Bloodbowl mentality - please read

[Darkson]

Well, it can't be the zimmer - with his hips, he can't move under his own steam (unless he's finally had them replaced).

[Old Man Draco]

(I want one of these when I get to Draco's age!
)

Wall-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[Dave]

oh dear, who let him out

[hoomin_erra]

They must have reduced the medication. He's concious!!!

Watch out, here comes the Blue rinse Brigade!!!!!

[DoubleSkulls]

Hmm, I'd see another way of doing things as scoring out of 5. 3 is average, and each coach is only allowed to give out a single 1 and a single 5. This is the system that I am told is used to great effect in Aussie Warhammer tourneys (See, I SHOULD plug the PodHammer podcast here, as that's where I heard of it).

Makes people really think about how they award the sportsmanship scores. Oh, and have them all scored at the end, so you don't give away your 5 in the 3rd game and then play someone who is a MUCH better opponent in the 4th.

That looks sensible, but without seeing how the sportsmanship affects final tournament score the mechanism for collecting sportsmansip scores really is secondary.

[thechosengobbo]

Hmm, I'd see another way of doing things as scoring out of 5. 3 is average, and each coach is only allowed to give out a single 1 and a single 5. This is the system that I am told is used to great effect in Aussie Warhammer tourneys (See, I SHOULD plug the PodHammer podcast here, as that's where I heard of it).

Makes people really think about how they award the sportsmanship scores. Oh, and have them all scored at the end, so you don't give away your 5 in the 3rd game and then play someone who is a MUCH better opponent in the 4th.

That looks sensible, but without seeing how the sportsmanship affects final tournament score the mechanism for collecting sportsmansip scores really is secondary.

I've been giving it a little thought. If you don't want sportsmanship to REALLY affect the results by much, or if you're using a low scoring system (something like 6pts for a win, 2pts for a draw, 0 for a loss) then you can reduce the sportsmanship score to a 0pt, 1pt, or 2pts approach (or a 1-2-3), rather than a 1 to 5 approach, and just add the sportsmanship score straight on to the persons current tourney score. This means that someone scoring constant averages can expect to score 6 extra points over 6 games, and the really sporting coaches get 12, while the douchebags get 0.

A 6pt difference should help keep the worse coaches behind in the rankings at the end (though given the toruneys I've been to, no-one will be using the lower spectrum here), while giving the brilliant sportsmen a bit of a leg up.

On the other hand, with a system giving 12pts per win, 6pts per tie, and 0pts per loss, the above would be a little pointless, so I'd go back to the 1-5 approach. Just make sure that people know that 5 and 1 can only be awarded once, and that 3 IS the average (ie they should only be awarding a 4 if the guy was almost as good as the person getting 5). Again, add the scores straight onto the tourney score, and it *should* impact the results, without excessively changing them.

The important thing, is to not let sportsmanship dominate (I don't believe it would here, but I've not run the numbers fully yet) whilst not letting it drop into the category of useless.

[DoubleSkulls]

So the thing that I do that is different is that there is a penalty for very low sports, but no benefit for high sports.

Also what sort of difference is there for 6 points on your scoring system? One bad sports score (so one zero) in my system is the equivalent of drawing instead of winning. A poor score is about half that.

Its pretty common at my tournaments for people who get low sports only get one or two that cause deductions. So I tend to emphasise the penalty more.

[thechosengobbo]

IIRC, the 6pt win system I quoted was used at the Waterbowl weekender last year. If someone were to get the full 2pts per game then they'd have 12, which shouldn't have really affected things too badly (considering a guy who won all 6 games has 36pts, and any bonus points the tourney has) then they'd be boosted, but it shouldn't be enough to break an average player into the top, ESPECIALLY as most other coaches will have 6pts each anyway.

You do have to see it as every player having 6pts just for turning up, and then gains or loses those points simply for being a nice guy or a jerk. Now considering that this would change the above 36 available to 42, you'll find that the bad player has 30 even with 6 wins, while most other coaches have 36 (maybe a couple more or less), while the sporting coaches who are ALSO winning will be able to gain a lead on the rest of the pack.

It's also worth mentioning that you don't HAVE to give the more positive or negative scores. However this not being an instant punishment DOES mean that the bad sport can continue to be bad over the rest of the tourney.

