warhammer Sportsmanship, what do you think?

[Simon]

After fluffycon, I noticed a large number of people didn’t get full or good sportsmanship score. So I just want to start a thread to talk about it and see what people think about it.

Personally, I never pay too much attention to sportsmanship, I never docked anyone any points off sportsmanship before because I would feel really bad if I do so I’m usually VERY reluctant to do that even though the game went really shitty. I know many people think the same way as I do.

Out of 6 games in Fluffycon I had 1 really crap game, I knew he would dock me 1 or 2 points off my sports but at the end I still felt really reluctant to not give him a “5”, NOT because he deserves a 5 but just because I was being very generous and try to be friendly. (I would give him a 2 or 3 if I really follow my true feeling)

I mean seriously, some of us are there to just to have a good time, pulling some toy soldiers around, have a cup of tea and try to have some fun. And there are some players like to measure to the nearest millimetres and pick on any tiny little mistakes people made or sneakily take points off other player just because the game didn’t go their way.

My question is:  Is the current sportsmanship system really doing what it supposes to do?

Are those players who receive full sports score really all deserve full sports, and are those player who didn’t receive full sports really don’t deserve full sport?

Nevertheless, this got me thinking for a bit, but in the future, I think I will do things differently, if I ever encounter another player who gives me a shit game like the one I had in Fluffycon, I would guarantee dock him a few points in sports.

[Vaul]

Perhaps sometimes people are resentful that you're more successful than them at something they care about.  It looks like the podium winners really made some enemies!


In the games that i've played against you personally, i've noticed that you are a little more pedantic than most other players I face with movement, and quick to defend yourself when a rules problem arises.  You should probably make sure you slow down a bit when rolling your dice so that the other guy can see what is going on before you pick them up again, and move your units around in a way that is as clear as possible with your opponent watching.  But I think that comes with being an experienced player that wants to compete.  I think that you play a fair game and i've never docked you on sports at all, myself.

People usually lose sports on the same sort of stuff;

* Taking a long time to play, taking un-necessarily long breaks and longer than usual to resolve easy rules ambiguities or position/arc/sight calls.  One of the best remedies to this is practicing a lot with your list before the event, so that you know what to do more often and can spend your thinking time while the other guy is moving his stuff.

* Standing up for yourself when you believe that your own interpretation of a rules disagreement is correct.  Its really easy to focus only on the actual arguments and reference to the rules while forgetting that you're dealing with another human being, where body language and tone of voice are everything.  When you're so occupied with what you're trying to explain sometimes a person can't help but come across in a very antagonistic way.  Sometimes it is as simple as saying "Lets make sure we read the rules properly" instead of saying "you're being a d1ck about this" - which you might feel means the same thing at the time, but it makes a big difference for the other guy.

* Forgetting important rules when it is your responsibility to recall all stats and abilities even in situations where it gives your opponent an advantage.  Whether it's intentional or not, it makes people feel cheated when they found out that they should have had an advantage, but their opponent failed to tell them for some reason. 

In your case simon I don't think you run into problems in those three areas but as you can see it doesn't take much for these situations to arise, even accidentally.

Thanks for the killer game today!

- Luke

[Simon]

No problem Luke, it was a good close game, there will always be some minor problems in a game but we resolved it quite smoothly so it was all good. The crap game I had was a lot more unpleasant.

I think one of the problems I have is that I am quite familiar with all the fantasy armies and the rules, so if I made a mistake or forgot something which in result gives me advantage over my opponent, he would think I did it on purpose.


Maybe I should stop being a smart ass.  

[Vaul]

I remember at archenemy we nearly had an argument about a situation that shouldn't even have arisen because we both overlooked a very basic rule.

My chaos chosen with characters were in combat with your saurus block with characters, and your saurus hero with stubborn hat had declined a challenge and been sent to the back rank.  I killed everything else, leaving him sitting in the front rank when it was time for my chaos lord with great weapon to strike.  We weren't sure whether the chaos lord could now strike your saurus hero even though it was his turn to fight and they were in base contact, because he'd declined a challenge and been sent out of combat.

...but then daryl came over and pointed out that it was me that had the choice of which character to send to the back when you declined a challenge, not you (as we'd played it) and I could have sent your BSB to the back and just killed your guy with the stubborn hat anyway.  So there was no need to go look up rules on it, we'd just been playing through the game too quickly and didn't take care to observe the basics. 

Stuff like this probably happens all the time in games where sports points are a factor.

[Glenn Patel]

Note that Dave's Sportsmanship pack said that 'I expect most people to get 4 out of 5, not 5 out of 5'. So people were TOLD not to give a 5 out of 5. ('only give a 5 if you'd consider them for best sports vote' was the rule of thumb iirc)

As for whether sports is doing something right... what is it trying to do?

