[SamMullen]

Meta-Coopertition: Teams are cooperating as a group, yet competing against others, by selectively agreeing and refusing to balance.
1) Is “meta-coopertition” acceptable?
Yes, as long as you go about doing it in a gracious and professional manner. If you think this is a viable strategy for you, and you can get your alliances to agree with you, by all means go for it.

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?

I really feel that if any part of the alliance wants to get the coopertition points, than you shouldn't prevent them from attempting to get them. You should always respect the opinions and wants of your alliance, even if that makes things a little bit worse for you.

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?
I kinda lean towards no I guess. I don't understand why you would ever need to formally declare that you are doing this. Before every match you should be meeting up with your opponents to figure out the logistics/the timeline of balancing the center bridge. That should, if not guaranteeing you the coopertition bridge, make it at the very least highly likely, because if they can beat you handily, you both should have plenty of time to get on the bridge. And if you lose, well, these things happen. Planning before hand to throw the match though, just sounds, well, weird to me. Basically though, I just don't like this on a gut feeling kind of level.