First of all, the French guy is using different language than we're used to. So for purposes of discussion, let's ignore the tone of his response. That is not the focus of the "poor sport".
Tone (and the attitude inferred from one's tone) is one critical component of determining whether one is sportsmanlike. There's a difference between "Hey Sam, I'm sorry I can't go to your party tonight, I have somewhere else to go" and "Hey Sam, I'm not going to your party;
By that characterization, someone who is there to play the game, no matter the situation, would be exhibiting good sportsmanship. Someone who looks at the situation and says "you know what? if we don't play this match, we both get to play on" would seem to be exhibiting poor sportsmanship. They are playing the system, not each other, and as a result another player who may have otherwise made it into Top 8 would be left out in the cold due to these two players choosing not to play their match.
Alternatively, someone who is willing to risk his/her own spot in cut—as well as risk his/her opponent's spot in cut—just to play another round of the game that he/she has already been playing for 13 rounds is a sadistic jerk who either lacks basic understanding of mathematics or lacks the propensity to reason, (given there is no tournament-related reason for getting a higher seed, such as dodging a bad matchup).
They are playing the system because the system is defined by
the rules of the game. The system is set up such that there are certain situations where players are incentivized to intentionally draw. Intentionally drawing in those situations does not impede "proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors." In fact,
not intentionally drawing in such a situation would be a great way to shatter "the sense of fellowship" among players (as you mentioned).
As to your point about the other "player who may have otherwise made it into Top 8" being left out, the two players earned their right to intentionally draw by playing well throughout the earlier portions of the event. That "other player" does not deserve to make top cut if he doesn't get enough points, plain and simple. Obviously, we had a situation in Ft. Wayne where a player that did not get enough points was screwed because of a computer pairing error, but I think this is situation where the exception proves the rule.
My biggest concern with statements like "if we ID we both make the cut" is what if they don't. Yes, we know a lot about how TOM works, but we are NOT the computer - and I daresay the American player above might have failed to take all scenarios into account - like what if everyone else ID's, or wins, or plays the magic "I get all the prizes" card.
Quite frankly, if two players don't make it into cut after intentionally drawing, then someone failed at math (and deserve to miss cut because of their mistake). While humans are not computers, there is no longer any room for computer error in the last round of swiss. When the first two tables at Philadelphia Regionals scooped in round 14, we had already calculated the worst case scenarios for them in that round. Even in the worst case scenario, the players at the top two tables could not mathematically miss cut if they intentionally drew.
In Philly last weekend, Round 4 of Day 2 the top table did an ID because according to their math, "30 points will make it." Then they get a play break, they are sure to both get 30 points or more, and they'll be fine. Bottom line_they were wrong, and the T8 had to have 31 on Day 2 in order to cut.
I was one of the two people you are describing who intentionally drew in round 4 of day 2 at Philadelphia (and thus I'm intimately familiar with what happened). What you're describing is
not what we said at all. We were pretty confident that 31 points was in cut, and there was a chance for some 30s to be in cut as well, so I intentionally drew round 13 to put myself at 30 points. I knew that I still needed at least an intentional draw in round 14 to guarantee cut, but I didn't try to play out round 13 because my opponent (who would put himself at 31 points by intentional drawing) was playing a Tool Drop deck, and I was playing 0 Tool Scrappers. This was a mutually advantageous situation for both of us: an intentional draw got my opponent into cut, and I got to 30 points which allows me to get into cut by drawing
or winning round 14. If I had lost round 13, I would force myself to need a win in round 14, and I was
not confident about the round 13 matchup.
You're not going to convince me that taking the 1 guaranteed point is a worse option than risking losing and ending up with 0 points against a Trubbish deck when I'm playing 0 Tool Scrappers.
So, even if it isn't being done to mislead people (which we heard of last year in CP's), you could always be wrong. Still better to play for the win for yourself - and if you tie, then you'll just have to see. jmo.
You
could be wrong, but if you think about the mathematics behind intentional draws, you won't be wrong. If you have a "still better to play for the win for yourself" attitude, you will be screwing yourself out of cut more often than someone who thinks about the numbers and uses intentional draws wisely.