Tournament Sportsmanship: Goals, Methods

[ianob]

5 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

The main reason why sportsmanship is a bad thing to try and score in a tournament is that it is a subjective score entirely open to player abuse attempting to overall judge and score a player objectively.

A thousand times this. Subjective scores that can be “gamed” and are frequently misused (vote your friends, don’t vote for people on similar scores to you, vote for the last person you played Cos it’s easiest, etc) should never be involved in a tournament.

What we do need is

a) improved guidelines or rules around angle shooting at tournaments

b) removed stigma around calling out cheating or dodgy behaviour 

The great, great majority of people are sportsmanlike and lots of people who angle shoot only do it because they can. Some slightly tighter rules and more willingness to talk about players who are problematic (whether intentionally or unintentionally) would solve most of the issues imho!

[stato]

These complaints seem to stem from the NOVA approach, which has a scoring system.

Ive been to about 8 UK events in the last 2 years and they all had similar systems where you pick your favourite opponent (1-day) , or pick your 3 favorite opponents (2-day).   An award is given to whoever has the most votes, and players receive a small bonus to tournament score for getting at least one sporting vote, just enough to bump them above someone with same gaming score but no sports vote.  I should add the tournaments ive been to didnt bother with (what i think is excessive) secondary or tertiary objectives, generally using gaming score, plus sports, then VP, to determine final rankings.

Yes it can probably be gamed, but how often do you get to play your mates in a tournament (unless we are having this discussion about minor 12-16 player club tournaments) and you have multiple games to attempt to get a vote, so the opportunity is there for you to take.

 

[AaronWilson]

It's a very hard thing to execute properly, it's  very easy to put sporting scores in with the idea "I know everyone attending the event, they're all good guys, the community is good etc" but sadly that's just not the case.

I can tell you 100% people that get tabled are less likely to give a opponent the best possible sporting score. It's something that's very subjective, as well as personal bias being a big factor (I don't like that person so you're getting a ****** 1) etc etc. 

[Gaz Taylor]

Just my few thoughts on this. I agree with what some people have said is that Sportsmanship scores are subjective and can be gamed but it's all down to a bit of common sense and working out what you and your opponent both want from the game. I tend to have the following in my mind:

• The Rule of Timmy (aka @Bananaman) - Just to translate it into something that's safe to say on TGA but "don't be an 'idiot'".
• Work out what both you and your opponent want to get from the game (besides winning). Are you on the top tables? If so, then this is probably going to be a bit different to a game on the bottom tables. Does your opponent like to chat or are they focused on the game? If so, try and adjust how you interact with them. At the end of the day, you are spending a few hours with this person, so you might as well try and make it a bit of fun!
• Mistakes - These are going to happen both tactically and rules. Try to decide before you go to the event how you want to play this but adjust it for your opponent. Some players will want to play by the rules, so try to as well. Others might be more flexible (is that charge just in or out).
• Cheating - To my knowledge, I haven't played anybody who has cheated but in these situations be calm and ask them if they got the rule right. If you are still unsure and have good grounds that they are, find a judge and get them to watch your game (this is often done from a few tables away).

This may not work for everybody as I know everybody is different and has a different outlook on things, but I do get Favourite Game votes and I have won a Sportsmanship award after using Stonehorns when they were filthy, so I think these work.  

On the subject of Sportsmanship scores, I like how a lot of UK events do it. Have a favourite game vote and use it for tie breakers if Tournament Points and Victory Points don't work. I think applying a score to a game doesn't work as it's all down to how you are feeling on the day and how you get on with that person. Keeping it to having to choose your favourite game is better in my opinion.

[stato]

1 hour ago, AaronWIlson said:

It's a very hard thing to execute properly, it's  very easy to put sporting scores in with the idea "I know everyone attending the event, they're all good guys, the community is good etc" but sadly that's just not the case.

I can tell you 100% people that get tabled are less likely to give a opponent the best possible sporting score. It's something that's very subjective, as well as personal bias being a big factor (I don't like that person so you're getting a ****** 1) etc etc. 

