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.

I don't mind sportsmanship scores. It is the TO and the fair and honest use of all the scores that make it up. Generally I like it as an incentive to overall champion with best general, best painted and best sportsman and finally best composition (rarely activated) getting lesser prize support. Now if a TO wants to emphasize people not being jerks and over weights in in the overall champion so beit but it doesn't prevent the hyper competitive jerk from winning best general or best painted or best composition( that would be rare as any jerk is going to have a maxed list).

nkelsch: You keep talking about the importance of sportsmanship, I don't think I've seen anyone in any Sportsmanship Scoring thread disagree with that.

Giving out penalties on the spot sounds like a great idea. I have never heard of it being done, but maybe a card system like soccer could work. That being said, sportsmanship scoring does not do this. It is scoring that takes place after the game done by an individual that cannot be objective about what they are scoring.

sennacherib wrote:There are definitly two camps when it comes to scoring in tournis. the I dont care about anything but winning camp, and the camp that acknowledges that they play 40k for reasons besides just playing a game to win. Its fun and its a hobby.
That said, i think that it sounds like you might have been shorted on the scoring somehow. Did you ask a tourni org. how you ended up so low. Were the points posted wherer you could see them.?

The TO had a sheet of paper with him, but everyone had the right to see it if we asked. I asked, but he just said "your opponent gave you that score", and when I asked my opponents, they just told me it was an average/bad game because....and refuse to change the score.

ArbitorIan wrote:

carmachu wrote:That scoring sucks monkey balls. Seriously sports is more then actual game play? Painting is more then actual play too? Hell nebulious points depending on special rules of the tournment is more points then actual playing the game.

That sucks. And its completely unfair.

Unfair? How is it unfair?

It sounds like these rules are said in advance - nobody is penalised from the outset - everyone has the same chance of winning, it's just that the most important event has changed. It's completely FAIR. You just don't like the idea of a tournament where gameplay isn't the deciding factor.

I could organise a tournament where the you get points for wearing the most hats while playing Warhammer. You start with ten hats, and if you can play six games without them falling off you get points. As long as I tell everyone in advance, and they sign up knowing this, then it's COMPLETELY FAIR.

Knowing something in advance does not make it fair. The outcome of the tournament is completely arbitrary and you have little or no control over.

Example:

I tell you in advance that if you show up at an upcoming tournament that you will start at negative 100 points with a maximum chance to score 50 points.

And to not single anyone out, I tell everyone that on an individual basis.

According to your definition of fair, that would be fair since I let everyone know in advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fearspect wrote:Hey, MikeMcSomething, I wrote an article about how to score sportsmanship. Would appreciate any comments/criticism you may have.

Best sportsmanship article ever.

Covered everything in a decisive manner in the best system ever. Despite what other dakkites might say!

Fearspect wrote:Giving out penalties on the spot sounds like a great idea. I have never heard of it being done, but maybe a card system like soccer could work.

The UK GT has been doing this for a while. They do have some issues with dicks. There are always threads on warhammer.org.uk afterward, if you wanted to do any reading.

Fearspect wrote:That being said, sportsmanship scoring does not do this. It is scoring that takes place after the game done by an individual that cannot be objective about what they are scoring

They don't have to be completely objective. They have to be honest. And most players are.

Reading this thread is kind of funny. Everyone is so worked up scoring for a game that is meant to be a fun freindly hobby. Its deffinitly not fair, balanced, or designed to be an equal test of tactical skill. The codex are FAR from equal. The only fair match would be two players playing a uniform board using the same codex.
I'm in favor of painting and sportsmanship scores, as well as best general and best overall. If you dont want to play in a tourni with this set up...dont. Its not a big deal. I didnt play in ardboys recently because i didnt want to participate in that style or play. Its personal preference. Thats all.

Mannahin wrote:I don't have to conclusively demonstrate causation vs. correlation

Most of your post was largely an ad hominem (for example, "I don't think you have been to alot of tournaments" and "Sportsmanship scores make tournaments better" are obviously two very different things, and I would assume that you're smart enough to know that and maybe just forgot when you typed it out) but I thought I would pull out the relevant bit up there.

You seem to be working under some really strange ideas of causality. At best, you don't seem to completely understand it, and at worst you think trumpeting "I don't care about your silly notions of causality" is some sort of badge of honor for your weak sports system.

