[Molten]

Originally Posted by santosh

In what way do you mean you are disappointed. If I had to throw a match to win a world championship, I would highly consider it. I am looking out for my kids.
If I know that I am a part of an awesome team, should I not do what is in the best interest of my team? Should I not consider the option at the very least?

The purpose of the competition aspect of FIRST is to win. Trust me, off the field and for the most part on the field, I am gonna be the most GP person you can meet.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If you teach your students and lose, you won. If you fail to teach your students(or teach them something wrong) and win, you lost. In this case, I think you'd lose even if you won the trophy just because you sent the wrong message to the students. That it is ok to hurt your alliance if it is for personal gain.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This absolutely isn't the same, for one simple reason.

6v0 helps everyone on your alliance. It is a strategic move that gets you points and hurts no one.

Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners.

This situation is losing for personal gain. That situation was losing for mutual gain. I see the distinction, but disagree that it isn't the same in some rite. Afterall, both are losing for gain regardless of who benefits. I would never condone losing for gain no matter the circumstance. That is why from my view these two strategies aren't so different. I could see though how a person that strongly supported 6 vs 0 would see a big difference though. Though I never agreed with the line of reasoning, I understand the reasoning you(and many others) used to rationalize it. That sort of reasoning won't work in this scenario so you see it as different. My reasoning for my conclusion remains the same, so I see them the same. It's really a matter of perspective on this one. In short, I wouldn't throw out the comparison completely. Yes, there is a distinction. But it was bound to come up at some point and should not be thrown out as a precedence. It shows people are willing to lose for gain in the world of FIRST. The question is: how many people must gain for it to be worth considering? 1 out of 6? 2 out of 6?....5 out of 6? A line must be drawn somewhere and I would be interested to know what number of people on the field must benefit from you purposefully losing to make it acceptable.