301 points! and could have done more

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

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." 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.

I first want to say I love you guys. I do have to clarify something here. I hope I don't hurt anyones feeling in AZ but the situation was as such that after the first match, the losing alliance saw that they did not have a chance or a very slim one at winning so they took the challenge put forth by Steve Sanghi to hopefully do something incredible. By this point, the competition directly between us was over and we were trying to accomplish what no one took up earlier. We were in a sense working together in the spirit of co-opertition to achieve this new goal. It was exciting and I would bet you won't find one person who was there say they disagreed.