Jump to content

Most sporting opponent......


Recommended Posts

While I feel sportsmanship is incredibly important for the hobby, I can agree that it can be a hard system to balance properly so it's well done. The competitive community, at least at the GT level, almost demands to have some sort of sportsmanship system in place. Unfortunately the issue I've seen is that yellow card/red card systems require an unsporting player's opponent to draw the TO's attention to the problem and most players in the community aren't up for confronting people for pretty much any reason (and there is nothing wrong with this, I'm just saying that it limits the effectiveness of a punative based sportsmanship system like what is used in sports like football).

I don't really know the best way to fix the system though. Numerical rankings of favorite opponent to least favorite opponent, single votes for the most sporting opponent and even surveys all have limits. Heck, in GTs there are plenty of people who drop out of the tournament after day one which means they probably don't even make a vote which could drop some scores even lower.

While incentive to encourage people to bring their best attitude with their best game to the table is laudable, the thing I've seen is that there is no truly good method to handle this sort of thing short of having a TO to moderate basically every game table.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

it isn't sportsmanship scores that are bad, its the scoring method used.

I want to point out that I agree. I would prefer no sports scoring to bad sport scoring (and I think most sport scoring is bad... which makes me come off as I hate soft scores). But when implemented properly I actually think paint and sports are good for an event. 

You just have to 100% assume if the score is set up for abuse (such as 0-5) people will abuse it by giving 0s to alter there placing (even if 0-5 are objective yes or no questions you will still see zeros so make sure you give the TO power to correct them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2018 at 3:01 PM, SwampHeart said:

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. 

I will try harder with my poor English. You implied in a post that the removal of sportsmanship scores reduced sportsmanship in the events you attend to. I specifically answered to that post and you talked about "objective" sportsmanship scores.

Bans and expulsions are perfectly effective at conveying the will of the community on how they define what proper sportsmanship is. That's what ATC exemplified at its finest. Tony even apologized because he knows he was a poor sport and got called out. A sportsmanship score wouldn't have accomplished anything in that regard.

But to come back to the point I was answering to. You talked about objective sportsmanship scores. I am asking you how it would work. Not what you think about other systems, but how would you implement a proper score on sportsmanship which is not an inverse-mirror of a  warning system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 11/9/2018 at 10:12 PM, JPjr said:

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?

 

 

Again I'm not a tournament player but to me it comes down to a couple of things -

1. People handwave a lot of stuff to speed up games, and sometimes accidentally or on purpose this leads to a rule being misapplied. For example, a while back I played a guy who had been shooting at a unit without measuring for range. I assumed this was because his weapons had a much longer range than needed, but turns out he had simply underestimated the distance and would have been out by a couple of inches. In these circumstances it's absolutely important to be able to ask to check a rule. Rather than creating a complex system of when it is and isn't necessary to answer it's much easier to work on the basis that you always answer an opponent's question honestly and fully.

2. To me at least there's a difference between your opponent forgetting something or otherwise making an error that costs them and you holding back information about a mechanic when they've spotted it in time and asked about it. The first is a tactical error whilst the latter is simply not having a book on hand to check. Nobody wants to shell out for every tome, Codex and supplement and lug them to every game on the off chance.

On 11/10/2018 at 12:57 AM, svnvaldez said:

I want to point out that I agree. I would prefer no sports scoring to bad sport scoring (and I think most sport scoring is bad... which makes me come off as I hate soft scores). But when implemented properly I actually think paint and sports are good for an event. 

You just have to 100% assume if the score is set up for abuse (such as 0-5) people will abuse it by giving 0s to alter there placing (even if 0-5 are objective yes or no questions you will still see zeros so make sure you give the TO power to correct them)

To me that's no different to lying about a dice roll or the number of wounds a unit has left - it's cheating pure and simple. I don't assume my opponents would do the either and I'd expect the organisers/community not to tolerate either if it was caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't really guess how you judge sportsmanship objectively if you're one of people playing the game. You'd need a third party to do something like that which brings me back to my point about needing a referee at every table if you want to truly stamp down on poor sportsmanship.

