Whatever Happened To Good Sportsmanship And Respect In Games?

[Bartmanhomer]

I feel like they're a lot of bad sportsmanship and trash talking to any kind of games. I know one of the players he was trash talking my opponent in Pokemon Showdown he told me that player is trash but that player beat me to a very close game. I just don't understand what it with the disrespect and poor sportsmanship.

[A.A.King]

It died with the Victorian Age, if it existed at all.

There have always been and there always will be people who cheat in games & sports and/or badmouth other players (either to "psych them out" or simply because they are poor losers). Not everybody is like this of course, in fact most people aren't like that but you are more likely to remember the bad ones then you are to remember all the good ones.

[Tvtyrant]

I feel like they're a lot of bad sportsmanship and trash talking to any kind of games. I know one of the players he was trash talking my opponent in Pokemon Showdown he told me that player is trash but that player beat me to a very close game. I just don't understand what it with the disrespect and poor sportsmanship.

It never existed. Competition is about proving superiority, being able to extricate that from your interactions is beyond some people.

[Brother Oni]

I feel like they're a lot of bad sportsmanship and trash talking to any kind of games. I know one of the players he was trash talking my opponent in Pokemon Showdown he told me that player is trash but that player beat me to a very close game. I just don't understand what it with the disrespect and poor sportsmanship.

In online gaming, it's the online disinhibition effect, or more succinctly put, the Greater Internet [redacted] Theory from the webcomic, Penny Arcade.

Basically, it's the perceived anonymity, coupled with an audience and a lack of consequences for mis-behaviour.

[Rogar Demonblud]

In physical space games, the main issue is that the refs rarely call Unsportsmanlike Conduct anymore, so there isn't any disincentives attached. Then they complain that people view the sport as a pack of thugs playing another pack of thugs.

[Knaight]

There's plenty of good sportmanship and respect in games. You just don't get it reliably in certain circumstances (e.g. videogames with randoms on the internet), and memory being memory the worse instances stand out.

[Frozen_Feet]

Remember the Pareto Principle: majority of effects (80%) is caused by minority of causes (20%).

Or in plainer terms: a small handfull of obnoxious people can ruin the mood of a much greater amount of people.

[farothel]

Not to mention that in a lot of sports there are huge amounts of money involved and if there is one thing that corrupts, it's money.

The only competitions where I've seen a player say he made an error even if the ref hadn't seen it, is snooker. And even there, especially in the big tournaments, there's quite some money involved.

[Albion]

I sympathize with the OP because I like games and really don't have any competitive nature at all in me. I like co-operative teamwork and stuff like that better.

[INoKnowNames]

You'll get it occasionally. But yeah, people free on the internet to do as they want frequently unleash instincts they might normally curb if they actually had to care about the other person involved. Without actually having to be friendly/address the other player on a regular basis, and thus not needing to humanize them, it's much easier to put them down.

I try to do best 2 out of 3 when playing Smash Bros, for example, only to repeatedly encounter people who like to t-bag to troll, and immediately leave into the next game. Most perplexing are the people who stay long enough to get a single win even after losing 4 times in a row, and then go as if that last one was the only one that mattered.

Not that I don't occasionally engage in a bit of trash-talk myself, I must admit. Though I do try to stay within respectful limits. In League of Legends, one team consisted of all Tanks, who proceeded to say "You Squishies came to the wrong Neighborhood" because our team was all squishy rangers/mages. When we won, I was like "You big bois came to the wrong Neighborhood" for a laugh. In a match I had last week, I'd snuck past the enemy's frontline when they thought it was safe to approach, and got called a coward for essentially assassinating their base for the win. My response? "We take those. Got 'em." In my defense, it was absolutely hilarious and I'd do it again in a heartbeat, and I'm not even mad when an enemy successfully does the same to me.

In the words of Kratos from God of War 4: "Close your Heart to it."

[Bartmanhomer]

I sympathize with the OP because I like games and really don't have any competitive nature at all in me. I like co-operative teamwork and stuff like that better.

I use to be competitive but I tone down my competitive edge over the years. Now I play games for fun.

