Most sporting opponent......

[Forrix]

I've been to one tournament that had a best sportsmanship vote. All my opponents were pretty nice so I pretty much just picked one at random. I wouldn't dwell on it too much and frankly I wouldn't really even try to get to sportsmanship votes since I hate overly nice/fake people. Just try to be the kind of person you would want to play against.

[Orsino]

3 hours ago, Kramer said:

Haha came here to add the same two cents. If someone is being a good sportsman only to get the points... 

lets say it like this. The door to door salesman is almost always super nice, but you just intuitively know it’s just for his own benifit. Wouldn’t score him as very friendly because of it. Exceptions of course apply  

But this logic would seem to draw us into an absurd situation where not only is someone trying to judge how sportsman-like their opponent was but to make a judgement about whether their opponent was a "true" sportsman or just after sportsmanship  points.

It all seems a bit silly to me. I totally understand wanting to incentivise not being an arsehole but fundamentally it's a contradiction to award people points for not seeking points at any cost and it turns simply being a gentleman into some weird quantified mini-game.

[Kramer]

20 minutes ago, Orsino said:

But this logic would seem to draw us into an absurd situation where not only is someone trying to judge how sportsman-like their opponent was but to make a judgement about whether their opponent was a "true" sportsman or just after sportsmanship  points.

It all seems a bit silly to me. I totally understand wanting to incentivise not being an arsehole but fundamentally it's a contradiction to award people points for not seeking points at any cost and it turns simply being a gentleman into some weird quantified mini-game.

Oh, I fully agree! It’s absurd that we feel/need sportsmanship’s points to encourage sportsmanlike behaviour. 

But  people draw the lone between being competitive and sportsmanlike different. In a lot of sports you have a lot of rules where the umpire makes the final call within a grey area. Rules can only take sports so far and then referees come in. Not viable or something to wish for at competitive warhammer tournaments. Just a thought I had while writing  

[Bosmer Nightblade]

4 hours ago, Forrix said:

 frankly I wouldn't really even try to get to sportsmanship votes since I hate overly nice/fake people. Just try to be the kind of person you would want to play against.

Yes.  I said in my OP "In all of the above, I've been sincere. One thing i don't want to do is fake interest all in the sake of trying to get a vote etc."

The point of this thread was just to grab perspectives of others.

[amysrevenge]

My ultimate perspective is that there isn't a correct or perfect way to do Sports.  There's a whole bunch of wrong ways to do it, and each TO has to pick the one that the least wrong for them.

[Keldaur]

People confuse what sportsmanship really is.  

Don't bother too much about it as a score. It shouldn't exist, but people continue to tag it into their tournaments for no legitimate reason.

[SwampHeart]

29 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

People confuse what sportsmanship really is.  

Don't bother too much about it as a score. It shouldn't exist, but people continue to tag it into their tournaments for no legitimate reason.

We've seen the negative impact of its removal from a tournament scene so I must disagree that it shouldn't exist. 

[Slayerofmen]

I removed it from my events mid 8th ed and have had less problems then when it was in there

[SwampHeart]

10 hours ago, Slayerofmen said:

I removed it from my events mid 8th ed and have had less problems then when it was in there

40k removed it as well and has spent years mired in issues resulting from illegal lists, slow play, and other cheating related concerns. Most people who have an issue with Sportsmanship have an issue because they've only ever seen a subjective system in place.

[Keldaur]

1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

40k removed it as well and has spent years mired in issues resulting from illegal lists, slow play, and other cheating related concerns. Most people who have an issue with Sportsmanship have an issue because they've only ever seen a subjective system in place.

 

Correct. Because that's how it is used most of the time, the one the OP is alluding to and that's what a sportsmanship score is. 

But you can explain what really changed in your events because to me it sounds like there is poor policing from the judges, rather than the lack of a subjective system making a dent on people's behavior. Obviously, I am just guessing, so don't take it as I am trying to offend, but to get what you really mean as an objective sportsmanship score that a warning/expel/ban system does not fix.

[SwampHeart]

2 hours ago, Keldaur said:

Correct. Because that's how it is used most of the time, the one the OP is alluding to and that's what a sportsmanship score is. 