[Vaul]

I must be looking at the wrong players pack then.  The one i'm reading uses the 5 point checklist system and requires players to explain anything less than a 5.  Earlier today at the event I recall being asked to specifically pick a couple of people to give 'best sports' votes to apart from the mandatory 5 pointer. 

does the document you have show this line?

So from the 6 games a player could possibly (and should reasonably expect to) receive 30 sports points (perfect score).

[Fujin]

I've been thinking about this myself Simon - I think you raise a valid point.

One of my greatest frustrations at this event was that, despite trying so so hard to write a comprehensive players pack and designing battle/sports scoring sheets with all the required info on the back of each scoring sheet, I was consistently asked questions I should never have been asked. It upsets me to think I'm so naive in this area - fancy expecting players to use their eyes and read the players pack!

@ Luke - you are correct sir. I felt you should reasonably expect to get a perfect score if you weren't a douche.

@ Glen - YOU are correct sir! On the back of the scoring sheet I explicitly reiterated each question with a note that a 4/5 is what most players would probably get and a 5/5 is probably someone looking for your sportsmanship vote.


I firmly believe that both are possible. I don't think all players have the social skills, empathy and sense of accountability to their opponent to get full sports.

@ Simon - about half the field received full sports. I'm not convinced however that everyone was necessarily in the same boat as you - "I'll just give him 5 because I'll feel bad if I ping him". I would have preferred that everyone took Glen's approach (the approach I requested) and honestly answer the questions I posed in the Sports section. Would you honestly want to play him again? No - ping. Did he do anything dodgy (and yes, this is subjective but seriously and honestly you know he either did or did not)? Yes - ping. Were rules questions resolved easily or did you have to call the TO over to ask a bunch of ass questions that as veteran players you should never have been required to ask? No, lots of questions/arguments etc - ping. Suddenly that opponent gets 2/5. They get 5-6 rounds of that score and they drop 15-18 points. THAT is a massive difference at the end of the event.

You should have to try really hard to make sure your opponent has a really good game - whether or not they win or lose. I don't believe all players give a damn though and that's a major issue


So to answer the question - no, I don't believe Sportsmanship does what it's intended to do (and it didn't entirely work how it should have at FluffyCon). But I'd never in a million years attend an event that doesn't have some capacity for players to judge their opponents behaviour. Remove that (even slight) measure of accountability and you're asking for a world of trouble in my opinion.

[Simon]

@ Simon - about half the field received full sports. I'm not convinced however that everyone was necessarily in the same boat as you - "I'll just give him 5 because I'll feel bad if I ping him". I would have preferred that everyone took Glen's approach (the approach I requested) and honestly answer the questions I posed in the Sports section. Would you honestly want to play him again? No - ping. Did he do anything dodgy (and yes, this is subjective but seriously and honestly you know he either did or did not)? Yes - ping. Were rules questions resolved easily or did you have to call the TO over to ask a bunch of ass questions that as veteran players you should never have been required to ask? No, lots of questions/arguments etc - ping. Suddenly that opponent gets 2/5. They get 5-6 rounds of that score and they drop 15-18 points. THAT is a massive difference at the end of the event.

Yeah, it really got me thinking too, if i ever have to play someone like him again (hopefully not anymore in the future), i will definitely take Glen's approach and ping him accordingly so he will also realize he is also not the most pleasant player to play with.

[omegakai]

I normally always give a5 out of 5.
Sportsmanship in my book doesn’t relate to Rules arguments.

Gloating and swearing = less sports mark
aruging about the rules = no bearing on the score.

5/5

[Derick]

A lot of it comes down to attitude.
You are playing in a competition. The idea of competition is to beat the other guy.

I think its pretty simple really:
If you get beaten and you can walk away from the table having enjoyed the game. Give him good sportsmanship.
If you get beaten and feel ugly, don't.
If you win and feel happy, you can afford to be generous.
If you win and haven't enjoyed the game, don't.

You can't tell anyone what their opinion should be. The whole thing is incredibly subjective.

As a rule some people give full marks to all their opponents.
Other always mark their opponents down, to make themselves look better.

There are many theories to scoring sportmanship:
It was once thought to grade people scores. take the average and the score awarded is the difference from the average

That way if a player always awards 5's, he's actually giving zeros
a player that awards 2's 3's and 4's is giving -1, 0 and 1 respectively

Another one was, you did the sports scoring at the end of day and had to rate each player against the others that you played, as 1, 2 or 3

[Glenn Patel]

Just FWIW, at other tournaments I usually give out 5's; it was Dave's sports checklist saying '4's should happen' that got me to give out lower than normal scores.