[Khedrac]

Not to mention that in a lot of sports there are huge amounts of money involved and if there is one thing that corrupts, it's money.

The only competitions where I've seen a player say he made an error even if the ref hadn't seen it, is snooker. And even there, especially in the big tournaments, there's quite some money involved.

This is very true. Cricket is another good example of this effect - the umpires do call "unsportmanlike conduct" at the professional level (and players receive bans for it) but it is clear that the more professional the level, the less sporting the play. The classic example in cricket is the phenomenon of "walking" - if the batter hits the ball and it is caught by a fielder the batter is 'out' and has to 'walk' back to the dressing room. It used to be expected that the batter would automatically admit if he (or she) hit the ball and walk without waiting for the umpire to give them out; this now is very very rare in professional games (and will get the batter in trouble in some teams). There are actually a few good reasons for waiting for the umpire's decison - e.g. the ball may not have been a 'legal delivery' so the batter may not be out - but in general the commentators are still critical of batters who don't walk - the comment being "you know when you have hit the ball", interestingly I reckon the increasing use of technology is showing this statement to be false - batters don't always know when they have hit the ball (and very occasionally think they hit it when they probably did not!)

There are exceptions - there are often stories of exceedling unsporting behaviour at all levels of play (though correct by the rules of the game), but there are also plenty of accounts of proper sporting behaviour at the top levels of play.

[Aedilred]

This is very true. Cricket is another good example of this effect - the umpires do call "unsportmanlike conduct" at the professional level (and players receive bans for it) but it is clear that the more professional the level, the less sporting the play. The classic example in cricket is the phenomenon of "walking" - if the batter hits the ball and it is caught by a fielder the batter is 'out' and has to 'walk' back to the dressing room. It used to be expected that the batter would automatically admit if he (or she) hit the ball and walk without waiting for the umpire to give them out; this now is very very rare in professional games (and will get the batter in trouble in some teams). There are actually a few good reasons for waiting for the umpire's decison - e.g. the ball may not have been a 'legal delivery' so the batter may not be out - but in general the commentators are still critical of batters who don't walk - the comment being "you know when you have hit the ball", interestingly I reckon the increasing use of technology is showing this statement to be false - batters don't always know when they have hit the ball (and very occasionally think they hit it when they probably did not!)

There are exceptions - there are often stories of exceedling unsporting behaviour at all levels of play (though correct by the rules of the game), but there are also plenty of accounts of proper sporting behaviour at the top levels of play.

There are a few legitimate problems with "walking" as a phenomenon which is one of the reasons it became so controversial around the turn of the century.

One is that it can undermine the confidence of the umpire, who should be the final arbiter. The conundrum there was, roughly, a batsman like Adam Gilchrist, who was a famous "walker", is expected to walk every time he feathers the ball and is caught out. But in a big game, like a world cup knockout, or at a critical moment in a Test, can he be relied on to walk in that instance? The umpire can't help but be affected in their judgment of a marginal call by a player's reputation for integrity. A player can therefore build up a reputation for walking by doing so in uncontroversial or harmless circumstances which opens the possibility for abuse later in more important situations.

A second is that as technology has improved, it's become increasingly clear that batsmen don't always know when they've hit the ball, and it's possible for contact to be recorded that the batsman doesn't register. The expectation that batsmen will always walk when they've hit it is therefore unfair, because often they don't know, and batsmen who don't walk can have their integrity unfairly criticised.

It's a tough one, because I can recognise the validity of the above points, and the umpires should be relied upon to make calls like that, because that's what they're for. But there is also somethingunattractive about the sort of thing we saw in the 2013 Ashes when Stuart Broad got an absolutely blatant thick edge to the slips and stood his ground, given not out because the umpire screwed up. Not a good look for the game. Having said that, though, the Australian reaction was hilariously hypocritical, and rather suggests that unsportsmanlike behaviour is only a problem when your opponents do it.

[PopeLinus1]

I sympathize with the OP because I like games and really don't have any competitive nature at all in me. I like co-operative teamwork and stuff like that better.

Me to, but co-operative games also make me worried I'm going to mess up and ruin it for other people.