But you can explain what really changed in your events because to me it sounds like there is poor policing from the judges, rather than the lack of a subjective system making a dent on people's behavior. Obviously, I am just guessing, so don't take it as I am trying to offend, but to get what you really mean as an objective sportsmanship score that a warning/expel/ban system does not fix.

Not sure exactly what you're driving at - that said I've never been to an event with near enough judges to deal with accurate play, let alone policing behaviors. So I don't really think its poor policing from judges (this also discounts the entire debate regarding active versus passive judging). And again a warning/ban system also works but its a stick and it doesn't actually make anyone improve. If you use an objective sports scoring system whereby you reward people for being sporting (which is not a high bar, its basically just being on time and courteous) you get the same thing without immediately moving to an exclusionary method on enforcement. 

This probably bears talking about here and its how excited some people seem to get over the idea of banning or expelling players as a method of encouraging good behavior. There is however a really key point that people seem to forget and that is bans and expulsions are just as subjective as a 'best opponent' system. Unless the judge specifically sees the behavior you are relying on hearsay to make a judgement call (and one that will result in a player wasting or losing money and possibly vacation time). If people are willing to abuse a sportsmanship system (which seems to be the complaint) then they're also willing to abuse a warning/ban system (if they have no respect for the intent of one system then they won't have respect for another). Additionally you have to combat perception in this same scenario, take a look at this year's 40k ATC which had a huge to-do regarding a team being asked to leave. That team feels like they were targeted because they were doing well, others feel like they got away with disrespecting a judge, and others have vowed not to come back if they're allowed to play again. It literally created a no win scenario - the expelled team didn't win, the TOs didn't win, and the community didn't win. Banning and expulsions are no more effective (and in fact are less effective because of issues of perception and communication) than an objective sportsmanship score. 

The entire point of a sportsmanship score is to reward or encourage players behaving in a certain manner (i.e. civilly and respectfully). It is a tool that is used to hopefully curb people's worst instincts and encourage positive play experiences among participants. You don't need an air wrench to do a screwdriver's job - meaning that looking to active judging, penalties, and other systems creates more work for everyone when there is a simpler method. There's no need to go to punishment when you can more effectively engineer the desired outcome through a positive method. 

TL;DR - Bans and Expulsions aren't effective because they are also subjective - objective methods of encouraging good play take less work and work better. 

EDIT: @Keldaur If I missed answering your question I apologize because I genuinely don't understand what you typed. 

[Lemon Knuckles]

Have to say that this discussion has only served to solidify my thoughts even more... sportsmanship scores are problematic.

Look, sportsmanship is an ethos.  It should not be a scored mechanic in the game.  If we want to recognize individuals who exemplify this ethos to spread awareness and positive reinforcement for sportsmanlike behaviors, I am all for it.  But codify it into the scoring system and you are going off the rails.  

And we definitely don't need a scoring system about how well we followed the rules.  We either did, or did not.  And if you are talking about rules enforcement, you are not talking about sportsmanship scoring as most of us understand it, and as it is most often implemented.

[SwampHeart]

1 hour ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

Have to say that this discussion has only served to solidify my thoughts even more... sportsmanship scores are problematic.

Look, sportsmanship is an ethos.  It should not be a scored mechanic in the game.  If we want to recognize individuals who exemplify this ethos to spread awareness and positive reinforcement for sportsmanlike behaviors, I am all for it.  But codify it into the scoring system and you are going off the rails.  

And we definitely don't need a scoring system about how well we followed the rules.  We either did, or did not.  And if you are talking about rules enforcement, you are not talking about sportsmanship scoring as most of us understand it, and as it is most often implemented.

How do we then combat slow play, deal with players not having copies of their list for their opponent, players being unwilling to answer questions about their lists, players effectively playing for the 'gotcha' moment, etc. If we don't encourage the behavior the only other option is (seemingly) to penalize it - what do you think is a fair system for penalizing poor play behaviors? Or do we just ignore those things as a 'cost of doing business'? 

[svnvaldez]

44 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

combat slow play

Chess clocks.

