Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage [Archive]

View Full Version : Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage

TheFish

29-04-2011, 19:56

Scenario:

Current Rankings:

1. Team A
2. Team C
...
30. Team B

Team A is the "best" robot in the division.
Team B is the 2nd best robot in the division.
Team C is the 3rd best robot in the division.

Match:
Team C and B vs. Team A in the last match of the day. Between A and C, whoever wins the match gets the Top-Seed.

If Team C and B win that last match, then Team C gets the Top-Seed, will then pick team A and lead to a division victory for them.

If Team A wins the last match, they get Top-Seed, will then pick Team B, leading to a division victory for both of them.

The question:
Is it appropriate for Team B to lose the match on purpose, knowing that it will greatly improve their chances of winning in the end?

Duke461

29-04-2011, 20:05

Alex.q

29-04-2011, 20:10

1. Team A
2. Team C
...
30. Team B

Team A is the "best" robot in the division.
Team B is the 2nd best robot in the division.
Team C is the 3rd best robot in the division.

If team B is the 2nd best team in the division, why would they be ranked 30? I know the ranking system isn't perfect, but I would imagine that it is at least close. Unless Team B has been purposefully losing all their qualifying rounds in order to be picked by the top seed alliance, I can't imagine how this would happen.

Chris is me

29-04-2011, 20:25

If team B is the 2nd best team in the division, why would they be ranked 30? I know the ranking system isn't perfect, but I would imagine that it is at least close. Unless Team B has been purposefully losing all their qualifying rounds in order to be picked by the top seed alliance, I can't imagine how this would happen.

It's not. Rankings do not indicate robot strength very well.

sgreco

29-04-2011, 20:32

It's not. Rankings do not indicate robot strength very well.

I agree. It's not so much that rankings aren't accurate, but the sample size isn't big enough to yield a statistically accurate representation of the best robots. Teams only play 8 - 15 matches per regional (depending on the size). If they could play 80 matches or more, I think the ranking system would prove to be more accurate.

Matt Krass

29-04-2011, 22:49

I agree. It's not so much that rankings aren't accurate, but the sample size isn't big enough to yield a statistically accurate representation of the best robots. Teams only play 8 - 15 matches per regional (depending on the size). If they could play 80 matches or more, I think the ranking system would prove to be more accurate.

You silly statisticians and your sample sizes :rolleyes: everyone knows smaller sample sizes make it easier to fudge the data to prove your point ;)

Ok, seriously though, the rankings are not a great indicator, but if the '2nd best robot' in the division is in 30th, they're either throwing matches, or having lots of problems, and I don't think they'd throw matches so I'd assume they're buggy and not pick them.

That said, I find it unethical in many ways to throw a match like that. It isn't fair to team C, or the third team on your alliance, most of all it isn't fair to your team. I don't know about your team, but my kids would be absolutely floored if we purposefully tanked a match as a 'strategy'. It's insulting. On top of that, it makes you look really bad, and probably means Team A wouldn't want you anyway. If you were to inform Team A ahead of time of your intention to go all Benedict Arnold on your alliance, they would (hopefully) find this unacceptable and not pick you, and if they agreed with you, its collusion, which is forbidden in the rules I believe.

Besides it being a horrible idea, it's just wrong, in my opinion.

Matt

TheFish

29-04-2011, 23:30

It most certainly is not appropriate. It would be like telling a Quarterback to purposely lose a game so they could get a better draft pick.

That's not the same. This is one year, one competition, one tournament. The goal is to do the best possible.
If you want to use a football example I would say it is: losing the last game of the season, because you know that your first-round matchup in the playoffs would be much easier if you won.

And besides, couldnt A just decline the offer from C, and then pick B next? And if C picked B, i would imagine thats still a good alliance.

A would not decline, because if they did, then B would pick C, screwing A over.
Instead, A would accept C's selection and B would lose the division.

If team B is the 2nd best team in the division, why would they be ranked 30? I know the ranking system isn't perfect, but I would imagine that it is at least close. Unless Team B has been purposefully losing all their qualifying rounds in order to be picked by the top seed alliance, I can't imagine how this would happen.

The actual seed is irrelevant. Let's say Team B is ranked 10th?

What I want to know is: is it appropriate to lose on purpose, if it will ensure a victory in the end.

eyu100

29-04-2011, 23:38

Well, you can lose a match without making it obvious that you're throwing it - have your robot "break" (like by secretly deleting the code) and have your human player throw badly. Obviously, you shouldn't do this.

Matt Krass

29-04-2011, 23:39

That's not the same. This is one year, one competition, one tournament. The goal is to do the best possible.
If you want to use a football example I would say it is: losing the last game of the season, because you know that your first-round matchup in the playoffs would be much easier if you won.

You're right, this is not the same, it's not about the competition, it's about inspiration, and changing the world, and showing kids there are better ways to be happy and successful than football and doing things like this. What's inspiring about making a fool out of yourself to win a plastic trophy and a blue banner?

I've been on winning teams before, it feels great, but at the end of the day my life had been improved by the whole season, not the banner, and I know I would have hated it if we won by working the system. I propose that winning is this manner is more detrimental than losing fairly, even losing horribly, but fairly.

A would not decline, because if they did, then B would pick C, screwing A over.
Instead, A would accept C's selection and B would lose the division.

If B is in 30th, the odds are slim they'll even have a chance to pick C.

The actual seed is irrelevant. Let's say Team B is ranked 10th?

What I want to know is: is it appropriate to lose on purpose, if it will ensure a victory in the end.

What does a victory mean? A plastic trophy and a blue banner? Or improving the lives of the students involved? Winning a tournament at the expense of integrity, as mentioned before, is not going to do anything towards improving a students life, or their opportunities, or their own morals. As much as high school students like to disagree, they're still being molded and growing, and learning to win by cheating (and that's what this is) is a terrible lesson.

I've got a box (literally, a box in my closet) of gold medals, would you like them? They seem to mean a lot more to you than myself. Last time I took them out was because I needed to squish a bug on my wall.

People (myself included) are making a ridiculous point out of highlighting the logical flaw of B being a 30th seed as a mild rejection of your idea I believe. I obviously can't speak for them personally, but I do believe the intent was to politely dissuade the idea. If I'm correct, that should give you a pretty clear indication what the opinion is of this strategy.

Matt

Lil' Lavery

30-04-2011, 00:16

It most certainly is not appropriate. It would be like telling a Quarterback to purposely lose a game so they could get a better draft pick. And besides, couldnt A just decline the offer from C, and then pick B next? And if C picked B, i would imagine thats still a good alliance.

Except the latter happens all the time. "Tanking" is a common occasion in professional sports. From the general manager and owner on down through the players.

I'm in no way saying that it's a positive thing for FIRST (nor am I condemning it with this post), but if you're going to attempt to use a sports analogy, at least use one that doesn't counteract your point.

santosh

30-04-2011, 00:26

thefro526

30-04-2011, 00:28

This situation isn't all that cut and dry. I'm not advocating tanking or throwing of matches, but I know there are a few really good teams sitting outside of the top 8 on their respective divisions.

Thinking about it from those teams perspectives, I know I'd seriously be considering doing something that's not "right" in hopes of making it to Einstein...

Matt Krass

30-04-2011, 00:29

This sounds terrible, but you gotta do what is best for your team.

Can it be considered non GP? idk. If I were presented with this opportunity, I would definitely consider it...

Let the red dots rain.

In what way is cheating (albeit subtlety) considered what is best for a team?

Matt

EDIT: I am really disappointed in the way "mentors" are discussing the trade off of ethics vs glory. This is a sad time for FIRST.

santosh

30-04-2011, 00:43

In what way is cheating (albeit subtlety) considered what is best for a team?

Matt

EDIT: I am really disappointed in the way "mentors" are discussing the trade off of ethics vs glory. This is a sad time for FIRST.

In what way do you mean you are disappointed. If I had to throw a match to win a world championship, I would highly consider it. I am looking out for my kids.
If I know that I am a part of an awesome team, should I not do what is in the best interest of my team? Should I not consider the option at the very least?

The purpose of the competition aspect of FIRST is to win. Trust me, off the field and for the most part on the field, I am gonna be the most GP person you can meet.

Joe G.

30-04-2011, 00:48

I consider my alliance partners my teammates. When we are behind the glass, we must act as such. Sabatoge within any type of team is frowned upon, and just because an alliance will only last 2 minutes, it doesn't make it any less of a team.

If I was team B, I would see this match as an opportunity to work with team C, show them your robot's abilities, and give them firsthand knowledge about your drive team. If team B is so good, maybe team C will pick them after this...

Play your hardest at all times. It makes the competition a challenge, and it makes the competition fair. And it gives you a chance to showcase the hard work you did on your robot.

Hard work that, as I've discussed before at length, is where the competition really takes place, not in shady, manipulative tactics. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94126)

Leav

30-04-2011, 02:27

My simple answer to this complicated question: if you were on Team C, how would you feel about Team B throwing the match?

Looking beyond that single match and championship: how do you want to be remembered?

This is very similar to the 6v0 discussion in 2010, most would agree that was a gray area and that was allowed and encouraged by the rules of the game.

What I'm trying to say is that, although slightly Naive, I would go with what feels right and not do whatever it takes to win.

Duke461

30-04-2011, 12:13

Except the latter happens all the time. "Tanking" is a common occasion in professional sports. From the general manager and owner on down through the players.

I'm in no way saying that it's a positive thing for FIRST (nor am I condemning it with this post), but if you're going to attempt to use a sports analogy, at least use one that doesn't counteract your point.
I dont think the focus of my post was the analogy, so im sorry if my analogy doesnt work the best (even though i dont see how thats counteracting my point), but the point here is you just dont do that. There are too many non-GP reasons to tank a FIRST game like that.

Chris is me

30-04-2011, 12:21

This is very similar to the 6v0 discussion in 2010, most would agree that was a gray area and that was allowed and encouraged by the rules of the game.

This absolutely isn't the same, for one simple reason.

6v0 helps everyone on your alliance. It is a strategic move that gets you points and hurts no one.

Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners.

Leav

30-04-2011, 12:30

This absolutely isn't the same, for one simple reason.

6v0 helps everyone on your alliance. It is a strategic move that gets you points and hurts no one.

Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners.

True, I accept the very strong distinction. I guess what I meant was "this discussion reminds me of the 6v0 discussion".

