Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

Honestly, I'm not sure that the "don't coopertete with 1114/2056" strategy is that objectionable. Both 1114 and 2056 have excellent robots. If a team sees that by not cooperteting with them, they can cause a situation where they get split up for eliminations and thus weaken the powerhouse alliances in finals, it would be sub-optimal if they chose not to take that strategy. The team that was actually ramming the bridge to void 1114's CP points certainly crossed a line, but to say that the overall strategy of not cooperteting is morally wrong is vastly overstating it.

Example: In 1114's final match, 2852 chose to coopertete with them, which clinched the #1 seed for 1114. If they hadn't done that, 610 would have seeded first, split up the powerhouse 1114/2056 pairing, and finals would have been very different. 2852 had the power to make a decision either way, and they chose one way. Had they chosen to just camp on the threshold of the bridge, thus deciding the seeding for the regional in a different way, I'd hope nobody would think any less of them.

Maybe people were making non-GP comments this weekend that crossed the line, but I think making rational decisions about optimizing a team's chances of winning the competition overall shouldn't be anything to be ashamed of.

Note: I'm not defending any of the dirtier things that may have occurred (attempts to throw matches, ramming bridges, directing ire at top teams, etc), but I'm saying that a strategic level, sacrificing your alliance's own CP points because of a long-term strategy on the seeding table shouldn't be outlawed, and teams that pursue that strategy in a GP manner shouldn't be shunned.

Maybe there could be a code of conduct for CP-strategizing:
-Don't coerce your alliance members into not doing the bridge. If they want/need the points, let them go for it
-Don't try to unscore or block the CP bridge if an alliance member wants to do it
-Don't throw matches (although throwing matches, if it is actually occurring, would have been a problem in past years too)

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

2852 would be borderline insane to have chosen to do that. It was the difference between them being an alliance captain and not seeding.

There are so few cases as to where it's plausible to not cooperate that it's almost not worth mentioning.

Apparently the only reason at GTR is malice, because the lengths certain teams have apparently gone to to spite 1114 and 2056 are ridiculous.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

I agree. Also, did any team that was approached report the incidents to the judges? I think that is something that the judges should know about. I'm glad that there were teams that took the high road and decided that being graciously professional was more important than targeting teams.

I would just like to say to the teams that are ungraciously targeting teams for being successful historically and currently. Imagine being in the shoes of the members on those teams, just because your team does well, and has a history of doing well, people are downright rude and inconsiderate to you, even though you did nothing to them personally. How would you like it? I don't imagine you would.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

I respectively disagree - 2852 was an extremely good robot (they had the highest OPR once the top 3 seeds of 610/1114/2056 were accounted for), and could be certain to get picked very early. There would have been 2-3 alliances (depends on whether 1114 or 2056 accepted 610's invite) with very strong captain robots in the 1st 3 spots: 610, 1114, and 2056. Surely one of those teams would have invited 2852, and they would have ended up on a very powerful alliance with a great chance at an overall victory.

Related: Here's the final OPRs after qualifications for GTR-east:

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

Unless I'm reading the box score wrong, 2852 ended up captaining their alliance...so if a handful of teams passed on them after 2056 and 188 went off the board, why would that not necessarily be the same deal if 610 had seeded first?

Same outcome, different order. 610 picks 1114 or 2056, the other picks 188, the alliances are just split. A team like 2852 could still be left in a precarious position if not in control of their own destiny.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

We have no objections with a team choosing not to coopertate with us for strategic reasons. For example, Team 188 chose not to coopertate with us in our last qualifying match. We then approached their partner, team 2626, who agreed to coopertate with us. While the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful, team 188 made no attempts persuade team 2626 not to, or made any attempts to block or otherwise interfere with our attempted coopertition balance. I can't make that statement for all of our matches though.

What I do have a problem with, is a team actively trying to sabotage the success of another on or off the field.

This could include manipulating another team into taking actions they would not normally commit. This could include manipulating a team into taking actions that would hurt their own alliance partners. This could include saying you will coopertate, then not show up at all. This could include saying you will coopertate, agreeing on a time to be at the bridge, and then continuing to score baskets and showing up late to coopertate. This could include intentionally loosing so that a member of the opposing alliance is guaranteed a win. This could include influencing the outcome of matches you aren’t even playing in for your own selfish gain.

I have no problem with playing to win, but playing to make someone lose?

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

If I remember correctly, they declined 1815's selection, and thus weren't available for other alliances to pick. I agree it would be precarious, but a scenario where 1114 and 2056 are on the same alliance isn't precarious at all: it has historically been a lock they'll win.

Even in your scenario, they would have been picked (remember, it was only a 36-robot regional and by at least one measure they were the 4th-best robot there), possibly right around the 6th alliance where they ended up, but they would have been playing in an elimination scenario where the talent is slightly less concentrated, and thus the best alliance is much more beatable.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

Anytime a team or alliance does not play to their potential they are damaging the rest of their team and all of the other teams at the event. Choosing to "not" cooperate with any one team also means "not" cooperating with their two alliance partners for that match, so it impacts the ranking and seeding throughout the team list.

Teams are risking damage to their own reputation and that of their sponsors.

The only valid reason I know to "not" cooperate with any team is if you need to continue other play (shooting or going to your own bridge) to secure the win.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

I personally side with Bongle on this one. As questionable as the strategy is, for a 2nd tier robot to have a snowballs chance of winning in Canada, splitting up 1114/2056 is not just a good idea, its all but required.

