Moral Question

Hey there guys!  I was hoping you'd help me solve a moral question. 

So I was playing in the Sydney International Open last week and I missed the last 3 rounds because my family was in town.  It's been a few months since I've last saw them and I didn't want to spend their whole holidy playing chess.  I informed the orgainisers 2 rounds before I missed a round.  All fair and above board I think.

Now what happened is that out of the blue, someone I knew confronted me about this issue.  He told me that it was unprofessional (I'm honestly an amateur), that it was avoidable (well yes...), that it lacked sportsmanship (It was a swiss and there was an odd number of players- me not playing the last 3 rounds eliminated the bye) and that it brought me down to his moral level (more on that in the next paragraph).

So what had happened previously was that in a rapid tournament with a sizable prize fund, my confronter was 1/2 point down on the leader with 1 round to go.  He was playing the leader in the last round, and the game ended in a draw.  So far, so good.  The questionable part was this- the leader accompanied his draw offer with an offer to pay my confronter a sizable amount of the prize fund-- an offer that was accepted.

My confronter tells me that these two situations are morally the same.  He says "if you have a choice, you should not choose not to complete your tournament," and that he feels that this is "equal to being quite dishonest", which he felt happened in his case.

I think that these two circumstances are absolutely different.  I'm perfectly happy with my decision to not play the last 3 rounds.  But perhaps my moral compass is just completely out of whack- so I"m turning this question over to you guys.  Tell us what you think of these circumstances!

Well in the case of the match fixing of my confronter- about $80-$100 US switched hands I believe. 

For my own tournament I didn't win anything- I think not playing the last 3 rounds is a pretty big handicap!

What is your problem with them splitting the prize? It's less than you'd spend on drinks and drugs on a good night out.

My Issue with money changing hands in return for fixing results is a moral one- In my point of view this is simply morally wrong.  The amount of money in this case is not my main concern- whether it is $100 or $10000 I still think it's morally wrong.  

@OP, your moral compass is just fine. The good thing about that confrontation is that you now know two people to avoid befriending - the winner of the rapid tournament and your confronter.

Dear Mr Robert Louis Stevenson.

My Dear Old Aunt gave me a book of your short stories when I was in my early teens. "The Suicide Club and Other Stories"

Either you was a liar then, or you've got very dull in your old age

Your friend took monetary compensation that discriminately affected the outcome of the tournament while potentially inflating the winner's rating and deflating his own without knowledge of the tournament directors.

You visited relatives which indiscriminately affected the outcome of the tournament, potentially inflating the ratings of those who achieved better positions while deflating (or maintaining?) your rating at the point of departure with the knowledge of the tournament directors.

What you did is okay, and as a tournament directory I would probably adjust the ratings to match the circumstances in your case. I would suspend the two players on your confronter's case.

What you did is ethically sound, and your confronter was likely looking for an outlet, but didn't want to feel ashamed or get in trouble, hence his attempt to shame you while getting what he did off his shoulder.

EscherehcsE summarizes it nicely in post #9. You're fine, OP.