Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
There's this woman on my 6.5 ladies combo team. She is a 3.5. She is an amazing player. She *destroys* people when she plays. I have never taken more than a one game off of her in three sets. She is also a pretty cool person -- we go to the same church, our kids are the same age. I consider her a good friend.
Today, I asked her how it went with her spring 3.5 team (she played 3.5 this spring but I couldn't join that team because of the Two Player Rule). She said she didn't like her 3.5 captain and planned not to play for that captain again. She said the captain put too much pressure on the players and sucked the fun out of it. She also said the captain was nice to her because she is a good player, but not so nice to others who aren't a Guaranteed Win. My friend said she has a bunch of offers to play on other teams (no surprise there).
My friend said she likes the way I run my 3.0 team and thinks I should ditch 3.0 in the spring and captain at 3.5. She says she'd join, and she thinks some players from that other 3.5 team would quit and follow her to my team. Heck, to further the recruiting my friend could be the captain in name, and I could be the co-captain who does all the work. I get a chill up my spine just imagining the harsh words this other captain would have for me if I were involved in the hijack of a big ol' chunk of her 3.5 team.
This, of course, would leave my 3.0 team high and dry, as some are ready for 3.5 level play, but many are not. The two-player rule would mean only two of my 3.0 teammates could play on this new 3.5 team.
When does it become smarmy and unethical to pull a stunt like this? What are my moral obligations to my 3.0 team? Part of the problem here is that my friend will only be in the U.S. for three more years before she moves back to her home country. Time is not our friend if we ever want to play on the same 3.5 team. . . .
Cindy -- thinking that anytime you are planning a coup, it's probably smarmy and unethical
Today, I asked her how it went with her spring 3.5 team (she played 3.5 this spring but I couldn't join that team because of the Two Player Rule). She said she didn't like her 3.5 captain and planned not to play for that captain again. She said the captain put too much pressure on the players and sucked the fun out of it. She also said the captain was nice to her because she is a good player, but not so nice to others who aren't a Guaranteed Win. My friend said she has a bunch of offers to play on other teams (no surprise there).
My friend said she likes the way I run my 3.0 team and thinks I should ditch 3.0 in the spring and captain at 3.5. She says she'd join, and she thinks some players from that other 3.5 team would quit and follow her to my team. Heck, to further the recruiting my friend could be the captain in name, and I could be the co-captain who does all the work. I get a chill up my spine just imagining the harsh words this other captain would have for me if I were involved in the hijack of a big ol' chunk of her 3.5 team.
This, of course, would leave my 3.0 team high and dry, as some are ready for 3.5 level play, but many are not. The two-player rule would mean only two of my 3.0 teammates could play on this new 3.5 team.
When does it become smarmy and unethical to pull a stunt like this? What are my moral obligations to my 3.0 team? Part of the problem here is that my friend will only be in the U.S. for three more years before she moves back to her home country. Time is not our friend if we ever want to play on the same 3.5 team. . . .
Cindy -- thinking that anytime you are planning a coup, it's probably smarmy and unethical
