[TheMadCADer]

One thing I ask you all to think about is your definition of "winning" a match. Strictly speaking, winning is having more points after 2:15, but in FIRST it's about much more than just that brief moment. If you could have come away from that match with a better outcome, but didn't, did you really win? If you get one more tally in the loss column, but benefit more than you would have from a win, did you really lose that match?

I do not see a moral conundrum in scoring for the other alliance in a match. I would even posit that you might as well consider yourself to be on the other alliance so long as you benefit more when they win. An alliance is simply a group of individuals working together towards a common goal. In this case, you're simply wearing the wrong colour, nothing more. The side of the field you start on is simply random, but the true alliances develop as the day goes on. Your 'partners' shouldn't require you to play against yourself, just as you shouldn't require them to play against themselves. There's no sneaking, hiding, or lies when you actively score in the 'wrong' goal. Your strategy is out in the open for all to see.

As a quick aside: would you ever agree to tie with the other alliance? Can you think of situations where this would be advantageous for both sides?