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.

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.

Thanks for proving my point.

The post that I responded to included three reasons that someone believed that Sportsmanship scoring is a good thing, followed by a poster refuting all of them out of hand.

Your response ignores all of that.

Just admit that your mind is already made up and there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to change it. Remember, your dislike for sportsmanship scoring is merely your opinion, and is no more right or wrong than the other side's opinion.

If you don't like sportsmanship scoring, you have the option to avoid tournaments that include them as any significant portion of total scores. That's your prerogative.

But please stop trying to tell those of us who believe that sports scoring is important that we are wrong and we all need to adhere to your version of how tournaments should be run. I'm not trying to tell you that 'Ard Boys needs sportsmanship scoring, so please stop telling me that RTT's should drop it.

@Saldiven - Your argument is short-sighted and fallacious. Many have stated specific reasons why sportsmanship scoring in its current state has issues. The issues I have discussed are logically valid. These include its subjective nature, it's inability to actually inhibit poor sportsmanship, and its ability to adversely impact the score of a good sportsman. This is not an opinion. You may deny the premise that fairness and objectivity should be an essential aspect of a public tournament, but then I would say that is an opinion. Furthermore, you statement regarding avoiding tournaments that have sportsmanship is childish at best. In this statement, you are implying that being critical of an event and voicing important concerns with the hope of influencing change is wrong. Again, this may be your opinion. However, many of us seek to improve the scene by providing constructive criticism. I do have fun at events that have Sportsmanship Scoring, but not because it has Sportsmanship Scoring. It is for reasons of "fairness" that I actually suggest the removal of opponent scored sportsman scores from public events. This is a suggestion, not a mandate. I will promote non-sportsman scoring events by hosting and co-hosting events that are such, that is my hand of change. I have presented clear and logical reasons for its removal in this and other threads. I don't expect people to listen or change I only hope. In the end, I still have fun. In the future, please do not push the "if you don't like it don't go" position as it only demonstrates your own lack of consideration for others trying to improve the scene. Maybe you truly have hatred in your heart for those of us that don't like sportsmanship scoring, but there are other criticisms we all have for improving the scene and simply saying if you dont like it dont go, does nothing for its improvement and only promotes stagnation and decay.

It is, I believe, not anyone's place to tell someone else "If you don't like it you don't have to play". Everybody plays because they like to play. Everyone ultimately is just playing for their own enjoyment in their own way. Some folks derive their enjoyment from being very competative and winning as best they can, and this score holds them back from feeling their sense of 'winning' sometimes. That's fair. It's fun to win. Nobody can deny that. (I just like playing with toys personally) But if a standard of rules makes for those 'winners' to lose enjoyment of their hobby of wanting to win, because some unscrupulous people found a way to pervert it and abuse it, it serves to reason then that the solution is to petition TO s for a change of the way the score is assigned. This makes the sportsmen happy, and the abusive have to find yet a new way to ruin everyone's fun. (Personally I think they should hire a kindergarten class to judge the painting scores, just as a for instance. If a 5 year old likes it, you know it's cool)

I personally don't care if I win or lose or what a ranking is or anything it's just fun to play. It's not as if discussions like this are doing anything to cure cancer or find a solution to world poverty, however, they are ways for people to express their opinions about a well-intentioned, yet poorly thought out system that exists. It would be nice to change the way such points are alotted, or make it a separate category unto itself, unrelated to the tournament score. Then you could tell pretty quickley who was rigging it and who was honest. Bingo.

It is, I believe, not anyone's place to tell someone else "If you don't like it you don't have to play". Everybody plays because they like to play. Everyone ultimately is just playing for their own enjoyment in their own way.

Sadly, this is a point over-looked more often than not. The tired old "if you don't like it you don't have to play" rebuttal always gets vomited up by people when their argument runs out of steam or simply falls apart (or if they don't have an argument to begin with).

People generally don't like change even if it's for the better and will often fiercely argue to conserve the status quo. They like the system not because it is a good system, but because it is the system. It's a system that was dreamed up not by themselves, but by some authoritative person or group that must know best because they have authority, and they have authority because they know best. What it really boils down to is an intense fear of having to think for oneself--it's much easier to go on intellectual autopilot.

Well isn't that human nature? We do what we are told. The people who we assume know what is going on generally try to act like it, to keep us calm (they're called middle-management I believe, at least in the workplace).
" If this is the rules I STICK TO THEM " sort of mentality, which is why nobody shows up at a tournament with green plastic army men, but instead with GW Imperial Guard figs that total cost more than my car.

