WFB OFCC team results

[McNathanson]

So, when are you releasing the scores, again??

[Lion of Flanders]

Yeah, I haven't received my scores yet either.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Isn't the purpose of sportsmanship scores to promote sportsmanship? How is this goal advanced by not telling anybody how they were rated?

It's advanced by no news is good news. Second look at your games did you steam roll anyone? If yes check your list a bit closer or justify with more theme.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Grr phone double posting

[Sherbert]

I know im coming into this debate a little late and my comment might stir things up again, but Im going to join the side that says you can win games and receive good scores. I gave my pin to Shaine of Team Hammered Heads even though it was my only loss and I was almost tabled. Likewise, my teammate Greyson won 4 out of 5 games and received 4 pins. If you are fun to play against, it shouldnt matter what happens with the models. The fact that prizes are awarded randomly and not given to event winners makes winning the event only about having a fun time and bragging rights. Having close games really helps, but players should recognize fun opponents whether they win or lose.

[rythos42]

I'm with Sherbert. I gave mine to Mr Ian Botts, who is a phenomenal person who also beat the tar out of me. I recognize that not everyone can put aside their ego (hell, I fail regularly, it's just that you can't hate Ian even while he's destroying you! :P) but it is certainly a goal.

 

I appreciated that the sports form said "3 -- a good, solid OFCC game". I gave most of my opponents 3s, because they are good, solid, games. Astronomi-con in Vancouver uses 1-5, and continually fails to provide feedback on what a "regular game" should be. It should be a 3, if you played the game, and your opponent wasn't a douchecanoe, he gets a 3. 

 

I would oppose a checkbox system. Did I bring my measuring tape? Did I tell my opponent what I was doing as I did it? It may be objective, but it doesn't really capture the essence of sportsmanship, and it feels weird. In the worst case, everyone gets the same score because they all brought their equipment (AdeptiCon has this on their form). And in the best case...you have a room of people explaining their moves as they do them? So weird.

[thatdave]

I too gave my pin to someone who beat me.

[Talapas]

I too gave my pin to someone who beat me.

Same. Not hard though sine I lost three of my games.

[rudra34]

Same here.  I gave mine to somebody who beat me, and also received mine form somebody who I beat.  It can be done!

[King Mekhet]

I'm with Sherbert. I gave mine to Mr Ian Botts, who is a phenomenal person who also beat the tar out of me. I recognize that not everyone can put aside their ego (hell, I fail regularly, it's just that you can't hate Ian even while he's destroying you! :P) but it is certainly a goal.

 

I appreciated that the sports form said "3 -- a good, solid OFCC game". I gave most of my opponents 3s, because they are good, solid, games. Astronomi-con in Vancouver uses 1-5, and continually fails to provide feedback on what a "regular game" should be. It should be a 3, if you played the game, and your opponent wasn't a douchecanoe, he gets a 3. 

 

I would oppose a checkbox system. Did I bring my measuring tape? Did I tell my opponent what I was doing as I did it? It may be objective, but it doesn't really capture the essence of sportsmanship, and it feels weird. In the worst case, everyone gets the same score because they all brought their equipment (AdeptiCon has this on their form). And in the best case...you have a room of people explaining their moves as they do them? So weird.

See this is exactly what I have the trouble with. What's the point in having a numbering system if you're supposed to give everyone a "3"? All that does is create ambiguity, whereby people might have a game that by rights should be a "3" and they give the person a "2" or  "4" instead.

 

I'm not saying that people should be scored entirely based on whether they brought their tape measurers. However the number system is misleading, and a checkbox system could make it more clear that if people are deviating from giving out a "3" there SHOULD BE A REASON!

 

For instance, if instead of giving someone a 1-5, it is assumed that the game was an enjoyable, fun, and friendly game in the spirit of OFCC. Then provide a box for someone to describe an opponnent who gave an EXCEPTIONAL game, or an opponent who gave an UNPLEASANT game. Then include these with a little box asking the person to elaborate on why.

 

What this does is remove ANY uncertainty about how the system is to be rated. Because just coming up against a bunch of generous people giving everybody 4's and 5's shouldn't be determinative of your sports score. Neither should coming up against some salty baby who is a sore loser and takes it out on you with sports scores. Tabling someone doesn't always mean that you are a jerk playing with a mean list...sometimes you just down right outplay someone and they get tabled because that's the fate the dice gods gave them.

