Soft-scores in Events

[Criti]

@armysrevenge - it has been proven time and time and time again by the top schools, the top companies, and the top dog trainers in the world that regarding good behavior does more to correct poor behavior than attempting to correct poor behavior. 

Perhaps that should be the focus?

[amysrevenge]

18 minutes ago, Criti said:

@armysrevenge - it has been proven time and time and time again by the top schools, the top companies, and the top dog trainers in the world that regarding good behavior does more to correct poor behavior than attempting to correct poor behavior. 

Perhaps that should be the focus?

If it turns out that a carrot rather than a stick is what is required to meet the most important goal, then go ahead and carrot.  But that goal is preventing fistfights and yelling matches, even if the method is to reward good play.

An event that hosts 400 individual games that has 400 perfectly average acceptable games is preferable to an event that has 375 average acceptable games, 24 "OMG best game ever!"s, and one screaming fistfight. 

[Criti]

13 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

  But that goal is preventing fistfights and yelling matches, even if the method is to reward good play.

Thanks for that image.  I really want to see the game that ends in a fist fight now...

I feel like the bystanders need to be shouting encouraging things, such as:

- Missed a punch- YOU CALL THAT A 3+ TO HIT??

- Someone goes down - OH!  THAT'S A FAILED SAVE!

-One person kicks the other while he's down - D3 DAMAGE!  D3 DAMAGE!

Fisthammer.

It's gonna be a thing.

[deynon]

6 hours ago, Auticus said:

I've found tournaments with no soft scores tended to attract the more brutal and cutthroat of people who had no fear of displaying poor behavior because their standings wouldn't be affected.  

I instead found thehard score paint often corrupted (no joke).

The soft points need to have clear precisations (and not requiring a high standard) to be fair and can give all points to everyone. 

 

About sportmanship I've seen so many things about it that I prefer not to see it valued, I prefer when it's given cause some peculiar situations. But value it by points (even thumbas up\down) it's too much personal, better to avoid.

[amysrevenge]

Here's a sports scheme I've proposed in the past.  Flags poor behaviour, rewards good behaviour.  It's scaled to 7 points per game, but could be multiplied up or down accordingly.

This scheme will have a reasonably good chance to sort the best to the top.  Not perfectly, because it's still subjective, but it leaves less room for individual scoring quirks to mess it up.

 

Sports Scores

Please select one of the following three categories for this game.  Please be aware that we will be coming to chat with you for any score of 0 or 7, just to confirm that our expectations for those scores align.

0: Unacceptable.  This game was a nightmare.

5: Acceptable.  This game was fine and dandy.  Anything ranging from "just barely acceptable" to "hey, that was really fun".  We expect that you'll assign this score for most or all of your games.

7: Unusually good.  This game was substantially better than you would expect for a competitive tournament game.  Make sure you don't set your expectations too low - you should expect an average game to be really fun.  We're talking above and beyond here.

 

 

[PhantomPhixer]

  I think part of the problem with "soft scoring" and its effect on tourney scoring comes from people's view of 'subjectivity'.  If we could all just accept the fact that any system that involves painting or sportsmanship is going to be subjective, we could all move on.  

  There is no way to objectively judge painting in any form.  What is stunning to me, might be junk to you.  There can be rubrics, of course, to cover minimum standards, basing etc.  I think anyone in the hobby long enough can achieve the 'bare minimums', so any rubric should cover that as a minimum.  I do not think there is any way to judge beyond that, other than the 'judges' personal opinions.  I for one, do not like OSL, I think very few people achieve it well and it tends to look gaudy.  Another TO might think it's the thing that separates a model from the pack...  We would score that model very differently, no getting around that ever.

