| Author |
Message |
Mordredd |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 07:16 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Too subjective? IMO probably not, but all too often these things are too inconsistently applied by the coaches. Most often due to a failure to read/understand the instructions completely.
I once talked to one of the GW people over the sportsmanship at the 40k tourneys and was told a little of the history of that systems evolution.
They started with a system where you checked series of yes/no sportsmanship boxes to give an overall score. But they dropped this because too many people were clearly not being honest about it.
They then tried the good/average/bad system where your score was the sum over all your opponents (i.e. 2 good + 2 bad = average score). This didn't work because people started to give scores tactically, to damage an opponent who beat you or to deny a rival a higher ranking in a close competition.
Then they went for the pick the best opponent method. This removed most of the abuse which went on but had the side effect of making typically good and down right unsporting behaviour almost indistinguishable. (They rejected picking the worst opponent because they wanted to avoid getting too negative. I think they also rejected the ranking of opponents because they felt that it was unfair on the good opponent who comes last simply because someone had to.)
Seeing this as imperfect they said they were going to test some new ones using the other non-40k/WFB GTs. I don't know if this has filtered trough to 40k yet as I haven't been to the last few GTs but they have now gone on to what they tested at the BB this year. A good/average/bad rating system where you had to receive above a certain number of good or bad to have your score affected. I think this one is quite fair as you do have to have at least 2 opponents abuse the system to affect your score. (And subjectivity becomes less of an issue.)
So what about the best method then? Well I think that is pretty subjective too. At one end of the scale you have people like me who want to see all aspects of the hobby taken into account, including team history if the coach has done one (you can always read it after the game  ). At the other end there are those who only want to see the win/loss record count (not even TD difference, except as tie break perhaps). It is hard to see how these two can be reconciled under a single 'best' tournament set up.
As for painting marks, well it would help if people realised that they don't have to be good to score well (under the GW system). It would also help if people didn't deliberately sabotage the thing on the grounds it doesn't work well, because they sabotaged it. And it would be a whole lot more consistent if people applied the guidelines as written instead of making up their own based solely on the headings. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
mtn_bike |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 12:41 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
|
|
jpeletis wrote:
I gave him the lowest possible sportsmanship points. He didn't violate any rules, but I don't feel it's very good sportsmanship.
Jon
jpeletis wrote: I feel stalling when you have a fast team like wood elves is cheap and a bulls#@te way to win. I gave him the score I felt matched the way he plays the game. My other three opponents played great and they were all fun and exciting games, I wish I could give all three of them the highest ranking I could, but unfortunately, I had to rank them 1 thru 4.
Definition of sportsmanship
1)The fact or practice of participating in sports or a sport.
2)Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.
You admit it was a leagle tactic. You may be right to give the guy a less than perfect score for that tactic, that's your opinion. But in my opinion, since you chose the lowest score because he didn't allow you a chance to catch up sounds like your a sore loser which should have cost you a point or two in Sportsmanship. Not all the games are close and exciting.
OT!
I hope the judges take Sportsmanship scores into consideration when looking at the results. If this guy recieved a bunch of high Sportsmanship scores during other wins/loses and you were the only one to give the guy the worse possible Sportsmanship score and you lost, that reflects poorly on you.
Just food for thought. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
angryrob |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 12:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 07, 2004
Posts: 71
Status: Offline
|
|
Amen,Brother  |
_________________
All Hail Chaos??!!!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jonny_P |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 01:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 899
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: But in my opinion, since you chose the lowest score because he didn't allow you a chance to catch up sounds like your a sore loser which should have cost you a point or two in Sportsmanship. Not all the games are close and exciting.
I recieved one of the highest sportsmanship scores of the tourney. My game with this opponent in question was the least fun of my 4 games and gave him my sportsmanship mark accordingly. Had nothing to do with losing. I really couldn't give two craps if you believe me on that, but it's true. I rated them on fun. Wasting time to close out a half isn't fun. If I did it to someone, I wouldn't expect great sportsmanship scores either. I love close games, win or lose. But that's not why I gave him the low sportsmanship scores.
You aren't going to change my opinion. Sportsmanship is an opinion, there is no right or wrong. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hoshi_Komi |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 02:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 550
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
if the sportsmanship method was you COULD choose ONE opponent to receive a good score and another to recieve a bad score---would you still have given him a bad score?
ie. if all opponents were equal you would give no one the bonus. If you had an exceptional opponent you give him a good score  if you had a poor opponent you give him a bad score 
that's the ? because of the scoring system used, someone had to recieve the lowest score. You gave it to him because of the stall. Easily justifiable due to you were forced to give someone the low score.
The ? is would you still do it if you didn't have to, and I don't think you would have. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jonny_P |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 03:27 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 899
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
| It's tough to say. Probably not, but since I had to it will always depend on how much fun I had (win or lose). This was my first NAF tourney. I have played others, but in the others sportsmanship was a separate award and was not related to the overall score. I thought long and hard about the 1-4 ranking. I really didn't pay attention to how many points each ranking was worth. I thought about the 4 games I played and said Bob (who won top sportsman) was my #1, 2-3 were very fun games, and 4th was this person who stalled and albeit a very competitive game, his attitude throughout didn't evoke as much fun as the other 3. What would you do? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 06:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| In your place, i might have given him top score and no bonuses for the others. I enjoy hard fought games and it sounds like he gave it his all, which is all i really ask for. This probably would have been for me the most fun game of the tournament. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 06:52 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Spazzfist wrote: If the tactic is valid and for a good reason, then you should not be able to fault somebody for doing it.
