The "Do no harm" Tournie soft scoring methed

[MOZZ]

Jwolf's article got me thinking about soft scoring in tournaments. There are a lot of people who think that tournies should just come down to the win/loss record which is perfectly good, this discussion does not apply to them. Please, for the sake of focus, limit this discussion about how to make soft scoring work for those of us who would like to include sportsmanship, composition, and painting in our tournaments.

Everyone knows that soft scoring is open for abuse. How many of us have won a battle only to get sucker punched on our comp or sportsmanship score? This is because by putting the power to punish in the players' hands we've given them the weapon for revenge. Here's the problem in plain English and large font:

Any scoring system that allows you to punish your opponent will be taken advantage of by asshats for personal gain or revenge.

Instead of giving players the ability to punish each other in the scoring system we should give them the ability to reward each other. Here's an example of what it might look like for the sportsmanship category:

Was your opponent an excellent sport, fun to play with, courteous, and helpful? yes or no

Total up the number of yes answers each player got and that is the player's score sportsmanship score.

This will work better than a system of punishment because the only people being called out are the excellent sports. For example, I am a tense player and a little too competitive. I don't cheat or get 6.5 inch charges or anything but I'm not always helping my opponent have a good time. I may not be a bad sport but I wouldn't call myself an excellent sport either. If I graded myself in this system I would answer no to the question above. I'd also say no if I ran into a guy that was a jerk. However, if I ran into a guy that was able to put me at ease, discuss rules politely, and have a fun game, for that guy I'd answer yes. Even scoring one point should be a compliment. If you score two or three, now there's a guy worthy of the best sportsman award. You can bet that the guy muttering under his breath, whining at every roll, and slow playing is not going to score one sportsman point from anyone, let alone the two or three needed to win.

With necessary modification this could be a way to separate the excellent players from the bad and the average. Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction?

[Aldramelech]

I would say that scoring has to be removed from the players totally, It wont work any other way.

[crazyredpraetorian]

I agree. It doesn't matter if your opponent has the ability to "ding" you or not "reward" you. The result is the same, you lose points..... points that can be the deciding factor in how you place.

[Culven]

I think that soft scores are important to Hobby-focused Tournaments, but they must be implemented correctly. Unchecked subjective scoring (such as Sportsmanship and the dreaded "was this army balanced") should not be allowed. Objective things such as a checklist for painting are fine to leave to the players. Compostition could also be a checklist (did the player have more Troops choices than HQ, Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support combined? Y/N). Sportsmanship should probably be an overall vote system (Who was your favorite opponent? Second Favorite?). Give each first favorite 3 points, second favorite 1 point, then tally all votes. Highest gains X bonus points, second Y, third Z added to their overall score.

[Aegis]

The best solution is one that more tournaments do not have the man power for... That would be have judges evaluate sportsmanship and composition.

Composition could be done at entry. Set up your army for the judges to examine with the army list next to it, and have them judge it before the first game. For sportsmanship, that is the hard one, as my theory would involve the judges randomly observe a game and make the call.

Again, logistical nightmares...

[jimbobjeff]

I'd make good sportsmanship the minimum expected of everyone at the tournament and not award points for it. A simple yes/no tick box on the score card with no points awarded, if someone ticks no then a referee gets involved and asks why, giving both players chance to explain their reasons, then imposes a penalty if they believe the player truely was a bad sport.

I would also say however that if the referee believes the player was a good sport and the other player marked them down out of spite, revenge etc then the penalty is given to the other party.

[DarkLink]

The problem is that in a system that attempts to reward opponents, the same poor sports that would punish their opponents will simply not reward their opponents in the new system, ultimately having the same result as a punishment system.

[Chumbalaya]

Ideally you would have judges walking around, getting involved, and watching for sports. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. I'd recommend a simple yes/no tick box "Was your opponent a good sport?" If yes, no harm, no foul and you carry on. If either player ticks no, they will have to explain it to the judges and any issues will be resolved before the next round. If somebody gets marked no, they are watched in the next round. Getting marked down again gets you kicked or docked points, provided it is legit.

Painting and Comp should not affect overall standings, but awards should be offered for best painted, best army, best sportsman and all that, ideally just as big a pot as the actual gaming. That encourages people to bring well painted armies, not be dicks, and bring interesting or themed armies. The competitive cream will rise to the top, but you can still make a good showing other ways.

[Vash113]

Actually at the SGI Charity Tournament I attended a while ago they did Sportsmanship in an interresting way. Basically you had 4 opponents and 4 slots. You put your opponents in a rank from 4 being the best and 1 the worst. So you couldn't just give 0 points to all the opponents who beat you, you had to rank them and even at the worst they still got at least 1 point.

I actually disliked this system a little bit because I would have liked to have given 3 perhaps even all 4 of my opponents top marks. For the most part they were all respectfull and easy to get along with and the few times we ran into problems we cleared them up fairly quickly and effectively and didn't even have to bother with the dice off stuff.

However what I did like about that system was it wasn't a reward/punishment system per say, it was much less easy to abuse and I actually had to think hard about how I was going to rank each individual I played.

Amusingly enough I got a 75% sportsmanship score in that tourney, heh.

I tend to prefere "Soft Scoring" Tournaments, they tend to be more fun and less brutally competetive though I think the biggest thing is whether or not the guy who wins 1st place with an unbeaten winning streak is really the tournament winner. At the charity tournament the ranking was important but there were also equal if not better prizes for the best sportsman and the top painting scores. Basically meaning that being the most brutal and competetive guy wasn't going to ensure a nice prize as it does at some tournaments like Ard Boyz which IMO are really only guaranteed of bringing out the "beard" in everyone.

[TSINI]

maybe the points could be dependant on what you gave each other rather than just on what you got marked yourself.

so a simple "was your opponent a good sport?"

1. not at all
2. not very
3. yes
4. yes brilliantly

so if you give your opponent a 4, and they give you a 1 through spite, firstly the judges would be suspicious of such a difference in oppinion, and secondly, if you take the average (rounded up) it comes to 3. in special circumstances the judges could deem that if the players give completely opposite results, the generous player gets the best score, and the player who voted low gets no points for attempting to spitefully ruin the voting system.

[mkerr]

I talk about this a bit on the Flywire (http://flywire.tumblr.com) -- and I have a suggestion for solving the Sportsmanship delimma. I'd love your feedback -- especially feedback from anti-soft score readers.

Here's the link: http://flywire.tumblr.com/post/188834251/soft-score-solutions

-- mkerr