If you can't demonstrate causality(read: that a thing actually causes other things!) then you haven't produced anything of value. You would be equally well off debating the proper way to sacrifice goats before a tournament (should we cut it in half? set it on fire?), or how many doves you should release in the opening ceremonies, or what position the planets should be in before you start the event, to ensure that the gamers in attendance will be proper sportsmen.

And your system is not ''immune to chipmunking" or whatever you seem to think. Players have score y - penalty x, where x is how many checkboxes they have gotten (with an exponentially increasing penalty) so two given players of score Y will have their placement in a tournament decided by x (however small it is), and while they can attempt to be superbestfriends with everyone to mitigate that, if they are both moderately nice guys then their placement is up to whether someone gave them even a single check mark. Your system also introduces bias, like every other sports system, as I am now directly incentivized via my tournament placement to be offended by things that I would not normally find to be serious offenses.

Mannahin wrote:This isn't a sociological survey

You're putting forth an assertion about how individuals within a group will behave under a given set of conditions and systems. That is exactly what a sociological problem is - they even have a name for the problem systems like yours create (it is a principal-agent problem), and have done empirical studies on it's effect in tournament systems - there are links to them here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent#Tournaments

I like this quote, because it references three peer-reviewed studies in the same sentence:

A major problem with tournaments is that individuals are rewarded based on how well they do relative to others. Co-workers might become reluctant to help out others and might even sabotage others' effort instead of increasing their own effort (Lazear 1989, Rob and Zemsky 1997). This is supported empirically by Drago and Garvey (1997)

But I'm not even sure that a Nobel prize-winning sociologist could convince you of much of anything if you walk around the world under the assumption that causality just doesn't really have to exist when you don't want it to.

I doubt any of those Nobel prize-winning sociologists played in a bunch of GTs, so how can their opinion be trusted?

Fearspect, my main point was that "this is how it's always been" (or has been for a long time). I also pointed out that it makes sense to listen to people who attend lots of tournaments about how it is "on the ground".

You're dancing around those points. The question is to you: why do you want to change it? You bring up football, there are penalties for poor sportsmanship. In fact, there are in almost every sport. And getting a low sportsmanship score can be just that- a penalty.

If you were going to make a change to any competition, wouldn't it make sense to ask those most experienced? I find that people blow these things way out or proportion "in theory", when in practice it's really no big deal as long as you don't act like a douche.

And although I'm responding to it, I think sports analogies are a bit off base for our game of toy soldiers . Even if you view them that way, you need to support why you want to get rid of a part of scoring that has:

1) Been a part of warhammer tournaments for a long time
2) Has widespread support, along with detractors

Given that you obviously don't support it, what would you do instead? Imho, simply adjusting the percentages and/or phrasing of sportsmanship scores can move it along the scale in either direction to people's satisfaction. Do you really think things would be better if you got rid of it altogether?

Honestly, if I ran into the shenanigans common at 'Ard Boyz at "normal" warhammer tournaments, I wouldn't be going to them. Sportsmanship scores go a long way towards discouraging people from gaming the system, taking advantage of loopholes, and breaking a game that is so prone to being broken.

As said many times, I would remove sportsmanship scoring. I would remove any scoring that is controlled by any fellow competitors. Issues that require a judge's/TO's ruling will get it.

You can point to any system of penalties in sports, but it is not the other team that gets to decide what is a penalty and how much of a deduction is taken. Don't you see the obvious flaws in that? And fine, if you don't want to go the sports route, there are no other games that are scored this way either, where your opponent gets to change your score an arbitrary amount at the end of the game for perceived slights.

I played two rounds of 'Ard Boyz last year, and plan on doing the same this year. I did not run into any of the 'common shenanigans'. Your definition of "normal" is not even that substantial, far more are running no sports scoring than those that are. Maybe you meant "old" warhammer tournaments? None of the current GW tournaments include it.

It would be just as fair to let people score their own sportsmanship after a game.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

A major problem with tournaments is that individuals are rewarded based on how well they do relative to others. Co-workers might become reluctant to help out others and might even sabotage others' effort instead of increasing their own effort (Lazear 1989, Rob and Zemsky 1997). This is supported empirically by Drago and Garvey (1997)

But I'm not even sure that a Nobel prize-winning sociologist could convince you of much of anything if you walk around the world under the assumption that causality just doesn't really have to exist when you don't want it to.

