[Tristan Lall]

Once again, I'm finding myself advocating for a more libertarian position. It's uncomfortable to do that—because most systems don't self-regulate very well, and libertarians screw this up all the time—but I think under the circumstances, it will lead to a better outcome.

Regarding the team that allegedly deceived you. Hopefully it was just an innocent miscommunication: maybe the team member delivering the message was mistaken about the nature of the problem. And if it was innocent, someone from that team can hopefully be persuaded to come onto ChiefDelphi and make a statement to that effect. That serves everyone's interests, because the record is set straight.

And if it wasn't innocent, it's good to know that some teams need to be watched a little more closely. Like Eric said, we have long memories—and the community's opinion matters.

Nevertheless, I don't think they were strictly wrong in a moral sense to be deceptive (if they did so), because they have no obligation to tell the absolute truth. I'm unwilling to stretch gracious professionalism to the extent that it would represent a commitment to the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to every potential alliance partner. Teams have real preferences with respect to who they play with, and will be playing against many other alliances later—so being fully forthright can be like sabotaging your own alliance's chances of competing effectively. (Think of this from the perspective of the team being picked: should they lay it all out on the table and leave their eventual fate to others, or is it acceptable to also be strategic in the release of information to take some control over their own destiny? On one hand, this messing around represents friction opposing rational decision-making. But on the other hand, that friction is already there as a result of innocent mistakes—the picking team has to do its due diligence anyway.)

If we don't have this discussion on the forum, then some people may well ostracize the team—because they don't want to take the risk. Others will go in without knowledge of the backstory, and may get burned because of it. It's like journalism: a clumsy and imprecise way of getting at important details, but one that's nonetheless frequently more efficient than everybody having to draw their own conclusions without the benefit of evidence. And by having this discussion, here on the forum, we allow the system to self-regulate: every team has access to the same information, has a similar ability to digest it, and can each make rational choices based upon it.