Since we're relying on subjective opinions, if we're going to rely on applying a points system or vote system then there should be a clear statement from the TOs in the materials about the tournament, and even before the first round each day the tournament is run on what the TO wants to see from players. Think of a boxer's reminder of a "good clean fight with no hits below the belt" they get from the ref before a fight starts for more of what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2018 at 12:46 AM, Fulkes said:

I can't really guess how you judge sportsmanship objectively if you're one of people playing the game. You'd need a third party to do something like that which brings me back to my point about needing a referee at every table if you want to truly stamp down on poor sportsmanship.

Since we're relying on subjective opinions, if we're going to rely on applying a points system or vote system then there should be a clear statement from the TOs in the materials about the tournament, and even before the first round each day the tournament is run on what the TO wants to see from players. Think of a boxer's reminder of a "good clean fight with no hits below the belt" they get from the ref before a fight starts for more of what I mean.

Let's continue that boxing metaphor, a boxer is penalised for rules violations rather than being awarded points for how much his opponent enjoyed getting punched in the face. A boxer may win a sportsmanship award but it's going to be awarded for outstanding and notable behaviour such as promoting the sport/giving back to the community/being widely known as a great guy. Making it a routine thing on a match-by-match basis would be silly in boxing and I think it's silly in playing soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2018 at 6:46 PM, Fulkes said:

I can't really guess how you judge sportsmanship objectively if you're one of people playing the game. 

Its pretty simple - you remove the ability to rank opponents and stop asking subjective questions. You ask objectively clear things (was your opponent on time, did he have a copy of his list for you, did he have all relevant gaming materials, did the game reach an organic conclusion, etc). It becomes very easy to spot people gaming the system and it removes your ability to say 'well I lost this game so it was a bad game' because you don't ever get the choice. 

4 hours ago, Orsino said:

Making it a routine thing on a match-by-match basis would be silly in boxing and I think it's silly in playing soldiers.

However when we don't do it in toy soldiers we know the results. I, personally, don't want AoS to move that direction because the result is a very toxic tournament community where getting the win is the only thing that matters at top tables. Being a good steward of the hobby, promoting clean play, none of that matters as long as you get your points for winning a major. Also boxing is kind of a poor metaphor because its a commercial sport with a governing body (both nationally and internationally) with an accepted standard of judging as well as system of bans and certifications. Wargaming lacks both the monetary strength of boxing as well as the organizational governance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

Its pretty simple - you remove the ability to rank opponents and stop asking subjective questions. You ask objectively clear things (was your opponent on time, did he have a copy of his list for you, did he have all relevant gaming materials, did the game reach an organic conclusion, etc). It becomes very easy to spot people gaming the system and it removes your ability to say 'well I lost this game so it was a bad game' because you don't ever get the choice. 

However when we don't do it in toy soldiers we know the results. I, personally, don't want AoS to move that direction because the result is a very toxic tournament community where getting the win is the only thing that matters at top tables. Being a good steward of the hobby, promoting clean play, none of that matters as long as you get your points for winning a major. Also boxing is kind of a poor metaphor because its a commercial sport with a governing body (both nationally and internationally) with an accepted standard of judging as well as system of bans and certifications. Wargaming lacks both the monetary strength of boxing as well as the organizational governance. 

Players are perfectly entitled to concern themselves only with winning-so long as they're within the rules. I hope they will care about other things but that can't and shouldn't be compelled, and as long as they're not cheating or disrupting the tournament I'd be inclined to live and let live. 

If boxing is a poor example because of the scale of the sport let's think of something smaller scale: amateur poker tournaments don't doll out points for not being an ******, neither do marathons, neither does Sunday League football,  neither does almost any activity aimed chiefly at grown-ups. Are wargamers uniquely awful people?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Players are perfectly entitled to concern themselves only with winning-so long as they're within the rules. I hope they will care about other things but that can't and shouldn't be compelled, and as long as they're not cheating or disrupting the tournament I'd be inclined to live and let live. 

This is absolutely the end of our ability to find any common ground. Our hobby is a niche and social hobby which does its best when our events are examples of what it should look like. Tournaments should be aspirational and celebrate all facets of the hobby, not just your ability to make a good list and pilot it. They should just as much showcase the sense of community and sportsman-like play as well as the fantastic talents of painters and creators. If the goal is just to win why are you playing AoS? There are many other games that are better for show casing your skills as a general/player that don't require nearly the overall buy in of a GW game. Also in a game like AoS what exactly is cheating? Is helping measure for your opponent his units coming in from the Celestial Realms and helping to place them only to then say 'sorry your movement phase is over' cheating, even when you knew he was just trying to speed up the game? Or is that just behavior you have to accept at a tournament?

