Sportsman ship points in Tourneys
- Thread starter Hash
- Start date
I concur, there should be an award for sportsmanship, but it should be separate from the 'combat' points.
Likewise, there should be a separate award for best painted fleet.
Adding the points together for a final total can crap out someone who has played cracking games, but because they can't afford the lead, they lose out to the guy with the big bucks and the paintbrush!
Separate the awards, that way more people get a chance to win. Well that's my 2p's worth.
Likewise, there should be a separate award for best painted fleet.
Adding the points together for a final total can crap out someone who has played cracking games, but because they can't afford the lead, they lose out to the guy with the big bucks and the paintbrush!
Separate the awards, that way more people get a chance to win. Well that's my 2p's worth.
I vote for separate award. If thats not possible (only 1 prize or whatever) then no sportsmanship points at all. Its blatantly unfair. It is meant to punish bad sportsmen, but more often than not it goes the other way.
Bad sportsmen can give 0 points just because they lost or didn't like the colour of the opponent's fleet, or whatever the "excuse of the day" is.
Good sportsmen tend to give more points even to bad sportsmen because they are being friendly.
Bad sportsmen can give 0 points just because they lost or didn't like the colour of the opponent's fleet, or whatever the "excuse of the day" is.
Good sportsmen tend to give more points even to bad sportsmen because they are being friendly.
Agreed with the separate award - I always liked the concept of voting for your favourite sportsman of all of your games then the person with most awards winning the Most Sporting Player award.
I also like the idea of having a GW style "Difficult Opponent" box on the form to tick that doesn't affect points directly but if ticked, the tournament overseers keep a closer eye on that player and will penalise him if they see anything else at fault.
I also like separate painting awards and possibly even theme although that would only be for larger events.
I also like the idea of having a GW style "Difficult Opponent" box on the form to tick that doesn't affect points directly but if ticked, the tournament overseers keep a closer eye on that player and will penalise him if they see anything else at fault.
I also like separate painting awards and possibly even theme although that would only be for larger events.
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
I've never played in a tourney but I would imagine that simply using a Sportsmanship tick box for each game played would be a way of tracking good vs bad players. If there is a majority who say that one player is a poor sport it should weight into something. Like getting 3 Unsportsmanlike Conduct in a row could get you yellow flagged (basically tell him to lighten up) and 5 would get your black flagged and thrown out of the tourney.
Soulmage
Mongoose
I've had a lot of experience in this area, and I have to say that separating the "Tournament Champion" from any kind of accountability for his/her sportsmanship is a mistake. However. . . sportsmanship has to be assessed very carefully in order to ensure fairness.
The best way to do sports scoring is not just to assign an arbitrary number to the sportsmanship rating. Instead, ask VERY SPECIFIC questions, then award 1 point for each "correct" answer.
For example:
Did you have fun?
Would play this person again?
Were any rules disputes resolved in a friendly fashion?
Did this person try to find/exploit a rules loophole to their advantage?
Make it known that the judges will follow up on any bad sportsmanship scores to find out the details of what happened.
That gives everyone a "base" sports score. You will probably wind up with a lot of ties, so you also have everyone vote for their "Favorite Opponent" at the end of the tournament. Award 1 additional bonus point to each person who receives a vote.
Finally, if there are any ties remaining at this point, break them on battle points. Its easy for people to like you if they're crushing you. . . its harder if you're crushing them.
Include sports score in "overall score" to determine tournament winner, as well as award a "Best Sportsman" prize also. The points shouldn't be enough to make a less-winning player defeat a more winning player, but it would help decide the event between two strong players.
This way your tournament champion is not only going to be an excellent tactical player, but also someone who promotes a fun time for everyone.
I've seen this approach used many, many times, and its worked out well each time, without the problems that accompany arbitrary "rate this person's sportsmanship" approaches.
Good luck!
The best way to do sports scoring is not just to assign an arbitrary number to the sportsmanship rating. Instead, ask VERY SPECIFIC questions, then award 1 point for each "correct" answer.
For example:
Did you have fun?
Would play this person again?
Were any rules disputes resolved in a friendly fashion?
Did this person try to find/exploit a rules loophole to their advantage?
Make it known that the judges will follow up on any bad sportsmanship scores to find out the details of what happened.
That gives everyone a "base" sports score. You will probably wind up with a lot of ties, so you also have everyone vote for their "Favorite Opponent" at the end of the tournament. Award 1 additional bonus point to each person who receives a vote.
Finally, if there are any ties remaining at this point, break them on battle points. Its easy for people to like you if they're crushing you. . . its harder if you're crushing them.
Include sports score in "overall score" to determine tournament winner, as well as award a "Best Sportsman" prize also. The points shouldn't be enough to make a less-winning player defeat a more winning player, but it would help decide the event between two strong players.
This way your tournament champion is not only going to be an excellent tactical player, but also someone who promotes a fun time for everyone.
I've seen this approach used many, many times, and its worked out well each time, without the problems that accompany arbitrary "rate this person's sportsmanship" approaches.
Good luck!
@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).
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.
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).
Hash said: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
Burger said:
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.
Epaminondas
Mongoose
the problems that I have seen is that it can end up being a joke; and that it rewards extroverts over introverts.
To often in Gw style tournaments, people will max out the soft scores of their opponent, and let their opponent know that... on the expectation that they will do the same.