I have been in situations (and am actually in one now) where NOBODY KNOWS what to do, and it's the authority that exists in whoever takes the initiative, which doesn't even know if it's right either, that people want to cling to.... but if there's already RULES to make sense of things... suddenly life is calm and understandable, right? Even if those rules are dumb... (why does California only get 2 senators and so does Rhode Island, which has about 1/100 of the pop of cali, for instance? because that's just the way the rules were made, so people cling to them... but I digress (even further)...

If I'm in a room full of people on a burning train wreck and someone asks "what should we do?" I'll PRETEND I know what to do, for better or worse, right? If they are all saved, then I'm the middle-management hero of the day, if they all die then I guess I probably died too so I won't have to care about consequences or opinions anyway.

And then people may follow whatever hairbrained idea I had to get out of a train wreck just because I was being authoritative, a 'human rulebook for the situation at hand' sort of thing so people will flock to my idea to maybe save their lives... This has become a far more philosophical discussion than I had imagined it would be... thanks Danny Internets for putting it in perspective.

Give them rules and they will follow.
Because if not, the insanity of life would wrap its tendrils around your mind and nothing would make sense any more...

why do people go to church? you may as well ask...

AbsoluteBlue wrote:@Saldiven - Your argument is short-sighted and fallacious.

Really? What parts, specifically? My post merely pointed out that there are people, specifically the person I quoted, who is completely unwilling to entertain the idea that some people might be right in believing Sportsmanship scoring to be a good thing. If you read his/her posts in this thread, you will see that my assertion is supported by those posts. No fallacy there.

I further went on to request that those people stop trying to foist their views on me. I also stated that I am not trying to foist my views on them. How is that short sighted?

Personally, I have made absolutely no attacks on people who want tournaments without sportsmanship or made any demands that sportsmanship scoring must be part of all tournaments. My only issue is with those individuals who, for some reason, seem to believe that I am somehow less of a serious, competitive gamer because I prefer events with Sportsmanship scoring.

Also, my suggestion to avoid tournaments with sportsmanship scoring is only directed at those people who are as adamantly against it as the person I quoted. It's a free country. You can pick and choose what you do. It's not childish to suggest that someone who doesn't like something to avoid that thing; it's merely realistic.

I cannot count the times that I have suggested on this thread and many others that those individuals who dislike soft scoring of any type to go ahead and create their own events. The people who have done all the WORK and spent all the MONEY to create the existing events that include soft scores are the ones who get to determine how it is run. That is a simple fact.

The beauty of the almost-free-market system that we have is that those who believe things should be run differently have all the freedom they need to build a tournament with a competing business model and see how well they do. I honestly hope they do very well, as I believe having as wide a variety of different types of tournament as possible is good for the hobby as a whole.

The issue I have is the people who are too lazy to create the type of event they like who try to get other people to change.

Once again, I will go on the record (for at least the 5th time) in stating that I will gladly help anyone in the metro Atlanta area create and run a non-soft score event(s) here as long as you stop complaining about the soft score events I prefer.

My only issue is with those individuals who, for some reason, seem to believe that I am somehow less of a serious, competitive gamer because I prefer events with Sportsmanship scoring.

By preferring events with sportsmanship scoring you prefer tournaments that place less emphasis on competition in their methodology for selecting a winner. You really don't understand why this leads people to believe you are less of a competitive gamer?

The issue I have is the people who are too lazy to create the type of event they like who try to get other people to change.

Please explain how people who want to play in a competitive event without soft scores can do so by creating their own tournament. Is it acceptable for people to both run an event and compete in it at the same time? That doesn't strike you as a conflict of interests?

There is no need to classify people as "less" or "more" competitive by the type of tournament they like to attend. That's being careless with the English language.

A tournament, by its very definition, is a competitive event, it's just that you're going to have a hard time winning if you're acting like "that guy" and there's a sportsmanship score.

I win almost all friendly games I play, friendly being two friends taking their toughest lists and sending them for each others throats.
I win almost all tournament games I play in events with out soft scores.
I win almost all tournament games I play in events with soft scores.

I see a connection here.

Yes, less interested in competition would be a more accurate phrasing. Either way, my intention was not to say that the poster is more less interested in competition, simply point out why he is being seen as such.

it's just that you're going to have a hard time winning if you're acting like "that guy" and there's a sportsmanship score.

