GeekNights Tuesday - Sportsmanship

MrPeriod

Tonight on GeekNights, we discuss the sportsmanship. We also discuss the all-important concept of athwartship, croutons (or, as Rym refers to them, "advanced crackers"), nevermind the Steam Summer Sale 2014, that Ghost Detective not-a-game game, FTL Advanced, the fan attempt at a Sonic 2 remake (and the expected lawsuit/takedown), the difference between the new Ducktales game and Bionic Commando: Rearmed.

• Super Art Stream 10
• Fartzenegger

Download MP3
Source Link

Axel

Ahem.

"eaten as a snack food."

Yep.

Jordan O.

I am really glad that my crew is not the only ones who calls croutons "advanced crackers". Also Scott is a hater, croutons are a perfectly acceptable snack.

Luke Burrage

The Narwhal Blimp wasn't by K. C. Green. Green's art was, in every way, superior to all the other contestants' art consistently throughout the show.

The Fartzenegger video was epic and amazing and is everything right with the internet.

Rym

Fartzenegger had that rare combination of a good idea that was implemented not just well, but with care. Usually, people who come up with these sorts of joke/funny videos skate by on the idea itself being funny, and flub the implementation.

Also known as the Youtube videos where the title is the peak of humor, and you stop watching by the end. They're still funny, but the "joke" is nothing more than the concept. The same applied to a lot of "weird" indie comics: the cover IS the joke in total.

Fartzenegger was given far more effort than the concept needed to get the point across. As a result, it was a subtly superior INTERNET.

Rochelle

So when I gave you all the double finger when I won Hansa Teutonica was borderline not-sportspersonlike? I can't help it. I love to gloat when I beat worthy opponents. ;^)

pence

Rochelle said:

So when I gave you all the double finger when I won Hansa Teutonica was borderline not-sportspersonlike? I can't help it. I love to gloat when I beat worthy opponents. ;^)

I, for one, welcomed the double finger. You can put both of them in your Coellens. :P

Coldguy

My go to is to perform the "Now you fucked up scene" from TWKYK take on the Lincoln's death.

TheWhaleShark

Rochelle said:

So when I gave you all the double finger when I won Hansa Teutonica was borderline not-sportspersonlike? I can't help it. I love to gloat when I beat worthy opponents. ;^)

See, it's more about the attitude with which you give everyone the finger. "Yay me!" is fine, but "boo everyone else" is bad form.

Play to win, not to make the other guy lose.

Rym

If you're actually mad, and you flip the finger as expression of that anger, you're the dick.

It's only not a dick move if you're not actually mad.

Starfox

Is this good sportsmanship: telling someone how you're going to beat them, then following up by beating them in exactly that way. Part of a larger question: if you're the best, is it "sporting" to let everyone know?

TheWhaleShark

Starfox said:

Is this good sportsmanship: telling someone how you're going to beat them, then following up by beating them in exactly that way. Part of a larger question: if you're the best, is it "sporting" to let everyone know?

Both of these again depend on the manner and intent behind them. Sportsmanship is an attitude, not a collection of actions.

Saying something like, "I'm going to beat you in 3 moves," then doing it and discussing it with your opponent is top sportsmanship. You are the superior competitor, and you take a moment to make someone else better by displaying superior tactics and explaining them.

"I'm going to beat you in 3 moves - give up now" can be a valid psychological warfare strategy, but harping on it is a bit dickish.

"I'm going to beat you in 3 moves - why haven't you given up yet" and getting annoyed, exasperated, or smug would be an example of poor sportsmanship. Of course, if you approach it as a discussion - "Looks to me like I'm going to win in 3 moves. Do you see it? Would you like to play it out? Oh, OK, then let's go again." - is perfectly fine and quite sporting.

Letting people know that you're "the best" can be a tricky thing. What I prefer to do is let my opponent get an idea of what they're getting into before they decide to engage. That may or may not be "I'm the best," but something along those lines can be a sign of good sportsmanship.

Example that is good: "Sure, I'll play you in chess. You should know that I'm ranked [blah] internationally, so unless you're on par with that, I'm probably going to win. But if you're up for the challenge, let's go."

Example that is poor: "You want to play me? I'm ranked [blah]. You don't stand a chance."