 

32 minutes ago, Orsino said:

If boxing is a poor example because of the scale of the sport let's think of something smaller scale: amateur poker tournaments don't doll out points for not being an ******, neither do marathons, neither does Sunday League football,  neither does almost any activity aimed chiefly at grown-ups. Are wargamers uniquely awful people?

None of those hobbies requires a buy in or time investment like table top minis. Additionally they generally have a much larger group of available players. If someone in your local poker tourney is a ****** its pretty easy to replace him or find a different group, little tougher in your local gaming group. If someone is a ****** in your Sunday league then you've probably lost a couple of bucks and maybe an hour? If someone is a poor sport at a tournament I've traveled to I've lost vacation time and money. Again you're not really making an apples to apples comparison. Wargaming is a pretty unique hobby in all its requirements and eccentricity. So it isn't that wargamers are uniquely awful people (most are great folks I really enjoy spending time with) - its that the capacity the bad apples have to ruin the whole thing is far more outstated that in many other hobbies. 

That all said - I'm done. Anyone come later I've said my piece - soft scores are integral to our hobby because its just much a social experience as it is a game (if you don't agree then MtG is a fine game for you). Ultimately some people don't like soft scores and I get it. Again vote with your feet and wallet, if you think soft scores are killing the hobby don't attend tournaments that use them. I personally won't attend tournaments that don't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys perhaps we should remember that different people enjoy different parts of the game at the same time.

 

to some a competition is a chance to show off and be inspired by painting; others its conversions ;for some its all about gaming. For some its the social side and they really don't care about paints, models or even if they win or lose, its about having a day out with friends and those of a like mind. 

Most people are there for more than one thing, some are there with one thing being their primary focus and not a single one of those I listed (and others as its not a comprehensive list) is the best, is the right choice, is the only choice nor is better or worse than any other. 

 

Trying to fight it down to what people "should" be doing or enjoying at a tournament is going to lead to disappointment and insult. Because you can't turn to those who say they go just to compete and say that  they shouldn't be there. Just as you can't turn to those who are there for the social side and say that they are not living up to the expectations of others by not being competitive minded.

 

 

In the end you can expect people to turn up and be polite, courteous, well mannered; follow the rules of the game; not cheat and follow the rules of the event itself. We expect people to play to a good standard (though as most events are stand alone there's no filtration system barring at the event itself); and many events might have rules such as armies must be painted et c.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key thing im getting from all this discussion, is that a lot of people dont like it because its subjective and they cant therefore work out how to 'win' at it.

But thats missing the huge point of sports awards to me, its an award.  Ive only been playing a while and being a 'sporting opponent' seemed important to me, I play to have fun, and I want my opponent to have fun, AoS is a fun game.  Well blow my sideways when i went and won it at my first local event, and then again at a bigger event. Both times i was humbled and cherish that people had fun playing against me or thought i was a good and fair opponent. 

I cheered heartily at another event when a friend and great person won the sports award, he was shocked but shouldnt have been because he is a great person.  I cheered along at my first major event when someone who i didnt know was announced a winner to a huge cheer from the crowd, because lots of people there obviously knew him and also felt it was great for him to get it.

THIS is what sports is for, you dont need tick lists, you dont need minute criteria, you just need good people to be rewarded for making the event better for them being there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything else you said, except this:

5 minutes ago, stato said:

The key thing im getting from all this discussion, is that a lot of people dont like it because its subjective and they cant therefore work out how to 'win' at it.

I haven't gotten that at all from anyone's contributions to the subject.

In fact, what I get from the conversation is that almost everyone is a lot closer in their opinions than they realize.  For example, I whole-heartedly agree with Swampheart when he says this about our hobby:

32 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

soft scores are integral to our hobby because its just much a social experience as it is a game 

But I disagree about his conclusion.  To me, soft scores end up turning the social experience into a game.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions; great win theory, bad in practice, etc., etc....

