a question about sandbagging?

Because winning on purpose doesn't generate fake rating points for your opponent.
And your whole question is wrong: sandbagging is not against the rules just because it is done on purpose. It is not allowed because it affects rating statistics by fake and free points.

@Feniks714

I was siding with you. I think that people should have kept a more open mind about your question instead of immediately shutting you down.

You’ll notice that I didn’t call your question dumb but instead noted that it could be construed or interpreted as being unnecessary or foolish. I think neither of these things and try to keep an open mind about questions that are tagged as such in general, because they can often be opportunities for learning or arise from confusion among the involved parties.

The xkcd comic that I linked is very much in the spirit of keeping an open mind when someone is behaving foolishly, which, evidently, some people thought you were in this case.

Again, I chose to defend your question, as a point of learning, rather than to call it or you foolish. I will assume that you said that I have a closed mind because of some misunderstanding.

Best wishes, AAA

@Feniks714 said in #1:
> If losing on purpose is against the rules then why winning on purpose is not?
Because if something is against the rules it wouldn't make much sense in having not doing that thing to also be against the rules. I'm driving down the road in Feniksville and the first sign I see says "No littering". But the second sign says "But no not littering either". That's great logic. I can see you're a master of philosophy.

I fully agree with @AtomicAltAccount and @Linspiring. I'm just not sure if this question is relevant to this case. Anyway I know what author has in mind and it is a good point from logical point of view. I remember some influencers/youtubers etc that represent good example of this case. Whenever they are hated by some rude comments they DEMAND that hate is OK but you have to be constructive and show your arguments. But if you look closely they don't demand to be constructive when you applause them and when you say they are awesoeme - they don't need reason for that from you. - if you dont need a reaseon to be flattered - why you need the reason to be hated then?