So then that means without sportsmanship people are then predisposed to cheating MORE as there is no metric in place to prevent them from doing so or penalizing them for moving 7", arguing advantages interpretation of rules, scooping dice casually for one or two added dice per roll and other subtle cheating techniques that do happen in games. At least in a sportsmanship scenario, if someone is frequently doing such a thing you can mark them down afterwards... But without it, you basically have told people 'cheat as much as you can until you get caught and then only cheat enough to not get thrown out.'

Because if you believe your article, all people are going to cheat and be unethical if given the chance right?

Cheaters will cheat either way... but with sportsmanship scores, they don't get to take home any swag and there is incentive not to cheat. You can't say 'we don't need them because we are all adults who should behave ourselves' and then say 'adults don't behave themselves and chimpunk people out of a deep sociological need to cheat for personal benefit.' They are mutually exclusive arguments.

If a severe majority of people are honest and don't cheat, then there is nothing wrong with sportsmanship scores because the TO can single out the chipmunk scores especially on head tables where the scores actually matter.

If a severe majority of the people DO cheat and makes sportsmanship scores unfair, then without sportsmanship scores, cheating is going to run rampant through the event and we would need a judge for every table to police the game.

Since we know we all seem to be able to play warhammer 1on1 and police ourselves and keep games good... I don't buy this concept of rampant chipmunking exists or is even a problem or hurts anyone or events.

I do feel people play 'different' without sportsmanship... not worse, just different. There is more of an air of seriousness which to many people is a tense and unfun environment. And woe be to you if you are not an Internet troll who knows your rules inside and out, prepare to be schooooooled and often insulted. It happens and ruins events. Vets know when they need to mind their manners and when they can let it all out without it hurting them and they do.

Edit: I find 'ardboyz is never as fun as other events and very much is a crapshoot. It is partially because the hot mess of horrible models often on the tables but I do find people who are actively looking to abuse the rules and the lack of a consistent FAQ means it is more arguments than what I expect at regular events and people have no reason to ever submit or accept a 4+ roll off. It isn't widespread, most people are fine but I have had two incidents at 'ard boyz where the game took a dump and one of them was someone using a specific rule interpretation and refusing to accept anything but GW FAQs for discussion and when the judge enforced a 'ruling' the rest of the game was basically him grousing about how dumb the judge was and how he can't win and this game is a waste of his time. Would this player have performed the same way in a sportsmanship-scored event? Maybe. Would he have Chipmunked me? Maybe. But it was a terrible game but not a threshold to warrant removal from the tourney. He would have deserved a poor score for his unwillingness to simply 4+ roll off, accept it was an ambiguous rule with no clear GW resolution and bitching non-stop about how the judge ruined him and destroyed the game because he didn't get his way. If sportsmanship scores are a magic barrier keeping him out of the event, even better! 'ard boyz is not a shining example of a well-run event with good players acting like adults, especially first round games where people quit after game 1 so they can drive to a different location 'tomorrow' for a better chance of winning or drive to multiple locations to find the place with the weakest competition. Neither of those are my idea of 'good sportsmanship'.

@Ritides

Since when is "well, that's how it's always been" a reasonable argument in support of anything? Shouldn't the burden of support be on those who insist that a sportsmanship system is necessary in the first place, in addition to proving that said system is effective at what it sets out to accomplish?

nkelsch wrote:Because if you believe your article, all people are going to cheat and be unethical if given the chance right?

It is obvious that you did not read the article. Also, hyperbole isn't helpful.

MikeMcSomething wrote:
You're putting forth an assertion about how individuals within a group will behave under a given set of conditions and systems. That is exactly what a sociological problem is - they even have a name for the problem systems like yours create (it is a principal-agent problem), and have done empirical studies on it's effect in tournament systems - there are links to them here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent#Tournaments

I like this quote, because it references three peer-reviewed studies in the same sentence:

A major problem with tournaments is that individuals are rewarded based on how well they do relative to others. Co-workers might become reluctant to help out others and might even sabotage others' effort instead of increasing their own effort (Lazear 1989, Rob and Zemsky 1997). This is supported empirically by Drago and Garvey (1997)

That article/quote was referencing employee competition---where an arbitrary judge (the boss) determines who wins---based off fractional difference between one employee and the next. There is no motivation to cooperate with your employees, else you may elevate them above you in the hierarchy (and they don't judge you anyways). If anything, that is the opposite of an opponent judged system.

When your opponent plays you----during the game there are a number of situations that arise that demand cooperation. Measuring movement for example, is a non-exact method of playing---and unless you walk over to their side of the table (Which I hear the Swedes do)----and watch them move each of their models---you are accepting a degree of cooperation. Determining if a dice is cocked for re-roll, questionable line of sight, etc etc----they are all degrees of cooperation (and perhaps retaliation). At the end of the game, you are essentially conducting a last 'cooperative' step of the game in judging.