[Scarlet Knight]

It died with the Victorian Age, if it existed at all.

There have always been and there always will be people who cheat in games & sports and/or badmouth other players (either to "psych them out" or simply because they are poor losers). Not everybody is like this of course, in fact most people aren't like that but you are more likely to remember the bad ones then you are to remember all the good ones.

It always existed, but society has changed the risk/benefit. Long ago, Christy Matthewson would be asked if a player was safe or not by umpires when they were blocked from seeing a call because his honor was greater than team loyalty.

Once we prized acting "professional". Thus quiet Joe Dimaggio won MVPs over Ted Williams & his ego. But then came Muhammad Ali. People couldn't beat him and he kept talking, even when stripped of his title. Culture shifted and he stopped being a blowhard and became a hero for speaking. Everyone wanted to sound like Ali.

ESPN put the nail in the coffin as people who never got TV time would make the highlights for their endzone dance rather than the touchdown itself. Thus, "Look at me!" became more profitable than "well behaved".

With the internet, there is no downside for being a jerk; no way to throw a high inside fastball to teach a braggart a lesson. With the change in culture, now baseball even has commercials to promote acting unprofessional in order to capture a younger fan.

[Scarlet Knight]

Womens World Cup: the US women beat up Thailand 13-0.

Should the Americans have played differently after being up 8, 9 or 10 goals?

Or would it be worse to try not to score?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Seeding in future rounds is decided by goal differential. So the rules pretty much require you to scrap any idea of good sports(wo)manship. Dialing back the celebrations after the 4th or 5th goal would be a good idea, though.

[Iruka]

Womens World Cup: the US women beat up Thailand 13-0.

Should the Americans have played differently after being up 8, 9 or 10 goals?

Or would it be worse to try not to score?

Dialing it a bit back after a solid lead is usually the rational decision. Actively avoiding to score however seems to me like the opposite of good sportsmanship.

[farothel]

Seeding in future rounds is decided by goal differential. So the rules pretty much require you to scrap any idea of good sports(wo)manship. Dialing back the celebrations after the 4th or 5th goal would be a good idea, though.

I don't entirely agree. I don't know all the particularities (and I haven't seen the match), but if a player scores for the first time on a major tournament, shouldn't she/he be allowed to celebrate, even if it's the tenth goal, while the teammate who scored the first goal was allowed to celebrate.
Also there have been men's matches that ended in such figures, and noboby ever questioned their celebrations.

One thing that could be done here is that the FIFA puts a bit more money in woman's football (they have enough money), so those players can train more and the differences aren't so big.

[veti]

I think the idea that there was once a Golden Age of sportsmanship is a myth, born of ideals we heard about in our childhood when we were too young to question too closely. To an extent, I think there is a difference in that adults used to play along with the myth, in the same way - and for the same reasons - as they often play along with Santa Claus. But nowadays, with cameras and microphones everywhere, all the time, there's simply nowhere for bad behaviour to hide.

But it's always been there. At the Berlin Olympics in 1936, French cyclist Robert Charpentier apparently tugged on the shirt of his teammate Guy Lapebie, slowing him down enough to win the 100km race from him by 0.2 seconds. In Helsinki in 1952, Uruguay won the bronze medal in basketball by fouling virtually every player who took the field against them, including a full-on assault on at least one of the referees.

Muhammad Ali? Sure, he talked trash - but then, he was up against the likes of Sonny Liston and Ernie Terrell, who would certainly have given as good as they got but for the fact that they lacked his wit. Compare him with his contemporary Bobby Fisher, who was famous for being almost as surly in victory as he was ill-natured in defeat.

As for the supposedly gentle sport of cricket - well, that gave us episodes such as the infamous "bodyline" tour of 1932-33, and the "underarm" incident of 1981. Even W G Grace, probably the most famous cricketer who ever lived, was also famous in his day for "gamesmanship" and determination to win at all costs.

[Willie the Duck]

Whatever Happened To Good Sportsmanship And Respect In Games?

You got older, and started realizing it the things you dislike were happening.