It became apparent at the end of the day on Friday that there was a very real possibility of that occurring, and the coopertition bridge makes ensuring it alot easier than in past years, barring moves like intentionally throwing matches.

Its a question of who you're cooperating with.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

It was actually a problem with all six robots on the field. Every robot suffered the same connection issue (with the field).

The ball accidentally being scored just happened to happen the same match, it was not the reasoning for the replayed match

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

Also, due to the days events, 1114 and 2056 probably both would have declined 610.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

I may be in the minority but I really don't care for the way the top 8 seeded teams are allowed to pick teams in the top 8. I really liked it the way it was.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

I'd like to take the opportunity to speak on behalf of 1114 and to add to what's been stated already by Tyler and 2056.

First we'd like to thank 2056 and 1219 for being tremendous alliance partners and to thank the volunteers and Regional Planning Committee for a well-run event. Additionally, we echo the sentiments of 2056 and thank those teams mentioned specifically by Tyler. Unfortunately, the actions of a few teams convincing other teams to not attempt to receive co-opertition points when playing in matches with 1114 and 2056 marred an otherwise fun event.

To add to the ongoing discussion, I agree with Tyler and Bongle that choosing not to co-opertate is a valid strategy, however, as Cory stated, there are very few occasions where I can see this as being beneficial to a team. The larger concern for us was that there were teams convincing other alliances that it was in their best interest to not co-opertate when that simply wasn't the case. One situation we encountered when discussing co-opertating with another team they told us their alliance would not allow them to attempt the bridge and that "it was best for the regional" to not perform this way. This team considered themselves a second round pick and wanted to demonstrate their ability to get on the bridge with us, however, we found out after the match that they were told if they tried to get on the bridge that another team would hold the bridge down or knock them off. The team who wanted to co-opertate approached us after the match asking to show their ability to get on the bridge with us on the practice field because they had wanted to show that all along. This doesn't sound like an instance when it was in that team's best interest to choose not to, they were simply bullied and coerced into doing what benefitted someone else.

We also heard from a rookie team that they were told if they were to balance with 2056 that every team at this regional would be mad at them and it wasn't the way they wanted to start off in FIRST. It's not fair to a rookie team that a situation like this occurs where they feel pressured to perform in a way other than what they want simply out of fear of being ostracized.

Obviously these stories are second hand, but the actions we witnessed on Friday and Saturday made it very clear these types of discussions were ongoing before all of our later matches and other incidents were directly witnessed by members of 1114 and 2056. All of this culminated in match 53, as discussed previously in this thread, when Team 2185 intentionally rammed the co-opertition bridge in an effort to unbalance the bridge and take away the co-opertition points from every team in that match. The team's lead mentor later acknowledged that this act was intentional and has apologized. His drive team disobeyed him and was acting under the instructions from other coaches. We'd like to thank 1219 for their attempts in co-opertating with us in this match despite intense pressure from other teams. This did no go unnoticed by 1114 and 2056 and was definitely a huge factor in our decision to select you for our alliance.

Regarding the discussions about whether 2852 should have chosen to co-opertate with us, we can look at how things might have gone without them receiving two co-opertition points in that match. If 610 seeded first and selected 1114 or 2056 and IF that team decided to accept, the remaining likely would have selected 188 based on how the picking occurred on Saturday afternoon. That leaves 1815 as the third alliance captain in a picking position to select 2852, only this time they wouldn't have been in a top 8 position able to decline. If we've decided to use "OPR" as a proxy for robot value, then 2852 would be forced to compete with the 22nd best robot in the competition as opposed to the 6th best robot as they were able to do by co-opertating. Obviously there are assumptions built into this hypothetical situation, but it simply demonstrates the risk any team puts upon themselves if they choose not to use the co-opertition bridge, thereby knocking themselves out of the top 8. Team 1114 would like to extend a thank you to 2852 (in addition to those mentioned by Tyler) for being able to rise above the spitefulness being shown at this event and choosing to play the game as it was designed.

However, to address what was stated by 1075guy above, 1114 definitely would have declined had 610 attempted to select us. Their robot was fantastic throughout the weekend, but due to the weekend's events, 1114 did not feel it was right to compete alongside a team who would act in such a way.

To the teams that were trying to turn the regional against 2056 and 1114, I hope these actions don't continue at any other events you attend this year. To the teams who were convinced by those teams to do what you did, I hope you will be able to see from the discussion on this thread that you will not by any means be hated for your actions and I hope that you will be able to make your own decisions for what's best for your team, sponsors and school going forward.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

It was tried with top 8 not allowed to pick within the top 8. There were allegations of teams throwing matches to get out of the top 8 to get into a particular alliance. This lasted maybe one season. (I also recall something about there being a season where your first partner was assigned to you; my recall is very fuzzy on that.)

I'll take the lesser of two evils here. This year, the power gap between #1 and #8 alliances is much narrowed; I hope the GDC keeps something like this in future games.

Re: 2012-Greater Toronto Regional East
 

Reading this thread, I am astounded that a team would even consider ramming the coopertition bridge. An act like that, even if not done to our team, would earn a spot on our blacklist for years to come.

If any team is considering refusing to balance with a team on the Co-Op bridge, I would urge them to think of the ramifications for the future, not only at the competition, but for the entire image for your team.