Ive won 3 best sports awards running a KO gunline (and 1 running Dispossesed) from 8 events, including tabling a few people.  You just need to be a nice guy ?

 

I wonder again if its a cultural thing?  Most of the anguish or need for more ruling seems to be coming from the US posters, is that true? not really sure where people are from.

[Gaz Taylor]

6 minutes ago, stato said:

I wonder again if its a cultural thing?  Most of the anguish or need for more ruling seems to be coming from the US posters, is that true? not really sure where people are from.

I think there is an element of that but I think it's also what players are expecting to get from the game. Some people like the very mechanical process of playing a game without much interaction with their opponent as it's a tactical battle of their minds. Some players really enjoy this intense focus and it's what they want to get from the game. Like I mentioned, it's all down to working out what you both want.  

[DionTheWanderer]

Great approach to the topic from OP - starting with goals and thinking about incentives. 

There seems to be a general consensus that a subjective scoring (particularly one that gets incorporated into tournament results) are bad, and binary ones (e.g. thumbs up/down or 'favourite/not favourite) are good. The question is then how to use binary scoring to incentivise the right behaviour, while disincentivising gaming the system. 

I wonder if you could apply the same binary approach to the tournament: i.e. if you failed the sportsmanship score you weren't kicked out (as that has to be pretty egregious, surely) but were instead relegated to a second division for your final result (i.e. you rank all the people with OK scores above the people with FAIL scores).

That way, people who fail have a big incentive to think about and improve their behaviour overall in the next tournament, rather than getting all defensive about a single incident that resulted in them getting booted, having got away with other such incidents in the past. 

The question then becomes how you disincentivise people  from trying to game the scoring by thumbs downing everyone. The only answer to this is to put a small negative cost on thumbs-downing your opponent (after all, accusing someone of poor sportsmanship is often slightly poor sportsmanship on your own part!). This discourages people thumbs-downing everyone for no reason, while still making it worth thumbs-downing someone who might be a Jeremy Hunt to other people too.

It's only a quick attempt but I think the following system would work (for a five game tournament).  You get 1 point against you for every thumbs down you get. You get 0.4 points against you for every thumbs down you give. If you score 3 points or more, you get relegated.  Possible scenarios shown below:

Thoughts?

	By Player	From Opponents	SCORE	Result
No. of Thumbs Down	5	1	3.00	RELEGATED
	4	2	3.60	RELEGATED
	3	2	3.20	RELEGATED
	2	3	3.80	RELEGATED
	1	3	3.40	RELEGATED
	0	3	3.00	RELEGATED
	5	0	2.00	OK
	4	1	2.60	OK
	2	2	2.80	OK

 

[JPjr]

reading through this thread a couple of things seem apparent (to me at least).

firstly any kind of scoring an opponent (especially anonymously) on sportsmanship that can affect tournament rankings has inherent flaws and can (and will) easily be gamed and abused by those with that mentality.

but more importantly whilst I totally get the point of it perhaps by rewarding good behaviour, you make it seem like it's in some way exceptional and unintentionally normalises bad/anti-social behaviour.

surely sportsmanship should be the absolute norm and indeed bare minimum respect you pay to an opponent. maybe there needs to be more proactive refereeing at these tournaments (and probably more referees) doing the rounds of the tables with the power to give warnings/yellow card/red card players.

everyone involved is an adult if they cant behave like ones then why would you want them in your scene.

 

[Overread]

Honestly I think what Warhammer Tournaments need is a way to monetize and sponsor to generate increased income. With that they can not only rent good venues but have more money to pay for more staff to officiate games and also to record games. If you look at big sports events EVERY MATCH has an umpire or reff to oversee the game. In fact many can have teams of officials at the high levels to ensure fair play.

Rather than one official per half dozen or dozen or more games; there is one for each match. That in itself would reduce cheating and overall improve the standard of sportsmanship between players and the quality of matches as well as hopefully speed up resolutions between players when there is an altercation/issue with the game rules. 