I think the idea that there was once a Golden Age of sportsmanship is a myth, born of ideals we heard about in our childhood when we were too young to question too closely. To an extent, I think there is a difference in that adults used to play along with the myth, in the same way - and for the same reasons - as they often play along with Santa Claus. But nowadays, with cameras and microphones everywhere, all the time, there's simply nowhere for bad behaviour to hide.

So yes, pretty much this.

[Scarlet Knight]

I think the idea that there was once a Golden Age of sportsmanship is a myth, born of ideals we heard about in our childhood when we were too young to question too closely. To an extent, I think there is a difference in that adults used to play along with the myth, in the same way - and for the same reasons - as they often play along with Santa Claus. But nowadays, with cameras and microphones everywhere, all the time, there's simply nowhere for bad behaviour to hide.

Sportsmanship was never a myth. I don't disagree that bad behaviour has always existed; only to the degree. If you speak to your folks, they will tell you how politeness was more important when they were young. My parents had more respect for authority than I did. This was seen in sports to the same degree. That is why it was acceptable to throw at a hitter who showboated. Your crime was less than his.

You are right, bad behaviour has more ways to be caught today and the need for content spreads it like wildfire. But if Mike Trout doesn't insult anyone, day after day, who would hear/report about it's non-occurence?

[veti]

Sportsmanship was never a myth. I don't disagree that bad behaviour has always existed; only to the degree. If you speak to your folks, they will tell you how politeness was more important when they were young.

Practically everyone who ever lived would tell you that, but all they mean is that when they were kids people kept telling them to be polite. Writers have been bemoaning the manners of contemporary youth since Plato's day.

And I agree with you, that sportsmanship is real. You can see examples every day, if you trouble to look for them.

What I'm suggesting is that there has not been any great change in it. When I was a kid there was much pearl-clutching over the antics of Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, then John McEnroe. But contemporaries like Bjorn Borg and Ivan Lendl showed there was nothing inevitable about bad behaviour, and today tennis is, if anything, cleaner than it was back then.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yeah. The main issue is that the media incentivizes bad behavior because it's more entertaining and thus gets them more clicks. To the point of making **** up. Not that this is anything new--see the 'feud' between Renate Tebaldi and Maria Callas.

[davidejames]

Bad behaviour is oftentimes instinctual. Not much thought or premeditation goes into it.

[darkrose50]

Sometimes some people need an external reason to behave. Sometimes acting respectful depends on external stimulus or consequences.

-----

They did a study where they let children think that they were left unattended, and they misbehaved to a higher degree than when they were obviously looked after.

Then they told the children about an invisible supernatural lady sitting in the rocking chair that would always watch them. They behaved in the room after they were told about the invisible supernatural force watching them.

-----

Acting poorly around your friends and family would have more consequences than acting poorly around strangers. This is why folks from small towns are always worried about their reputations.

If you are a scumbag in a small-town, then people likely know that you are a scumbag, and act accordingly. If you are a scumbag in the big-city, then it is a lot less likely that people will know that you are a scumbag, and you could be just-another-person.

[GloatingSwine]

Seeding in future rounds is decided by goal differential. So the rules pretty much require you to scrap any idea of good sports(wo)manship. Dialing back the celebrations after the 4th or 5th goal would be a good idea, though.

On the other hand, letting off the pace lets the team rest for more important matches later in the tournament.

[darkrose50]

Sometimes my friends will get mad at me when I choose fun over winning. I suppose this is breaking the "we are competing" contract, but sometimes it is just fun to blow stuff up, or look for loot, or fiddle with other stuff.

I especially would like to make stupid mistakes (that do not derail the mission or plot) in a role-playing game because sometimes story is more fun than always picking the right choice or winning. Give me two options (a) a direct win, or (b) a fun plan, then I want the fun plan!

[Rogar Demonblud]

On the other hand, letting off the pace lets the team rest for more important matches later in the tournament.

Not much of an issue, as there are plenty of off days in the schedule. Besides, a higher seed not only makes sure you will face weaker opposition going forward, you may even get a bye for even more rest.

[Crow]

Sorry to say, it's just a symptom of the greater sickness.