45 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Players not having copies of their list for their opponent

Mandatory upload of list in a readable format to the BCP app upon registration.

46 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

players being unwilling to answer questions about their lists

Call a judge over, players must have a copy of all there rules or they will be automatically judged against.

46 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

players effectively playing for the 'gotcha' moment

If you expect to win you should know what the other players army does and there shouldn't be any 'gotcha' moments. What does 'gotcha' moment even mean? You play dreadwood... yes, they are going to pop up behind you... is that a  'gotcha' moment or just being under prepared and deploying very poorly for the match up.

[SwampHeart]

22 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

Chess clocks.

Incredibly divisive idea that has generated endless hours of internet debate and at a bare minimum can also be used itself as a tool of poor sportsmanship. Not a bad idea but certainly not a concrete, fool proof, or even widely accepted one.
 

22 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

Mandatory upload of list in a readable format to the BCP app upon registration.

You need to be able to provide a physical copy of your list to your opponent IMO. Being able to read a BCP list isn't the same as being handed a copy of the list (because we generally consider it in poor taste to be nose in phone the whole game which you'd have to be if you were checking things on your opponent's list). I don't think having your list uploaded is enough, you should still be bringing a physical copy for each opponent. 
 

22 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

Call a judge over, players must have a copy of all there rules or they will be automatically judged against.

What happens when they're judged against? Do they lose the game or are they given a penalty of some sort - how does this work? I've played against opponents in 40k games who flat out refused to tell me things like the range of a unit's attacks until he used that unit. He didn't cheat and had a copy of his codex to verify but he wouldn't tell me any relevant information about his army unless I was specifically shooting at a unit or he was using it (he told me it was my responsibility to know what's out there). This isn't about not having a copy of relevant rules - its about dealing with a player like the above. 

 

22 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

If you expect to win you should know what the other players army does and there shouldn't be any 'gotcha' moments. What does 'gotcha' moment even mean? You play dreadwood... yes, they are going to pop up behind you... is that a  'gotcha' moment or just being under prepared and deploying very poorly for the match up.

See Tony Grippando at the LVO when he saw his opponent deepstrike and then called to end his movement phase. This is a 'gotcha' moment - he knew what his opponent was doing and why (trying to speed up the play of the game, Tony even helped him measure out his deepstrikes) and then specifically used an in phase mistake to win the game. Is this acceptable? People really misunderstand the concept of a 'gotcha' moment, its not about using an army well. Its about specifically watching your opponent do something that he clearly doesn't mean to (like ending his movement phase before moving any of his units) and instead of saying 'hey deepstrike is at the end of the movement phase' you let him do it and then say 'sorry movement phase is over'. 

[svnvaldez]

See this is the problem with sports scores... We have entirely different views on standard etiquette of play which would probably lead to me giving you a low sports score and you giving me a low sports score. Neither of us are right we just have different views.

A subjective scoring system or a system like 0-5 per game that his open to abuse (the optimal strategy is to give 0s to increase your relative position) just doesn't work.

[JPjr]

25 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

I've played against opponents in 40k games who flat out refused to tell me things like the range of a unit's attacks until he used that unit. He didn't cheat and had a copy of his codex to verify but he wouldn't tell me any relevant information about his army unless I was specifically shooting at a unit or he was using it (he told me it was my responsibility to know what's out there). This isn't about not having a copy of relevant rules - its about dealing with a player like the above. 

I'm genuinely intrigued by this, I think I've asked about it before as I'm not a tournament player, indeed probably about as far from it as it's humanly possible to be in fact, but when it's not just your mates having a few beers and a fun game and you're in proper competitions is it expected that you tell your opponent everything your units can do at any point?

I can see both sides but part of me thinks doesn't that take a huge element out of the game? Like if the game is not just two lines of models charging at it each other at full pelt and smashing into each other in turn 1 or 2, isn't part of it laying traps, setting bluffs and faints to try and lure the enemy out of position to then surprise them and drop the hammer?