 

 

 

After that I agree, sportsmanship is an attempt to create a carrot before the donkey to encourage good behaviour; but is inherently flawed because its award by the opponent and as such has no unified criteria to which its measured. It's also open to abuse and variations in interpretation as to what it means and as such simply can't function well. Rather than encourage it rather sits there as a means to vent frustrations and can actually encourage bad sportsmanship behaviour in the awarding of the score itself 

[ianob]

We've just had a long chat about the problems with sports scoring (and other soft scores) and how they should be implemented so as not to adversely affect scoring on the justsaying podcast if anyone is interested.

 http://podcast.justplaygames.uk/nova-top-10-lists-scoring-controversy-community-rules-pack-state-of-the-meta-and-eggs-part-2

The TLDR is that soft scores need to be 

1) Not arbitrarily judged
2) Attainable by everyone as a default (eg "everyone gets 20 points if theyre not a ******") or awarded as a penalty ("you got 3 unsportsmanlike votes, -20 points")

In the same way we often hold up Blood and Glory's painting scores as painting scores done right, all soft scores need to work the same way so as not to arbitrarily affect standings.

[amysrevenge]

7 minutes ago, ianob said:

We've just had a long chat about the problems with sports scoring (and other soft scores) and how they should be implemented so as not to adversely affect scoring on the justsaying podcast if anyone is interested.

 http://podcast.justplaygames.uk/nova-top-10-lists-scoring-controversy-community-rules-pack-state-of-the-meta-and-eggs-part-2

The TLDR is that soft scores need to be 

1) Not arbitrarily judged
2) Attainable by everyone as a default (eg "everyone gets 20 points if theyre not a ******") or awarded as a penalty ("you got 3 unsportsmanlike votes, -20 points")

In the same way we often hold up Blood and Glory's painting scores as painting scores done right, all soft scores need to work the same way so as not to arbitrarily affect standings.

Yes, ultimately something like this sums it up for me too (for both sports and painting):  The vast majority of the field will have identical scores.  The very best and very worst will have (slightly) higher or (possibly very much) lower scores.  You've rewarded your best performers, and strongly discouraged (and maybe penalized, if the discouraging didn't work pre-emptively) the worst performers.  For everyone else it's business as usual, with their typical tournament behaviour and typical tabletop standard painting.

[Overread]

I think the biggest issue with painting in an otherwise gameplay focused tournament is that there is no onus or prevention of taking models not painted by the person playing. They can be second hand; painted by a friend or even commissioned. So it always seems odd to me that someone can score and that that score affects the tournament results; based on painting which might have nothing to do with their actual effort or skill. 

It seems like cheating to me when the intent is not to achieve high quality painting but that all armies are painted up. It's a bit of a hit in the face for the peopel who are not outstanding painters, but who do put in the time to paint; but can never get the top score because someone else hired a pro- painter.

 

 

At least with sportsmanship behaviour its all on the person competing. 

[Mephisto]

18 hours ago, ianob said:

A thousand times this. Subjective scores that can be “gamed” and are frequently misused (vote your friends, don’t vote for people on similar scores to you, vote for the last person you played Cos it’s easiest, etc) should never be involved in a tournament.

What we do need is

a) improved guidelines or rules around angle shooting at tournaments

b) removed stigma around calling out cheating or dodgy behaviour 

The great, great majority of people are sportsmanlike and lots of people who angle shoot only do it because they can. Some slightly tighter rules and more willingness to talk about players who are problematic (whether intentionally or unintentionally) would solve most of the issues imho!

A thousand times, a thousand times this. 

I like to think of myself as somewhere on the spectrum between Beer and Pretzels Local Hero and Competitive Tournament Grinder. Like, play me and you'll find I'm a pretty nice guy, I've just optimized my list and want to beat you. I won't be a ****** about it. I won't insult your fluffy or narrative list. I'll even defer to you on some rulings because I don't WANT to angle shoot you. Still, there's this toxicity and stigma around being right about the rules that is caused by sports score. The line between a player gaming the system and honestly making mistakes is near impossible to gauge with the rules as they exist in a game that uses sports score (like am is player A an d-bag that's honestly mistaken about the rules, while player B is a nice guy willfully misconstruing the rules for an adventure? How can you tell and how does sportscore as it currently exists detect the difference? Answer, it doesn't). 