One could discuss the theoretical situation where all 3 alliance partners want to lose for various reasons, but that's not the point of this thread.

gunsanbob

30-04-2011, 12:31

doesn't make sense

Matt Krass

30-04-2011, 12:34

Lil' Lavery

30-04-2011, 12:49

I dont think the focus of my post was the analogy, so im sorry if my analogy doesnt work the best (even though i dont see how thats counteracting my point), but the point here is you just dont do that. There are too many non-GP reasons to tank a FIRST game like that.

To paraphrase:
This is bad. It's like doing a commonly accepted action.

Molten

30-04-2011, 12:55

In what way do you mean you are disappointed. If I had to throw a match to win a world championship, I would highly consider it. I am looking out for my kids.
If I know that I am a part of an awesome team, should I not do what is in the best interest of my team? Should I not consider the option at the very least?

The purpose of the competition aspect of FIRST is to win. Trust me, off the field and for the most part on the field, I am gonna be the most GP person you can meet.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If you teach your students and lose, you won. If you fail to teach your students(or teach them something wrong) and win, you lost. In this case, I think you'd lose even if you won the trophy just because you sent the wrong message to the students. That it is ok to hurt your alliance if it is for personal gain.

This absolutely isn't the same, for one simple reason.

6v0 helps everyone on your alliance. It is a strategic move that gets you points and hurts no one.

Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners.

This situation is losing for personal gain. That situation was losing for mutual gain. I see the distinction, but disagree that it isn't the same in some rite. Afterall, both are losing for gain regardless of who benefits. I would never condone losing for gain no matter the circumstance. That is why from my view these two strategies aren't so different. I could see though how a person that strongly supported 6 vs 0 would see a big difference though. Though I never agreed with the line of reasoning, I understand the reasoning you(and many others) used to rationalize it. That sort of reasoning won't work in this scenario so you see it as different. My reasoning for my conclusion remains the same, so I see them the same. It's really a matter of perspective on this one. In short, I wouldn't throw out the comparison completely. Yes, there is a distinction. But it was bound to come up at some point and should not be thrown out as a precedence. It shows people are willing to lose for gain in the world of FIRST. The question is: how many people must gain for it to be worth considering? 1 out of 6? 2 out of 6?....5 out of 6? A line must be drawn somewhere and I would be interested to know what number of people on the field must benefit from you purposefully losing to make it acceptable.

Chris is me

30-04-2011, 14:07

Afterall, both are losing for gain regardless of who benefits. I would never condone losing for gain no matter the circumstance.

6v0 wasn't losing in the sense that it resulted in anything bad happening to anyone. The only similarity between 6v0 and "losing" is based on societal constructs.

Molten

01-05-2011, 12:19

6v0 wasn't losing in the sense that it resulted in anything bad happening to anyone. The only similarity between 6v0 and "losing" is based on societal constructs.

By this definition, you can't lose if you gain an advantage from it. Kind of an interesting solution to the thread's question.

Lil' Lavery

01-05-2011, 12:29

By this definition, you can't lose if you gain an advantage from it. Kind of an interesting solution to the thread's question.

Except wins and losses weren't used for the seeding in 2010. So losing the match really didn't impact you in any way.

Rick TYler

01-05-2011, 12:57

You can either choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing, and it's pretty clear that "anything you can get away with is OK" is the wrong thing.

How would you feel if YOUR alliance partner was throwing a match at your expense? Why would you do that to someone else? This isn't really that complicated.

dtengineering

01-05-2011, 13:14

My simple answer to this complicated question: if you were on Team C, how would you feel about Team B throwing the match?

I think this is the bottom line. If team B could throw the match to improve their overall chances of success (lose the battle to win the war, shall we say) without harming or betraying the trust of another team, then I would be willing to accept that this is a legitimate strategy.

The catch is that the premise of the qualifying rounds is that the teams with which you have been randomly allied will work with you in order to win the match.

The issue here is not whether "throwing the match" is right or wrong, but whether betraying your alliance partners is right or wrong. Kind of makes it a simple choice, doesn't it?

Jason

WizenedEE

01-05-2011, 13:44

How is losing on purpose to hurt your alliance parter worse than winning on purpose to hurt your opponent? It's a competition, someone's going to get the short end of the stick. All we hope for is that the best teams do the best, and if team B is the best team, don't they deserve to be in the eliminations?

Chris is me

01-05-2011, 13:52

How is losing on purpose to hurt your alliance parter worse than winning on purpose to hurt your opponent? It's a competition, someone's going to get the short end of the stick.

Well, one is betraying your teammates and one is a hard fought honest victory against opponents. If you don't see the difference in that, I'm not really sure what to say.

Tristan Lall

01-05-2011, 14:41

How about another philosophical question, applied to a hypothetical situation?

Isn't it possible to contend that, after considering the likelihood of the various outcomes, on a per-elimination-rank basis, your team makes the best overall use of its ranking?1 That's to say, that for some function of how far you advance in the eliminations—we could say community inspiration, charitable contributions received by FIRST or number of STEM undergrads produced, or even the combination of these and other factors—the world (or some other community) will be best off if your team goes as far as possible.

So in theory, if you're looking at the big picture (and taking things like other teams' displeasure into account), isn't it possible to conclude that you might have to throw matches in order to go as far as possible in the eliminations, and hence do the most good? In that case, isn't the higher objective not to win, but to make everybody as well off as possible?

(There's a Rawlsian counterargument to be made here—that you can't totally screw people, even if it maximizes society's well-being—but I think it probably applies most strongly to extreme cases. While it could be considered objectively wrong to ruin some team's entire competition, it might not necessarily be wrong to ruin just one match, for the greater good.)

I don't think that logic is wrong; merely subject to enormous practical difficulties in calculation. It wouldn't be wrong for a team to believe this—though the likelihood of self-delusion is substantial. But therefore, a discussion of morality needs to show that this is not applicable to the case at hand, in order to draw a distinction between what's immoral (what's generally being discussed in other posts) and what's moral, but problematic (because the team has likely failed to predict the situation accurately, but has good intentions).

Incidentally, I'd better disclaim responsibility for subscribing to this train of logic in its entirety: I don't believe that I've been adequately well informed to make anything approaching a definitive prediction about the outcomes resulting from a team's ranking. The uncertainty is staggering.

Nevertheless, for this and other (perhaps less noble) reasons, I don't think that throwing a match is always a bad thing. After all, what underlies the expectation that your teammates should depend on you? It's a convention, (indeed one that serves us well most of the time), but is it also part of the tacit agreement that you make as a participant?2 (And while you may believe it is, how can you be sure that everyone else feels the same way?)

Furthermore, who's in violation of the convention/agreement? The whole team? The strategists that put them up to it? The drivers who executed it? And was the violation the product of deep consideration, or a spur-of-the moment decision? If we're going to apportion blame, we've got to do it carefully, recognizing that every situation is unique.

What I think this really comes down to is a question about what FRC is. While it's reasonably obvious that it is neither a pure competition nor a pure collaboration, there is no one combination of the two that all teams can be expected to take to heart. Accordingly, they will differ as to their tolerance for strategies which are disproportionately beneficial to their team, and harmful to others.

At the risk of striking a nerve, let me use a religious analogy. The team that is unwilling to harm any opponent3 to the slightest degree is like a Jain fundamentalist—powerless and ineffective to an amazing degree. By contrast, the team that would place their goals above those of other teams is a lot like a Christian crusader—they think they're right, and maybe they are, but the consequences of being wrong are pretty deplorable. But just as a continuum of religious belief is acceptable in society, I think it's reasonable to accept a variety of beliefs as to the acceptability of strategies that might run afoul of the simplistic and possibly unrealistic ideal of complete fidelity to your alliance partners.

Ultimately, people are going to judge each team for their actions, but I think it's worthwhile to discuss the basis and philosophy behind those judgments once in a while.

1 And furthermore, the rest of the world also maximizes the utility when you rank highest. (Again, this is a pretty uncertain proposition.)
2 I mean this in the sense of a sort of social contract of FIRST: by participating, you agree to certain things, like following the rulebook. What else is included?
3 Perhaps this betrays my opinion, but I'm considering opponent in the broad sense as "some team that you'd prefer to outrank". You can still be nice to them, but I think this recognizes the fact that much of our motivation is derived from the opportunity to demonstrate a level of superiority.

NachoCheese

01-05-2011, 14:42

I am student from 1086 and I am part of the pit crew. It may be obvious that this was not our best year but we still played strong and to the best of our ability. Our team knows that even if you have an amazing year doesn't mean you always will. Part of the learning experience is losing and the way I see it is, we didn't lose, we just found new ways to improve. Each competition is a learning experience for each student, and to be taught that the point of the competition is to win isn't expressing the ideas of FIRST.

The FIRST mission statement says:
"Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership."

If your teaching them that the excitement only comes from winning then they are not getting the full experience.

Tristan Lall

01-05-2011, 15:02

Each competition is a learning experience for each student, and to be taught that the point of the competition is to win isn't expressing the ideas of FIRST.

The FIRST mission statement says:
"Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership."Not to clobber your first post ever—because this isn't directed at you in particular—but I hate when people drag out some random mission statement to justify what FIRST means to them. (I agree with your main thesis.)

Let's identify these mission statements for what they are: general principles in a concise format that are neither intended to be, nor useful as substitutes for explicit rules and implicit conventions. They write these to fill appropriate spaces on brochures. The real mission statement comes from the examples that all of FIRST's participants are setting—from the top management down to the teams competing. And the real mission statement is fluid and ever-changing.

I think an interesting example of this was the change in Dean's demeanour when making his speech yesterday: he toned down the language of conflict between popular culture and FIRST, and I think we're going to see that détente eventually reflected in the attitudes of people who once decried the involvement of seemingly-vapid celebrities in the affairs of FRC.1

1 I don't think Dean has fully wrapped his head around that change: he stumbled at one point, and it seemed he was about to make one of his habitual criticisms—then he paused, presumably thinking better of it, and went in another direction.

NachoCheese

01-05-2011, 15:09

No offense taken and there is definitely no problem with expressing your opinion. The way I see it, the mission statement creates the idea which begins to build into bigger things. Nothing ever stays the same and its hard to avoid change. Every person builds off of experience, but it has to start somewhere.

EricH

01-05-2011, 15:18

The only way I'd throw the match would be if everyone on my alliance agreed to do the same thing. The odds of that happening are slim--after all, a win can move you up multiple slots in standings, potentially into top-10 or backup range.

