I fail to see how soft scoring really changes the score so severely that people are that upset about it. If its part of the tournament rules then its part of the rules. You might as well complain about people spamming lists built by pro players that other people steal cause they didn't make them themselves if you want to complain about commission painting. If you don't have time to learn to paint your models to a high standard, you could just as easily claim its unfair cause you don't have time to practice the game enough. It seams like an easy thing to get around... you get X number points for something that you are already doing... YEHA! Oh, you didn't do these basic things that are expected? Well you miss the free points...
"Netlisting" isn't even really a thing- mostly because most "netlists" are so painfully obvious that anyone with more than two brain cells to bash together is capable of creating these netlists. The thought that people wouldn't have been able to come up with Cronair, Serpent Spam, Double Heldrake, IG mech, two Riptides + infantry, Flying Circus, or Bolter Banner armies is ridiculous. The people who seriously needed to copy these lists are generally new guys who don't understand how the game works, and hence can be easily outplayed.
However, 90% of the regular tournament scene is absolutely more than capable of coming up with these same general ideas, albeit with minor tweaks, so the comparison between people bringing already established archetypes and commission painting is nonsense- you're assuming that they couldn't have made their list without the help of another person, whereas with commission painting we KNOW they had to have someone else help them in order to bolster their score.
Being OK with commission paintjobs getting points in a tournament is more equivalent to having someone else play your games for you, and then you just come in afterwards to pick up your prizes- and I doubt most people would be OK with that.
And if you fail to see how soft scores often affecting around 30% of your tournament scores is worth being annoyed over, maybe you need to consider that people who want to have an event based around gameplay tend to be annoyed when something not relevant to gameplay is used to greatly affect their score.
If you go to a painting competition, no-one judges you based on how strong your model is in game. So why should a competition based around gameplay be subjected to a paint score?
And as far as people being dicks or not, I think if someone was being a true dick he would get kicked out. The award is there for that guy that keeps the places mood good while everyone is stressing out over rules. I have a guy that does that in my Army unit. If someone is being an outright ass then he gets a stern lecture, that's completely different from what the award is for.
You clearly don't get how sports scores typically work.
Yes, there is generally a best sports award. I don't think anyone in this thread has complained about there being a best sports award.
What people are saying they don't like is how the "1st place" or "Tournament Winner" award is often calculated. It generally has something like 60-70% Battle, around 20-30% Paint, and typically 10% comes from your sports score. People don't like that 10% of their overall placing comes from simply having to demonstrate that you're a decent human being, and that something like 20-30% comes from a section where you can literally pay to have it done for you via commission. Rather than have this bizarre system which is utterly open to being gamed by the very people it is supposed to punish, why not just boot people who are being problematic from the event? It's what literally every other competitive event ever conceived does.