Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
It wasn't my intent to stop these actions, as those who think they are acceptable will not be swayed by my arguments. My intent is to point out that people who engage in actions such as these (throwing games or deceiving opponents about intent to cooperate) are engaging in dishonorable cretinism.
You are what you do.
|
The problem with this is the wrong team may be cretin-ized.
Let's say Redabot1 is currently the #3 seed; Blueabot1 is currently the #2 seed, and Greenabot1 is sitting at #1. Blueabot1 is 3 QPs away from being top dog. Greenabot1 has spoken with Redabot1, and has stated that G1 intends to select R1 if given the chance.
It is imperative to R1 that G1 stays the #1 seed.
R1 explains this to its alliance partners and both Redabots agree.
As the match goes on, Bluealliance is completely annhiliating Redalliance. Redalliance has no chance at winning. Redabot2 decides to balance on the coop bridge to get the 2CP for their own personal gain, going against the previously agreed-upon strategy of NOT allowing Bluealliance the chance at 4QPs.
Redabot1 realizes this with 3 seconds to play, swiftly drives over and lodges themselves under the CB, making it unbalanced.
To "a reasonably astute observer" Redabot1 appears to be the aggressor, but upon closer examination, it's in fact Redabot2 that is the rogue team that went against alliance strategy.
That's where villainizing a team for its actions may be misdirected, and a quick conversation with the teams' coaches would allow clarity. It is dangerous to imply intent without a complete understanding of the situation.
I'm not saying that if I were in Redabot1's position I would instruct my driver to act in the same way, but I don't think I'd call that behavior cretin-ish.