Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Jones
I don’t see a whole lot of difference between some of the “questionable” strategies teams use to enhance their position in the alliance selection process. Many teams have scored for their opponents in order to boost their own ranking points. In 2004, many teams sandbagged because their qualifying points came from twice their opponents score, provided they won the match. Many teams have selected teams within the top eight that they knew would turn them down in order to prevent them from accepting from another. It is often pointed out that shaving points and insincere invitations are valid (even clever) options since they are well within the rules. On the other hand, it appears that dumping a match is frowned upon.
I guess it depends upon how bad you want to win, and what you’re willing to do to get that hunk of plastic. I my opinion, if you choose a strategy that’s within the rules, then who are we to question your integrity? Let they who are without sin cast the first stone!
|
You may be thinking 2003 or earlier--in 2004, it was the losing score.
The distinction I draw between sitting out a match and alliance selection trickery is that sitting out a match actively hurts teams who you're allied with, while alliance selection strategies are still legal strategies taken against opponents. Granted, you're making them your opponents with an alliance offer you know they'll decline, but going in with the plan that they're going to be your opponents one way or the other makes it (in my mind) a moot point.
Perhaps that's just where I draw my line in search of said lump of plastic, though; your mileage may vary.