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.

Fearspect wrote:

pretre wrote:@Backsplash
I agree with this to a point, but someone is always going to ask for 'Best Overall'. What then?

You put the three scores together and have a Best Overall and you are back where you started.

But that system doesn't account for best haircut, best carrying case and best shoes, all equally relevant as best sportsman.

Umm.... yeah...

Kind of an extreme view. Best Sportsman is directly related to the game, but you knew that.

Sportsmanship (I believe we should just be calling it common courtesy) is not related to my games or army, it is related to how I live my life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Come to think of it, best carrying case is actually more relevant to gaming.

Sportsmanship is very related to how you played your game. It is an established part of many sports and games.

Was the argument getting stale so you decided to take a more extreme viewpoint in order to get it going again?

There is no argument because no one has yet given a real reason SPORTSMANSHIP SCORING (hint: different than being sportsmanlike) is required.

If it is an established part of many sports, why does it not affect the overall score at the end?

If you look at M's system, it has very little effect on the overall score but, just like other sports, can disqualify or otherwise punish unsportsmanship conduct.

Sportsmanship vs sportsmanlike is not that big a difference.
Let's define terms! (All from Webster.)
Sportsman is someone who shows sportsmanship
Sportsmanlike is the adjective form of sportsman.
Sportsmanship is conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport

I would say that Sportsmanship is very important to any competive game. Let's break it down:
Were you fair? No one want's to play a cheater.
Did you have respect for your opponent? Or play a douche.
Were you a gracious winner/loser? Doubly so for sore losers/winners.

What part of that is so bad to encourage?

Umm... good job finding websters online I suppose...

Perhaps I was not clear enough with you:

-Why do you need sportsmanship scoring?

You have stated over and over that sportsmanship is good. I agree. Sportsmanship scoring has nothing to do with sportsmanship other than sharing the same name. I suggest a more descriptive name, why not, "Passive Aggressive Secret Opponent Evaluation".

Fearspect wrote:Umm... good job finding websters online I suppose...

Perhaps I was not clear enough with you:

-Why do you need sportsmanship scoring?

You have stated over and over that sportsmanship is good. I agree. Sportsmanship scoring has nothing to do with sportsmanship other than sharing the same name. I suggest a more descriptive name, why not, "Passive Aggressive Secret Opponent Evaluation".

lol thanks.

To prevent douches from being douches. Wasn't it obvious? If someone is being a pain in the ass and you don't enjoy your game, you mark it on the pass/fail. If multiple opponents mark them down, then the TO can investigate/deduct/etc.

Yes, in a perfect world, the TO would handle it without that, but they are often covering the whole event and some TFGs are really good at masking things when the boss is around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Super Secret Pass/Fail checkbox scoring enforces Sportsmanship by fear. Fear of losing a small number of points or, if you are sufficiently a dick, your chance at prizes or returning to the event.

Is that clear enough?

The whole point here is that no TO should be running things alone. If someone is being so bad as to need to be removed, someone will be nearby to notice. Meanwhile, I object to giving an opponent whom I beat fairly some secret opportunity to potentially lower my score.

Here is a good question: If, between the TO and the judges, they are too busy or distracted to be around the general gaming area, why do you think they have time to tally an extra set of scores and act on them? Meanwhile, I don't need to hide behind a piece of paper. If something is bothering me, they will politely hear about it. If it becomes an issue that cannot be resolved, a judge is immediately called over.

I guess it depends on what your definition of TFG is, mine is somewhere along the line of:

Someone who, when he misunderstands a question, actually condescends to linking dictionary definitions of words.

Fearspect wrote:The whole point here is that no TO should be running things alone. If someone is being so bad as to need to be removed, someone will be nearby to notice. Meanwhile, I object to giving an opponent whom I beat fairly some secret opportunity to potentially lower my score.

Here is a good question: If, between the TO and the judges, they are too busy or distracted to be around the general gaming area, why do you think they have time to tally an extra set of scores and act on them? Meanwhile, I don't need to hide behind a piece of paper. If something is bothering me, they will politely hear about it. If it becomes an issue that cannot be resolved, a judge is immediately called over.

I guess it depends on what your definition of TFG is, mine is somewhere along the line of:

Someone who, when he misunderstands a question, actually condescends to linking dictionary definitions of words.

I agree that a TO shouldn't be alone. And tallying is a lot different than being present at 12-256 tables simultaneously to see everything that is happening. No tournament has enough judges to have one at every table.

I am happy that you are confident enough to talk to the TO about your opponent. Not everyone has that confidence.

And way to add personal attacks to the conversation.

You actually believe that linking dictionary definitions isn't insulting to a person's intelligence?

Fearspect wrote:You actually believe that linking dictionary definitions isn't insulting to a person's intelligence?

