoring posts their reasons, an anti- Sportsmanship Scoring advocate replies like the one I just quoted.

Give a good argument that can't be reasonably refuted, and we can and will listen.

Saldiven wrote:Then, a few posts later, another anti-Sportsmanship Scoring advocate will say that the pro-Sportsmanship Scoring advocates won't give any reasons why they need/want/like then.

Something you still have not done.

Saldiven wrote:A little advice: If you're not even remotely willing to entertain the other side's point of view, there is no reason to enter into an argument.

If you are not willing to debate with substance, perhaps you should take your own advice.

Here is a definition of sportsmanship from the Merriams-Webster online dictionary:

conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport

Okay so sports and playing a game of toy soldiers is not one in the same but many of the principles still hold true. To me sportsmanship is more than just a score handed out at the end of your game. Sportsmanship is also a state of mind you bring to the table. The notorious TFG is trying to manipulate you and take you out of your game plan and all that entails. If you can keep your wits about you and not lose your cool then he has at least partially failed at the least.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Here is a definition of sportsmanship from the Merriams-Webster online dictionary:

conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport

Okay so sports and playing a game of toy soldiers is not one in the same but many of the principles still hold true. To me sportsmanship is more than just a score handed out at the end of your game. Sportsmanship is also a state of mind you bring to the table. The notorious TFG is trying to manipulate you and take you out of your game plan and all that entails. If you can keep your wits about you and not lose your cool then he has at least partially failed at the least.

G

Well said. Add kicking his ass and you win and TFG is epic fail.

Orky-Kowboy wrote:IMO sportsmanship scores are a good thing because they 1) act as a deterrent, preventing rude behaviour, and 2) help build a sense of community among the tourney gamers by forcing people to at least TRY and get along

On the con side, it makes people hesitate calling out blatant rules abuses for fear of being tanked on their scores, it allows donkey-cave players to just tank your score regardless of how you acted during the game, and forced nicety is no way to build a sense of community. In the U.S., tournaments are not about holding hands and singing koombaya, it's about showing your chops and wtfpwning the other guy's face.

Thanks I really appreciate that a lot.

: )

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Terminus wrote:

Orky-Kowboy wrote:IMO sportsmanship scores are a good thing because they 1) act as a deterrent, preventing rude behaviour, and 2) help build a sense of community among the tourney gamers by forcing people to at least TRY and get along

On the con side, it makes people hesitate calling out blatant rules abuses for fear of being tanked on their scores, it allows donkey-cave players to just tank your score regardless of how you acted during the game, and forced nicety is no way to build a sense of community. In the U.S., tournaments are not about holding hands and singing koombaya, it's about showing your chops and wtfpwning the other guy's face.

Well that is certainly one way to look at it. I don't think everyone will agree though. You can win just as well with class and it never hurts to show some respect to a gracious opponent. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. You've lost and now your opponent is gloating. That's a sure way to ensure they mark you down on sportsmanship. Now if you can win and be gracious to the loser there is the chance they'll appreciate the kind overture.

G

Have you bought Lunahound that box of Devastators yet for losing your bet over the new Baal Predator kit?

You know, sportsmanship and all.

Why are you bringing that up here? It has nothing to do with this conversation. To answer your question I plan to send her a box of Devastators.

G

imweasel wrote:
Give a good argument that can't be reasonably refuted, and we can and will listen.

Refutation is an informal process. A point which rebuts another does not negate the validity of the original statement. Its essentially a defense from aesthetics.

All arguments can be reasonably refuted.

I still can not see the point in quanitifing Sportsmanship' even if a system that actually did that worked. 40k is a game, at a tournament the idea is to find the best person at that game. Interacting with people whilst playing the game is real life. If you act like a complete turdwit, then you are a complete turdwit, why do we need rules to cover this? Why not have rules to cover telling the gf/wife that you are booked into a tournament for the weekend. Maybe somekind of table....

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:What in the hell is donkey cave.

It's how Dakka censors "a-hole".

I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.

I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.

I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.
I will not break the forum rules.

imweasel wrote:

Saldiven wrote:And this is why the debate is worthless. The people who don't like having Sportsmanship scores are not open to any explanation as to why some people like them.

Except that's the only argument for sportsmanship scores. It's because they are 'liked'. Not because they are fair. Not because they achieve the objective of forcing people to be 'sporting'. It's...just because.

I don't think it's the only argument for sportsmanship scores. As a competitor in a tournament, my main reason for being there is to have fun playing lots of new people and face armies I've never faced before. Of course, I play to win, but I don't go in expecting to win, tbh.

I'd rather play six guys who are great sportsmen and lose a lot than play six TFGs and win a lot. I'll have a more enjoyable tournament this way. Since the conduct of my opponents affects my enjoyment of the event so much, I think there should be a prize for being the best opponent. It's just as important a prize as Best General, to me.

So the 'reason' for Sportsmanship scores is that, without them, we'd have no Sportsmanship prize. And I think being a good opponent and playing in a civilised manner is the DEFINING factor in my enjoyment of a tournament, and therefore deserves a prize...

I DON'T think the Sportsmanship score should affect Best General points. Two separate scores for two separate (equal) prizes.

Blackmoor wrote:
They exist, but they are too few and far between to justify having this crazy scoring system that does not really keep them in check.

I lolled. This is probably the most angsty hobby in existence...

When every forum about it drug down by its readers (Dakkas General is still kickin) it's a pretty grumpy hobby. Not that the hobby doesnt have its fair share of equally amazing people,