People act like dicks in these events too. It happens often enough that there's actually a name for the behavior: chipmunking. Furthermore, as many posters have pointed out sportsmanship scores can have the opposite effect on bad behavior. People are often less likely to call out bad behavior or cheating during the game because they fear their opponent retaliating by dinging them on sportsmanship.

EDIT: Typos

Sportsmanship is competitive, in the sense that it is a subjective competition, based on the whims of your opponent. Yes, it's competitive, just not objective.

I rank it up there with voting for prom queen. Yes it's a competition, but its subjective and based on taste.

So I ask, what's worse... having the rare TFG, that in my opinion sportsmanship scoring doesn't actually prevent, or the possibility that your scores are being "chipmunked"?

I prefer playing the rare TFG, reality of them being a TFG is better than the illusion that they are not, only to haev that illusion destroyed when you realized they dinged you arbitrarily.

In the last big tournament I went too, I gave my opponent a bad sportsmanship score, because he was a horrible player, his demeanor, rules knowledge, play speed, etc were all deficient. Having sportsmanship scoring didnt change his attitude or play style at all, so I ask what was the point of it? He didn't win, but he wasn't going to win anyways, since he was a horrible player with horrible list. Am I occasionally going to play that type of guy? Yes. Without sports, I play the guy, eat it, and move on. As it stands, I play him, I ding him, he dings me... not only did I have a bad play experience, now I have my score dinged too. Yay. Lose, Lose.

I digress though. By applying logic and the premise that objectivity is prefered, how can one condone the use of opponent scored sportsmanship?

For those that say put up or shut up... (which is also an poor position to take)

KevinNash and I will be hosting the second "Sprue Posse" RTT at Aero Hobbies in Santa Monica, CA on April 24th. We do not employ the use of sportsmanship scoring.

http://www.chaoswins.com/2010/03/playing-sprue-posse-rtt-at-aero-boyz.html

While its only an RTT, it is just one step towards us learning the TO role more and maybe someday working up towards larger events. In the first event, we had no sportsmanship realted issues, everybody had a good time and no issues were mentioned.

@AgeOfEgos - Fun picture, and I totally agree. However, if the picture is arguing for sportsmanship scoring, I would argue that sportsmanship scoring is not a requirements or even an enabler of being social. From home games, FLGS, to Indy GT I consider myself social, so not sure what the angle is here

Saldiven wrote:Really? What parts, specifically? My post merely pointed out that there are people, specifically the person I quoted, who is completely unwilling to entertain the idea that some people might be right in believing Sportsmanship scoring to be a good thing. If you read his/her posts in this thread, you will see that my assertion is supported by those posts. No fallacy there.

Believing. Belief is not proof or even a good argument.

Saldiven wrote:I further went on to request that those people stop trying to foist their views on me. I also stated that I am not trying to foist my views on them. How is that short sighted?

Right when you said if you don't like sportsmanship scores in a competitive environment, you shouldn't play.

Saldiven wrote:Personally, I have made absolutely no attacks on people who want tournaments without sportsmanship or made any demands that sportsmanship scoring must be part of all tournaments. My only issue is with those individuals who, for some reason, seem to believe that I am somehow less of a serious, competitive gamer because I prefer events with Sportsmanship scoring.

It's hard to be 'competitive' in an unfair environment.

Saldiven wrote:Also, my suggestion to avoid tournaments with sportsmanship scoring is only directed at those people who are as adamantly against it as the person I quoted. It's a free country. You can pick and choose what you do. It's not childish to suggest that someone who doesn't like something to avoid that thing; it's merely realistic.

Did you actually read and comprehend the title to this thread?

Saldiven wrote:I cannot count the times that I have suggested on this thread and many others that those individuals who dislike soft scoring of any type to go ahead and create their own events. The people who have done all the WORK and spent all the MONEY to create the existing events that include soft scores are the ones who get to determine how it is run. That is a simple fact.

And how does this argument answer the question posed in this thread?

Saldiven wrote:The beauty of the almost-free-market system that we have is that those who believe things should be run differently have all the freedom they need to build a tournament with a competing business model and see how well they do. I honestly hope they do very well, as I believe having as wide a variety of different types of tournament as possible is good for the hobby as a whole.

Read the title of the thread and get help comprehending it if you need to.

Saldiven wrote:The issue I have is the people who are too lazy to create the type of event they like who try to get other people to change.

I have run a couple of tournaments. That's not the point though, is it?

Saldiven wrote:Once again, I will go on the record (for at least the 5th time) in stating that I will gladly help anyone in the metro Atlanta area create and run a non-soft score event(s) here as long as you stop complaining about the soft score events I prefer.