Maybe I give our community too much credit, but I think it is stronger and better than that.  I don't think turning Sportsmanship into a separate award, rather than something that is part and parcel of the actual tournament scoring, will suddenly make everyone a d--khead.  Just as I don't think that having sportsmanship scoring be a part of actual tournament scoring will suddenly and magically convert those few d--kheads that do exist.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day there's no tactical advantage to being a ******, and heaps of benefits to going out of your way to be a nice opponent. -Expecting- it to be noted or awarded in your own case is a bit self-defeating (i e: "I behaved well, where's my trophy??"), but having the possibility of it happening can be highly motivating. 

We often hear about Win-at-all-costs type of players that serve as horrid opponents. To be honest, I don't think they're trying hard enough to win if they're being downright douchy, since someone going at it with a hardcore mindset would surely realise that being a good sport affects their overal performance and rating, and should behave accordingly. It's not like you play worse by doing it in a -insert acceptable social behaviour here- manner*.

I often feel "bad sports" players simply aren't trying hard enough, as opposed to them trying too hard, making them bad sports. That's my impression at least. 

I do support sportsmanship scoring, on that note, while I reckognize it as subjective, I think it pays off for consistently sportsmanlike players, and if it doesn't, and it's important to you, step up your game ;) bribe your opponent with candy and songs or something. 

*Some people have social issues and such that prevents them from behaving in an optimal manner. I don't think this falls within "not trying hard enough" as such. Leniency in what we allow in our opponent can sometimes be wise, as it is difficult to always determine the source. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Overread said:

Guys perhaps we should remember that different people enjoy different parts of the game at the same time.

to some a competition is a chance to show off and be inspired by painting; others its conversions ;for some its all about gaming. For some its the social side and they really don't care about paints, models or even if they win or lose, its about having a day out with friends and those of a like mind. 

Most people are there for more than one thing, some are there with one thing being their primary focus and not a single one of those I listed (and others as its not a comprehensive list) is the best, is the right choice, is the only choice nor is better or worse than any other. 

Trying to fight it down to what people "should" be doing or enjoying at a tournament is going to lead to disappointment and insult. Because you can't turn to those who say they go just to compete and say that  they shouldn't be there. Just as you can't turn to those who are there for the social side and say that they are not living up to the expectations of others by not being competitive minded.

In the end you can expect people to turn up and be polite, courteous, well mannered; follow the rules of the game; not cheat and follow the rules of the event itself. We expect people to play to a good standard (though as most events are stand alone there's no filtration system barring at the event itself); and many events might have rules such as armies must be painted et c.... 

I think you've summed up the hobby really well, especially the tournament side of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other thought on the subject of scoring behaviour. 

The assumption that a sportsmanship score makes is that most people desire to score high and thus will behave in a manner conductive to improving their score. Furthermore they will aim to improve their score should they score poorly. 

 

However this makes a few bold assumptions that, this thread and others clearly show, don't work in the real world

1) That those who issue a score do so based purely upon player behaviour in an objective manner. We've hashed that out and beaten the horse to death that a scoring system can be abused, can be unclear and also vary in standards and interpretation of what it means. 

2) That those who score poorly understand what they've done wrong and are thus able to rectify their score. The problem with doing things by a "good/bad" vote and keeping the results basically anonymous (sort of) and with no justification and no confrontation at the end or summary; is that people who score poorly might have no idea why they've done so. Even when there is no alternative agenda going on; those who are displaying poor social skills might not be in a position to be aware why they are scoring badly and thus not being given the awareness to resolve the issue.

Eg lets say someone has really bad body odour; and multiple people score them poorly in sportsmanship for that. That person likely has no awareness (or realisation) about the body odour problem and the low score will thus confuse them. They won't make that connection and might think that they didn't shake peoples hands firmly enough or spoke to quietly or loudly etc... 

It might take a lot of games and events before that person whittles down the issue on their own; or until someone actually confronts them with the specific reason. 

 

 

So if the sportsmanship score is designed to promote and reward good practice; whilst at the same time identify and resolve poor practice then its essentially failing on both ends. The suggestions raised earlier to score people based on specific parameters such as a 1-5 scale can at least be collated and presented at the end of an event.If a person gets a lot of low "tardiness" scores then they can be made aware instantly that turning up 10 mins late to every game and playing on their phone during the match likely is harming their score. Such a method at least gives some basic framework

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JPjr said:

Wait, so now we have to smell our opponents and then rate their odour?