Given that----games of 40k are essentially a running game of Tit for Tat---which has been shown by computer models (and observation) to be the most successful style of play in a game where an opponent has the ability to retaliate (Or chipmunk) you. I would also state---in my experience----Tit for Tat is precisely how 40k games against strangers is played. Questionable LOS that goes one way for an opponent---later on that same opponent may be given leeway in a questionable LOS moment----and if he's not---later on he will certainly retaliate when it's his opponents true LOS moment. 40k is one big social Tit for Tat (Especially considering how loose the rules/true LOS can be).


The only way this would not be true---is if the tournament consisted of 51%+ TFGS. Then, yes it would be beneficial to consistently defect----and Ard Boyz is a yearly thing (I kid, I kid!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

I look at the size of the sportsmanship score to be a measure of the maturity of the local gamers. If as a T-organizer, I know that the vast majority of people who play are well behaved and act like adults, they I may reduce to sportsmanship aspect to a simple system (bad, normal, great) where it doesn't go into determing the final victor, but the highest sportsmanship score gets some sort of special recognition and prize.

If, as the TO... I know the gamers in my club are a bunch of whiny d-bags who shouldn't be let out of the house without their mothers, I will greatly increase the relative meaningfulness of the sportsmanship score in order to compel participants to behave themselves (if they want to be competitive).

By the same token, if I want to encourage the hobby aspects of the game (building and painting), I will increase the relative importance of the painting score in relation to the whole.

So the way your TO scores the tournament is a reflection of his or her priorities, and/or a reflection on the character of the likely participants in the event.

nkelsch wrote:Cheaters will cheat either way... but with sportsmanship scores, they don't get to take home any swag and there is incentive not to cheat. You can't say 'we don't need them because we are all adults who should behave ourselves' and then say 'adults don't behave themselves and chimpunk people out of a deep sociological need to cheat for personal benefit.' They are mutually exclusive arguments.

Every player-awarded sportsmanship scoring system I've ever seen supports cheaters, because if you call someone out on rules then they can say you're being a rules lawyer and tank your sportsmanship score, thus sinking your chance in the tournament. The system works as an extreme incentive to ignore cheating unless it's really over the top.

Fearspect wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Because if you believe your article, all people are going to cheat and be unethical if given the chance right?

It is obvious that you did not read the article. Also, hyperbole isn't helpful.

But chipmunking is cheating and unethical... not helping a co-worker in a competitive work environment is not necessarily unethical... So the only way it applies is if you feel they are the same action and that everyone is actively trying to be unethical. People don't cheat because most people simply don't feel the need to. Not correcting a mistake that gives me an advantage is different from chipmunking but the idea is that any advantage that a person can get they will supposedly take it because that is how we are, ethical or not.

I think there are different things that are confused for sportsmanship, and that we suffer from a limited vocabulary that has been handed to us from years of tournaments using the same words but meaning different things.

I've seen at least all of the following:

1) Sportsmanship means being prepared. Showing up on time, bathing before the game, and bringing your own dice and tape measure.

2) Sportsmanship means not cheating. Don't fudge movement, don't use loaded dice, don't model for advantage, don't slowplay.

3) Sportsmanship means ensuring your opponent enjoys the two hours you're spending with them. Don't gloat when you're winning, don't sulk when you're losing, don't throw your dead models, or tip over the table in disgust. Shake hands after the game, win or lose.

4) Sportsmanship means holding back. Don't bring the most powerful units (and certainly not multiples of them). Don't use tactics that are too powerful/too easy to abuse.


As far as I'm concerned, being pprepared should be mandatory. There's no scoring to be had there. Likewise, not cheating should be implied. This isn't an issue that a couple of points solves, cheating should be addressed with immediate disqualification.

Aspect three is where things start to get fuzzy, in my opinion. Cultural shifts change this. Taunting and trash-talking are seen as common, almost required elements by some players, while others find such antics silly at best, and insulting at worst. You see these differences showing up in sports. Ochocinco has a lot of younger fans, but I think he's obnoxious. I prefer the approach where you hand the ball to the ref and act like you've been there before. And we're all human, it's easy to smile when winning, but at what point are you smiling too much when facing an opponent whose clearly having a bad day? Does this need a score?