[nik_]

I think the majority of players that lose sports points do so because they cannot argue well.
I overhear arguments where rules discussions get very heated, very loud, and very angry.
I would suggest that next time you feel the need to question someones interpretation of a situation or a rule, you approach it very very carefully.
Saying 'No, that's wrong!' or 'You can't do that!' immediately puts the other player on a defensive upset footing. An alternative approach would be to say 'Hey, so why is it that you're hitting on 3's instead of 4's?' or 'Hang on, could you explain how that works please'.

My approach is that as soon as a rules issue comes up, where my opponent is vociferously arguning that they know the right way, I grab out the rulebook and say' ok, cool, let's look it up'. That way there is (usually) no room for argument - the words are there in black and white, and both players can read them. Sometimes I'm wrong, in which case I'll say 'Wow, bugger, I've been playing it wrong all this time, thanks for pointing that out'. If my opponent has raised the issue in a nice polite manner then that is very easy to do. If they've pi$$ed me off by ranting about my stupidity, then it becomes much harder.

[Glenn Patel]

Listen to this man. He gets 5's and a best sports vote easily, despite having some rules wait-whats.

[Vaul]

I got pinged on sports less and less the more tournaments i've attended, and I think the trick is to be conscious of the minefields. 

Whenever I see a situation where giving my opponent the benefit of the doubt isn't going to change the course of the game I try to do so because it sends a message that i'm not trying to gain every little advantage I can, just for the sake of being right.  When a rules issue arises and there is a lot at stake, its best to suggest TO intervention as politely as possible, because that way a lot of the accountability is shifted away from the players, and nobody can dock sports from the TO of course.  That way it is a matter of obtaining a ruling rather than working out who is 'right' which turns out to be a very emotional, personal and polarizing thing that then leads to sport score losses.

[Josh]

I of course have been to my share of tournaments over the years (and hopefully many more) and am also experienced in taking and giving out sports hits (I think I got sports hit once or twice, lol).

Here are the problems I see with the current system:

1) Personal biases.
How do you sports hit a mate? I've done it, and it's a lot tougher than some random person you're not going to see once a week. What if you have to play against someone you really don't like? I can think of a couple of times where I have honestly answered the question 'Would you want to play this person again?' with a no, and to play them again would almost certainly detract from my tournament experience.

2) People don't know what's expected of them.
Not a lot is discussed about tournament etiquette and how a person is expected to behave (beyond the normal don't be a dork). Do I hit someone for using a rubber tape? What if they swore at me? What if they refuse to play in a timely fashion? People can also not be expected to read the players pack and nut out how the scoring system works... unfortunately.

3) Heat of the moment.
Scoring is undertaken at the end of the round, and usually done in conjunction with battle scores. Everyone knows this can lead to peer pressure after seeing what others have written. Also, the frustrations over being cheated/wronged are still very fresh in one's mind.


I have in my mind some ideas of how to improve the current system, but may keep these to myself for now.

Also, great points Luke ^^

[richardbarby]

the systems and processes for sports are fine its the people and personalitys that cause issues

as captain soft scores said its people not being able to argue/ communicate with each other very well that leads any sports problems

[daemion]

40k perspective...
dunno. i dont play like a prick. that probably helps.no matter what is going on during the game.
 all 6 of my opponents gave me 5 out of 5 full marks for sports and likewise they got 5 out of 5 from me. and 5 out of the 6 guys i played voted me best sport . (and i figured out the dude who didnt give me his vote but hey. so what.) i had never played any of them before and have never had a problem with sports.

my record... that i can remember...
                  2003 nationals fow- tied best sport.
                  2004? fields of blood 40k grand tourney 2nd best sport
                  2005 fields of blood 40k grand tourney best sport.
                  2007 fow gt best sport.
                  2008 fow gt commended sport
                  2009 fow gt commended sport
                  2010 fow gt commended sport/ best sport grumpy daemon 40k.
                  2011 battlecry 40k best sport.

its people who make the game. and i try to make it fun.

[Ry.S]

The system below is from the masters, I used it at OTT.

You can hand out a 0,3,5 with the justification's for each below. But any 0's have to be T.O. checked I wanted to know the reason why someone was taking a 0 so if they asked "why" I would be able to say so and hopefully help them on the way to becoming a better sportsman this may be a little naive on my part but hay.

[0]
Your opponent more than occasionally displayed behaviour you would classify as border line cheating and was not what you expected to face at the tournament. Examples may include they employed a "rubber ruler", applied differing rules interpretation s to their sole advantage, stretched the rules when it suited etc. This score should be handed out only after careful consideration. Also this must be clarified with the T.O.

