[Ekcrbe]

If I can bring us back to the general subject, I don't think there is any definite problem with the "scorched earth" strategy because of one main reason: Using such a strategy isn't entirely gaming the system, because one could argue--however improbably--that they actually wanted every single one of the teams that they picked, thereby making the scenario not a strategic event, but rather an honest execution of the alliance selection system.

I would also like to note that any indefinite problem--i.e. those (like a morality issue) that are much more subjective than, say, a rules violation--is hard to find because***, while GP does include something like helping to fix the robot of an opponent, I don't think it extends all the way out to letting them create an alliance that is more advantageous to them and less so to you, so I think the GP argument is invalid. In the end, there is a competition afoot during alliance selections, and everyone wants to put themselves in a position to win, so long as it does not unfairly hurt the other teams. Being blocked out of picking from in the top eight could be just as much of a part of a fair competition as getting stuck with a bad schedule during qualifications for the second seed.

***I want to say this very carefully and with the utmost respect for the spirit of GP and its use