Yes, I call it defining terms. It is used to make sure that all parties are working with the same framework as there could be unintentional differences in definition that are causing the discussion in the first place.

Do you actually believe calling someone TFG is an acceptable response in a discussion?

I need help finding things on the internet, I keep typing words in my address bar but keep getting the same '404: Not Found' website. Could you help me with that too?

Fearspect wrote:The whole point here is that no TO should be running things alone. If someone is being so bad as to need to be removed, someone will be nearby to notice.

apparently canada is a different in that everything is completely 100% black and white but unfortunately the rest of the world has shades of grey. someone can be unsportsmanlike so as to ruin your overall experience of the game yet NOT do anything bad enough to be removed from a tourney. if a person's actions can range on a scale from awesome to abysmal, sportmanship scoring should also. in addition, not all episodes of bad behavior on the part of one player end up in a loud arguement likely to attract the attention of others.

Fearspect wrote:Here is a good question: If, between the TO and the judges, they are too busy or distracted to be around the general gaming area, why do you think they have time to tally an extra set of scores and act on them?

do you really think most judges are that intimidated or stymied by simple arithmetic? adding 3 to 4 small numbers together for each player is not a monumental task nor is tabulating at the end of a tourney whose number is highest.

I think there is a huge difference between sportsmanship and behaviour.

Behaviour is where your opponent is rude, or late, or overly argumentative. This probably has no place being judged in any way other than yes/no, and has no business being a factor in overall scoring. Seriously - people need to learn to act like adults.

Likewise, cheating is bad behaviour, not bad sportsmanship. If you're fudging movement or using rigged dice, that's cheating. That's not being a bad sport, that's being a cheat, and should likewise get a yes/no answer, with a no resulting in disqualification from all prize consideration.


Sportsmanship is harder to define, and I'm going to examine some sports analogies before going more into it.

So, in (American) football, your team has a touchdown lead, and the ball, with 2 minutes left. The other team has no timeouts.

The sporting thing to do in this case is to kneel down and let the clock expire. That's good sportsmanship.

The rules don't require that you stop trying to score at this point. But, you gain nothing by kicking an extra fieldgoal or throwing another touchdown. All you do is rub your opponent's nose in their defeat. It's just not cool.


In Soccer (or, non-US football, as some call it), if a player goes down, hurt (really, not flopping), the game, and the clock, does not stop. Frequently, one of the teams will kick the ball out of bounds, to stop the play, and allow the injured player an opportunity to get medical attention (or at least get off the pitch). But, by doing this, they forfeit the ball (last touched and all).

The rules do not require that the other team surrender the ball back to them on the throw-in. But you know what, they do it - it's good sportsmanship.


Sportsmanship is part of playing the game to enjoy the game, not simply to crush your opponent into the dirt. This is meant to be a social activity. Did your opponent forget something important? Did he roll a die before casting Null Zone? You know what, let him cast it. Or better yet, remind him of his rule before he rolls. Seriously, do you want to be the kind of player who wins a game because your opponent brainfarted, or do you want to win because you outplayed him (or because lady luck was on your side).

Your opponent's dice went sour. Is tabling them a mission objective? If not - why bother? You don't need to rub their failure in their face.


One aspect of sportsmanship that, unfortunately, seems to get a bad name from the uber-competitive players lately is playing the game with a sense of restraint. Not taking min-maxed copies of the same overpowered unit is good sportsmanship.

I know that the counter argument is that "we like to play at the top level" or something like that, and if it's a no-holds tournament, so be it. But if it's a standard RTT and has a sportsmanship score, act like a good sport and show some restraint with the overpowered unit spam.

A lot of this can be summed up as showing some respect to your opponent.

Fearspect wrote:I need help finding things on the internet, I keep typing words in my address bar but keep getting the same '404: Not Found' website. Could you help me with that too?

Way to play it cool, Fearspect. I was enjoying debating with you. We were, in fact, having a 'good game'.

Now you've twisted it to mocking and personal attacks. This would be exactly the kind of poor sportsmanship/behavior that should be prevented when dealing with others.

Edit:
Oh and if you were genuinely offended by me defining terms, than I apologize.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I think there is a huge difference between sportsmanship and behaviour.
snip
A lot of this can be summed up as showing some respect to your opponent.

Well put.

Fearspect wrote:There is no argument because no one has yet given a real reason SPORTSMANSHIP SCORING (hint: different than being sportsmanlike) is required.

If it is an established part of many sports, why does it not affect the overall score at the end?

Does a 15 yard penalty mid-game have an impact on the score in an NFL or CFL football game?

Tangible, significant penalties for poor sportsmanship are an established part of many sports, including professional ones. If an infraction occurs on a points-scoring play, those points can be and usually are nullified.

