IMO:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lim
6v0
An alliance that believes they are going to lose is willing to score less points and instead work with the opposing alliance to guarantee a balanced coopertition bridge and a loss.
3) Are 6v0 arrangements acceptable?
|
No.
While it is acceptable to predict defeat as a reasonable outcome and therefore place a higher priority on balancing than on scoring, it is NOT acceptable to make a deal with the other team that involves reducing your offense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lim
Coopertition Bridge Defense:
Some teams in the match want to balance on the coopertition bridge, but for some (let's assume, valid) reason your team doesn't want them to.
2) Is it acceptable to get to the coopertition bridge first, drive on to it, and leave it tipped to prevent others from getting on?
Or is the above scenario now not acceptable?
|
No; you have some options available. You can choose not to attempt balance and you can choose to influence your alliance or the opposing alliance to not balance. Any passive or active blocking of balancing is over the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lim
Meta-Coopertition: Teams are cooperating as a group, yet competing against others, by selectively agreeing and refusing to balance.
1) Is “meta-coopertition” acceptable?
|
No.
You can't make cross alliance bargains; therefore M-C is unavailable to the teams that are on the opposing alliance. You can't compete against your alliance partner, therefore M-C is unavailable to teams on the 'friendly' alliance.
So, I guess its nos all around.
Blocking the bridge is the grayest one for me; the others that rely on making deals with the other alliance just seem like non-starters.
That's how it looks from where I am sitting.
p.s. hey Mr. Flowers: turns out GP doesn't mean what you thought. It means Grandma's Proud!
Alan Gilgenbach