[3]
Your opponent's behaviour clearly detracted from your ability to enjoy the game. They refused to resolve rules disputes amicably or displayed an unsavoury attitude throughout the game - whether too much gloating when winning or too much bitterness when things didn't go their way. PLEASE NOTE calling over a TO for a rules dispute is regarded as an amicable outcome and should not be punished.

[5]
Your opponent gave you a decent amicable game or better. Your opponent was essentially in line with, or exceeded your expectations of another player's behaviour. Rules queries were decided amicably. Nothing they did detracted from your ability to enjoy the game, other than maybe having beat you but you can hardly hold that against them...

With a hefty sports 20% losing points costs place's.  

[wouster7]

@Ry

Nice and simple and very effective.

[pete dunn]

That Masters system resulted in clean sheets for participants in 40k and Fantasy and one "3" in FoW (which was followed up by the Umpire as it was an outlier).

I felt it gave clear expectations to players and on scoring

[daemion]

sports is EVERYTHING. the rest will follow.

[RoriusMaximus]

War Hammer is Rugby for nerds.  There is often no physical outlet for the ubiquitous male aggression (myself included as my footy days are over) so, therefore opponents try to tackle and bash each other mentally as opposed to physically.
I don't think people are trying to be over competitive consciously, it's just that their hormones betray them!

In addition, I think if the games had an extra half an hour, the pressure would be eased somewhat.

[Fujin]

Interesting theory Rory - I'm not sure how some players would cope with 9 hours of gaming in a day as opposed to 7.5

I think TOs maintain an awareness of their players in that finishing at 5pm (with 1/2 an hour at least of post-day tidy up and chats) still leaves the night wide open for dinner or family time.

Finishing at 6.30pm on the second day... the whole event wouldn't wrap up until around 7.30pm! - stuffs anyone who travelled from out of town.

An alternative could be to just have 2 rounds a day.

[daemion]

true dat fuj... or maybe people should just not play like a-holes and lose the attitude?

[Lezle]

Or maybe smaller points values...

Or maybe:

true dat fuj... or maybe people should just not play like a-holes and lose the attitude?

 

L P

[Vulkaan]

I emailed a massive rant to Dave (in a nice way) about sportsmanship

I think the problem (to a degree) is that a "5" almost becomes the default.

Going, in a way, with the Fluffycon concept I would suggest that a default (and in fact "good" score) would be a 3 for sportmanship. This gives room for those really good games. 4 if you really would play them again, 5 if you organised it / swapped details etc

So in the Fluffycon sense for me -

Game 1 vs Rory  - 3 default + 1 as I would be keen to play him again +1 because we swapped numbers....
Game 2 vs Anon Empire player - 3 default +1 as i would play him again but we didnt go far as to swap details etc
Games 3 vs Paul - playing against a friend is hard to grade so it really becomes a "free 5" unless they are a total dick about things
Game 4 - Some Lizardman dude from Hamilton - 3 default - prob wouldnt play him again but he did nothing bad - so he gets the default "3 -good score"

I guess the current system leaves not room to move up - only down

/end rant

(fyi this is Rob Oliphant for those who played me)

[Simon]

I emailed a massive rant to Dave (in a nice way) about sportsmanship

I think the problem (to a degree) is that a "5" almost becomes the default.

Going, in a way, with the Fluffycon concept I would suggest that a default (and in fact "good" score) would be a 3 for sportmanship. This gives room for those really good games. 4 if you really would play them again, 5 if you organised it / swapped details etc

So in the Fluffycon sense for me -

Game 1 vs Rory  - 3 default + 1 as I would be keen to play him again +1 because we swapped numbers....
Game 2 vs Anon Empire player - 3 default +1 as i would play him again but we didnt go far as to swap details etc
Games 3 vs Paul - playing against a friend is hard to grade so it really becomes a "free 5" unless they are a total dick about things
Game 4 - Some Lizardman dude from Hamilton - 3 default - prob wouldnt play him again but he did nothing bad - so he gets the default "3 -good score"

I guess the current system leaves not room to move up - only down

/end rant

(fyi this is Rob Oliphant for those who played me)

sooo glad I didn't play you, and hope I will never have to play you.  

[Vaul]

That's a bit harsh simon, especially since this was probably one of rob's first events and as you put it yourself, sportmanship scores can get a bit confusing.

Any sportsmanship scoring component is there to encourage players NOT to misbehave, the system is not there to turn the event into a popularity contest.  Which is why I personally think things are ok, so long is there is some system in place at all.

[Vulkaan]

I am not saying that is how I scored sportsmanship

It is a suggestion around balancing it.

[Simon]

I was being sarcastic, please note the little "shock" face at the end.