Sportsmanship/legitimacy

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 151987

bboyminn:
On a final note, Fleur who failed completely was STILL given 25 
points. Maybe we should consider her 25 points cheating. Why should 
she be given any points for failing the task? Why should she get 
what we might metaphorically consider a 'do over'? Also, note that 
Madam Maxime awarded Harry full points even though that hurt her own
champion. Certainly, if she felt it was unfair or against the rules,
she would have deducted points or protested.

a_svirn:
On the contrary, it did *not* hurt her champion. Fleur failed the 
task altogether, so Harry's points for fiber did not affect her 
standing. They only affected Cedric's and Krum's standing. But now, 
come to think of it, I can't help but wondering whether Fleur's "do 
over" has anything to do with the fact that M-me Maxime went along 
with the Dumbledore's suggestion to reward Harry for his fiber. 

Alla:

If you show me the canon that other champions knew for sure that
other hostages were not in danger then yes, I would agree with you
that they did not have to save other hostages. Otherwise, I
disagree, I don't think that Cedric and Victor deliberately bandoned
the hostages, they just were concentrated on the "GAME" and IMO  did
not look at the big picture.

a_svirn:
And what *is* the big picture in question? Does it feature 
Dumbledore devising a task that can result in death of four 
children, should champions prove to be too slow in saving them? 

Alla:
For not thinking that the girl can DIE and they can prevent it. It
is NOT a crime at all <snip>

a_svirn:
Is it not? I'd say it is. 

Alla:

No, I meant to say that we know for a fact that people DIED in TWT
in the past and how can we exclude a possibility that one of the
tasks can include the danger for the hostages too not just for the
contestants.

a_svirn:
We'll just have to assume that Dumbledore would not knowingly risk 
the lives of children entrusted to his care (and that includes the 
contestants too). Not too much to expect from a headmaster, wouldn't 
you think so? Of course, 13th century they could have had other 
standards, but that's Dumbledore after all, the Best of the Good 
Guys. 

Alla:
Does not make him a bad person to me at all.

Magpie:
It makes him a far worse person than Harry and a person who would let
someone die if saving them would interfere with his winning a race, 
which is
not something he deserves to be called, imo, just for participating 
in a
contest as expected.  Cedric not thinking of everyone else getting 
their
hostages says nothing about his character *unless* he thinks those 
hostages
will die if they aren't saved. Then it says he's kinda crazy.

a_svirn:
Not just crazy. That makes him no better than Voldemort in the moral 
fiber department. Because it means that he would walk on any number 
of dead bodies if there is a prospect of glory. And since we know 
that that it is far from true, where does it leave Dumbledore and 
his fiber? He might not stoop so low as to make child sacrifice part 
of the game, but he does stop just short of character assassination 
in order to cheer up his favourite student. 

Geoff:
Is the raison d'être of the contract really to 'legalise' cheating?

a_svirn:
Is it not? It makes you a hostage, completely at the mercy of, well, 
everyone, and fist and foremost of the jury. And it is a one-sided 
bargain. You are the only one who has any obligations. The jury has 
none. That's making mockery out of the idea of rules and fairness. 
Besides, what *is* the reason d'etre then? The drawbacks are 
obvious; what are the advantages? 

Geoff:
I would assume that this is part of the original structure of the 
Tournament
dating from the 13th century and probably one of the few fixed rules.
as I imagine the tasks would vary from competition to competition.

a_svirn:
So what if it is part of the original structure? And what does it 
mean "fixed rules"? Why cannot they be "unfixed" if they are so 
patently bad?