It's all about attitude. Good sportsmanship is about discussing the positive aspects of you and your opponent; poor sportsmanship is about berating or denigrating your opponent in an attempt to elevate yourself.

Friendly trash-talk can be allowed, but that's usually seen among people who know each other or at least have a reasonable social connection. It's also tricky.

Luke Burrage

In many sports there are rules or guidelines for celebrations and interactions with the other team members. In table tennis you can do a fist pump in celebration of winning a point... but it's considered "sporting" only if it is pointing away from the opposition, and certainly not looking them in the eye.

I don't think this is a bad thing. It's really not fair to put players at a disadvantage just because they are introverts.

Luke Burrage

In 3 club combat (my own participation sport of choice) I've noticed a problem with people being TOO sportsmanlike. It goes like this:

When player A drops a club before an attack by player B, or a drop unconnected from any attack between the two players, player B will intentionally drop a club of their own. This means in a short game, player B won't win just by scoring "cheap" points. It's purely optional, but it's a nice gesture.

However, when one player is clearly beyond the other in skill levels, and is clearly going to win anyway, it goes back round into unsportsmanlike behavior again. For example, Jochen (the best player in the world) was up against Fabio (merely a good player) and Fabio dropped a number of times. Jochen kept dropping on purpose, but it didn't look like he was doing it out of kindness, but more out of pity. It wasn't out of pity, but that's what it looked like. Then Jochen won the match with a really awesome and dramatic attack. It looked as if he was holding off on winning until he could win the match in a way that made him look great. Again, I'm not saying this was his thought process, but it from the outside that's what it looked like.

So in a spectator sport, do the sportspeople have any duty to make the game entertaining? To make it a close score? To make it a dramatic story? This is a different question to being fair on the opponent... you want it to be fair to the paying audience. Maybe that means you want to make the other player look good so your own achievement in beating them looks better.

Rym

Luke Burrage said:

So in a spectator sport, do the sportspeople have any duty to make the game entertaining? To make it a close score? To make it a dramatic story? This is a different question to being fair on the opponent... you want it to be fair to the paying audience. Maybe that means you want to make the other player look good so your own achievement in beating them looks better.

Ideally, the designers or managers of the game itself have the duty to the spectators: the rules should be constructed to achieve the desired goal of spectator entertainment.

I would say that players only have a personal "need" to entertain the spectators (above or alongside the additional goal of winning) if there is a specific personal utility in doing so. e.g., sponsorships, personal fame, etc...

So, possibly an incentive, but never a duty. If it's their duty, then they're performers in a semi-scripted play rather than competitors in a full-on orthogame.

Luke Burrage

Rym said:

Ideally, the designers or managers of the game itself have the duty to the spectators: the rules should be constructed to achieve the desired goal of spectator entertainment.

Ideally. In this case I am the manager and designer of the game.

Rym said:

I would say that players only have a personal "need" to entertain the spectators (above or alongside the additional goal of winning) if there is a specific personal utility in doing so. e.g., sponsorships, personal fame, etc...

So, possibly an incentive, but never a duty. If it's their duty, then they're performers in a semi-scripted play rather than competitors in a full-on orthogame.

My point is when the personal utility in trying to entertain the spectators crosses over into bad sportsmanship. It's a balance the player has to make.

Apreche

Sportsmanship and spectator enjoyment are often at odds.

Exhibit A:

Rym

Luke Burrage said:

My point is when the personal utility in trying to entertain the spectators crosses over into bad sportsmanship. It's a balance the player has to make.

There is the similar case where optimal strategy precludes spectator entertainment. Imagine if hockey's rules were a little different such that scoring ONE goal and then defending for the remainder of the game were a valid strategy.

Luke Burrage

I think I'll change the rule so that in any match you only get to give away one point.

Rym

Luke Burrage said:

I think I'll change the rule so that in any match you only get to give away one point.

So, banning intentional drops beyond a threshold? Do you have a clear way to differentiate an intentional drop? What's the penalty?

Apreche

Luke Burrage said:

I think I'll change the rule so that in any match you only get to give away one point.

Imagine of hockey/soccer banned own-goals.

Luke Burrage

Rym said:

Luke Burrage said:

I think I'll change the rule so that in any match you only get to give away one point.

So, banning intentional drops beyond a threshold? Do you have a clear way to differentiate an intentional drop? What's the penalty?