Like, MTG has something called a Rules Enforcement Level or REL. Depending on the level of competition of the event, there's a different REL. It goes as far as to state that both players are responsible for "maintaining the integrity of the game state." If players miss a "must" trigger, both players can be docked for violating the REL. Now their sports score doesn't come into the match results but it is enforced across all tournaments if judges are called to tables with a known slowplayer or consistent violators of the rules. (Amysrevenge's Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down method would work well with something similar to this for AOS). 

The problem with REL above is that MTG's tournaments are run in a more official capacity whereas AOS tournaments are run by the community... and that brings me to step one of this entire debacle: we need an actual "league" or "chapter approved" or some form of control basis for the game. Like your LGS can get an official tag for their FNM of 12 people. I'd love if GW could do the same for tournaments. The problem with consistency is extended to, now, realm rules/artefacts/spells (and previously we saw it with something as BASIC ((base-ic, get it?)) as square vs rounds. Every tournament on the planet worth its salt was saying round bases standard for years while GW insisted "squares were okay"). It would be nice if we as a community, and I really would prefer it came from the community, could start a grass roots "competitive standard" that is general and basic enough to allow specific TOs some wiggle room for the type of event they want while also facilitating a common ground to start from for everyone else. 

I need to concede that I'm not saying make AOS like MTG. I'm just saying we can learn a little bit from what one of the biggest national nerd TTGs has done. Hell, I've played in the Fighter, MOBA, and FPS circuit as an organizer, shoutcaster, and competitor and they even have some communicable enforcement protocols that could benefit our AOS. 

[LLV]

My 2cents - everything @ianob has said here is 100% correct. TLDR - Good sports should be the norm, bad sports should be penalized. Great sports can and should have an award but seperate from the results of the games.

[Lemon Knuckles]

Also agree. 

Question for you all.  How calibrated do you think the community is on what constitutes being a good sport?  Sometimes I read complaints online that don't seem to me to be sportsmanship type concerns at all, at least at tournaments (like, the list was too cheese, or the list wasn't fun to play against).  Conversely, there seems to be some points of etiquette (like how to pick up dice after a hit roll) that should probably be universally adopted.

 

[Overread]

Just now, Lemon Knuckles said:

Also agree. 

Question for you all.  How calibrated do you think the community is on what constitutes being a good sport?  Sometimes I read complaints online that don't seem to me to be sportsmanship type concerns at all, at least at tournaments (like, the list was too cheese, or the list wasn't fun to play against).  Conversely, there seems to be some points of etiquette (like how to pick up dice after a hit roll) that should probably be universally adopted.

 

I think its a totally hit and miss term and even with perfect understanding of the meaning of the word the interpretation of the same actions can vary widely person to person. Even a persons appearance and unconscious body language can affect how their actions are interpreted. With all these things even two people with the same working understanding of sportsmanship can give varying results if the method of recording is fine enough to all variation. 

If you strip it down to "was the person good or bad" then you might get a more sensible approach; except that many people might get confused because they'll expect to use the bad (it an option) yet most players will be pretty decent to play against. 

 

But going back to the direct question I do think many people don't quite understand what the term actually means. I think many might interpret it closer to "did I have a good time playing them" as opposed to "were they a good sport". Furthermore many will interpret a "good spot" as someone who lets them get away with things or doesn't challenge or put up barriers - ergo always sides with you in rule disputes; lets you take back moves etc... Meanwhile someone who sticks to the rules and who might well side against you in a rules debate might get a lower score even though they've been just as sportsman like in their behaviour (shook hands; was polite; gamed well etc...). 

[amysrevenge]

An anecdote of subjective checklist scoring.