Yes and  we require it ranked in 5 levels of odour. In addition I think we need a layer for perfume choice as well as powerful perfumes can be equally unappealing. And I think we also need to enforce beard measurements too! There's a distinct lack of proper long beards going on and that has to change by setting measuring standards and ensuring that people with shorter beards get lower scores until they get a beard of suitable length! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep saying something like it, but it really has to be like this:

1) Devise a specific objective for sports scores.

2) Come up with specific measurement schemes.

3) Develop a mechanism to integrate the results of the measurement schemes into event reporting/awards.

3) Assess whether the mechanism actually helps attain the goals.

There are several different goals you can go for, and there are mechanisms that can be suited to meeting those goals.  But there is no single mechanism that can meet all possible goals.

There are basically 4 different potential sportsmanship goals:  1) reward the very best sportsmanship, 2) penalize the very worst sportsmanship, 3) encourage the field as s whole to have good sportsmanship, 4) discourage the field as a while from having bad sportsmanship.

There are basically 3 different measurement schemes in the wider tournament scene (let me know if there are more!):  A ) favourite opponent vote after the final round, B ) thumbs up/down for every game, C ) itemized objective checklist.  Note:  I have seen in the past cases where an itemized "objective" checklist also contained subjective questions about fun - this is a scenario where an attempt is being made to combine A ) and C ) , except by trying to do A ) round-by-round rather than waiting for the end.  I would recommend avoiding this.  If you want that subjective element, take it out of the checklist and do both A ) and C ) explicitly.

There are several different integration mechanisms, and these can overlap or bleed into each other so it's hard to quantify them:  i) Best Sports award, ii) yellow/red card system, iii) integrating sports scores round-by-round into overall scores, iv) keeping sports out of overall other than as a tie-breaker.

 

Here's a good example.

Goal:  1) and 4).

Measurement: A ) and C ).

Integration:  i) and iii).

Assessment:  Everything matches up pretty well.  The itemized checklist will specifically discourage poor play, especially with the result included in the overall score, while the favourite opponent votes should do a good job of singling out the best performers.

 

Here's a bad example.

Goal:  1)

Measurement: C)

Integration: i)

Assessment:  Terrible.  Assuming the checklist is a standard list of things everyone should do, you could expect to have 90% or more of your field tied with perfect scores.  Either reconsider your goals, or your measurement, or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really need to get drawn into arguing with the usual suspects again but my event ran this weekend 56 attendees for AoS.  This included multiple members of the US  ETC team - so highly competitive gamers.  

2 part scoring per round yes/no and also rank your top 2 opponents. 

56 gamers, 5 games each.  No one received a 'poor sport' score.  We did have one or two requests to watch someone closely- but we found no evidence of problem behavior with close observations.

Best overall received 2 'favorite opponent' votes which is a compliment to him while doing that he went 5-0 and had the most battle points in the room.  

Best Sportsman winner universally ranked favorite opponent by all his opponents and multiple members of the TO team agreed he was their favorite gamer to have played over the years at other events.   

You pick the system that accomplishes what you want to accomplish as  a TO - and develop a model that works to reach that result.  Different TO's want to accomplish different things.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@amysrevenge I agree with your conceptual framework.   I'd suggest you could reasonably apply it to anything we're including a score for in tournament AoS.  Sports, paint, battle, 'list on time.'   I'd suggest we over estimate our diagnostic accuracy with all the things we measure and take this whole thing a little too seriously sometimes.  

How often does the most skilled player win the award for Best General? Or how often does dice / match ups / terrain mean that the most skilled player in the room ends up with an (or multiple) 'undeserved' loss.     Are paint scores always reproducible from event to event or judge to judge inside of the event?  In my experience as a competitor and a guy judging paint at the large event level for 20 years they are not.  

Really though that's okay - we do the best we can to try and organize events where people can stretch themselves to be better.  Better generals, better sportsmen, better painters.   The tools we have to measure those things aren't 100% accurate.   The goal is to give someone to try and  test themselves against not to pretend we can say with absolute certainty who is absolutely the best (or worst) in the room.     We don't stress about it with Battle just recognizing that the 'Best General' isn't necessarily the best person in the room at playing the game they've got the dice/pairings etc to fall right as well as being highly skilled.  We don't have to beat ourselves up about accuracy with the other items 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...