View Single Post
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-03-2014, 18:13
Dave McLaughlin's Avatar
Dave McLaughlin Dave McLaughlin is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Pullman, WA
Posts: 299
Dave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond reputeDave McLaughlin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 301 points! and could have done more

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvash View Post
I think the better question would be if an alliance is allowed to discuss strategies with an opposing alliance that may alter match play.
Yes, discussing strategies that revolve around completing objectives added to match play by a third party that would alter previous strategy and have a cash payout...

My problem is not with these teams, or that these teams agreed to undertake this challenge. It is that this challenge had a dollar amount attached to it.

Edit: I mean I also have a problem with the challenge as well, but I think that stems from the money involved.

Last edited by Dave McLaughlin : 24-03-2014 at 18:17.
Reply With Quote