If my entire alliance doesn't agree to throw the match, I have one choice left: play to win, no-holds-barred, drive-it-like-you-stole-it, full-blown do my best to win that match. And I would expect my opponents to be doing the same thing to stop me. If I lose then, that's because my alliance partners and I are up against a better alliance.

Then, if I wasn't picked by the team I wanted in eliminations, what would I do? Build the best alliance I could and try to beat that team at their own game.

pfreivald

01-05-2011, 19:24

Tom Ore

01-05-2011, 20:47

I'm a bit hesitant to post this, but we had an experience like this at a regional. Another team had struggled with several problems through the first half or so of the qualifying rounds but had them worked out. They were a very low seed at that time and it was clear by then that we would be a high seed. A mentor for this team came to us and said they would be willing to make sure they stayed a low seed if we agreed to pick them as our 3rd alliance partner. We declined to make any agreements regarding alliance partners and reassured this team that they would get picked by someone. I was a bit surprised, however, by this open attempt to make a deal like this with apparently no regard for their future alliance partners.

Tristan Lall

01-05-2011, 21:00

gblake

01-05-2011, 21:38

Long post...

It most certainly is not appropriate. ... You do not give an logic to back up your assertion - I assert that it can be appropriate, in some narrowly defined circumstances, to consult with your allies and purposefully lose (not "throw" or "tank") a match.

... throw a match like that. It isn't fair to team C, or the third team on your alliance, most of all it isn't fair to your team. ... The OP didn't say they were going to "Throw a match". That phrase has connotations of secretive, duplicitous, violations of trust and/or rules. The OP said "lose on purpose".

They could clearly and publicly announce and explain their intentions and purpose. They could (should) discuss the suggestion with their allies and carry it out only with their allies' permission.

All of these clearly take the situation out of the match throwing realm and into the realm of thoughtful execution of a strategy aimed at maximizing their chances of winning the tournament.

Sometime you sacrifice a pawn to win a chess match. Sometimes you walk a batter to win a baseball game. Sometimes you hit a sacrifice to win a baseball game. But - You 100% don't sacrifice unconsulted allies or allies who disagree.

... my kids would be absolutely floored if we purposefully tanked a match as a 'strategy'. ... So I guess they would be pleased to tank a tournament instead? (again "tank" has negative connotations that imply skulduggery, and that is not what was described).

Well, you can lose a match without making it obvious that you're throwing it - have your robot "break" (like by secretly deleting the code) and have your human player throw badly. Obviously, you shouldn't do this. This would be bad. It would be deceitful and would indeed be "throwing the match". That is not what the OP described.

... it's not about the competition, ... I beg to differ. People I respect have encouraged us all to "compete like crazy" when on the field. FIRST isn't only about the competition, but it does contain a useful and important component that is about competition.

... What's inspiring about making a fool out of yourself to win a plastic trophy and a blue banner? ... This and other statements you have made seem to indicate that you are not giving the question a dispassionate examination, but are instead substituting prejudices brought in from other domains, and knee-jerk reactions, for debate. However, the OP should take into account that many people will have similar reactions. It is evidence that not everyone uses game theory math to guide their strategies.

... I propose that winning is this manner is more detrimental than losing fairly, even losing horribly, but fairly. ... You create a false dichotomy, there is no evidence that the strategy proposed is unfair in any sense, or that following a strategy that causes a team to forgo winning a tournament should be declared "fair".

... If B is in 30th, the odds are slim they'll even have a chance to pick C. ... Irrelevant to the discussion of the premise submitted by the OP.

... What does a victory mean? A plastic trophy and a blue banner? Or improving the lives of the students involved? Winning a tournament at the expense of integrity, as mentioned before, is not going to do anything towards improving a students life, or their opportunities, or their own morals. As much as high school students like to disagree, they're still being molded and growing, and learning to win by cheating (and that's what this is) is a terrible lesson. ... Again another almost absurdly false dichotomy that assumes some sort of heinous treachery on the part of Team C. Teaching students to consult with their allies about publicly pursuing a strategy that wins a tournament would be a heck of a good lesson to teach them. Among other things, it would teach them that Pyhrric victories are not something to covet; and that looking past your nose in order to keep your eye on the big picture is a valuable skill that should be cultivated. Again, however, part of this situation's big picture is considering the likely reactions of folks who enjoy Pyhrric victories and invest each match with a moral purpose that actually doesn't exist in this context. ... [/QUOTE]

... They seem to mean a lot more to you than myself. ... Yet another unfounded, disrespectful pejorative, assumption that doesn't belong in a useful debate.

... People (myself included) are making a ridiculous point out of highlighting the logical flaw of B being a 30th seed as a mild rejection of your idea I believe. I obviously can't speak for them personally, but I do believe the intent was to politely dissuade the idea. If I'm correct, that should give you a pretty clear indication what the opinion is of this strategy. ... Yours and the others you refer to are not the only voices responding.

... Let the red dots rain. I'll go down with you :)

... I know I'd seriously be considering doing something that's not "right" in hopes of making it to Einstein... Another false dichotomy couched in prejudicial terms. I wouldn't consider doing anything that wasn't/isn't "right"; but, when done without deception, I assert this tournament-winning strategy isn't "wrong". It might contain flawed logic in that it might not maximize Team C's chances to be on the winning alliance, but it isn't ethically wrong.

In what way is cheating (albeit subtlety) considered what is best for a team? ... In what specific way does the OP suggest cheating? I presume your answer will include citing a plan (in a quote taken from the OP or a subsequent post) to violate a specific rule.

... If I had to throw a match to win a world championship, ... In common contemporary English, "Throwing a match" implies deception. The OP made no mention of deception. Otherwise, I agree.

... Sabotage within any type of team is frowned upon, ... The OP did not suggest sabotage. They were silent about consulting with allied teams. I choose to presume that they would only carry out this strategy if their allies agreed with it.

... Play your hardest at all times. ... It appears the OP is playing their hardest, by considering all possible ways to to use the tools at their disposal to succeed in the field competition aspect of FRC.

... It makes the competition a challenge, and it makes the competition fair. ... "Fair" is not an absolute. No competition of the sort that we are discussing is purely "fair" in all possible senses. Instead things like an FRC tournament are only "fair" is some defined sense(s). Arguing whether the proposed strategy is fair or unfair is a red herring.

... not in shady, manipulative tactics. ... The OP said nothing about anything "shady" or hidden. Arguing against manipulating the course of events (in a tournament) to tilt them in a team or alliance's favor is not going to hold water. Teams purposefully attempt to manipulate tournament outcomes from the moment they are formed. Manipulate is not a bad word, unless in your mind it carries a connotation of deception or cheating; and those are things that were not suggested by the OP.

... Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners. The OP didn't say whether they would do this as team or as an alliance. I choose to assume the alliance would be fully informed and in agreement.

The purpose of the competition is to compete. Competing doesn't mean doing whatever necessary to win, competing is playing your best to try to win, and playing your best is more than strategy and points. You need to be able to play the game fairly, and honorably. Especially in FIRST the pressure is on to set a good example for the students, and to inspire. I am disappointed because I believe this 'strategy' to be a horrible example of proper sportsmanship, and integrity, and I would not want anyone teaching the kids on my team it's OK to screw someone else over, as long as it helps up win. ... In my opinion (and reasonable people may disagree) you are not providing any evidence of unfairness, dishonor or "screwing over". See above.

... To answer your other questions, no, you should not consider the option, and I do not believe it is in the best interest of the team. ... Again - Reactions like the one you have expressed in this thread, not the validity of the strategy or the result of a dispassionate examination of its ethics, are a reason to tread carefully in the minefield.

... teach them something wrong) and win, you lost. ... you sent the wrong message to the students ... Nothing "wrong" is being advocated, except perhaps by those who are advocating teaching your students to lose tournaments.

... that it is ok to hurt your alliance if it is for personal gain. ... One more time - When did the OP advocate doing this without the full understanding and support of their allies????

... This situation is losing for personal gain. ... No, this situation is about winning a tournament if your allies (I assume) support the method you recommend employing.

... right thing or the wrong thing, ... "anything you can get away with is OK" ... You are asserting rightness or wrongness, without justifying the assertions. Opinions should be respected, but not advanced as facts.

... This isn't really that complicated. You are right, it's not complicated. If your ally/allies agree(s) with it, then the math appears to says you should do it. However, the psychology of the rest of the world makes it dicey.

... betraying your alliance partners is right or wrong. Kind of makes it a simple choice, doesn't it? The OP did not say to do it in secret or without consulting their ally(s). Otherwise I think we agree.

... hurt your alliance parter ... If you allies agree, then pretty much by definition, they aren't being hurt. The OP didn't say to conceal the strategy from allies.

... Nevertheless, for this and other (perhaps less noble) reasons, I don't think that throwing a match is always a bad thing. After all, what underlies the expectation that your teammates should depend on you? It's a convention, (indeed one that serves us well most of the time), but is it also part of the tacit agreement that you make as a participant?2 (And while you may believe it is, how can you be sure that everyone else feels the same way?)

Furthermore, who's in violation of the convention/agreement? The whole team? The strategists that put them up to it? The drivers who executed it? And was the violation the product of deep consideration, or a spur-of-the moment decision? If we're going to apportion blame, we've got to do it carefully, recognizing that every situation is unique.

What I think this really comes down to is a question about what FRC is. While it's reasonably obvious that it is neither a pure competition nor a pure collaboration, there is no one combination of the two that all teams can be expected to take to heart. Accordingly, they will differ as to their tolerance for strategies which are disproportionately beneficial to their team, and harmful to others. ... I disagree with this part of your post for the reasons outlined above, but otherwise I applaud that you are actually trying to advance genuine arguments/debate, and I agree with much of it.

... If your teaching them that the excitement only comes from winning then they are not getting the full experience. If you are teaching them that the excitement comes from successfully carrying out (or thoughtfully deciding against) an unusual strategy that comes from an insightful and out-of-the-box analysis of the situation, then they are getting more than the typical experience.

The only way I'd throw the match would be if everyone on my alliance agreed to do the same thing. The odds of that happening are slim--after all, a win can move you up multiple slots in standings, potentially into top-10 or backup range.

If my entire alliance doesn't agree to throw the match, I have one choice left: play to win, no-holds-barred, drive-it-like-you-stole-it, full-blown do my best to win that match. And I would expect my opponents to be doing the same thing to stop me. If I lose then, that's because my alliance partners and I are up against a better alliance.

Then, if I wasn't picked by the team I wanted in eliminations, what would I do? Build the best alliance I could and try to beat that team at their own game. Eric gets my full support.

