Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvash
I would assume because it wouldn't be the GP thing to do? Both teams decided to play the game a certain way as a challenge, it would have been cheating that challenge to just foul up 500 points.
And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.
|
I've given up on my astute grandmother's coopertitional GP definition because it gets twisted to support any argument.
I expect every alliance I am on or against to employ a strategy that they feel will give them the best chance t victory. This would be the professional thing to do, and if any alliance diverges from this the experience of being a participant is cheapened.
If you don't draw the line there, and consider a "gentleman's agreement" professional then why isn't agreeing to collect 4 technicals each also professional, or donating 20 points in an unwinnable game gracious?
Someone made a
fantastic post earlier in the year and made the argument "We don't allow steroids in sports because it cheapens the result and competition adds meaning." If we let steroids back in baseball, both sides can run faster, hit more home runs and have higher scoring games. But the result is less genuine. Not playing defence to artificially inflate scores and then boast about the high scoring Arizona finals is on the same level in my opinion.
If blue decided their best chance at winning was pure offence then more power to them. But the posts to date don't lead me to believe this was the case.
I expect every team to be kind, courteous and helpful off the field and to compete to the best of their ability on it.