Back in 8th, doubles event.  My partner was the guy who always wins best sports (and the last place "prize" at our biggest event of the year is named after him lol).  Event (if you can believe it) had an opponent-judged paint score checklist as well as an opponent judged sports score checklist, as a pretty high proportion of the total score. 

Opponents had all their remaining points tied up in a biiiig brick of Chaos Marauders.  We got off a nice charge on our turn, with my giant clipping a corner on the flank, and my partner's Bloodcrushers smashing into the rear.  They wanted to reform on their turn, but the rule in 8th was (something to the effect of) if you're engaged on two sides, no reforming.  They ware adamant and belligerent.  I showed them the rule in the book (it wasn't hidden or vague or spread across multiple pages, it was black and white).  They were still adamant and belligerent.  I got a rules judge, who ruled in less than 20 seconds in our favour, of course, because it was so obvious.  Broke the unit, chased it down, basically game over.

We got zero bombed on BOTH sports and paint, even though we had nicely painted stuff, and the checklists had objective items like (the useless) showed up on time/had necessary books and materials, and three-colour minimum/finished bases.  The TO adjusted our scores, but only up to the minimum objective levels - not fully to the level we deserved, and we didn't do well in the event even though we won our games (only 3 games, so not much time to make up lost ground).

That was I think the last local event that used opponent-scored painting.

[Lemon Knuckles]

Oh the irony of sportsmanship scoring being abused by unsportsmanlike behavior....

[LLV]

As I said, Sports should be expected not rewarded. 

You should just log whether you thought your opponent was unsportsman like and then give a quick reason/example. Then the TO decides penalties to apply to unsportsmanlike conduct on a sliding scale. 2 reports maybe a few points, 3 reports a bigger chunk of points, 4 reports game loss, 5 reports DQ for instance.

 

[Mephisto]

12 minutes ago, Overread said:

It seems like cheating to me when the intent is not to achieve high quality painting but that all armies are painted up. It's a bit of a hit in the face for the peopel who are not outstanding painters, but who do put in the time to paint; but can never get the top score because someone else hired a pro- painter.

It's sort of like pay-to-win. The, Dun-dun-dUUuuUUuun, boogeyman of most competitive play. Paying meticulously for your models is a barrier to entry. Once assembled, you have to play them well. Just paying for a professional quality painted army to scoop up paint score goes to a different level...

[swarmofseals]

53 minutes ago, Mephisto said:

Like, MTG has something called a Rules Enforcement Level or REL.

First of all, I also agree with @ianob.

Coming from a competitive MTG background, I also thought about REL and the Magic Floor Rules. While I'm not sure that REL quite fits with Warhammer, some version of the Floor Rules absolutely does. 

Basically, this is just an extensive set of rules that explains what exactly is and isn't allowed (including things like unsportsmanlike conduct) and what the penalties for violations should be. While this doesn't weed out all bad behavior in MTG (far from it), it at least provides a clear set of enforceable guidelines that have successfully weeded out the worst offenders.

I'd also argue that sportsmanship scores could be actively counterproductive. There is a well established phenomenon called moral crowding wherein providing incentives for good behavior can actually make that behavior less pervasive. It's counter-intuitive, but sometimes offering a tangible reward in addition to a moral argument causes people to act less moral because they begin to think about the moral question in risk/reward terms. "Is the reward good enough for me to bother doing the moral thing?" Some people will answer this question, "no" and act immorally or amorally  when they would have otherwise done the right think if given a simple moral appeal and asked them the question "should I do the moral thing?"

So asking people to behave decently in exchange for tournament points could conceivably cause them to act less decently. And in fact, I'd argue that the people we should be most concerned about are the most likely to be able to exploit a sportsmanship scoring system. Narcissistic/antisocial types are probably the most likely to angle shoot if not actively cheat. Narcissistic/antisocial types also tend to be superficially charming, which is exactly the attribute that both provides excellent misdirection from subtle cheats and is more likely to get you good sports scores. When they do get caught in a cheat, they are more likely to be able to get you to believe that it was an accident because you already like them and they've put you at ease. People like this often get away with cheating for a long time until people become aware of the pattern, recognize the name and approach any games with that player with active vigilance. 