... Every team should try as hard as they can to win every match. To do otherwise is to shortchange your alliance partners, your sponsors, the spectators, and yourselves. Why didn't you suggest winning every tournament or every autonomous period, instead of winning every match? Are you assuming that all three are the same? I know that they are not? Or do you believe is there something special about a match that doesn't apply to complete tournaments, or to portions of a match?

Blake

gblake

01-05-2011, 21:41

... I was a bit surprised, however, by this open attempt to make a deal like this with apparently no regard for their future alliance partners. I would have been too. Disregarding your alliance partners is not what I have espoused in my other message.

Blake

SamM

01-05-2011, 22:23

Blake,
I believe it is implied that B would be losing the match without the consent of C. Why would C agree to a strategy that leads to them eventually losing in the eliminations to the A-B alliance?

I do not see a situation where the purposeful loss strategy would be both viable and morally acceptable. Either B discretely informs A they will try to lose the match leading A & B "colluding", something I believe would generally be defined as amoral(and possibly against the rules of the given game). Or B does not inform A of their intentions, B looks very weak in the final match before pairing, likely leading to C being picked over B.

Molten

01-05-2011, 22:32

It is evidence that not everyone uses game theory math to guide their strategies.

I have used math to do alot of things, but when it comes to right and wrong I use simpler means. I follow the way I was raised. I was always taught to have fun and try my hardest. Interestingly, math never came up. As for the fascination with winning each match rather then tournaments(which you mentioned later in the post), I was taught to have fun, try hard in every game, and to do my best. Winning the tournament was never mentioned. Whether you win the tournament or not, I was always told to focus on the game at hand. I'm not going to say that my parents have always been right, in fact they'd tell you they are wrong sometimes. I will say that following this line of thinking has kept my conscious clear this long and I don't plan on changing it. As for game theory, I've read the basics of it and find it interesting for a thought exercise. I don't intend to apply it in the real world unless the result is acceptable by my earlier method. When it comes right down to it, I care more about living with myself then winning no matter how it is defined. That includes matches, tournaments, or even championships.

Jason

PS: Feel free to poke fun at my simplistic method of reasoning with all the big words you deem necessary. I'm open to hearing your side, but in the end my mind is made on this one.

Grim Tuesday

01-05-2011, 22:32

Let me condense this thread down into a sentance:

Is being GP defined as trying to win every match or win the competition?

EDIT: On the field GP.

pfreivald

01-05-2011, 22:50

Why didn't you suggest winning every tournament or every autonomous period, instead of winning every match? Are you assuming that all three are the same? I know that they are not? Or do you believe is there something special about a match that doesn't apply to complete tournaments, or to portions of a match?

It appears that you're trying to make these questions rhetorical, but I do not believe they are.

I certainly do believe that there is something special about the 'match' unit that makes it more special than the 'autonomous period', 'endgame period', or 'tournament' units.

I'm certain that there are those who will disagree with me, but I am equally certain that the match unit is more important than the rest, because FIRST uses the sports model, and coopertition still involves that 'rtition' part. I am equally certain that my administrators and most of my parents and students want to know if we've won a match -- not an autonomous period, not an endgame, but a match -- and that winning a tournament comes ultimately from winning matches.

Matches are special. Failure to recognize this -- or a refusal to recognize this -- will result in disagreement with my stance on how things "should be".

Mr. Lim

02-05-2011, 00:19

A mentor for this team came to us and said they would be willing to make sure they stayed a low seed if we agreed to pick them as our 3rd alliance partner.

^Fastest way to make our "Do Not Pick" list. PERIOD.

I've openly admitted to throwing a match in FRC before. I'm not going to call myself an "expert" by any means, but if you care to see my opinion on the matter, here's a situation summary on whether I would consider throwing the match:

OP's situation:
NO. Emphatically. Trophies, medals, division wins or not, any opportunity to beat the best team there, you take it every chance you get whether its Q1 or F3.

In our Canadian realm, I couldn't imagine backing down from ANY opportunity to try and beat 1114. Hypothetically if we were with 2056 and against 1114 in that situation, I play harder than I ever have and try and bury those guys. In order to be the best, you must beat the best.

To throw the match and screw 2056 out of all their hard work in ranking 1st, taking away their chance to pick the best alliance they can? SIMPLY DESPICABLE...END OF STORY

This situation: (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=842210&postcount=66)
I threw the match back then, hated doing it at the time, but this one of the few times I felt it was justified. I lost sleep over it, but eventually made peace with myself. I have no regrets doing it. If faced with the exact same situation today, I throw the match again.

A few hypothetical match throwing situations that came up this year that we did not act upon, or never had the opportunity to:

Qualification rounds. You are ranked out of the potential Alliance Captain positions. You are playing with a very good alliance partner who you really want to help move up into the standings. You are predicted to win this match in a blowout, with the opponents scoring very little. I tell my alliance partners not to deploy minibots right away at 15s. I take a team DQ, by deploying a minibot (or 2 ;)) on the opposing towers. My alliance deploys afterwards. Our alliance wins, but my team loses, our friends earn some major ranking points.

Qualification rounds. You are ranked out of the potential Alliance Captain positions. You are playing against a very good alliance that contains a team you want to knock down in the rankings. You are predicted to lose this match in a blowout, with your robot carrying the brunt of the scoring load. Instead of trying to win by scoring in teleop, our team plays the hardest defense we possibly can for the full 2 minutes, and does not even think about deploying a minitbot or trying to score. Alliance loses, but at least we win the ranking points battle.

Alan Anderson

02-05-2011, 00:34

Or do you believe is there something special about a match that doesn't apply to complete tournaments, or to portions of a match?

There's indeed something special about a qualification match. The teams on an alliance are working together for the specific common goal of winning that match.

For anyone saying they think the original question assumes all teams on the alliance would be in agreement on losing the match, please read it again. It's about whether a team should lose on purpose in order to cause one of their opponents to be seeded #1 instead of one of their partners. While it might be a mathematically justifiable tactic in the pursuit of winning the tournament, it's a dirty trick to play on your alliance partner.

gblake

02-05-2011, 11:14

...

...

...

...

Blake,
I believe it is implied that B would be losing the match without the consent of C. Why would C agree to a strategy that leads to them eventually losing in the eliminations to the A-B alliance?
... Sam/Alan, I understand and I don't disagree, but, out of all the responses in this thread, I think 2, maybe 3, took the time to say that they would find nothing wrong with the strategy if alliance partners agreed, and that they would never carry it out if alliance partners disagreed. I found that willingness to think outside the box refreshing.

Everyone else appears to be saying that they abhor the strategy regardless of whether the entire alliance wholeheartedly embraced it (and would paint a scarlet letter on any alliance that employed it) . If I am mistaken, please correct me.

I too find it quite improbable that all three allies in the OP's scenario would agree to lose the match; but I think there are other scenarios in which all allies might agree. Regardless, please notice that I emphatically list agreeing allies and publicly announcing the strategy as two requirements that have to be satisfied before employing it.

Then we get to the topic of all the moral/ethical baggage that many folks pile on when they assert that losing one part of a contest to improve your chances of winning the entire contest is simply reprehensible. Well, I personally think that folks are extrapolating from other contexts, and in the process are overlooking the subtly different (odd/unusual) nature of FRC tournaments. In very extreme/unusual (but not impossible) circumstances the unusual nature of an FRC/FTC/VRC/etc. tournament can turn upside down the rules of thumb that apply in so many other contexts.

In just about any other sports type competition, I fully agree that trying your best to win every game/inning/quarter will monotonically maximize your success. That doesn't apply to every pitcher/batter match-up, or similar parts of games, but it is the rule to live by as far as games against an opposing team are concerned.

However, it is also undeniably true that there are many circumstances in which (without deceiving any allies) the right thing to do is to lose a battle in order to win a war.

In some extreme circumstances I 100% believe an FRC team (without deceiving any allies) can benefit on the scoreboard by intentionally losing a match. But - so long as many, many observers can be expected to react as strongly as folks have in this and other threads, and can be expected to apply the yardsticks applied in this thread; I would advise the teams in question to lose a battle (the tournament) in order to avoid losing the war (getting incorrectly labeled by observers).

The tournament arithmetic might be as clear as a bell in those extreme circumstances; but it is the psychology of the observers that is even more important. To me this (instead of blanket statements that anyone-who-does-it-is-evil) is the better and more educational answer.

Blake

IKE

02-05-2011, 17:10

Is it horrible in baseball that you intentionally throw crappy pitches in order to walk a really good batter?
I realize this is different, but in essence, 1 player is intentionally not doing his/her best in order to support a larger goal of the team. Walking was not always considered reasonable. In many old fashioned baseball leagues, not throwing a fair pitch meant that you had to keep throwing fair pitches (which slowed down an already slow game).
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml

In Freakanomics, there is a discussion about how Sumo Wreslters cheat. Within that culture, Wrestlers are divided into an upper and lower class system by having abetter than 50% season (see controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumo) section). Wreslters often come from the underdog position well above the statistical expectation. This article also talks about motivational issues.

Having played with many teams that have forgotten to connect batteries, had code issues, coms drop, minibot misfires, and just plain old bad luck... it would be difficult to prove a team intentionally losing unless they started playing defense against their alliance.

******************
On a tangential note, all of you that feel there is a moral issue involved with "not doing your best", how would this play in with partners not doing what is best for the alliance? If your team has a 2 tube auto that is 90% on the first tube and 50% on the second tube, and you partner is 0/8, shouldn't they then be forced by moral obligation to allow you to run your 2 tube? This past weekend teams often wanted to demonstrate that they finally got their Auto "working". Even though they had no chance of seeding top 8, even though they were 0/X (6, 8...) they insisted that it was a moral imperative that they give it another shot. Wouldn't this be considered throwing the match when they miss and it causes a loss?
******************

Overall, I agree in doing your best. Even last year, we only did 1 6v0, and that was before the update clarification and that the GDC did not intend for 6v0 matches. After that update, we played all of our matches straight even though it would have been in our best interest 2 times to do a 6v0, and not doing the 6v0 ended up costing us quite a bit. I would warn against trying to apply your moral views to other teams. If the other team views the "tournament" as the game, and each match just a subset of the larger event, they could share similar morals, and just differ on the definition of what constitutes doing your best. For teams that would then take this team "off their list", aren't you now not doing your best because you have added in an additional requirement that the team must subscribe to your view of the game and its moral obligations? Where do you draw the line? Should you cross off every copycat minibot because it is morally objectionable to steal someone elses design?
********************
I really like this discussion because it is out in the open. You should have discussions like this one with your team before presented with the situation. Discuss the Pros/Cons and get peoples opinions. When we discussed it as a team last year, initially most did not want to do a 6v0, but through discussion we decided if it was truly in our teams best interest, and both alliance partners agreed to it, we would do it. After the update, we felt less comfortable as FIRST mentioned it was not their intent. We also though decided we would not hold it against anyone as it was a reasonable strategy, and that many smart teams would use it if necessary.

pfreivald

02-05-2011, 17:17

Everyone else appears to be saying that they abhor the strategy regardless of whether the entire alliance wholeheartedly embraced it (and would paint a scarlet letter on any alliance that employed it) . If I am mistaken, please correct me.

