It's still essentially collussion by the players and for all intents and purposes decides the match prior to when it actually occurs. As such it's anti-competative and built in a philosophy of hedging monetary bets as opposed to playing to win the game.
My problem with this is that if both players agree to a split, but still have no intention of sandbagging/throwing the match/etc. in any kind of way, exactly how can that be "anti-competitive", and not "playing to win"? If you both agree to play at your best regardless of the monetary gain, then it's preserving the competitive spirit of the game. You don't NEED money to encourage people to play at their peak. It just happens to be a very convincing reason since it's such a powerful tool.
But again, what about those who just don't care about the money, and play for the spirit of competition? You say that it's still collusion, but collusion implies that what's going on is fraudulent. How can it be, if both players disregard the money and still play it out to the best of their individual efforts? You surely can't suggest that the sets that they play from that point out are "fake", just because they decided to split.
I say it's a combination of splitting primarily for monetary gain, AND a clear vision of "sandbagging", that makes the act of splitting wrong in most scenarios. Of course, when you bring up MLG, that was considered an act that went against MLG policies, morality be damned, so it's wrong by the simple act.
It's all obviously about perspective, of course. I truly believe that it's okay to split as long as both players are still throwing out 100% or more, because if you are pouring out all of your effort regardless, then the money is no longer a factor, thus splitting of said money shouldn't have any negative impact on the players.
But that's just how I feel. Again, if done in a setting like MLG, it's obviously wrong. But at grassroot tournaments and locals? Why should it be considered wrong in the circumstances I've described?
Is the fact that it's acceptable an outgrowth of the same mentality that it's ok to collude with your opponents? Definately. Does the open acceptance hurt smash as a competative game? Hell yea. How can we be expected to be taken seriously as a competative game if these things are not only common but acceptable?
You're using that word again. You're trying to say that regardless of motive or circumstance, it's ALWAYS wrong.
On that note, would you be agreeing to the idea that the value and quality of our community is solely based on how we manage our money? Because that's what I'm hearing. Not to say that that's what I believe. I just want clarity on this.
My point is that not every split is done with ill intent.
Bracket manipulation is completely different. I don't see a possible reason for bracket manipulation to be done that's healthy for competition, or harmless to spirit of competition.
Sure, it'll happen occassionally, but behind closed doors so it will be percieved as on the player and won't hurt the image of the community and won't teach new players that it's acceptable.
But if it's perceived on the player, it'll eventually be linked back to the community the player affiliates themselves with. That's just the way people initially think. Wouldn't that natural train of thought lead to harm against the community regardless? How can you suggest otherwise?
I'm not asking rhetorical questions either. I really would like a response to the things I have asked about.