I DO hope that answers your question Ian. If it doesn't, then just blame my lack of sleep (and the fact that I'm not one of natures number crunchers )


If you wanted a lot more of an impact from sportsmanship, then maybe have a system with 1-3-5 pts, and no 2's or 4's available. This amps up the need for good sportsmen (and is a lot closer to the 'win becomes a draw' system you mentioned).

I imagine you could change the points to a -1 0 1 approach if you wanted to hammer home the point that the bad players get penalised, which would still have the EXACT same effect as the 0-1-2 system. You could even play around a little with, say, a -2 0 1 system, to really punish the bad players without letting the good sports climb too high into the rankings.


One problem of awarding the points at the end, however, is that they may not punish the bad guys quick enough. One thing your system does is hit the bad player so that they can't rise as far in the rankings (on the other hand, keeping them lower can also allow them an easier game next match). You could also argue that having a proportionally greater amount taken off your score at the end is a nice incentive to not be a jerk next time around...

[Darkson]

(on the other hand, keeping them lower can also allow them an easier game next match)

Why not give them the low/minus sportsman score, display it on the "next round" sheets, but not actually change the score until the end? That way, they still play the game at the level they should be (i.e. comparable opponent) so don't get an easier ride, and are made aware they've got a problem.

Personally, I'd rather avoid sportsman scores though - to subjective in my opinion.

[PubBowler]

Personally, I'd rather avoid sportsman scores though - to subjective in my opinion.

Not to mention open to abuse...

[SillySod]

...especially if they are resolved at the end of the tournament....

[Ullis]

In Ultimate most "friendly" stand-off (no championships for any region or anything) tournaments give out Spirit of the Game (SOTG) -awards at the end. The scoring is straightforward. Usually teams are asked to rank their opponent after a game.

The team that got the best SOTG score gets a prize and thunderous applause at the award ceremonies and people at least claim that it matters a lot. I don't have any hard data, but the winners' standing varies a lot and I've seen the winning team (in terms of games, not SOTG) get the SOTG-award as well. The SOTG-scores are a separate system from the actual tournament standings.

What's more, the SOTG-standings are usually published so anyone can see the worst of the worst (although to be fair, someones got to be at the end every time). So if some team really acted badly, at least they get a reminder for it.

For BB this would of course require that most tournaments would adopt a similar system for it to gain enough notoriety (and infamy for the baddies) to get a chance to influence behaviour. I'm also a bit sceptical myself as to whether this is a lucky quirk for ultimate or whether you can really kick start such a system from scratch.

P.S. Ultimate (frisbee) of course absolutely requires such a system as there are no referees and the rules are necessarily vague on some concepts such as physical contact (its forbidden to intentionally initiate contact) and other fouls.

[sann0638]

Hee hee - got to the end of Ullis' post before realising that he was talking about Ultimate Frisbee, not Ultimate Fighting. Thought it was a bit strange...

[Igor Tahavanale]

I don't like the idea of sportsmanship points any more than I like the idea of how well painted your team is boosting your tournament points, both are different issues and should have their own separate rewards quite apart from the final standings.

That said I do agree completely with the "Red Card / Yellow Card" system now in place at the BBGT. It recognises that not everyone is going to be thrilled to bits by every game and grinning like a tit all the way through it and instead focuses on punishing only those whole are proven to be a-holes. It totally removes the "I like you/you got me a pint/played footsie with you under the table" side of it (lets be honest, if you know someone and they're a "great guy" but the dice aren't fair you'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If you've just met them you'll assume they're a miserable git) and only punishes those who you didn't want there in the first place.

[Duke Jan]

(lets be honest, if you know someone and they're a "great guy" but the dice aren't fair you'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If you've just met them you'll assume they're a miserable git) and only punishes those who you didn't want there in the first place.

Ah we're back at the original point.

I know you always get a couple of players who go over the line. The thing that spooked me the most, is that all the above things were all by different players I considered to be fun to play against.

Somewhere in the current tournament scene winning seems to have become more important than having fun. Lets just remind ourselves that the game is supposed to be enjoyed by both sides of the table. Plus the audience.