Fearspect wrote:The whole point here is that no TO should be running things alone. If someone is being so bad as to need to be removed, someone will be nearby to notice. Meanwhile, I object to giving an opponent whom I beat fairly some secret opportunity to potentially lower my score.

There is a large middle ground between "alone" and "sufficiently numerous to have a judge at every table".

As stated repeatedly in the thread, there is also a significant middle ground between behavior which merits ejection from the store (with all the disruption to the event that causes, and potential conflicts between the store's and the TO's authority), and behavior which is perfectly acceptable. A penalty for an infraction works well in the NFL and NHL, and it can work perfectly fine in 40k or WH too.

Absolutely agree with you, Mannahnin. The behaviour that merits ejection from the store/tournament is what I think needs to be focused on. Absolutely, certain types of people should be sent packing: cheating, openly aggressive, etc.

On the flip side, people who show up and play and are less talkative and 'fun' should not be penalized because of they way they play. Maybe that is just the way that they need to focus to give you a good game. Sportsmanship scoring hurts people like that, because it gives people an unrealistic expectation of what they should be getting out of their games.

Fearspect wrote:Absolutely agree with you, Mannahnin. The behaviour that merits ejection from the store/tournament is what I think needs to be focused on. Absolutely, certain types of people should be sent packing: cheating, openly aggressive, etc.

Agreed. Which M's system covers.

On the flip side, people who show up and play and are less talkative and 'fun' should not be penalized because of they way they play. Maybe that is just the way that they need to focus to give you a good game. Sportsmanship scoring hurts people like that, because it gives people an unrealistic expectation of what they should be getting out of their games.

Again, agreed. M's system also takes this into account. Chances are you will not have an UNpleasant experience with them, you'll just have a normal game. That helps them by not deducting and not missing out on potential points.

Not to sound like a fanboi here, but that's why M's system is good.

Mannanhin's system is not needed to accomplish the former, and prevents issues with the latter, making it 0 for and 1 against using it.

Something that has the potential to cause more harm than good should never be considered when designing your tournament format.

Mannahnin wrote:

Fearspect wrote:There is no argument because no one has yet given a real reason SPORTSMANSHIP SCORING (hint: different than being sportsmanlike) is required.

If it is an established part of many sports, why does it not affect the overall score at the end?

Does a 15 yard penalty mid-game have an impact on the score in an NFL or CFL football game?

Tangible, significant penalties for poor sportsmanship are an established part of many sports, including professional ones. If an infraction occurs on a points-scoring play, those points can be and usually are nullified.

I think a more accurate analogy would be giving an NFL team 2 points for congratulating their opponent after they score a touchdown. Having a judge warn or penalize an unsportsmanlike player with a verbal warning or game loss is pretty standard in most competitive games. Giving points to teams on the scoreboard for being a favorite opponent is something else entirely.

I'm sorry Fearspect, but your argument just doesn't hold water.

Sportsmanship was instituted at GW tournaments specifically to curb the kind of antisocial behavior you'd see from a (thankfully small, but reliably present) subset of the gaming community, who were excessively rude and unpleasant to their opponents. You saw this crap in Magic tournaments back in the day too (don't know if it's still an issue).

Guys who are nasty and UNfun (as opposed to just quiet) need to be curbed in some way, IMO. And it is almost impossible for judges to do it by themselves. The logistics of trying to patrol every table at once are impossible with the personnel available, and TFGs are certainly capable of toning-down their behavior when a judge is standing there.

No system is needed for #1 in an ideal world. Ideally, in basketball there will never be a foul. So technically, it is not needed.

In an ideal world, the TO will be on top of everything and keep the first point in line. Technically, it is not needed. So you are right, at any tournament where the TO is able to observe the behavior at every table and stay on top of all of that behavior, it is unnecessary.

As for the second, it doesn't prevent issues with the latter. The latter was an issue you brought up with it. So more appropriately, the two points do not conflict.


Opinion here, correct me if I'm wrong.
Our whole argument comes down to your belief that a TO can handle it themself and my belief that players should have some input into that in case the TO does not see it.

Additionally, you believe that the players should just man up and tell the TO if they have a problem and that the TO will take care of it. I believe that not everyone is that confident and that they may need assistance, additionally the TO may miss some things if they aren't in concrete form.

Sound about right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin Nash wrote:
I think a more accurate analogy would be giving an NFL team 2 points for congratulating their opponent after they score a touchdown. Having a judge warn or penalize an unsportsmanlike player with a verbal warning or game loss is pretty standard in most competitive games. Giving points to teams on the scoreboard for being a favorite opponent is something else entirely.