Consider the following two players:

• Player A: Introverted, shy, doesn't talk much. Occasionally becomes annoyed or upset when losing but not to the point of causing any real disruption. Plays the game cleanly.
• Player B: Gregarious, fun, but frequently absent-minded. Fast and loose with dice rolls, but errors in reading dice are explained away as honest mistakes. Tends to interpret rules in his own favor or "forget" FAQ/errata rulings that are not in his favor, but quickly backs down if challenged and apologizes. 

Player A may be less pleasant to play against and will almost certainly suffer more from sportsmanship scoring, but does he really deserve it? Player B is more likely to score well even if he does get "caught" because his explanation is understandable and fits with his demeanor. However, Player B is exactly the kind of player that we need to be most concerned about. Some "Player B" types will absolutely be making honest mistakes and are just fun but careless people. Some, however, are sharks that know that they can repeatedly get away with cheating if they are a fun opponent and those errors are absolutely intentional.

Sportsmanship scoring is basically useless for distinguishing the honest "Player B" from the dishonest one, and in fact it can actively hinder that process. A dishonest Player B can point to a history of high sportsmanship marks as evidence of his innocence, which will allow him to get away with his tricks much longer than he otherwise would. 

[Dead Scribe]

Communication and personal likability are a major influencer in everything we do in life.  May not be fair, but its the way humans operate.

[Overread]

Aye but the purpose of Sportsmanship isn't to reward those with a likeable personality, but to discourage bad sportsmanship behaviour within the community. The goal itself is good an the idea of using a reward to encourage rather than a punishment is a very sensible idea. Accepting that most of the time you're looking to just shore up good behaviour and discourage a little bad - whilst those who are utterly abysmal in behaviour would likely be ejected before the tournament is over (and thus wouldn't even feature in the scoring system). 

The concept is neat, the idea can work but it needs adjustment to be practical.

[Mephisto]

That's the thing, Dead Scribe, *life doesn't have rules. Games do.

*Asterisk Explainer: Obviously there are laws, physics, and even societal decorum and such. What I'm talking about is the philosophical sense of the word, "life." The whole "life's not fair" defense people go to is what I'm calling out. The point of games, whether the non-competitive D&D or Street Fighter V or MTG, is to have a rubric of commonality that favors no one.

Amysrevenge highlight at the onset of this discussion, what is the objective of a sports score? Is it to deter cheating, is it to encourage people be sporting, and so on. The system as it stands is inadequate for even its objective and furthermore lacks in consistency as it is enforced and utilized across all tournaments - some of them using it for tiebreakers, others weighting it more heavily than actually playing the game, and so on. It is a game. We have the power to mitigate the human element. 

And I say literally all of this (here and above) as someone who values the social aspect of the game. That social aspect is a reason I love this game over a lot of my other competitive vices. Being social during this game is a necessity of it. You don't need some scale of varying relevance to force people to be social and disproportionately favor people that took speech class or happen to know the difference between "I statements" and "you statements" or when it's appropriate to phrase your reprimand as a question rather than a statement.

I am an amiable, fun individual with social prowess (verbose as I may seem here) but there's no reason I should score higher than anyone else by virtue of that fact alone. And there's certainly no reason I should score lower because one of my opponents, who was having loads of fun when he was winning "suddenly" lost and he wants to make sure he punishes me when I move onto the higher table. 

[Dead Scribe]

To be honest, like any real athletic sporting event, teams or athletes aren't scored on their sportsmanship.  I don't think sport scores have a place in tournaments, just like I don't think painting scores have a place in tournaments.  I think that the idea of having referees walking about and yellow/ red carding poor behavior is more the way to do it.  

Sport scores are just another way to game the game and aren't really an indicator of a person's sportsmanship.  I've seen people get tanked for beating someone, I've seen people get tanked for not being part of the clique, and I've seen really bad sports get ranked high because they were part of the clique.  

I've seen enough of that to feel that the scores are bogus and they don't do near what people want them to do (encourage good behavior).