This is one reason why I like simple yes/no questions that are then translated into points by the judges.
the other problem is just because I'm concentrating on the game and not asking how your puppy/kid/wife is doing doesn't mean I am being a bad sport. Arguably it is just as polite to let your opponent concentrate on the game rather then distract them in the middle of a move- rather then inquire about said puppy.
Sportsmanship shouldn't be a popularity contest.
Check out the in dependant GT sites and some of the warhammer sites- sportsmanship and composition are two of the most debated areas of a tournament.
No system works well.
To often in Gw style tournaments, people will max out the soft scores of their opponent, and let their opponent know that... on the expectation that they will do the same.
This is one reason why I like simple yes/no questions that are then translated into points by the judges.
the other problem is just because I'm concentrating on the game and not asking how your puppy/kid/wife is doing doesn't mean I am being a bad sport. Arguably it is just as polite to let your opponent concentrate on the game rather then distract them in the middle of a move- rather then inquire about said puppy.
Sportsmanship shouldn't be a popularity contest.
Check out the in dependant GT sites and some of the warhammer sites- sportsmanship and composition are two of the most debated areas of a tournament.
No system works well.
At the Milton Keynes tournament I was rather upset and dismayed at this particular player's behaviour.
The fact that he offended me, the tournament director, personally is not so much of a slight to me as the fact that during his game against Hash he acted like a real bounder and a cad (so to speak).
I watched the whole game and I found it wholly unacceptable. In this case, I would have given him penalty points if I had been allowed, but in the end he actually score 5 - 3 for the game and 2 for Sportsmanship.
Hash's 0 was totally unfair - he acted totally inside the rules and almost exactly like the Shadows would - waiting till the time is right. I considered changing Hash's 0 but I asked several people's opinions and they thought that I ought to abide by the rules.
The whole thing spoiled the event somewhat for me, as I was hoping for good humour all round.
I think there should be a seperate award for Best Sportsman, but I also think that there ought to be penalty points for people on bad behaviour.
Regards,
Reborn
The fact that he offended me, the tournament director, personally is not so much of a slight to me as the fact that during his game against Hash he acted like a real bounder and a cad (so to speak).
I watched the whole game and I found it wholly unacceptable. In this case, I would have given him penalty points if I had been allowed, but in the end he actually score 5 - 3 for the game and 2 for Sportsmanship.
Hash's 0 was totally unfair - he acted totally inside the rules and almost exactly like the Shadows would - waiting till the time is right. I considered changing Hash's 0 but I asked several people's opinions and they thought that I ought to abide by the rules.
The whole thing spoiled the event somewhat for me, as I was hoping for good humour all round.
I think there should be a seperate award for Best Sportsman, but I also think that there ought to be penalty points for people on bad behaviour.
Regards,
Reborn
If there was the facility available, I would say that it should all go to an impartial observer to award points for sportsmanship, as when you do play a bad egg you're going to suffer. But this is so rare (at least in my experience) that it should simply be possible to dispute scores (i.e. give visibility to both sides at the table before they're handed in), or let it be decided by others as to whether a low score (or indeed a high one) is properly given.
Speaking for myself, at MoW I issued full points to everyone - it being my understanding that points are awarded for the attitude of the opponent and how much fun was had by both parties. Can't speak for my opponents, but I enjoyed every game, and everyone I played was very courteous be it a win/lose/draw situation.
Speaking for myself, at MoW I issued full points to everyone - it being my understanding that points are awarded for the attitude of the opponent and how much fun was had by both parties. Can't speak for my opponents, but I enjoyed every game, and everyone I played was very courteous be it a win/lose/draw situation.
Didn't want to go down to a player bashing thread, after all its just a game but thanks for kind words anyway
Personally I think a quick fix might be to make the sportsmanship award for BOTH players equal to the average (round down) of the scored they give each other?
e.g. A very good game, one player awards 5, player two awards 5, both players receive 5pts for sportsmanship
e.g. 2 - A very poor game, one player awards 2, player two awards 0, both players receive the average, i.e. 1 point each for sportsmanship.
That way a bad sportsman can't exploit the ruleset (and indeed is likely to award highly just to get more points!) but a good sportsman can mark down according to what he thought the game deserved (with the assumption that the good sportsman is less concerened with tourney scoring).
What do you think?
but thanks for kind words anyway Personally I think a quick fix might be to make the sportsmanship award for BOTH players equal to the average (round down) of the scored they give each other?
e.g. A very good game, one player awards 5, player two awards 5, both players receive 5pts for sportsmanship
e.g. 2 - A very poor game, one player awards 2, player two awards 0, both players receive the average, i.e. 1 point each for sportsmanship.
That way a bad sportsman can't exploit the ruleset (and indeed is likely to award highly just to get more points!) but a good sportsman can mark down according to what he thought the game deserved (with the assumption that the good sportsman is less concerened with tourney scoring).
What do you think?
Not a bad idea Hash
And Reborn... if you're the organizer, you ARE the law! If you want to deduct points from a player or award them to another based on their behaviour, go ahead and do it. Anyone who complains, tell them you'll CRUSH THE DISSENTER and deduct even more for arguing with the ref. That'll stop them.
And Reborn... if you're the organizer, you ARE the law! If you want to deduct points from a player or award them to another based on their behaviour, go ahead and do it. Anyone who complains, tell them you'll CRUSH THE DISSENTER and deduct even more for arguing with the ref. That'll stop them.
Similar threads