The way to differentiate an intentional drop is when the players still juggling turns around, notice their opponent has dropped, and throws their own clubs to the floor. It's super obvious. Also, after the first time, it just makes matches last a long time, and kills the energy.

It's not like banning own goals, it's more like letting one tennis player make long rallies that end with an unforced error meaningless. As in, neither player scores a point. It's not as though discounting a point moves either player closer to winning.

Starfox

@Whaleshark - I'm talking more like Michael Jordan - "I'm going to go left and shoot a jumper from the elbow. Try and stop me." And then he goes left, shoots a jumper from the elbow, swish. Siper dickish, but super awesome.

Apreche

Starfox said:

@Whaleshark - I'm talking more like Michael Jordan - "I'm going to go left and shoot a jumper from the elbow. Try and stop me." And then he goes left, shoots a jumper from the elbow, swish. Siper dickish, but super awesome.

You mean like this?

Starfox

Yes, exactly. Or The Babe calling his shot, anything like that. Love it.

TheWhaleShark

Ah. That's mostly competitive spirit and a bit of showmanship. Usually nothing wrong there.

Though Jordan's comments sound mostly pretty dickish. I've also heard he's pretty much a dick, so that might make sense. There's a point where everyone knows you're better, so why rub it in? Somewhat disrespectful.

Rym

Is it strange that I enjoy extremely one-sided matches in basically any competition?

Any time there's a ridiculously crushing defeat, it implies to me that there is something fascinating going on in the game/sport. Does she have a particular technique or strategy? If so, why is the rest of the field not acting in kind? Is he just physically stronger? What freak of genetics and evolution caused that gross disparity?

Even matches are enjoyable directly, but UNeven matches at the top levels of competition for a given game imply that there is something strange going on.

Apreche

In Michael Jordan's case it was simply that he practiced more, worked more, and tried harder than everyone else. He treated every game like it was the championship game. His attitude was also as competitive as can be. He held grudges forever, and would even invent grudges. He was out for blood every time. Remember the sick game?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/espn25/story?page=moments/79

TheWhaleShark

I think that's more about enjoying the puzzle than enjoying the match itself. Spectacle versus sport. Nothing wrong with that, but it's rooted in something else, I think.

I do love a good spectacle. I remember watching a UFC match (maybe a qualifying match) ages ago that lasted all of 4 seconds. Guy A closed on Guy B. Guy B threw a perfect right hook and put Guy A on the fucking ground. No contest. It was a clear case of being outmatched, and it was fun as hell to watch.

But if I'm watching to analyze the game itself (thereby increasing my own understanding, or simply extracting enjoyment via analysis), I want something that's a much more even match. I want to watch two superlative competitors struggle to outdo each other.

Apreche

In pretty much every sport, a close and competitive match is going to be exciting because of the tension of wondering who will win. But with blowouts, some sports are still enjoyable, or more enjoyable, and some are not.

That comes down to the game itself being exciting to watch. How fun would it be to watch soccer if you could never know the score? It's really slow, and very rarely does anything exciting happen. Baseball and basketball blowouts are not exciting either, for the same reasons.

Boxing is perhaps unique in that a blowout is often more exciting than a close match. A fight that drags on into the late rounds is also incredible, but there's still just something incredible when someone just gets KO'd straight away.

Dragonmaster Lou

Apreche said:

Boxing is perhaps unique in that a blowout is often more exciting than a close match. A fight that drags on into the late rounds is also incredible, but there's still just something incredible when someone just gets KO'd straight away.

It depends with boxing, but as much on the boxers as anything else. I recall many people were kinda disappointed with watching Mike Tyson in his prime just because his matches typically lasted all of 90 seconds. Of course, of you paid a boatload of cash (live tickets or pay-per-view) for only a 90 second bout, I can see how that can be disappointing. Then again, this was a case of it becoming routine. An unexpected first round KO can be quite entertaining for the shear novelty of it if it came out of the blue.

On the other end, you have the kind of insane 15 round matches that are often best illustrated, albeit fictionally, in most of the Rocky movies. Yes, there is a bunch of artistic license in those matches, but damned if they aren't compelling to watch (and, at least in the first one, you really didn't know who was going to win the first time you saw the movie. The later ones, yeah, Rocky wins, big deal, though seeing him get pounded on the way to winning was also entertaining).