While 'abhor' is too strong a word, that is a reasonably accurate representation of my feelings on the subject.

Rick TYler

02-05-2011, 18:54

The tournament arithmetic might be as clear as a bell in those extreme circumstances; but it is the psychology of the observers that is even more important. To me this (instead of blanket statements that anyone-who-does-it-is-evil) is the better and more educational answer.

You've created a straw-man argument based on assuming an unlikely edge case, and then used that to scold quite a number of intelligent, thoughtful contributors. Since the OP did not include the approval of his alliance partners in his hypothetical, that is how the majority of people here responded.

Let me ask you a simple question -- if you were a student driver on team XYZ and your alliance partner DEF told you that they were not going to score during the match in order improve their chances in Eliminations, how would you feel? Would it be wrong?

Since I am not uncomfortable making value judgements, I would say that the correct answer is "yes, it is wrong."

Rick TYler

02-05-2011, 19:11

I really like this discussion because it is out in the open. You should have discussions like this one with your team before presented with the situation.

We had this discussion with our teams and the conclusion was that if I ever had proof that one of our teams threw a qualifying match, either they could quit or I would.

aldowyn

02-05-2011, 21:46

This is related to what several people have already said, but to the people saying that it's worth it if it gives your team a chance at a championship:

A very wise man once said "It's not about the robot." I think you know who he is, and I think you all know what he would think about that strategy. And I wholeheartedly agree.

gblake

02-05-2011, 22:39

... Let me ask you a simple question -- if you were a student driver on team XYZ and your alliance partner DEF told you that they were not going to score during the match in order improve their chances in Eliminations, how would you feel? Would it be wrong? ...
In this answer I am using myself to represent a team's decision makers. I don't intend to imply that "I" make such decisions for any team I mentor.

That is easy. If they told me they were going to do it I would be miff'ed by the impoliteness of being told instead of asked; but regardless I would decide if the match was important to my success in achieving my goals, and then I would either answer "OK.", or "Please don't."

If I said "Please don't." but they went ahead and purposefully underperformed, I would be quite annoyed.

Even if I said "OK", I would only go along with it if we also asked the announcer to explain it to the audience.

Further:

If they asked me whether I cared if they used the match to give a rookie driver some training, I would go through the same analysis.

If they asked me whether they should risk damaging their fast, but fragile mini-bot I would go through the same analysis.

Etc.

Blake

gblake

02-05-2011, 22:41

... A very wise man once said "It's not about the robot." I think you know who he is, and I think you all know what he would think about that strategy. And I wholeheartedly agree. Actually, like you, I don't; but I might ask him some day. I sincerely wonder where his "Compete like crazy on the field" attitude would lead him.

Do you only compete like crazy to win matches, or do you compete to win the meta-game that is the tournament?

gblake

03-05-2011, 09:05

We had this discussion with our teams and the conclusion was that if I ever had proof that one of our teams threw a qualifying match, either they could quit or I would. By "threw a match" do you mean finding out after the match that they surreptitiously, and without the permission of their ally(s), used less than their full ability in order to purposefully lose a match? or do you mean announcing before the match that they and their ally(s) have agreed to not score because they all have determined that outscoring their opponents lowers the chances of at least one team winning the tournament (and the match outcome is irrelevant to any other allies)?

These are not the same situation. Everyone I know or have corresponded with agrees that the first is deceitful/bad/wrong/unethical and should not be entertained. I would call the it "throwing a match" and would tend to agree with your reaction.

The second is 100% out in the open, occurs by consensus, and might not be a bad thing to do in some very rare, but possible situations. I would not call it "throwing a match" any more than I would say that intentionally walking a batter is throwing a baseball game.

If you agree with the way I use the terms, then we might be on the same page. If you don't, reasonable people can disagree.

Under the heading of "Reasonable people may disagree", someone who considers using the latter option should perhaps either be dissuaded or told how to do it correctly; but they should not be scolded or threatened with figurative banishment, in the vehement manner most replies used.

Blake

Lil' Lavery

03-05-2011, 10:44

I just wish FIRST would put out a statement that it is in the spirit of gracious professionalism to try to win every *match*. I can see why they wouldn't -- because gracious professionalism encompasses good sportsmanship, so this shouldn't even be a discussion we're having on a yearly (or more often) basis -- but I wish they would.

So I'm going to say something that some people will immediately try to rationalize as not true, too black-and-white, naive, or what-have you:

Every team should try as hard as they can to win every match. To do otherwise is to shortchange your alliance partners, your sponsors, the spectators, and yourselves.

I don't. For multiple reasons.

First, isn't saying "X ig GP, and Y isn't GP" really defeating the point of GP? That's a rule or a guideline. It's not a matter of ethics or morals anymore, it's a question of rules at that point. GP isn't about rules, it's not a metric to evaluate behavior. Creating a concrete rubric for "GPness" completely defeats the value in GP.

Secondly, as I'll elaborate on in a minute, your root principle is a fallacy. And it's openly accepted in both FRC and sports that there are cases where it's acceptable to give less than 100% in favor of a larger goal.

Is it horrible in baseball that you intentionally throw crappy pitches in order to walk a really good batter?
I realize this is different, but in essence, 1 player is intentionally not doing his/her best in order to support a larger goal of the team. Walking was not always considered reasonable. In many old fashioned baseball leagues, not throwing a fair pitch meant that you had to keep throwing fair pitches (which slowed down an already slow game).
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml

Baseball has an absolutely fascinating history. Even ignoring walking not being accepted, there was a point in baseball's history where intentionally trying to strike out a batter was considered dirty. You were supposed to serve up easy pitches down the middle of the plate for the other team to hit.There was actually a letter written to the university's baseball team from the Dean of Harvard condemning his players for throwing "deceptive" pitches with the intent to fool the batter. It wasn't considered the gentlemanly conduct that Harvard represented.

Should all the pitchers prior to Candy Cummings (the "inventor" of the curveball) be condemned for not trying their best to help their team?

Sometimes there are cultural convictions that limit the actions teams try in order to win. Should teams resort to "dirty" tactics in order to win a match? Wouldn't they not be giving an 100% effort if they intentionally avoided these tactics knowing they could give them a better chance to win the match? As Al Davis says, "if you 'aint cheating, you 'aint trying."

On a tangential note, all of you that feel there is a moral issue involved with "not doing your best", how would this play in with partners not doing what is best for the alliance? If your team has a 2 tube auto that is 90% on the first tube and 50% on the second tube, and you partner is 0/8, shouldn't they then be forced by moral obligation to allow you to run your 2 tube? This past weekend teams often wanted to demonstrate that they finally got their Auto "working". Even though they had no chance of seeding top 8, even though they were 0/X (6, 8...) they insisted that it was a moral imperative that they give it another shot. Wouldn't this be considered throwing the match when they miss and it causes a loss?

This is a terrific point.

It's a pretty common and generally accepted tactic to "showcase" your robot's capabilities for potential alliance captains during qualification matches. Sometimes it comes to the detriment of your alliances' chances of winning. Is it wrong to try and demonstrate your defensive ability, even though you're your alliances' best (or only) offensive machine? Or to run your autonomous code even though it may interfere with your partners' autonomous efforts?

Should the struggling team who just wants to see their robot score its first game piece play defense in every match because its how they're most effective in terms of a winning strategy? Is it wrong of them to value seeing their robot complete the task they designed it for above winning? Are they "un-GP?"

Was it wrong to let Rudy play? Was it wrong for the Florida Panthers management to trade away good players in exchange for future prospects and draft picks? Was it wrong for Cal Ripken to play so many consecutive games when there were cases the Orioles may have done better with him on the bench?

There are obvious exceptions to the "play to win every match" doctrine. There's some truth in the underlying concept and motivation, but there's no 100% rule about this for a reason. Finding where that line lies for different teams makes for great discussion.

pfreivald

03-05-2011, 17:32

First, isn't saying "X ig GP, and Y isn't GP" really defeating the point of GP? That's a rule or a guideline. It's not a matter of ethics or morals anymore, it's a question of rules at that point. GP isn't about rules, it's not a metric to evaluate behavior. Creating a concrete rubric for "GPness" completely defeats the value in GP.

To quantify a thing is to destroy a thing?

Such an entertaining notion in an engineering competition.

Yeah, I understand that you can't make a comprehensive all-things-GP rubric, and I understand that dissecting a butterfly might teach you how it works, but it ruins the beauty...

But I don't buy the argument that GP is immune to definition or guidelines -- because if it is, it is completely subjective and thus meaningless.

Secondly, as I'll elaborate on in a minute, your root principle is a fallacy. And it's openly accepted in both FRC and sports that there are cases where it's acceptable to give less than 100% in favor of a larger goal.

A. No it isn't.
B. No it isn't. It's openly accepted by some people =/= it's acceptable.

Molten

03-05-2011, 19:36

To quantify a thing is to destroy a thing?

The whole point of GP is doing what is right because it is the right thing to do. If you make guidelines, people will do it because that is the rule not because it is right. People will be doing the right thing still, but for the wrong reasons. If a person helps a person out because they want to, they are a good person. If they do it because they have to, it really doesn't say much about the person. GP is not, has not, and never should be a law. It should be something we all define for ourselves with the intention of being the best person we can be. Making GP a rule would be the equivalent of making a law that says you have to help get kittens out of trees. Yes, it might lead to more people helping others and doing the "right" thing. It will also eliminate the possibility of being truly GP. It doesn't destroy GP, it destroys the meaning of GP.

Jason

pfreivald

03-05-2011, 19:47

The whole point of GP is doing what is right because it is the right thing to do.