  As for sportsmanship, any system is inherently flawed since you have a human judging another human, with all our petty biases.  The best a sportsmanship scoring system can do is weed out a truly obnoxious person, and perhaps reward someone who is very good at making friends.  I got 4 best game votes at LVO, pretty proud of that, but was it because I was handing out podcast dice to everyone?  I like to think I made fun games for everyone (except for Elric, on the stream, where I slow played like a grade-schooler.  I was nervous as hell knowing you were all judging me...  )  I cannot think of a system that would eliminate bias.  The esteemed Mr. Pike ( @Terry Pike ) hit it on the head, too many people are non-confrontational and will not judge someone low, even if they deserve it.  Some people are very outward, engaging and social and will get a high score, even if they play 'not so nice'.  

  With all that being said, I am still very much in favor of a soft scoring system and agree that it should not be differentiated in any way from the rest of the scoring.   What I feel the soft scores should do;

-- Never penalize anyone in terms of points for the tourney, you should only gain from it.  (but if you are so bad that everyone hates playing you, the TO should be handling that!)

-- Reward the total hobby commitment.  Painting, converting, being a good person to play against should all count towards an award (of some kind). 

-- Reward the person who excels in one area over the others (Terrible player, but a great painter, or super-fun-person, lousy painter.)

-- Scoring for these 'intangibles' should never amount to more than a single game victory.  We go to tournaments for many different reasons, but I think deep down, most folks want to test their mettle against others in a fight to win.  I know, I don't go to a tourney to win it, I know I don't have the time to paint and play enough games to reach that lofty status.  I go to have a great time and rank myself against others in my 'class'.  Hopefully not the bottom, but not the top.  

  I would hate to see a system that rewarded the intangibles over the playing of the game to the best of ability.  Yes, that means 'filthy' lists and hard-core game play will never be penalized by me.   I will mark someone down who is a jack-wagon during the game, though.  (I haven't had that game yet, though, AoS players are an awesome lot!) 

  So, to summarize this overlong rant, I think we need to leave the idea that "subjectivity in a scoring system is bad" behind.  There will always be subjectivity as long as two humans are involved.  What we need is systems, meditated on by TOs, that achieve the goal they want for their tournament.  We, the players will decide, over time, what is most suitable and a standard will emerge.  I like the GW approach of needing a best opponent vote.  It's simple and can be done without exposing yourself, if you're shy' to an awkward situation.  It may not be the best, though...

 

 

[thediceabide]

32 minutes ago, PhantomPhixer said:

 Lots of stuff...

Hey Bill, glad you took a look!

For me the concept of the Painting/Sports rubric was to enforce some sort of minimum standard of play, and be supplemental to the proper, subjective scoring traditionally used for best painted/sports. People should always show up on time, prepared, and hopefully be familiar with their own rules, so those points aren't meant to really be a reward, but more to help keep a minimum level of play. Similar with the painting rubric, try and get people to at least maintain reasonable appearances. If the highest score rubric isn't much more than a simple GW method of base-wash-highlight, plus basing material, you'd at least have something better than the "3-color minimum" that doesn't do a whole lot.

I would never recommend using only a rubric, for the same reasons you mention. The Best Painted/Sports award should totally be based on real judging instead of who checked the most boxes.

[Sleboda]

My system was to just ask two yes/no questions:

1) This opponent was a total ****.  Y/N

2) This opponent's army was total BS. Y/N

 

In a 5 game event, if you got more than 3 total Yes votes, you were out of the running.  If you got more than 6, you were asked to not come back.

[RuneBrush]

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

My system was to just ask two yes/no questions:

1) This opponent was a total ****.  Y/N

2) This opponent's army was total BS. Y/N

 

In a 5 game event, if you got more than 3 total Yes votes, you were out of the running.  If you got more than 6, you were asked to not come back.

Think that this could easily be exploited - I have a bad game so give my opponent two yes votes, I then speak to half a dozen mates also playing who decide to back me up so there's a high chance of that opponent being asked not to come back if they play a couple of them.

It would equally penalise a player who's been advised on his list - and unknowingly brought along a horrendously powerful army.

That said, your system would highlight potentially poor players for investigation.