 

 

[Lemon Knuckles]

11 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

See Tony Grippando at the LVO when he saw his opponent deepstrike and then called to end his movement phase. This is a 'gotcha' moment - he knew what his opponent was doing and why (trying to speed up the play of the game, Tony even helped him measure out his deepstrikes) and then specifically used an in phase mistake to win the game. Is this acceptable? People really misunderstand the concept of a 'gotcha' moment, its not about using an army well. Its about specifically watching your opponent do something that he clearly doesn't mean to (like ending his movement phase before moving any of his units) and instead of saying 'hey deepstrike is at the end of the movement phase' you let him do it and then say 'sorry movement phase is over'. 

This is the right example to focus on.  Most of the others you have used can be addressed in the rules pack and have nothing to do with sportsmanship scoring imo.

I said before that sportsmanship is part of the Warhammer ethos.  It isn't a mini-game within the game.

I wasn't at LVO, and I don't follow 40k.  But I am very aware of this incident.  Why?  Because it was called out by the community hard.  It cuts right to the heart of what we talk about when we talk about sportsmanship.  And the way the community responded, and the normative pressure that resulted, is how an ethos is cultivated and grown.

• Let me ask you:  Do you think Tony would have acted differently in that moment because he was fearful that Alex would not give him "favorite opponent?"
• Now let me ask you, do you think Tony will act differently if he finds himself in the same situation in the future?

To me, the answers to both are super clear.  And they support the original idea that Sportsmanship scores are great in theory, but bad in practice.

If we really want to continue to support Sportmanship in our community, we should do two things:

Recognize, commend and provide positive reinforcement when we witness it.

Convince Rob at Honest Wargamer to start a weekly "d--khead of the week" segment to call out teachable moments where it lacks.  Hold ourselves up to the standards that we, as a community, aspire to.  We are a very small community in a very niche hobby who all feel strongly about what we as a community stand for.   We are not a mob of conniving rats looking to stab each other in the backs who need to be legislated into being sporting by TOs (well, at least the non-Skaven parts of our community aren't).  

 

[SwampHeart]

18 minutes ago, JPjr said:

*Snip*

I'm not saying that your opponent should tell you this things unasked - but if I asked you 'what's the range on that gun' then you should tell me. Fortunately in AoS I can just use the app to look up your warscroll, not the case in 40k. If you don't ask then you don't know but a game like AoS or 40k has too many units for it to be reasonable to expect your opponent to know everything your army can do just from a statline perspective. That said it is in very poor taste to refuse to tell your opponent basic things about your army when asked (like how far a unit can move or shoot). 
 

17 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

We are not a mob of conniving rats looking to stab each other in the backs who need to be legislated into being sporting by TOs (well, at least the non-Skaven parts of our community aren't).  

If that's the case then why was it Tony Grippando's team that got kicked out of ATC for being poor sports, Tony included? Or did you think the social reaction actually caused him to change his behavior? It didn't - because there were no consequences other than some social shaming. If your goal is to be a cut-throat and win no matter what who cares if people you don't know call you names on social media? 
 

17 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

Let me ask you:  Do you think Tony would have acted differently in that moment because he was fearful that Alex would not give him "favorite opponent?"

Absolutely because they were at a top table in a top 8 cut so he had his entire tournament riding on the line at that moment. Needing a good sportsmanship score at that point would likely have been a HUGE factor in his decision. What he have seen is this behavior is replete in the 40k tournament scene where soft scores are non existent. It isn't like I'm making this up, look at Andrew Gonyo being DQ'd at ACon last year or WZ:Atlanta being won by an illegal list in the year prior, or anything about this year's ATC. 40k does not have soft scores and we have seen the results. 

Do I think the vast majority of gamers are decent people for whom sportsmanship is a non issue? Absolutely. Do I think that's a reason to stop using soft scores so that the few without scruples are free to act in bad faith? Absolutely not. 

[JPjr]

@SwampHeart interesting, thanks.

If only Lord Raglan had been able to ask Liprandi the Russian cannons' range at Balaclava. We wouldn't still be talking about the failed Charge roll of the Light Brigade

[SwampHeart]

3 minutes ago, JPjr said:

@SwampHeart interesting, thanks.