I'm sorry, but this GP-as-all-encompassing-morality take is rather funny to me. Don't get me wrong -- I take doing good for the sake of doing good very seriously, and I impress upon everyone I know the importance of exactly that -- but this idea that 'gracious professionalism' is the best thing since Jesus is a bit tiresome.

Humanity as a people can't agree on what 'good' is, for a variety of reasons both good and bad. Elevating GP to that level is, to my mind, downright silly.

I'm all for "Do good things. Just because." It's what I live by, and the primary reason I became both a teacher and a FIRST mentor. My philosophy is "if you have to choose, choose the option that would make your priest/pastor/imam/rabbi/mother/grandmother/father/grandfather/teacher smile the biggest". A corollary is, "if you have to ask on a matter of ethics, you shouldn't be the one making the decisions". A further corollary is "if you have to explain to your parents, mentors, or sponsors, you probably didn't make the right decision".

All that aside, good sportsmanship and faithfulness to your alliance obviate the need to bring GP per se into this. Matches are special, because your sponsors, parents, school administrators, and alliance partners will be extra-happy when you to win matches.

Molten

03-05-2011, 20:28

I'm sorry, but this GP-as-all-encompassing-morality take is rather funny to me.
...
Humanity as a people can't agree on what 'good' is, for a variety of reasons both good and bad. Elevating GP to that level is, to my mind, downright silly.

The first part I quoted: I generally define GP as a term for doing the right thing for the right reasons. Its really just a phrase attached to the already existing ideology that you've mentioned towards the end of your post. How do you define GP? I guess that might be where we disagree on whether it should be written into rules or guidelines. Just because I refer to something as GP and you refer to something GP, doesn't mean we are talking about the same topic. We might just give that title to two completely different entities. Depending on your definition, I might agree that your GP should be written into a set of rules. I am almost certain that I am not the only person here that uses the definition(or one similar) to the one I used above.

The second part I quoted: It is because nobody can agree on what GP is, is exactly the reason it can't be written into direct guidelines. Once again though, I'm not elevating GP to the level of good. I'm just defining GP as a synonym of sorts.

pfreivald

03-05-2011, 21:45

I reject the premise that because GP cannot be easily defined that it cannot be used as a guideline for delineating specific behaviors as acceptable/unacceptable.

aldowyn

03-05-2011, 21:48

My definition of "Gracious Professionalism" is being fair, courteous, and respectful to your competitors and teammates. What's under debate, as far as I'm concerned, is whether this kind of tactic is "fair", and I personally believe that its an unfair manipulation of the system. The simple fact that this is even something remotely possible does seem to signal an issue with said system, but nothing's perfect and as far as I can tell it's a pretty specific, out-there situation.

gblake

03-05-2011, 22:15

... as far as I'm concerned, is whether this kind of tactic is "fair", and I personally believe that its an unfair manipulation of the system. ... Unfair? In what sense is it unfair?

aldowyn

03-05-2011, 22:19

Hmm. Maybe I said that wrong. How about this: I don't believe that's the way the game was meant to be played. You could consider that just essential maneuvering, but I don't really have the mindset for that kind of thing, and it just seems like it's a loophole in the way the system works, and to use it is an exploitation. I'm not saying any other point of view is wrong, but that's how I, personally, see it.

pfreivald

03-05-2011, 22:21

Unfair? In what sense is it unfair?

...if you have to ask...

No, really. If you have to ask this question, then there is a severe disconnect between what you understand about a "game" and a "tournament" and what I do. In a fair, reasonable, normal tournament, each party tries to win each game (that is, each *match*), and can expect their opponents to do the same.

This is what was wrong with 6v0 (which I am glad the GDC clarified), and I can only imagine that the reason the GDC hasn't clarified that throwing games isn't GP is because it's bleedingly freaking obvious.

Lil' Lavery

03-05-2011, 22:33

To quantify a thing is to destroy a thing?

Such an entertaining notion in an engineering competition.

Yeah, I understand that you can't make a comprehensive all-things-GP rubric, and I understand that dissecting a butterfly might teach you how it works, but it ruins the beauty...

But I don't buy the argument that GP is immune to definition or guidelines -- because if it is, it is completely subjective and thus meaningless.

In this case, yes.
The difference between GP and rules is that one is defined and one isn't. Certainly, playing by the rules is usually an aspect most people embrace when acting in a gracious and professional manner.

If FIRST wanted GP to be another defined metric, they'd just write rules governing how to act GP at a competition and through the season. But they don't because that's not the point of gracious professionalism. The point is to cover all the scenarios that are impossible to fathom ahead of time. As Woodie says, GP is acting like your grandmother is watching you all the time. It's about making the choice that would make your grandmother proud, regardless of whether there is a rule or not.
It's not about doing X in situation Y. GP isn't black and white. It's not a metric to evaluate someone's behavior.

A. No it isn't.
B. No it isn't. It's openly accepted by some people =/= it's acceptable.

I know the rest of my post was no longer directly quoting you, but it certainly applied to your statements just as much as anyone's. Yet, you didn't give your reactions to that part. That's what I was most curious about.

So, if playing to win the match is something you do 100% of the time with 100% effort, you think that teams that showcase certain aspects of their robot are wrong?
What about the struggling team that attempts to score a game piece just to see their robot "work" once on the field?
Is the team who's presented with an opportunity to employ a "dirty" tactic (say, flipping another robot) to win a match and doesn't take that opportunity wrong?
And the team that refuses to use the "guaranteed red card" tactic to win a match?

I think there's a line where there are other motives can be placed above adding a W to your record. If you said all of those teams are wrong, we've likely reached an impasse. But, minimally, it does show that the statement you preached as irrefutable fact is not that, but a matter of opinion.

Alan Anderson

03-05-2011, 22:35

I reject the premise that because GP cannot be easily defined that it cannot be used as a guideline for delineating specific behaviors as acceptable/unacceptable.

Gracious Professionalism can be defined quite concisely just by taking the words in isolation. It's relatively easy to classify whether a practice is gracious, and whether it is professional.

This thread makes clear that whether it is acceptable is a matter of opinion.

pfreivald

03-05-2011, 22:40

As I just said in a private message to Molten:

'GP is like Justice Stewart's definition of obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it."

I agreed with you that it to some extent defies complete codification, but I think I can phrase it thusly: Do the right thing, and if there's any ethical/moral doubt or rationalization behind an action, don't even think about it.'

huberje

03-05-2011, 22:45

In a fair, reasonable, normal tournament, each party tries to win each game (that is, each *match*), and can expect their opponents to do the same.

Does one win matches in order to win the competition, simply to look better, or some other reason? While the answer probably varies among teams and individuals, if it is the former, why would it be unreasonable to lose a game to obtain an advantage later on? In fact, this reminds me of a tactic I heard quite often this year. While on a slightly smaller scale, giving up first place on the minibot to increase one's ranking score was a relatively common idea.

pfreivald

03-05-2011, 22:52

I may not have a perfect definition of GP, but it certainly isn't WAAC. I cannot envision a situation where all six teams would agree to hurt one's standings -- including the one whose standings are hurt -- and I'm not particularly interested in hypothetical situations that will never happen.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason to throw a game is to gain advantage at the expense of someone else. While one tries to win games for the same reason, trying to win games doesn't bring up issues of pride, honor, and integrity.

Edit: Alas it is bed time, and I shall not become this fellow http://xkcd.com/386/

Lil' Lavery

03-05-2011, 22:59

The fact of the matter is that the only reason to throw a game is to gain advantage at the expense of someone else. While one tries to win games for the same reason, trying to win games doesn't bring up issues of pride, honor, and integrity.

Once again, I turn to my previous comments. I'll even define it further to include my own team.

In our second qualification match of Philadelphia, we were with two teams who hoped to be able to play offense and against some capable scoring machines. My team had struggled through practice day on Thursday and didn't exactly come out swinging in our first qualification match, only scoring one tube. Our alliance was probably best off if we dedicated our match to trying to stop 56.
Instead, we played offense. We wanted to see if our robot could execute the functions it was designed for. We wanted to build driver confidence and hope to build off of that match for later in the competition. We were hoping to get to work out some more kinks in our machine by seeing the functions executed on the real field.
1712 only scored one tube and our alliance lost the match 81-15.

By not executing the function that gave us the best chance to win, you could say that we "threw" the match. We didn't do it in order to gain advantage at the expense of another team.

Were we wrong?

donnie99

03-05-2011, 23:04

What I add to this thread is the idea to use the game to your advantage. During Breakaway in the Curie division at finals, Team 237 and our alliance partners were playing 469 and their partners during qualification matches. Because of the way the scoring was last year, we decided ton ask 469 if we could help them score to increase our points gained. I personally believe that this was alright because it matters to win, make memorable moments, make an impression on other teams that you will work together and for the benefit of everyone, and to play the way that best fits the way FIRST intended. Although the last part is questionable to different people, it allows for the flexibility that makes each robot and team unique. If this strategy achieves that goal, then go ahead, but remember, the number one alliance can have a bad match and end up losing, even if the best three teams in a regional are part of it.

pfreivald

03-05-2011, 23:05

Were we wrong?

I don't see what the situation you've presented has to do with deliberately losing a match to manipulate standings. You're comparing apples to aardvarks.

G'night!

gblake

03-05-2011, 23:23

...if you have to ask...

No, really. If you have to ask this question, then there is a severe disconnect between what you understand about a "game" and a "tournament" and what I do. In a fair, reasonable, normal tournament, each party tries to win each game (that is, each *match*), and can expect their opponents to do the same.

This is what was wrong with 6v0 (which I am glad the GDC clarified), and I can only imagine that the reason the GDC hasn't clarified that throwing games isn't GP is because it's bleedingly freaking obvious.

I think the disconnect that occurs is most people's belief about what the word "fair" means in these sorts of conversations, and what is actually possible for it to mean. When I was introduced to that notion many years ago, I found it to be a powerful bit of information.

If you dig into the topic you will find there is pretty much no such thing as properly using a simple unadorned and naked "fair" to describe a situation, rule, etc. like the ones we are discussing.

A situation, rule, practice, whatever, can only be fair in some sense. And, no matter what that sense is, I have found that it is always relatively easy for a reasonable person to describe a reasonable sense in which the thing/concept is not fair.

Sometimes (often?) the sense in which fairness is being claimed can be taken from the context of the conversation; but in this situation, I couldn't puzzle it out. So I asked.

To be honest with you, to me at least, how much effort gets put into winning a game would seem to have little bearing on whether or not the game (the game rules) are fair.

