Sportsmanship/legitimacy

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 151991

> 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? 

Pippin:
I see my old friend the excluded middle has raised its bifurcated
head. When I go to pick up my child from school, I am not showing
callous disregard for their safety by not picking up the other children,
neither am I unaware   that they might be in trouble
if they aren't picked up. What I am doing is assuming that if there
is a problem with one of the other children, someone else will be
available to deal with it. That is a reasonable assumption in 
civilized times, and it is the one which Krum and Diggory make, IMO.

But Harry has never known civilized times. He has suffered grievously
from the assumption that if there is anything wrong someone else
will take care of it, and he does not make that assumption himself.
>From his point of view and from the point of view of anyone who
believed there was a malign agency interfering with the conduct of
the tournament,  making sure  that all the hostages were rescued 
was the right thing to do and an example of international
magical cooperation which is what the tournament is supposed to
be about. As Hermione says, it's not supposed to be about *winning*.

Did the judges make it about winning by awarding Harry points
for moral fiber? Only if you think it's about who gets the most
points. :)


> 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? 

Pippin:
Well, to be honest, the raison d'etre is a plot device. But one can
imagine that in the past, a school tried to avoid the disgrace of
losing by claiming that they had never meant to enter in the first
place, or more likely, someone attempted a win by confunding
all the other candidates into withdrawing. Whatever. But the
judges *are* obligated to hold the contest and award the thousand
galleons once the goblet has made its choice.  I don't see 
them calling the whole thing off. Karkaroff threatens to withdraw 
and is told that he can't leave his champion -- "binding magical 
contract". 


> 
> 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?

Pippin:
They weren't patently bad. Evidently no one had ever managed to
tamper with the Goblet before. Dumbledore obviously thought it
there would be no reason for Voldemort to interfere with the 
contest because Harry wouldn't be competing in it. But the loopy
plans of a megalomaniac like Voldie are hard to figure --
they're not the sort of things a sane person would attempt. I
mean, a sensible person would have serious doubts about whether 
an object that had never been tampered with before could
be confunded, and about whether even a brilliant actor could
successfully carry on an impersonation for months. But
sensible is not Tom Riddle's middle name.

 Even when Harry's name emerged it still wasn't obvious to most 
people that there was outside influence involved, because (as we 
learn in HBP)  many people thought Harry Potter could do magic 
far beyond what any fourth year should be capable of. Certainly 
Karkaroff, as an ex-DE, would think so.

As for getting rid of the Goblet, it wouldn't be the TWT without it.
That would be like getting rid of the Oscar statuette. There are 
loads of other film awards, but none of them have that legendary 
status. It was  the chance to be part of a legend that inspired 
people to work together despite all their differences to bring the
tournament about.

Lastly, as someone who's lived in a very small town and in a very
big city, I've observed that cheating works a little differently in 
a small community  than it does in a huge impersonal 
metropolitan society. When everybody knows everybody else,
there's a kind of tolerance --Slytherin gets to cheat as much as 
it does at Quidditch partly because everybody knows there's a 
point beyond which they won't go. Everybody knows Slytherin is
going to cheat, but everybody also knows they're not going to 
cheat so much that nobody wants to play against them any more. 

It's the same with the TWT. Everybody knows there's going to
be cheating, but everyone trusts that it won't go so far that
it makes a mockery of the whole thing or be so obvious that
it can't be ignored. Nobody wants an asterisk next to their
name in the record book. The danger is, of course, that 
someone who doesn't care about the reputation of the game
or their future as a member of the community can take 
advantage of that tolerance, and that is exactly what 
CrouchJr did.

Pippin