A long time ago an English cricket team went to Australia to play a series of games. The English tactic (to stop the best batsman in world) was to bowl the ball directly at the batsman rather than aiming at the wicket. This was perfectly within the rules of the game at the time, but I don't believe anyone believes it was sportsmanlike conduct. It was the win at all costs menality revealing itself in the tactics used.
If you feel someone is not playing the game in the right spirit then the sportsmanship score is a way of showing that. If that behaviour shows itself in the tactics they use then why not penalise them?
I don't really see any need for consistency here either. The one thing I'd like to see is people really marking their opponent and not the game, but other than that how people allocate their scores I don't care. There is a difference between getting marked down for winning and getting marked down for winning dirty. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dwarfcoach |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 07:00 PM
|
|
The Best Dressed Man in Blood Bowl
Joined: Apr 13, 2003
Posts: 764
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: In your place, i might have given him top score and no bonuses for the others. I enjoy hard fought games and it sounds like he gave it his all, which is all i really ask for. This probably would have been for me the most fun game of the tournament.
Hmm, I suppose it all comes down to how many tournaments you've been to and what happened...
My best game and player that would score highest in sportsmanship points at the Blood Bowl 2004 was a guy called Andy. I met him on table 1 on game 2 of the event. He was a very friendly, amiable guy who I would've loved to play against with any team, friendly league-play or competitive tourney play. He was a guy who loved the game, was dead chuffed at being on table 1 at the Blood Bowl and bloody well new his stuff. We had a fantastic game, talked about past games/defeats/victories/breasts of the barmaids/guys passing the top table saying 'How did you get here?' etc etc I loved the game and my main regret was not being able to stay longer on the Sunday and chat (I had to catch my lift home).
He beat me. He lined up his men and explained to me (in a very friendly and /matter-of -fact-ly way) that his Vampire, the star player Luther, will do everything in the game. And he bloody well did!! 
The main reason I gave this guy top sportsmanship was because I learnt from him (not something that happens in every tourney game), we got along great and I wanted to play him again! (Again? of course I did, it was only Luther doding into 2 tackle-zones, dodging out and long bombing to a Ghoul that meant he won    )
If you think winning or having a 'fair game' is all their is to BB then you really need to re-think a little. To quote an old school friend of mine;
"Well the goal-posts do move occasionally but you have to admit, its still a game.." |
_________________
Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
224th at The World Cup II
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 07:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| Winning is not important. Having a fair game is not important. Doing everything in your power to win, however, is important. The opponents i most enjoy playing against are those who do just that. I doesn't matter if i won or lost. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 09:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
I think what we are seeing here is what really makes sportsmanship so difficult to fairly assess. Clearly some people have different opinions of what makes for a fun game. In turn then they setermine a sportsmanship score from their own enjoyment of that particular game. So while my style of play may be very sporting to some, to others who are more competetive, like Zombie, it may be seen as an insult to his martial pride.
Shakespeare said it best through the mouth of Polonius: "to thine own self be true". Play like you mean it, but it is your own face that you have to look at after the game. If you are happy with the way you play - then more power to you. Just so long as your style does not spoil the enjoyment for others, I say play on. |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Dave |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 17, 2004 - 03:18 PM
|
|
da Veiz-Prez
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Netherlands
Posts: 895
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
|
|
just a general question ..
IF stalling is not unsportsmanlike, isn't it unsportmanlike to classify the guy who doesn't like stalling and thus scores quickly because HE feels that is more fun for the BOTH of you as an unsportsmanlike person ???
Assuming stalling is not unsportsmanlike (and I feel that way) NOT stalling can never, ever be unsportsmanlike either.
They are both a different way of playing the game and feeling what's fun in the game |
_________________
First ever poster on the NAF site, Former Prez' proverbial pain in the bum and NTO-Netherlands
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Spazzfist |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 17, 2004 - 06:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Canada
Posts: 3953
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Dave wrote: IF stalling is not unsportsmanlike, isn't it unsportmanlike to classify the guy who doesn't like stalling and thus scores quickly because HE feels that is more fun for the BOTH of you as an unsportsmanlike person ???
Huh? |
_________________
#1 Nurgle coach in Canada (formerly the world!)
#1 Snotling coach in Canada
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
garth |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 17, 2004 - 06:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 334
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
IF stalling is not unsportsmanlike, isn't it unsportmanlike to classify the guy who doesn't like stalling and thus scores quickly because HE feels that is more fun for the BOTH of you as an unsportsmanlike person ???
Huh? |
_________________
Garth Elliott
Chesterville, Ontario, Canada
"Ohhhh, what I'm gonna do to you...." Ren Hoek
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
garth |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 17, 2004 - 06:40 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 334
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