That leaves part four. From what I've been told, this is why sportsmanship scores were instituted in the first place, and it's a problem that we're constantly dealing with. It's the flip side to comp systems. Some army books simply have better options than others. Some people fall in the camp that says the game progresses best when people use the best stuff. I don't - my belief is that we get a better game if there is more variety in what can be played. But it's a hard line to draw, and comp systems don't change the idea that something can be the best, they only change what happens to be the best when that extra system is applied.

Is is sporting to spam units that are widely considered underpriced or overachieving, or is it simply smart to do so? Is it sporting to get a win by deploying Warp Quakes in such a way that your daemon opponent is unable to play the game, or do you deserve that win by being smart enough to deploy that way (or lucky enough to have drawn that opponent)? Is it more sporting to allow your opponent to land models and risk losing or to take the easy win?

Redbeard wrote:
I think there are different things that are confused for sportsmanship, and that we suffer from a limited vocabulary that has been handed to us from years of tournaments using the same words but meaning different things.

I've seen at least all of the following:

1) Sportsmanship means being prepared. Showing up on time, bathing before the game, and bringing your own dice and tape measure.

2) Sportsmanship means not cheating. Don't fudge movement, don't use loaded dice, don't model for advantage, don't slowplay.

3) Sportsmanship means ensuring your opponent enjoys the two hours you're spending with them. Don't gloat when you're winning, don't sulk when you're losing, don't throw your dead models, or tip over the table in disgust. Shake hands after the game, win or lose.

4) Sportsmanship means holding back. Don't bring the most powerful units (and certainly not multiples of them). Don't use tactics that are too powerful/too easy to abuse.

1) Should be scored, while it may not be sportsmanship, it is still a valid thing to be scored. everyone SHOULD be prepared but they aren't... so you should be penalized in your post-game scoring for not being prepared.

2) The issue is not all cheating warrants being thrown out. Not all cheating can be caught without a 3rd party proctor for every game. While sloppy play and maliciously advantageous play both have the same result, one is cheating and the other may not be. While top tables where results 'matter' are often watched, this leaves nothing but players to police themselves for the lower-level cheating. If someone spends all day 7" assaults, then he should have a lower sportsmanship score.

3) I do think people should be respectful and on good behavior and it sucks that you need to say that. I would say the main offenders are people who gloat. People who insult your tactics or try to tell you how you should play. People who mentally divest themselves of the game and basically 'give up'. People who are waaaaaaay off-task who don't give you or the game their attention. People who are vulgar or curse too much. Those are all sportsmanship things to me.

Now for part 4... there is a difference between playing to break the game wide open and playing with a hard or spammy list. One is a comp issue and the other is an issue which a well-run event should have sorted out with good FAQs. I do believe a good sportsmanship system defines the difference between 1,2,3 and 4 and people respect it. If you are going to try to use mutual cover saves or kroot infiltrate armies off the board when the event clearly has said the FAQ says the rules will not work that way then that is sportsmanship. If you are just taking a leafblower and shooting people off the table in turn 1, that would be handled by comps cores if any... I have to say some of my best games have been when a good player nuked my butt off the table. Not all players instantly say 'oh you beat me... you are a bad sport!'

I find the biggest issues I see are the 'sloppy play' and rude opponents with bad social skills. Both of those tighten up when people mentally are forced to 'think' about it via scores. This is like how people 'think' about playing faster when you announce the time to them. If they don't have to be impacted, they either naturally degrade into sloppy play/rudeness or really go to push the envelope of how much they can get away with before they get called out by a judge.

nkelsch wrote:I do feel people play 'different' without sportsmanship... not worse, just different. There is more of an air of seriousness which to many people is a tense and unfun environment.

And that is the problem with Sports scoring. That playing in a professional/serious manner is considered to be bad sportsmanship. That's typically why I'll score the lowest sports score of any tourney I go to.

Combine this with the effect that Redbeard is talking about where winning by a wide margin is also considered bad sportsmanship. And you have the reason why Sports scoring generally fails in a tourney in my opinion.

Maybe preparedness should be scored, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with sportsmanship, going by a dictionary definition:

"a person who exhibits qualities highly regarded in sport, such as fairness, generosity, observance of the rules, and good humour when losing"

There's nothing there about owning your own tape measure, and in fact, allowing your opponent to borrow your tape measure would demonstrate your generosity


I disagree with the idea that all cheating should not be disqualified. I understand the practical ramifications of monitoring every game, but allowing the cheaters to get away with things encourages them to continue. Sure, players can police themselves, but they can also call a judge over. If a tournament or venue gets a reputation as a place where regulars cheat and get away with it, it quickly loses customers. It is in the best interest of the venue and/or organizer to make it obvious that cheating is not permitted or welcome. If it's someone who is being sloppy, they can be taught, and they will learn. If it is someone who is cheating, they'll continue as long as they perceive it provides them with some sort of benefit. That's what needs to be discouraged.

