Sportsman ship points in Tourneys

[Tank]

[snigger]

 

[Locutus9956]

Actually I rather like that idea Hash. I dont think there were any real problems with people friendliness last time at the YG tourney I ran but I think I may well put that average sportsmanship thing in. It WONT be part of the overall scores though (this time round Im planning on scoring it as an overall admiralty thing with other things like best painted and best sportsman etc being seperate things (with seperate prizes if I can get some prizes together )

And of course there will be a quiz but in this case it will ONLY be for fun and only affect actual standings if a tiebreaker situation is needed

 

[Reborn]

*images of Reborn turning green* "Reborn Smash Dissenter!"

Or perhaps he'd be more likely to wave a stick at them and say something vaguely latin, only for them to turn into a frog or something...

At least I don't climb in through girls' bedroom windows for fun Dawson! (Side note - I look like Harry Potter and Alexb83 looks like Dawson from Dawson's Creek)

 

[katadder]

i like the idea of the average sportsmanship, but still would keep it seperate from the main points as a sportsman prize.

 

[Alexb83]

Dude, there is nothing wrong with climbing through girls' bedroom windows for fun.

 

[Alexb83]

*hastily adds*

As long as they're consenting adults...

*phew*

 

[Reborn]

:lol: Close one that

 

[Triggy]

@Soulmage:

I think what you're saying is totally incorrect. It is completely naive, and assumes that all players are good sportsmen and will answer the questions honestly. My point is that bad sportsman don't tell the truth about the opponent's sportsmanship (whether deliberately lying to give them 0, or just because they are so grumpy and didn't enjoy the game simply because they lost). Take the example from the other week, which was posted on another thread (don't know if you saw it or not so I'll repeat it... edited a bit for relevance).

in that last tourney at Milton Keynes I did something that didn't impress my opponent. I was using Shadows, he was using Drakh so I figured I'd sit back for a turn or two and wait for my opponent to come for me...he refused to do so, getting extremely agitated (swearing and quite angry) that I just wouldn't charge down the board at him.

I genuinely didn't understand why he was so angry - nothing prevented him from coming towards me, foiling my easily countered strategy, and kicking my Shadow ass as the next Drakh player I played did convincingly!

I don't really know what his problem was with my tactic, after all it's not like I could have avoided him if he came towards me himself...he seemed genuinely upset I wasn't coming straight towards him and complete with swearing and calling my tactic, "s***").

Oh well...I got zero sportmanship award for my trouble

(although in this case I'm sure Hash returned the 0 pts favour??)

No...I wussed out.

Now here we have a good sportsman (Hash) against a bad sportsman. The bad sportsman gave Hash 0 points, just because he didn't like losing to superior tactics (!), and because Hash didn't come running right into his trap. Hash gave the idiot a positive sportsman rating, because Hash is a nice guy and a bit of a wuss ()

What would happen if they were using your questions instead of an arbitrary number... well Hash would have given the other guy at least 3 "correct" answers, and the other guy would have given Hash 0. Judges at tournaments just don't have time to go around questioning all the sportsmanship decisions, and even if they do the bad sportsman can just get angry, say he didn't enjoy the game at all, and justify his bad sportsmanship score in any number of ways. So it is no better than the current flawed system.

A "bad player" tick box sounds quite reasonable, but again would Hash have ticked it in this game? Probably not. When you get a bad opponent like this, many people just want to end the game and get on with the next one as quickly as possible. They don't want to talk to the organizer about how bad the player was. If they did, you wouldn't even need a tick box.

I agree it is good to have some way of punishing bad sportsmen and rewarding good ones. But the current system achieves the opposite. It is exploitable by bad sportsmen, and puts good sportsmen at a disadvantage simply because they got drawn against bad opponents. Removing it totally would be an improvement in favour of good sportsmen, and then adding a fairer system would be a further improvement.

If it's any consolation for anyone, having spoken to Ben, he apologises for the misunderstandings with Hash and Reborn and also apologises for the sportsmanship score (where he thought this was more a rating of how enjoyable the game was rather than of how sporting his opponent was). He doesn't want to have any emnity left over if this is possible.

Now of course, you can all take this however you want but knowing him, he's not deliberately setting out to offend people but he does get caught up in the heat of the moment. All he can do is say sorry for this and I for one sincerely hope this episode can be put behind us. Of course, you are all free to feel however you will about this, but I for one would at the least like to see a line drawn under the issue at some point.

 

[Chernobyl]

At the KOTJ tourneys I ran, I used a 1-10 scoring for sportsmanship. this was on the scoring slip all the players get before the game.

Judging painting, I asked the players to set up their ships theyr were using inthe tourney and the players were asked to score every fleet but their own, again scoring 1-10.

the tourney scoring / generalship award was based strictly off of VP, and trivia.

Chern

 

[Reborn]

Thanks very much Triggy, I for one am more than willing to forgive and forget.

 

[Hash]

Yeah me too - just a game after all

 

[Triggy]

Cheers mates, I'll pass on to him that it's water under the bridge now

 

[Skipper]

Another option for scoring sportsmanship is to wait till all games are over. Then every player will rate their oponents from best to worst based on sportsmanship. If its a three game tournament you must assign one player a 1, another a 2, and the last (the best sport) 3.

That way a "bad sport" can only scratch one opponent and will be forced to give someone good marks. A bad sport will also probably draw 1's from all his opponents and theirfore the sportsmanship scores still mean something.

This breaks down when clubs work together in their scoring to get an overall club result.

Skipper

 

[Chernobyl]

It also breaks down in small tourneys. with only 1, 2, and 3 as answers, I don't think there's "fine" enough differentiation - you could come up with ties more easily.

Chern

 

[Hash]

The purpose of sportsmanship points adding to the tourney score has been, as I see it, to encourage good sportsmanship in participants...of course you don't NEED points to be a good sport so it works like this (ideally):

1. "I'd better play nice or lose out on sportsmanship..."

OR

2. "I always play nice anyway so the points don't make any difference..."

Now in many ACTA tourneys I have played, Case 2 has been dominant to the point where the sportsmanship award contributing to tourney score was irrelevant in determining tourney position...as it should be.

My only fear about removing that component completely from tourney scores is that the incentive to "be nice" is removed from the rest of the game...not saying that means everyone will suddenly turn nasty, but used correctly, I think it helps games more than hinders them.

The key to getting this right is making sure that whatever mechnaism is used, good sportsmanship is encouraged on both sides, this is why I like the "average" system as it incentivises both parties to play nice together and if everyone gets max...well the whole thing can be discounted so those who don't like sportsmanship points don't feel they lost out simply because of that