Also if one party simply announces that they are not going to attempt to win, I hardly see how the other player(s) can shout "That's not fair!" In that case the audience might be disappointed that they won't be watching a battle of the titans for the next few minutes, but that doesn't seem to be a fairness subject either.

I remain unconvinced.

Blake

PS: Oh by the way, isn't it bleedingly obvious that publicly announcing that a team and its allies are purposefully and notoriously going carry out what they hope will be a tournament-winning strategy by ceding a match to the other alliance, is a very poor match for the phrase "throwing a match" - Sheesh! - Throwing a match is bad, but I don't think that we are discussing throwing a match. If we can't get past that, I doubt we will ever meet anywhere near the middle on this topic. Should we call it a day and move on?

Molten

03-05-2011, 23:48

Once again, I turn to my previous comments. I'll even define it further to include my own team.

In our second qualification match of Philadelphia, we were with two teams who hoped to be able to play offense and against some capable scoring machines. My team had struggled through practice day on Thursday and didn't exactly come out swinging in our first qualification match, only scoring one tube. Our alliance was probably best off if we dedicated our match to trying to stop 56.
Instead, we played offense. We wanted to see if our robot could execute the functions it was designed for. We wanted to build driver confidence and hope to build off of that match for later in the competition. We were hoping to get to work out some more kinks in our machine by seeing the functions executed on the real field.
1712 only scored one tube and our alliance lost the match 81-15.

By not executing the function that gave us the best chance to win, you could say that we "threw" the match. We didn't do it in order to gain advantage at the expense of another team.

Were we wrong?

I think more information is needed to accurately decide. Did you talk to the other teams first? If you communicated with both partners and explained the situation I think most teams would understand and allow you at least a turn to score. It depends on the agreement with the other teams. If I were one of the other teams I wouldn't have been thrilled about saying "sure take all the time you need" but I would have definitely said something along the lines of "try for the first 30 seconds and if it doesn't go well we'll take over". I've been in that boat. My first year, 1766 had a robot that only scored in one match. It was largely to my fault on missing a rule but the point is we had to completely redesign our robot and wanted to see it score. We were new and didn't discuss strategy with our alliance as much as we should have so I'm not really sure if the alliance would have approved. Given the fact that we didn't check or communicate with our team mates properly, we were wrong. If you tried communicating with your alliance and they said "no, we really don't think its a good idea" and you chose to go ahead with attempting to score, you were probably wrong.

Sean, I like the question. It really does show a bit of the gray line that is sometimes hard to bring into focus. In my opinion you did right by your students but wrong by your alliance. The question now is, which is more important to you? We've all been given a bad draw when it comes to alliances and know what that is like. We've also all been the barely functioning robot that gets stuck doing something other then what we worked so hard for. For me, teaching the students should always be the most important thing we do in FIRST. If this is your goal as well(which it might not be exactly), what is the most important thing to teach them? If you continue to try to score(as you did) you are teaching them to never give up and that their effort wasn't wasted. If you chose to do what was best for your team, you would have taught them that some things are more important then self-satisfaction and perhaps taught them humility. They are both valuable lessons to learn that I hope all teams get a chance to experience for themselves at some point.

Sorry I didn't give a yes or no, but I believe that was kind of the point.
Jason

pfreivald

04-05-2011, 07:31

Should we call it a day and move on?

Sure.

I'd be shocked if everyone agreed with me on how I'd run FIRST were I in charge. No, scratch that. I'd be shocked if ANYONE agreed with me completely on how I'd run FIRST were I in charge.

I think we can all agree that we're all happier that I'm not in charge!

Grim Tuesday

04-05-2011, 18:18

Am I the only who has made the observation that a good 90% of all arguments/discussions on Chief Delphi boil down to, once they reach 7-8 pages, a discussion of Gracious Proffesionalism.

gblake

04-05-2011, 19:13

Am I the only who has made the observation that a good 90% of all arguments/discussions on Chief Delphi boil down to, once they reach 7-8 pages, a discussion of Gracious Proffesionalism.
At least that's a better place to wind up than Hitler and Nazis.

Hey - OP (TheFish) - What are your thoughts at this point???? - Blake

jspatz1

06-05-2011, 14:40

If the competition were individual teams against individual teams for individual results, then I would say no problem, use whatever tactic is smart. But FRC is played with alliances, and for the 2 minutes of the match, your responsibility is to the alliance. If losing benefits the whole alliance (as we sometimes saw last year) then the alliance can do whatever they chose. But to put your own results before the alliance and sabatoge your partners, that would be unacceptable.

rsisk

06-05-2011, 15:32

Lil' Lavery

06-05-2011, 16:52

I don't see what the situation you've presented has to do with deliberately losing a match to manipulate standings. You're comparing apples to aardvarks.

G'night!

It has everything to do with your assertion that teams should be putting forth 100% to win each and every match.

pfreivald

06-05-2011, 16:57

It has everything to do with your assertion that teams should be putting forth 100% to win each and every match.

I'm talking about deliberately throwing a match. Your example is not an example of deliberately throwing a match. The situations are discrete.

IKE

06-05-2011, 18:23

I'm talking about deliberately throwing a match. Your example is not an example of deliberately throwing a match. The situations are discrete.

What about the team that deliberately "showcases a talent" and causes the alliance to loose that match? In essence isn't that the same as throwing the match for personal team gain?

EricH

06-05-2011, 19:28

What about the team that deliberately "showcases a talent" and causes the alliance to loose that match? In essence isn't that the same as throwing the match for personal team gain?
There's a YMTC somewhere about one team wanting to showcase their robot's offense... even though their alliance might have best been served by them displaying their defense. It was a few years ago.

If the team showcases their talent, then presumably their alliance members agreed. They were willing to risk taking the loss for the team member to show off. That's not a problem.

It's only a problem if they agree to a strategy that has them not showcasing their talent, and then showcase the talent anyway. That's more like going back on your word. (Not agreeing to any strategy... well, that's another problem. That's on the alliance to have caught earlier.)

pfreivald

06-05-2011, 19:40

+1 to EricH's reply.

Your first duty while on the field is to your alliance, if matters of honor mean anything!

Lil' Lavery

07-05-2011, 22:11

I'm talking about deliberately throwing a match. Your example is not an example of deliberately throwing a match. The situations are discrete.

The situation I outlined is an example that parallel's the scenario IKE mentioned. Your stance is that my "first duty while on the field is to your alliance," is not something I agree with. My first duty, anywhere in a FIRST competition, is to ensure that my students get the most of the competition. Only very rarely that does interfere with my alliance partners' ambitions and the desire to win each match. But my highest duty is to give every effort to my students to ensure they have the best experience possible.

And just so it's mentioned, 1712 did agree with our partners before that match on the strategy we chose. I'm not going to go through the entire strategy discussion, as I remember it, in this thread for many reasons, including the privacy of those teams' strategy processes.

SamM

07-05-2011, 22:29

I'd like to see opinions on a slight alteration of the original scenario:

Scenario:

Current Rankings:

1. Team A (Undefeated)
2. Team C (Undefeated)
...
20. Team B

Team A is the "best" robot in the division.
Team B is the 2nd best robot in the division.
Team C is the 3rd best robot in the division.

Match:
Team B & X & Y vs. A & U & V in the last match of the day.

X & Y are decent robots, but not in the top 12. U & V are the "worst" robots in the division.

If Team B wins that last match, then Team C gets the Top-Seed, will then pick team A and lead to a division victory for them.

If Team A wins the last match, they get Top-Seed, will then pick Team B, leading to a division victory for both of them.

The question:
Is it appropriate for Team B to not play at their full potential, knowing that it will greatly improve their chances of winning in the end? Assume that X & Y don't mind showcasing their ability to play 2 v 3.

EricH

07-05-2011, 23:53

If X and Y are both OK with it, then that's for B to decide if they're comfortable with it. If they are, then it's a viable strategic maneuver, and not totally unprecedented.

pfreivald

08-05-2011, 08:58

The situation I outlined is an example that parallel's the scenario IKE mentioned. Your stance is that my "first duty while on the field is to your alliance," is not something I agree with. My first duty, anywhere in a FIRST competition, is to ensure that my students get the most of the competition. Only very rarely that does interfere with my alliance partners' ambitions and the desire to win each match. But my highest duty is to give every effort to my students to ensure they have the best experience possible.

Methinks there might be a fundamental disagreement between us about what it means for students to get the most out of the competition.

Lil' Lavery

08-05-2011, 11:46

Methinks there might be a fundamental disagreement between us about what it means for students to get the most out of the competition.

Would you have let Rudy play?

George A.

08-05-2011, 15:40

I think an interesting twist to this (that I don't think has been discussed yet) is what if you were the only one on the alliance for which the match counted and that your two partners were surrogates?

There are some instances where the teams don't break down neatly in the match schedule so there are some teams that play extra matches which don't affect their ranking.

So what if you wanted to "lose the battle to win the war" with absolutely NO negative impact on your partners?

EricH

08-05-2011, 15:44

pfreivald

08-05-2011, 15:46

Would you have let Rudy play?

I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify.

---------------

And by the way, I want to make something absolutely clear: I'm not out to win any kind of argument here. I fully understand that not everyone will agree with my point of view. I understand that on some things, more people probably disagree than agree.

I'm not making any moral judgements and I'm not calling one viewpoint intrinsically superior to another. I'm merely stating my opinion on how the competition "should be".

EricH

08-05-2011, 15:56

I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify.If you have not seen the movie "Rudy", starring Sean Astin, you will not get the reference.

Rudy is a player on the Notre Dame football team (how he got there is another story, and the main focus of the movie). He's not one of the regular players, but is given the chance to dress for his final game. On the final play, the coach puts him in.

The question is, Would YOU have put Rudy in?

pfreivald

08-05-2011, 20:25

Lil' Lavery

09-05-2011, 00:27

Ah. I don't watch sports movies, though we have a story similar to that locally -- Jason MacAlwain(sp?)'s story is pretty spectacular: the autistic scorekeeper for his HS basketball team, he was put into his very last game and sank 10 3-pointers...

...and yet the answer to Sean re: Rudy can only be this:

It isn't my call. My kids make those decisions, not me.

What a wonderful cop-out answer. :rolleyes:

Would you agree with your kids' decision to "put in Rudy?" Even if it hurt your alliance's chances of winning the match?

Molten

09-05-2011, 00:34

What a wonderful cop-out answer. :rolleyes:

Would you agree with your kids' decision to "put in Rudy?" Even if it hurt your alliance's chances of winning the match?

