Sportsmanship badge is awarded for voting up 100 competing answers. But how often is there really a good reason to vote up a competing answer ?
Another answer is better than mine, or says the same thing > Upvote it, and delete mine to remove clutter.
Another answer is good, but missing a bit of detail > Upvote it, then edit it or add a comment instead.
My answer is better, because other answers aren't good enough or don't answer the question > Why upvote them then ?
Another answer is equally good, but answers the question in a different way from me > OK, this would warrant a competing answer upvote.
Seems like the last one would occur much less often than than the others, and if you were only to upvote answers like this it would take forever to earn it. It's much easier to answer an easy question that attracts lots of other answers and upvote them all good or bad, which doesn't really help anybody in the long run. So is it a badge rewarding bad behaviour ?
Edit: To clarify, I'm not suggesting Sportsmanship should be scrapped, rather than the criteria should be changed a bit to make it more reward good competing upvotes and less easy to game. How about:
- Only one competing upvote per question is counted towards Sportsmanship, and/or
- Your answer has to be scored at least +1 for your competing upvote to count towards Sportsmanship, to remove the incentive to add a clutter answer and upvote others.
I think these restrictions would make it much harder to game, while not having much effect on getting it 'properly'. Maybe it'd be fair to reduce the number of answers from 100 to compensate for the marginally increased difficulty they'd cause though.