Redbeard wrote:Maybe preparedness should be scored, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with sportsmanship, going by a dictionary definition:

"a person who exhibits qualities highly regarded in sport, such as fairness, generosity, observance of the rules, and good humour when losing"

There's nothing there about owning your own tape measure, and in fact, allowing your opponent to borrow your tape measure would demonstrate your generosity

I think it should be part of a post-game checklist which is usually where the game results and sportsmanship is done.

I disagree with the idea that all cheating should not be disqualified. I understand the practical ramifications of monitoring every game, but allowing the cheaters to get away with things encourages them to continue. Sure, players can police themselves, but they can also call a judge over. If a tournament or venue gets a reputation as a place where regulars cheat and get away with it, it quickly loses customers. It is in the best interest of the venue and/or organizer to make it obvious that cheating is not permitted or welcome. If it's someone who is being sloppy, they can be taught, and they will learn. If it is someone who is cheating, they'll continue as long as they perceive it provides them with some sort of benefit. That's what needs to be discouraged.

How can I prove you are moving farther than the allocated movement without video evidence of every move? How many times do I need to point it out before it becomes cheating and not just a mistake? How many times does a judge have to see it before the person is removed?

How can I prove someone who is doing sloppy dice management is cheating? How many times can someone 'pick up successes' without letting me inspect them and I explicitly point it out to them before it becomes cheating? How many times should a judge warn them before being thrown out?

Sloppy play is not always cheating but it is always poor sportsmanship. I am unsure how you handle sloppy play VS cheating but having 'nothing' in place doesn't solve it. There is a reason almost every top-table game at every major tourney is now being videotaped for the Internet to watch and people to piss and moan about someone being a cheater... It happens a lot but doesn't become an issue until it is the top table. I think if people are on notice about sloppy play or dice shenanigans, they clean up their act. If there was a system which handled this better and discourages it, I am all ears... because people who cheat with sloppy play usually do horribly in sports scores which usually means it is working as intended.

nkelsch wrote:
1) Should be scored, while it may not be sportsmanship, it is still a valid thing to be scored. everyone SHOULD be prepared but they aren't... so you should be penalized in your post-game scoring for not being prepared.

Or simply not allowed to be let into the tournament. But I agree, this should not be scored under sportsmanship. But then again, I don't believe in sportsmanship scores.

nkelsch wrote:
2) The issue is not all cheating warrants being thrown out. Not all cheating can be caught without a 3rd party proctor for every game. While sloppy play and maliciously advantageous play both have the same result, one is cheating and the other may not be. While top tables where results 'matter' are often watched, this leaves nothing but players to police themselves for the lower-level cheating. If someone spends all day 7" assaults, then he should have a lower sportsmanship score.

The problem is, this is left up to an individual that, even though his best intentions are not biased, they can't be viewed as anything BUT biased. When someone is involved in the game, there is no way to get around this. Period. Hence the major flaw in sportsmanship scores.

nkelsch wrote:
3) I do think people should be respectful and on good behavior and it sucks that you need to say that. I would say the main offenders are people who gloat. People who insult your tactics or try to tell you how you should play. People who mentally divest themselves of the game and basically 'give up'. People who are waaaaaaay off-task who don't give you or the game their attention. People who are vulgar or curse too much. Those are all sportsmanship things to me.

You cannot and will not be able to regulate this 'social behavior', ever.

nkelsch wrote:
Now for part 4... there is a difference between playing to break the game wide open and playing with a hard or spammy list. One is a comp issue and the other is an issue which a well-run event should have sorted out with good FAQs. I do believe a good sportsmanship system defines the difference between 1,2,3 and 4 and people respect it. If you are going to try to use mutual cover saves or kroot infiltrate armies off the board when the event clearly has said the FAQ says the rules will not work that way then that is sportsmanship. If you are just taking a leafblower and shooting people off the table in turn 1, that would be handled by comps cores if any... I have to say some of my best games have been when a good player nuked my butt off the table. Not all players instantly say 'oh you beat me... you are a bad sport!'

