[Jared Russell]

There are very real scenarios where choosing the outcome of "0 QS for me, 2 QS for you" is preferable to "2 QS for me, 4 QS for you" in the meta-game. I don't think there is a reasonable person that will argue that breaking up 1114 and 2056 increases everybody else's chances of winning the event. And I see no inherent problem with that analysis being acted upon by teams.

For that matter, at the Chestnut Hill District Event we had a situation where an opposing team came up to 1218 and said that their alliance did not plan on coopertating in that match (to increase the odds of breaking up the 341/1218 pairing that won together the prior week). I have no problem whatsoever with that.

I personally draw the line in two places:

1. In Qualification rounds, you are part of a THREE team alliance. You should all get on the same page. Maybe one of you needs the win, the other wants to showcase their new manipulator, and the third wants to deny the opponent Coopertition Points. Regardless, you need to come up with a common understanding of what you will do during the match - and try to honor it as best as you can. Hopefully it is done through consensus. Worst case, take a vote (or do Rock, Paper, Scissors). But I am disgusted when I see teams who absolutely refuse to compromise with their partners because of their own self interests (and I have seen World Champions do this more than once). Knocking your partner off the Coopertition Bridge is reprehensible for this reason. You can try to convince them not to co-op balance beforehand, but once the match starts, you need to honor whatever you decided to do as an ALLIANCE.

2. Lying to your partners or to your opponents is not honorable. You don't need to divulge every detail of your strategy, but don't say you want me to get on the Coopertition Bridge at 45 seconds and then go try to double balance on your Alliance Bridge. I would have to think long and hard about ever wanting to work with a team like this in the playoffs.