If only Lord Raglan had been able to ask Liprandi the Russian cannons' range at Balaclava. We wouldn't still be talking about the failed Charge roll of the Light Brigade

Slight difference in real life war (for territory, money, etc) and a game we play (in theory) at least for fun. Presumably most wars also aren't fought by opposing armies of equal points either. 

[Lemon Knuckles]

18 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Or did you think the social reaction actually caused him to change his behavior?

The fact that there was a reaction at all is evidence that we're not all a mob of conniving rats.  The reaction validates my belief in the community way more than the incident tarnishes it.  And Tony becomes a martyr to the cause of the importance of sportsmanship... a sacrificial lamb (or rat) offered up as a parable to renew the ethos of community.

22 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Absolutely because they were at a top table in a top 8 cut so he had his entire tournament riding on the line at that moment. Needing a good sportsmanship score at that point would likely have been a HUGE factor in his decision. 

I can't reconcile your world view where everyone is a rat, and yet they are all utilizing the sportsmanship scoring in its theoretical goodness.  If someone is willing to bend the actual game rules, why on earth do you think they would use the sportsmanship scoring rules honestly??  

 

[SwampHeart]

9 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

The fact that there was a reaction at all is evidence that we're not all a mob of conniving rats.  The reaction validates my belief in the community way more than the incident tarnishes it.  And Tony becomes a martyr to the cause of the importance of sportsmanship... a sacrificial lamb (or rat) offered up as a parable to renew the ethos of community.

But it didn't renew the ethos of the community - there are ongoing issues to this day. It changed nothing other than folks getting mad on the internet. Tony got no better and neither did the 40k community as a whole. For your point to be true this would have to be a watershed moment where the community collectively came out of its daze and improved its behavior.
 

9 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

I can't reconcile your world view where everyone is a rat, and yet they are all utilizing the sportsmanship scoring in its theoretical goodness.  If someone is willing to bend the actual game rules, why on earth do you think they would use the sportsmanship scoring rules honestly??  

Because (as I've argued the entire time) we should be asking for a better sportsmanship score. The wrong reaction is just to get rid of sportsmanship all together, the correct reaction is to re-design the tool to eliminate its flaws. Knowing the tire pressure on a vehicle is great, TPMS sensors were bad so they swapped over to using the Wheel Speed Sensor to do the same job with a better result. The analogy follows here - it isn't sportsmanship scores that are bad, its the scoring method used. We shouldn't toss out sportsmanship scores, we should refine the method in which they are employed. 

Also you've specifically misquoted me - I said I only believe a very few people are rats, not everyone. I'd appreciate if you're going to argue with me at least argue with the points I've actually made. My core argument is two fold - getting rid of sportsmanship is bad because it removes any reason for a disreputable minority of players to consider their opponent's play experience and that an objective sportsmanship score is a better system than the favorite player system. 

[JPjr]

11 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Presumably most wars also aren't fought by opposing armies of equal points either. 

or indeed orcs, skeletons and *checks notes* magic space frogs.

[Lemon Knuckles]

23 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Also you've specifically misquoted me - I said I only believe a very few people are rats, not everyone. 

Honest misundertanding.  I was keying off of this:

56 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

If that's the case then why was it Tony Grippando's team that got kicked out of ATC for being poor sports, Tony included?

Which you said in direct response to me saying "we are not a mob of conniving rats..."  The implication to me was that we are a mob of conniving rats.  Not at all my intention to misquote people.

Look, to me it still boils down to "great in theory, bad in practice."  Sportsmanship is something bigger than the game, and reducing it to a scored component of the game itself doesn't seem to accomplish what we'd all want it to do.  I am not saying that sportsmanship is bad.  I am saying that "the better score" that you are chasing might just be a pipe dream.  I don't know of any analogue in another game or sport that has it.  Everything that you've presented so far just seems like extensions of the tournament rules, and not what we usually mean when we talk about sportsmanship.  

And philosophically, it just sort of loses something when its presented as a "means to an end" (e.g. I'm going to do these sporting things so that I can rank higher). 

It's OK if we don't agree on this.  I'm just a guy with thoughts in my head.  I don't know what is right or wrong here, and I am not sure that even applies.