Just a couple of points here. Rules should have nothing to do with sportsmanship scores. 'Comp' quite often plays a role in sportsmanship scores because of the view point by the opponent that you are a WAAC type player and they can and often do get pre-disposed that you will be a jerk/rules lawyer/cheater before the game even starts.

nkelsch wrote:
I find the biggest issues I see are the 'sloppy play' and rude opponents with bad social skills. Both of those tighten up when people mentally are forced to 'think' about it via scores. This is like how people 'think' about playing faster when you announce the time to them. If they don't have to be impacted, they either naturally degrade into sloppy play/rudeness or really go to push the envelope of how much they can get away with before they get called out by a judge.

In your opinion, of course.

skyth wrote:And that is the problem with Sports scoring. That playing in a professional/serious manner is considered to be bad sportsmanship. That's typically why I'll score the lowest sports score of any tourney I go to.

Combine this with the effect that Redbeard is talking about where winning by a wide margin is also considered bad sportsmanship. And you have the reason why Sports scoring generally fails in a tourney in my opinion.

Obviously, some people could be responding to being beaten just by considering the winner to be a bad sport.

But, like nkelsch, some of the games where I've had a fantastic time were massacres. Others, where I've won big or it's been close, have been miserable.

I'll take this past 'Ard Boyz for an example. I again agree with nkelsch that the atmosphere at an event without sportsmanship scoring seems different. I've had good times in the past. Even this weekend, I had a game where I was tabled except for my general, and it was a blast. Heck, I even got to cast Infernal Gateway on my opponent's unit with the bloody choppa, and take it off the table (thus scoring my only 2 battle points for the game) in the final turn.

On the other hand, my last game was miserable. My opponent did things I've never had someone do in a sports-scored tournament. Rushing my turn while taking time on his own. Repeatedly moving my units to speed up my turn, then holding me to their exact position. Arguing multiple rules to keep me from doing certain things (i.e., once one was resolved allowing me to do the action, he would begin arguing another to the same effect). Refusing to 4+ a ruling that all the participants were split on (and the TO was not a fantasy player and wasn't able to give a ruling on).

In the end, I looked it up, and it turns out I agree with his take on the ruling. But refusing to 4+ it? In a normal tourney, the judge could make a ruling. But I've never had someone repeatedly refuse to 4+ a ruling that is in dispute before.

Sportsmanship takes care of that.

This same opponent then proceeded to complain about sportsmanship in tournaments. Get my point?

The crazy thing is, he was a friendly guy and I really enjoyed talking to him. But once we got into the second half of our game, all of that went out the window... and I found myself really, really wishing I was in a sportsmanship-scored tournament (and also that I had a halfway decent rules judge to call over...).

I think sportsmanship is a great thing, and this is from someone who used to think that sports was a stupid idea.

We all play the game to have fun, and if someone detracts from that in any way I contemplate the bad game/sports hit. Granted this is by my opponents BEHAVIOR only, if my dice betray me I take it up with them (and a lighter/hammer).

At the end of a game I ask myself "Self, would you play that person again". If the answer is a feth no that guy was a dick, they get a bad game vote.

I play Daemons of Chaos in Fantasy, the last GT I went to I got second in sportsmanship. That right there can tell you that sports works. Just be a nice guy, dont gloat/flaunt your success, even when you crush your opponent. Talk to them, and most importantly PLAY TO HAVE FUN. If you play just to win, and winning is all that matters, I honestly wouldnt want to play you.

RiTides wrote:In the end, I looked it up, and it turns out I agree with his take on the ruling. But refusing to 4+ it? In a normal tourney, the judge could make a ruling. But I've never had someone repeatedly refuse to 4+ a ruling that is in dispute before.

Sportsmanship takes care of that.

You don't get it. This is a prime example of why sportsmanship doesn't work and you don't see it.

You were in the wrong. He was in the right. It's your sportsmanship score that should have been tanked by him for this. I am not saying he was a good sport based on your story, but you act like you had nothing to do with this?!?!?

RiTides wrote:This same opponent then proceeded to complain about sportsmanship in tournaments. Get my point?

And you still don't get the point. You would have dinged his sportsmanship score for this even though 'in the end' you agree with his take on the ruling.

RiTides wrote:The crazy thing is, he was a friendly guy and I really enjoyed talking to him. But once we got into the second half of our game, all of that went out the window... and I found myself really, really wishing I was in a sportsmanship-scored tournament (and also that I had a halfway decent rules judge to call over...).

