SteelRabbit: I agree that their should be some minimum stazndard to be allowed to play, but the fact that a player is not a skilled painter should not detract from a tournament score if the went extremely dominant in game play. Some of the friendliest gamers I know, cant paint worth a damn, it doesnt make the game any less fun to play them, but if they win they could have their tournament score reduced due to bad paint? Doesnt seem like gamer spirit to me.
on the other hand, one of the best gamers I know is not the most friendly player to play. he isnt rude or a jerk, but he plays for blood, his every action is to destroy his opponent on the field. Should he be penalised in a tournament because he didnt smile at his opponent? I dont thinks so either.
I understand that at a convention where a Tournament is as big an advertisement as a gaming event, it is important to have everyone on the field looking their best. A minimum painting standard could achieve that. I believe that Topkicks suggestion of a Sports and Painting prize would gain more ground and promote the game in the community better by having three winnners(1st, sports, Painting) rather than just a topprize/cummulative winner. A game survives on its fans, fans that are happy with events/decisions spread word a lot fasterthan disguntled fans. Theirs a saying in marketing that " one bad customer is worth ten good ones,"
If a player "wins" they talk about it alot and possibly tempt people to play/check it out. but if a Player "loses" they will also talk about it and that will deter others from playing. A player who feels "cheated" that they had a great winning record, but lost due to painting/sports could possibly become a "bad" customer
I am not saying that most gamers will wine and complain, but some may.
Please dont think i am attacking anyones point of view, but this is mine.