I disagree. I think he answered the question perfectly. He believes in putting the students in charge of strategy. Your reason for asking the question originally was in determining what he hopes his students get out of the season. He seems to want them to learn how to think for themselves, make tough decisions, and live by them. That seems to be a part of it anyways. Though he didn't answer yes or no, he certainly answered in a fitting manner given the meaning behind the question.

Lil' Lavery

09-05-2011, 14:30

I disagree. I think he answered the question perfectly. He believes in putting the students in charge of strategy. Your reason for asking the question originally was in determining what he hopes his students get out of the season. He seems to want them to learn how to think for themselves, make tough decisions, and live by them. That seems to be a part of it anyways. Though he didn't answer yes or no, he certainly answered in a fitting manner given the meaning behind the question.

That's not what I've taken away from his commenting in this thread. Else, he could have said similar things regarding his students making the decisions in regards to "throwing matches."

He may well want his students to learn to make decisions and live by them, but that's not really the focus of the discussion. My question was not in regards to what he hopes his students to get out of the season, it was in regards to his statements about giving an 100% effort to win each match.

JesseK

09-05-2011, 14:43

The issue with "letting the students decide" is that a handful of students make those decisions in Patrick's scenario. Well, pragmatically, I'm assuming they do since it's nearly impossible for every student to objectively give input to make that decision.

As a mentor, are you willing to let every students' experience hinge on the potentially bad decision of a small handful of students? This is the point where my team's leadership dictates the mentors will step in. Every student puts in too much time for the 'village idiot(s)' to muck things up.

As for whether to throw a match -- that's an intrinsic decision, tbh. Would I? I've been asked to before, yet refused. In hindsight, since that was 2010, I was the village idiot for not fully understanding the ranking system...

So it's not as cut-n-dry as you might think.

Alan Anderson

09-05-2011, 15:20

After mulling it over for a very long time, I figured out both my answer to the question and my reasoning for the answer.

The answer is an unapologetic no. I would never encourage a team to deliberately lose a match by giving less than full effort.

The answer is so obviously right in my view that it was hard for me to come up with a rational argument for it. Here it is: qualification matches are intended to rank robots according to their ability to play the game. Throwing a match undermines that intent. Your team is supposed to be seeded based on performance in the robot game, not on clever application of game theory.

Since ranking is going to be imperfect, this argument is likewise imperfect; the "best" robot isn't guaranteed to be ranked at the top. But I believe it's important not to try to manipulate rankings, and instead to play your best and let the rankings follow naturally from that.

gblake

09-05-2011, 15:49

... Since ranking is going to be imperfect, this argument is likewise imperfect; ... Dang - I was all coiled up and ready to pounce, but you took the wind out of my sails.

... But I believe it's important not to try to manipulate rankings, and instead to play your best and let the rankings follow naturally from that. Yes - That is a legitmate viewpoint (in case you need anyone's opinion about it - I doubt you did ;)).

I suppose the other primary approach is to tilt toward dealing with intentions before the system is announced; and then after it is announced, dealing with the actual implementation.

I hope that most folks would agree that there is room in FIRST for both approaches and that neither suffers from some great moral, ethical or logical flaw.

I think both groups use a perfectly reasonable set of ethics and create perfectly reasonable educational experiences for students who pay attention to which path is chosen, and why it is chosen; and who are (implicitly or explicitly) trained to understand that both paths exist.

Blake

pfreivald

09-05-2011, 15:52

That's not what I've taken away from his commenting in this thread. Else, he could have said similar things regarding his students making the decisions in regards to "throwing matches."

He may well want his students to learn to make decisions and live by them, but that's not really the focus of the discussion. My question was not in regards to what he hopes his students to get out of the season, it was in regards to his statements about giving an 100% effort to win each match.

No, see, you're trying to play a game of 'gotcha', and I'm not playing. I'm not refusing to play your gotcha game to annoy you, but I'm not terribly concerned if that's a side-effect.

As for the rest, I think Alan said it as well or better than I can.

Tristan Lall

09-05-2011, 16:59

Here it is: qualification matches are intended to rank robots according to their ability to play the game. Throwing a match undermines that intent. Your team is supposed to be seeded based on performance in the robot game, not on clever application of game theory.The fact that qualifying matches are intended to rank robots is self-evident. But that's not the same as saying that they are exclusively intended to rank robots. I don't think it would be far-fetched to say that it would be reasonable for FIRST to intend that a portion of a team's ranking should reflect their strategic prowess, independent of on-field performance.

Moreover, what's to say a team should do what was intended? After all, from time to time, FIRST accepts (sometimes gracefully) the fact that mechanisms are occasionally designed to do things that weren't intended by the GDC. The fact that FIRST didn't rule against 71 in 2002 or 469 in 2010 indicates they're sometimes willing to countenance this, and the fact that FIRST severely restricted 68 in 2003 indicates that sometimes they're not. I think it's fair to assume the same applies to qualifying strategy: sometimes FIRST will permit a strategy that violates their intent, and sometimes they won't. But there's no a priori right answer, and insofar as we're looking to FIRST's intent for guidance on what's acceptable, we have to wait for their ruling.

So that's why I think the more interesting question avoids trying to read the GDC's minds, and instead asks whether there's actually anything universally wrong with not giving 100% every match, from the point of view of a rational, honourable team.

JesseK

09-05-2011, 17:05

I should have said that in 2010 I was approached by our one of our alliance partners about our alliance intentionally losing. If all 3 agreed upon it, then we would have given 100% to our alliance strategy of seeding higher rather than 'going down in a blaze of glory' by getting annihilated by a far superior alliance. Such was the system in 2010, and I didn't realize until Atlanta that I'd made a mistake.

Other than that, I've only ever been approached about it once ... (Blake might remember it from a long time ago) to which I was almost kicked off the team for refusing, yet I stuck to my guns, we won the match, and things worked out in the end anyways.

Lil' Lavery

09-05-2011, 17:50

The answer is so obviously right in my view that it was hard for me to come up with a rational argument for it. Here it is: qualification matches are intended to rank robots according to their ability to play the game. Throwing a match undermines that intent. Your team is supposed to be seeded based on performance in the robot game, not on clever application of game theory.

Since ranking is going to be imperfect, this argument is likewise imperfect; the "best" robot isn't guaranteed to be ranked at the top. But I believe it's important not to try to manipulate rankings, and instead to play your best and let the rankings follow naturally from that.

See, I don't think I agree with this. And I'm going to turn to the 2011 game manual to back me up.

The purpose of the practice matches is to provide each TEAM a chance to run its ROBOT on the playing field prior to the start of the competition matches. The purpose of the qualification matches is to allow each TEAM to earn a seeding position that may qualify them for participation in the elimination matches. The purpose of the elimination matches is to determine the event Champions.

Note the usage of "TEAM" rather than robot. That's continued in the rest of Section 5. Why is game theory disallowed for a team to use? Game theory plays an awfully large role in strategy decisions. Should we prevent teams from strategizing with their alliance partners before each match as well, so we can simply see which robots execute the tasks the best?

More over, where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable?
Should a team be condemned if they decide to skip a match in order to fix their robot? Or should they put their semi-functional machine on the field and potentially end up hurting even more alliances later in the day when their robot still isn't 100% working? Should I give 10/10 of my alliance partners a robot working at 50% or give 5/10 of them a robot working at 100%? What if the latter case is 7/10? 9/10? And should I potentially deprive my team, and my potential elimination partners, of a chance at a 100% working machine because we kept fielding a partially functioning robot and didn't have time to fix our issues?

And interesting example happened in the elimination matches at Championship this year. Team 71 sat out Final match 2 on Curie. I don't know exactly why or what happened, but it seems like (with their alliance leading 1-0 in the series), they sat out match 2 in order to fix their robot for match 3. Presumably they, and likely both of their alliance partners, felt that 71 would do a better job once repaired than a back-up bot would do. Their alliance would eventually lose the finals, even with 71 back in match 3. 2826 and 103 (71's partners) would only lose by 6 points in match 2, which 71 sat out. Hindsight is 20/20, but did the blue alliance (or 71 specifically) do anything that you would perceive as "wrong" by not "trying their hardest" to win match 2? By not calling a back-up bot or fielding a partially functioning robot?

Alan Anderson

09-05-2011, 22:07

"The purpose of the qualification matches is to allow each TEAM to earn a seeding position that may qualify them for participation in the elimination matches."

Note the usage of "TEAM" rather than robot. That's continued in the rest of Section 5.

I accept the correction without complaint. So my reasoning is based on the idea that qualification matches are intended to rank teams according to their ability to play the game. The other viewpoint is that qualification matches are an opportunity for a team to explicitly manipulate the seeding positions of the teams involved in order to participate in the elimination matches, right? I understand that viewpoint, but I reject it because of the words "qualify them for participation". I interpret that to mean "seed high" rather than to mean "get picked by a high seed".

Why is game theory disallowed for a team to use? Game theory plays an awfully large role in strategy decisions. Should we prevent teams from strategizing with their alliance partners before each match as well, so we can simply see which robots execute the tasks the best?

Strategy for a match is fine with me. The word "alliance" is a good hint that teams are expected to work together during the match. What I have a problem with is "gaming the play" at the expense of playing the game. I strongly prefer using the rankings as a measure of performance rather than as an explicit goal.

Hindsight is 20/20, but did the blue alliance (or 71 specifically) do anything that you would perceive as "wrong" by not "trying their hardest" to win match 2? By not calling a back-up bot or fielding a partially functioning robot?

Elimination matches do not participate in the seeding process and are outside the scope of my participation in this discussion.

pfreivald

09-05-2011, 23:39

I think this quote (which I will attribute to 'anonymous', as it isn't mine but I can't find the source) sums up the situation quite nicely:

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Wayne C.

10-05-2011, 14:19

Sadly I've seen this happen twice where our team was the "victim" and a partner simply stopped playing to lose the match. And our team was approached once by a lower ranked team with the "idea" of them deliberately throwing a match to guarantee our seeding and their partnership (we didn't go for it)

Oddly at least 2 of these teams were CA teams who supposedly were pillars of GP

For the record. Any time your team doesn't do it's best you not only harm your alliance partners but you cheapen yourself. I have no respect for these unscrupulous people

rsisk

10-05-2011, 15:53

I think this quote (which I will attribute to 'anonymous', as it isn't mine but I can't find the source) sums up the situation quite nicely:

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

You can probably attribute that to each of our mothers :)