 

So, for instance, the sportsmanship scoresheet could look like this:

 

 

Objective Scores

[ ] Opponent was on time

[ ] Opponent was prepared

[ ] Opponent knew the rules

[ ] Opponent played at a reasonable speed, and we got to play 4 full turns

 

Subjective Scoring

It is assumed that all games at OFCC are fun and engaging, that all opponents are pleasant and friendly, and conduct themselves in the spirit of OFCC, an event focus on fun and hobby. For most games there is no need to fill out the boxes below. However, if you found that your opponent was an exceptionally GOOD or BAD opponent, please indicate this below and give us a brief (2-3 sentences) explanation of why.

 

[ ] Opponent was an EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD opponent, who gave a game well above the standard expected of OFCC. Please explain below the specific reasons for this praise:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ ] Opponent DID NOT MEET the standards expected of an OFCC opponent. Perhaps they were unfriendly, or twisted the rules in their favour, or brought a "rock-paper-scissors" list designed to give unpleasantly one-sided games to certain opponents. Whatever the case, please explain your decision below:

 

 

 

 

[ ] Opponent was EXCEPTIONALLY BAD. You would never play against this person again. Reserved only for the worst offenders. Please list the factors that made this game so incredibly unenjoyable below:

 

 

 

 

Now of course there's a little more room for nuance in there, but that's basically what I'm pushing at. Rather than just tell people "was your opponent a 1-5," and expect them to honour whatever arbitrary meaning you've given to those numbers, you spell out in clear and unambiguous terms what it is you are asking. Instead of a "4" you ask them to say what made the opponent awesome. That makes them think about it. Instead of giving a "2" you make them think about what made them bad, and actually write that out on the scoresheet.

 

This SHOULD NOT deter people from giving legitimate sportsmanship scores exactly as they do now. However, what it SHOULD accomplish is deter people from being unfairly generous, or unfairly punishing, opponents who don't really deserve it. It also makes the whole system a bit more transparent. You know more than "this person got a 2," but you know explicitly "this person got a sub-standard sports mark because XYZ."

[Fix]

Man, I don't want to write an essay about how cool a guy was after three games on a Saturday.  I just want to give them a five, a high five, and go get a beer.

[Lion of Flanders]

Man, I don't want to write an essay about how cool a guy was after three games on a Saturday.  I just want to give them a five, a high five, and go get a beer.

Most definately. The favorite opponent pin thing is perfect for this, I.e. it keeps it simple. Most of us spend the majority of our lives dealing with complexity and a series of tough decisions and judgement calls. I like like the OFCC as an escape from that sort of thing.

 

Sportsmanship in WFB (I imagine it's the same in 40k :) ) will never be captured or defined within a numerical system. It's like the Supreme Court definition of pornography back in the 70's " I can't necessarily define it, but I know it when I see it"

 

After all this huge thread, the idea that comes to mind for me is that perhaps if you get overly concerned with how sportsmanship was scored and what scores you/your team received....perhaps you have missed the point of the event. I don't think anyone needs to "learn" how to get better sportsmanship scores (by knowing the system and/or results, for example). I think we all know how to treat people well.

 

Lincoln had a great quote that I think applies to this discussion: "The Just have no need for the Law for they carry the Law within themselves"

[DisruptiveConduct]

Any way we could get Greyson in here for a breakdown on beating face, taking names, AND being a favorite opponent?

[Fix]

Any way we could get Greyson in here for a breakdown on beating face, taking names, AND being a favorite opponent?

 

He sells people their names back for pins.  True story.

[Sherbert]

correct, never trust a man that wears that much pink.

[Iraf]

Then why have them at all? This isn't directed at Burk, but I think he brings up the cause for some complaints. If the event is just for fun, getting together and throwing dice, then why even remotely incentivize/emphasize winning? I think it'd be great to just do away with it for an event, and IMO that would really make it standout as different. Whenever someone has asked this question, I'm not sure if I've ever seen someone answer it with any gravitas; maybe I missed that post, though.

That would be an epic event. Where the only rankings were how many favorite opponent pins your team got. It would definitely be one of a kind.

[rythos42]

Mekhet, I was pretty close to suggestion exactly what you wrote (without the "objective" section), but decided not to write that much. I'm a fan. "Check nothing if this guy was alright." Hard to screw up. "Check this box if s/he was (awesome/[big bad swear word]ty)", now you have to explicitly perform an action to give someone a great score or a bad score, you can't just tick a "4" because you love all your games and all your opponents are awesome. 

[Munkie]

Burk, thank you for taking the time to open this can of worms, reach in, and post the scores (still dripping with worm juice).