M's system doesn't have points in addition to your score. It has Favorite Opponent (not part of scoring) and Pass/Fail for Pleasant/UNpleasant which does not affect your score up, only down.

GW has officially dropped sportsmanship from their tournaments, along with many North American GTs. More are doing it each year (well, each year I have been paying attention which is the last three or so). Do you believe they have made a mistake?

Kevin Nash wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Does a 15 yard penalty mid-game have an impact on the score in an NFL or CFL football game?

Tangible, significant penalties for poor sportsmanship are an established part of many sports, including professional ones. If an infraction occurs on a points-scoring play, those points can be and usually are nullified.

I think a more accurate analogy would be giving an NFL team 2 points for congratulating their opponent after they score a touchdown. Having a judge warn or penalize an unsportsmanlike player with a verbal warning or game loss is pretty standard in most competitive games. Giving points to teams on the scoreboard for being a favorite opponent is something else entirely.

Taking away a touchdown (possibly a game-winning one) is easily analogous to taking away 2 pts from a player's overall score out of 75 possible.

Although I do think it's entirely appropriate for bonuses & penalties for good/bad sportsmanship to be more significant in a hobby like this than in NFL football. In a game of 40k there usually aren't spectators. Two people are playing for each other's entertainment and benefit. If one guy is a dick to the point that he ruins the fun for the other, that's 50% of the audience disappointed. If a given unsportsmanlike play would ruin the entire game for 50% of an NFL audience (maybe one team came out wearing jerseys with racist slogans on them?), you can be darn sure the NFL would make them forfeit the entire game, if not do worse.

pretre wrote:No system is needed for #1 in an ideal world. Ideally, in basketball there will never be a foul. So technically, it is not needed.

In an ideal world, the TO will be on top of everything and keep the first point in line. Technically, it is not needed. So you are right, at any tournament where the TO is able to observe the behavior at every table and stay on top of all of that behavior, it is unnecessary.

As for the second, it doesn't prevent issues with the latter. The latter was an issue you brought up with it. So more appropriately, the two points do not conflict.


Opinion here, correct me if I'm wrong.
Our whole argument comes down to your belief that a TO can handle it themself and my belief that players should have some input into that in case the TO does not see it.

Additionally, you believe that the players should just man up and tell the TO if they have a problem and that the TO will take care of it. I believe that not everyone is that confident and that they may need assistance, additionally the TO may miss some things if they aren't in concrete form.

Sound about right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin Nash wrote:
I think a more accurate analogy would be giving an NFL team 2 points for congratulating their opponent after they score a touchdown. Having a judge warn or penalize an unsportsmanlike player with a verbal warning or game loss is pretty standard in most competitive games. Giving points to teams on the scoreboard for being a favorite opponent is something else entirely.

M's system doesn't have points in addition to your score. It has Favorite Opponent (not part of scoring) and Pass/Fail for Pleasant/UNpleasant which does not affect your score up, only down.

OK then so you're docked 2 points for not congratulating your opponent when they score a touchdown?

M's system doesn't have points in addition to your score. It has Favorite Opponent (not part of scoring) and Pass/Fail for Pleasant/UNpleasant which does not affect your score up, only down.

OK then so you're docked 2 points for not congratulating your opponent when they score a touchdown?

M's system has one question: (paraphrasing) Was the overall game UNpleasant? Yes/No

Did that non congratulation make the whole game bad?

Quick correction to pretre- my system does allow a bonus to the overall score for favorite opponent votes as one option. I like that, personally, but it's not required.

Kevin, Fearspect, please look at the system again. My system is not talking about penalizing guys who are quiet and play an okay but unremarkable game.

The question is specifically whether your opponent was actively UNpleasant, to the point where it literally ruined the fun of the entire game for you. I don't think that's a very high bar, or asking very much, and I expect it will infrequently be checked.

Oh and one guy giving you a Unpleasant doesn't affect your score. Did you read his proposal?

Kevin Nash wrote: OK then so you're docked 2 points for not congratulating your opponent when they score a touchdown?

Taunting and other unsportsmanlike conduct calls can negate a touchdown/field goal/etc. It's an analogy; let's not stretch it too hard.

GW still has sports in ToS. It's used for ties.

TOS Pack for US wrote:Favorite Game Votes
In the final round you must pick one army you fought against as your favorite. This is a completely subjective judgement, and can be based on the quality of the painting, the character of the army, its effectiveness on the tabletop, how nice the opponent was to play against, or a combination of all these qualities – it’s up to you to decide, Remember to keep your vote secret!

In the case of a tie, ‘Favorite Game’ votes will be used to decide the winner. If still tied, the number of ‘Skull Taker’ points will be used to break ties, and after that, if there is still a tie, then the army with the best roster (in the opinion of the tournament organizers) will be deemed the winner.