As soon as you head to the midwest, I will concede this as a valid 'argument'.

AbsoluteBlue wrote:In the last big tournament I went too, I gave my opponent a bad sportsmanship score, because he was a horrible player, his demeanor, rules knowledge, play speed, etc were all deficient. Having sportsmanship scoring didnt change his attitude or play style at all, so I ask what was the point of it? He didn't win, but he wasn't going to win anyways, since he was a horrible player with horrible list. Am I occasionally going to play that type of guy? Yes. Without sports, I play the guy, eat it, and move on. As it stands, I play him, I ding him, he dings me... not only did I have a bad play experience, now I have my score dinged too. Yay. Lose, Lose.

But but but, sportsmanship scores identify and root out TFG! If we didn't have them everyone would be TFG because everyone who plays competitively is a dick anyway!

Sidstyler wrote:
But but but, sportsmanship scores identify and root out TFG! If we didn't have them everyone would be TFG because everyone who plays competitively is a dick anyway!

Yes, they do root out TFG, but I honestly doubt everyone would be one if Sportsmanship scores were taken out. Believe it or not, there are decent people out there that just want a clean, fun game. And yes, some of those people are competitive.

olympia wrote:In my experience as a former American, European players tend to more mature and less socially awkward and so they are able to do without sportsmanship.

'Former American'? 'More mature and less socially awkward'?

I guess we know how gets the 'arrogant pisshead award' of week. Italy now? Don't come crying back to the states when the mafioso step on your rights or the government collapses under its socialist system.

I think the sportsmanship scoring is a joke. All we need is a composition score and it should be enough. I normally win sportsmanship and composition awards at the tourneys I go to because I don't power house and I am always joking around and having fun. And if I am getting punked by a power gamer, I just hold my tongue and grade him poorly for his 3 Deathrollers, 9 Oblits, or Raider spam. Game is about fun, and sporting a list that makes sense.

(Oh yeah, and if people are softscoring people, I make sure other players know when they play them to be sure the reciprocate, balances out in the end, and the sportsman score doesn't matter.)

Game is about fun, and sporting a list that makes sense.

What if the list "makes sense" to me? What if I find the list fun to play?

I'm sorry, this is just so much bs, telling me I have to play what you like or I can't play.

All that really matters is that the list is legal. If you don't like the game or just can't handle it then don't play in tournaments, don't rewrite the rules to suit yourself with comp or institute lame sportsmanship scoring designed to punish people for winning games.

Backdraft005 wrote:

olympia wrote:In my experience as a former American, European players tend to more mature and less socially awkward and so they are able to do without sportsmanship.

'Former American'? 'More mature and less socially awkward'?

I guess we know how gets the 'arrogant pisshead award' of week.

That is the greatest thing I've ever read. Especially when you consider the flags of some of the people making asses of themselves in the OT forum. Seems to be just as many European flags as there are stars and stripes. Seems like there's not a whole lot of difference when you get right down to it.

Sidstyler wrote:

Game is about fun, and sporting a list that makes sense.

What if the list "makes sense" to me? What if I find the list fun to play?

I'm sorry, this is just so much bs, telling me I have to play what you like or I can't play.

+1

Also, I don't get why people who hate competition even show up at tourneys. Maybe so they can punish others for being good at the game? Subjective scores in the hands of your opponents is the worst idea of all time.

Douchebaggery knows no nationality. lol

Sidstyler wrote:Douchebaggery knows no nationality. lol

truer words have scarcely been spoken.

encourages good sportsmanship? people act nicer..?

Part of the problem might be the tiered victory system. I never enjoyed having to outright table people. It gets old after a while, hunting down there last few guys. Id much rather try to play for a win and call it at that. The most fun ive had at events though have been small LGS ones.

Murray wrote:encourages good sportsmanship? people act nicer..?

Honestly, I'd like to know how many people out there only act nice if there's a sportsmanship score, because everyone keeps coming in here and posting stuff like this (after obviously not having read the rest of the thread) and it makes me wonder...

If you're that type of guy then I'd say you have no place at tournaments in the first place. Good sportsmanship is something you should be practicing anyway, you should already be playing nice and not have to be "forced" to with a subjective checklist.

Then again it seems as if some people's idea of "good sportsmanship" is apparently not bringing a hard army to a tournament...if you can even consider three deff rolla wagons or 9 oblits "hard" to begin with.

Well, that went downhill. I think we're done here.