 

I vote no on releasing individual scores (not that this is really up for debate). While I am personally curious I recognize that this is a costco-sized can of radioactive space worms with all kinds of horrible diseases contained. I don't buy the argument that seeing your individual scores will somehow improve you as an opponent. A little self-analysis will do far, far more to adjust your behavior than a number.

 

And yes, it may be difficult to get good sportsmanship scores while doing well in battle, but that doesn't suggest a broken system. It suggests that to go above and beyond, you have to actually go above and beyond, right? If you're stomping face, it helps to be an EXTRA cool dude. If you can't do that, resign yourself to average sports scores.

 

I vote no on describing why you gave the opponent the score you did. I can see the purpose if you rated them below a 3, but time and alcohol are both precious commodities at this event. Neither the lack of the former nor an abundance of the latter are conducive to describing the game. Also, what's the purpose? How do thosecrunching the numbers use this information?

 

I vote "sure" on a check box system. Though I think you'll find most boxes checked on most games anyway and favorite opponent pins will continue being the deciding factor.

 

Which brings me to my final point. What's the problem with pins being the deciding factor anyway?! Shouldn't someone be rewarded more for being someone's FAVORITE than for some after-action scores?

[HeroZero]

My biggest question is through this entire thread is:

Why does it matter so much to know?

 

It's not a tournament. Stop treating it as such. If someone is so worried about their scores, regardless of intent, they are fostering the exact wrong kind of attitude that the OFCC is about.

 

If you got a low score for something, do some self reflection, make any necessary changes and move along.

 

We are adults,mostly, I don't buy the argument for a second that a person "doesn't know" why the scored low. I find it even more unbelievable that there is anyone who was petty enough to mark a person down JUST because of the game results.

 

If someone feels that they are in a situation where winning a game matters, that their scores matter or that they will consistently be marked down for winning ...maybe OFCC isn't for you and that is O-K.

OFCC isn't for everyone, and I think it was never meant to Be. Everyone is much happier when they play in events mist suited to them.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Well said

[King Mekhet]

Man, I don't want to write an essay about how cool a guy was after three games on a Saturday.  I just want to give them a five, a high five, and go get a beer.

Writing a couple sentences takes all of 30 seconds. I submit that if you're not willing to take a few seconds to write about how cool someone was then they probably weren't actually as good of an opponent as you were saying.

 

Remember you can just check nothing and give them a "3". It's only exceptional games you give people points for.

 

As for why this matters? Because if an event claims to be geared towards sportsmanship then it shouldn't have a wishy-washy way of scoring and rewarding it. And I'm personally of the opinion that the 1-5 system is quite inherently flawed in that respect.

[Munkie]

It's only exceptional games you give people points for.

As for why this matters? Because if an event claims to be geared towards sportsmanship then it shouldn't have a wishy-washy way of scoring and rewarding it. And I'm personally of the opinion that the 1-5 system is quite inherently flawed in that respect.

So what system do you propose? One where we describe our opponent (while in varying states of hurriedness and sobriety), the raters sift through 100ish descriptions, and arbitrarily decide on the spot how many points those are worth?

[lustriangod2]

I come for the painted armies and conversions and to catch up with old friends that are spread across the map. Great event Ordo bros.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

You want me to write out how I feel about the last game? One this is not therapy. Two how do you measure? Three time.

 

1-5 is flawed , but far easier to use. Easy when no prize money is on the line and instead all prizes are randomly drawn makes for a fine system. Again why debate positioning on the part that is weighed the least. Favorite opponent pins decide position.

 

It's easy not to earn a favorite opponent pin, it takes effort to win one. That is why it is weighed more.

[Fixxer]

Greyson got my favorite opponent pin and he DID beat me in the last turn with an epic TRANSFORMATION of Kadon, he took a very entertaining chance to steal the game. He was pleasant, knew the rules, and won with grace. 

 

Its always hard to decide who gets the favorite opponent pin, 99% of players are there for the right reasons, but my criteria is typically a loss/draw and someone who knows the rules of the game really well. 

 

Appreciate the discussion here.... dont like insinuation that organizers are slighting anyone with their method. 

 

FaildCharge: I would NEVER give a favorite opponent pin or a high sports rating to someone who brought the Chaos Dwarf army, just my opinion. I feel it is an exclusive army that is NOT part of the common rule set. I feel the same way about any of the FAN made books online. I was thrilled that I didnt see any NORSE or DOW this year. I think its just too much to ask players to have to learn about those armies during the game. Too many mistakes and oversights are made in the game anyway, we dont need obscure books that arent available commonly in game stores.