This week's episode of Top Chef was difficult to watch, leaving me feeling that reality television competitions are totally bogus.

After a great chef got kicked out and the cook with the work dish of the night gets to stay, it leaves one wondering if the winners of these competitions are really the best at their craft....or are they just good at playing the game?

Nick Elmi was given immunity after winning the quick-fire challenge, but does that mean that you can barely try during the elimination challenge, bringing down your teammates? If Nick did this on purpose it was nothing short of sheer brilliance.

Nick was on the team with the toughest competitors, so taking a dive meant sending one of the best chefs on the show home, bringing him one step closer to the finale.

Elmi made an inedible losing dish containing a chocolate chicken disaster with a mysterious gold string on the plate that judge Tom Colicchio called 'something he'd find in the drain if he still had hair.'  

His teammates begged him to change his dish, but he stubbornly refused.  Nick's immunity saved him and we were forced to watch a great chef go home. 

Stephanie, whom had a remarkable plate, was kicked out of New Orleans because of her teammate Nick's missteps. The elimination can usually involve a chef who's a tough competitor, but this week's Top Chef elimination was extraordinarily difficult to watch.

Having the worst dish of the entire night catapulted Stephanie home. Isn't that a bad enough crime to lose your immunity?

 If it weren't for his revolting dish, his team would have clearly won because the other dishes were so strong.

So is this fair?

The judges asked Nick if he would resign, to which he quickly refused. Although it seems like the obvious noble thing to do, Nick would not give away his immunity and stayed in the competition.

Even though the judges hoped he'd come to his senses and 'fall on his sword,' he would not succumb to being sent home.

So should Nick have walked away? Or is this just all part of the game?

I hate this about competitionreality shows. The whole team aspect can ruin the chances for a worthy competitor, while a terrible contestant placed on a winning team can just coast along.

This happens often on Top Chef. It would be nice for the winner to actually be a good chef instead of getting unlucky, choosing the wrong knife during team picking.

 Project Runway is another show that this tragedy occurs. Designers that always win challenges get eliminated for taking risks while others that coast along in the middle stay on the show.

Frequently a contestant on Project Runway will win the entire competition without having ever won a single challenge.

So should Nick have resigned? I think he should have. And here are my reasons:

-If he walked away from this doing the honorable thing he would be well respected for his craft AND morals.

-And most likely he won't win, so he walks away a double loser.

-In the slight case that he does win, he will always be known as the winner that won for his conniving strategy, and not his cooking.

Do you think Nick should have resigned from Top Chef or is it all part of the game?