The only part of this post that I can agree with is a judge that knew what they were doing. That alone would have solved most of your problems and points again to the biggest flaw in the tournaments not being in sportsmanship scores but in the judges themselves.

imweasel wrote:You were in the wrong. He was in the right. It's your sportsmanship score that should have been tanked by him for this. I am not saying he was a good sport based on your story, but you act like you had nothing to do with this?!?!?

A 4+ roll off is in the rules... and many rules have no clear definitive answer and if the TO was unwilling to make a call and the room consensus did not have a clear majority than regardless then the *ONLY* valid interpretation is a 4+ roll off even if the interpretation is wrong.

You have a FAQ? fine
You have a TO make a ruling? fine
You have a strong consensus from the room? (which is easy to get in an event usually) fine

If you can't get *ANY* of that then you 4+. Refusing to compromise when 4+ is built into the core rulebook as a rule is being a poor sport.

Personally I know lots of rules which I am fully versed on both interpretations and see how they are both valid (or were before the FAQ came out) and if you can't get a clear agreement, you need to 4+ off even if you know in your heart and the internetz you are right. That is part of being a good sport is being able to accept someone legitimately disagrees with you and accept the reuslt of a roll-off.

Now if you were a good sport, you would accept the roll off and then discuss rules later. I have totally done this too where I was able to show the opposing argument and change minds, but that has no place within a game. It has place as a post-game discussion or maybe exchanging emails or whatever.

This is exactly what I am talking about, people who argue a point to death and *NEVER* compromise because they have no negative impact against them for forever arguing. And they are unable to accept there may be two valid interpretations to a rule and the rules are not as clear as you think they are. I lived through the deffrolla warz as an ork player as well as the boarding plank skirmishes... So I totally know how there can be no real answer to a disagreement until the FAQ came along.

If you combined refusing to accept a dice off EVEN WHEN the TO told them to combined with the measurement and pushiness described, I would say the other player was indeed a poor sport. It is possible to disagree and discuss a rule without being a poor sport. When you refuse to accept a roll off when a judge or consensus wouldn't give an answer that both players could accept you have lost everything even if you were 'technically' correct.

ShivanAngel wrote:I think sportsmanship is a great thing, and this is from someone who used to think that sports was a stupid idea.

We all play the game to have fun, and if someone detracts from that in any way I contemplate the bad game/sports hit. Granted this is by my opponents BEHAVIOR only, if my dice betray me I take it up with them (and a lighter/hammer).

At the end of a game I ask myself "Self, would you play that person again". If the answer is a feth no that guy was a dick, they get a bad game vote.

I play Daemons of Chaos in Fantasy, the last GT I went to I got second in sportsmanship. That right there can tell you that sports works. Just be a nice guy, dont gloat/flaunt your success, even when you crush your opponent. Talk to them, and most importantly PLAY TO HAVE FUN. If you play just to win, and winning is all that matters, I honestly wouldnt want to play you.

Another problem with sports scoring...The whole mentality of 'If I didn't have fun, it's automatically the other person's fault'.

imweasel wrote:You don't get it. This is a prime example of why sportsmanship doesn't work and you don't see it.

You were in the wrong. He was in the right. It's your sportsmanship score that should have been tanked by him for this. I am not saying he was a good sport based on your story, but you act like you had nothing to do with this?!?!?

Wrong. When there's a rules dispute, as there so often is with GW games, you 4+ it or call a judge over. Since there wasn't a "judge" available, you 4+ it.

My saying that, on a 50/50 coin toss ruling, that I later on come to the other side of the 50/50 coin, doesn't mean my opponent was being a "good sport".

If you have a disagreement, you either:

A) Talk it out and come to an agreement
B) If you can't come to an agreement, but want to move on, 4+ it
C) Call a judge over

If you're not doing one of those things, and just insisting on your way, you're being a poor sport and by all means I would ding you on it- regardless of what I later decide my personal interpretation of the unclear rule will be from now on.

The part of being a "good sport" is how you play the game, resolve your rules disagreements, and the like. If you don't do those things reasonably, then by all means you will get a low sports score.

ShivanAngel, if you're rocking daemons in fantasy and getting 2nd in sports, you must be a blast to play . That army eats my breakfast no matter what I take against it. But, again, if the opponent is cool, I'm not going to mind- just rue the day that that book was written!

So it isn't poor sportsmanship to always ask for a 4+ if a rule benefits your opponent with one interpretation and doesn't hurt you either way?