Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I disagree both that there is controversy and that the GDC should revisit these points.

You have free will, and can choose to be a dishonorable cretin if you think that's to your advantage -- in FIRST, in school, in life. No one will stop you, because no one has the power to stop you.

Only you are responsible for your own honor and integrity. If you act without one or the other, word will get out and in the long run it will negatively affect your team -- but more importantly, it will define who you are.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

You're half right. The GDC should stay out of this.

The controversy I see is over the validity of various strategies, and I think that discussion is incredibly valid and important.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I don't agree with these statements, the first because there are other regional/districts that power house teams with history together go and the local competition is strong. One would be the Midwest regional has a lot of talented teams attending.

I would like to point at the GTR-E regional to 1114/2056 not being able to loose together, while it may not have looked like it in the competition, the finalist alliance had a pretty good chance of winning the regional. They were doing very well until finals, when they had problems with their triple balance and what appeared to be some scoring issues.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I agree. This was well illustrated by the teams who chose to use the "6v0" strategy in Breakaway (2010). All those dishonorable cretins who threw away their honor and integrity merely to advance themselves a few points in the rankings are still hanging their heads in shame.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

While I suspect your post is dripping with sarcasm, I stand by my statement. I was just as against 6v0 in 2010.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Other teams have come close (and this may have been the closest I've seen, since both matches could have been taken by a triple balance), but it always seems to swing towards 1114/2056. Another good example of their potential beatability was the GTR finals in 2009. 188 and 610 actually won the first match, but then weren't quick enough back after a timeout for 188 repairs and played 3v2 (lost), then lost a very close 3rd match at full strength.

But those to many teams (and myself) are the exceptions that prove the rule - out of so many regionals, we only have close ones once every couple years, and the rest are blowouts, which is why the idea of inevitability starts taking hold in people's heads.

You can say that the "1114/2056 always win" axiom is illogical (and some of my fellow mentors on 2702 believe they are beatable, even when paired), but lots of people in Ontario hold it to be true, and it is borne out by their immense winning streak.

The benefit of it is that Ontario has a huge quantity of very good teams that are driven every year to be better. GTR-east was one of the highest-scoring regionals during qualifications of any regional so far this year. Championship divison eliminations and Einstein last year had Ontarian teams vastly over-represented when you consider Ontario is only 10 million people. Being near great teams makes the rest of us very good, but it sure would be nice to have a different team captaining a winning alliance for a change.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

No matter what you do strategically (and personally, I disagree with almost everything you posted, but people have already essentially said what I think)...

...you should never, EVER bully, manipulate, or slander another team for the sake of winning.

The issue here is bigger than just 'what is the intent of the co-opertition bridge'. When teams go around a regional talking trash about another team to get others to not cooperate with that other team? Disgusting. Keep it between your alliance. If you're not in the match, don't go telling the teams that ARE in it what to do.

Back to what Sean said...

How would YOU explain that behavior to your grandmother? "Yes, we won, Nana! But in order to do it, we had to go around convincing all the other teams not to play with this one team that was ranked higher, so that they couldn't pick this other team, so that we had a better chance at winning...."

I know my grandmother would call me a bully for that. And she didn't raise a bully.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

In no way is it inevitable that 1114 and 2056 will win every regional in Ontario from now on. They will be beaten. The only question is when. 2012? 2013?

I can see how trying to split up 1114 and 2056 might be beneficial to a lot of teams at an event. BUT... If I was a member of one of those teams viewing this thread, I would be annoyed that people are proposing strategies that specifically target my team. Then again, the goal of every team at a regional is to win, and it just so happens that 1114 and 2056 are in the way every time.

I don't know what to think.

What goes on in Canada is so much different than what happens in Michigan. At Waterford, the opposing alliance agreed to cooperate with 67 in every qualification match. Nobody tried to break up the 67/469 alliance. They won handily, but everyone at the event was still cheering like crazy after the double triple balance.

A major difference between the district system and regionals is that you get to go to States based on more factors than just winning districts. Getting to finals at a district is worth approximately 2/3 as many points toward States as actually winning. Getting to finals at States basically guarantees that you'll get to go to Worlds. It's not all or nothing. Winning isn't everything. Perhaps Canada would be well served by a district system, to reward teams that compete almost as well as 1114 and 2056, but not quite.

There is no FRC Honor Code, so whether or not some action is dishonorable depends on the culture of everybody is involved. Everybody has his or her own opinion on what actions should be considered dishonorable. A team's "dishonorable" actions will not "in the long run negatively affect" that team unless the general consensus is that the team's actions were dishonorable.

And I think a better way to stop actions that you think are dishonorable is to talk to teams that are committing those actions instead of posting that committing those actions equates you to a dishonorable cretin and it will hurt you in the end.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I'm not familiar with the dynastic character of the event in question, but I submit that if teams in attendance have winning the event as an objective, they should start much, much earlier than Thursday morning after seeing the qualification rounds' schedule. It is certainly the nature of competition to want to win, but every competition yet devised by humans has undercurrents that would allow our baser instincts to come forward. We get to call ourselves civilized by understanding that and controlling those instincts. If you think you're already beaten when you get to the game, you're missing the whole point of having the games in the FIRST place.

BTW, Jared's other points are well taken. This one just stood out for me.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I am willing to agree to disagree on that point.

It wasn't my intent to stop these actions, as those who think they are acceptable will not be swayed by my arguments. My intent is to point out that people who engage in actions such as these (throwing games or deceiving opponents about intent to cooperate) are engaging in dishonorable cretinism.

You are what you do.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

The problem with this is the wrong team may be cretin-ized.

Let's say Redabot1 is currently the #3 seed; Blueabot1 is currently the #2 seed, and Greenabot1 is sitting at #1. Blueabot1 is 3 QPs away from being top dog. Greenabot1 has spoken with Redabot1, and has stated that G1 intends to select R1 if given the chance.

It is imperative to R1 that G1 stays the #1 seed.

R1 explains this to its alliance partners and both Redabots agree.

As the match goes on, Bluealliance is completely annhiliating Redalliance. Redalliance has no chance at winning. Redabot2 decides to balance on the coop bridge to get the 2CP for their own personal gain, going against the previously agreed-upon strategy of NOT allowing Bluealliance the chance at 4QPs.

Redabot1 realizes this with 3 seconds to play, swiftly drives over and lodges themselves under the CB, making it unbalanced.

To "a reasonably astute observer" Redabot1 appears to be the aggressor, but upon closer examination, it's in fact Redabot2 that is the rogue team that went against alliance strategy.

That's where villainizing a team for its actions may be misdirected, and a quick conversation with the teams' coaches would allow clarity. It is dangerous to imply intent without a complete understanding of the situation.

I'm not saying that if I were in Redabot1's position I would instruct my driver to act in the same way, but I don't think I'd call that behavior cretin-ish.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

That's a fine idea, except that we may have more traction than you. That leaves you falling of the high end of the bridge and landing upside down. Do you really want to subject your robot to that...

By definition, you then have 2 robots not balancing the alliance bridge and you've cut into your base score. You are in fact increasing their score because they are probably balancing...

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I completely agree with this statement.

The logical follow up that is wrecking my brain a little bit is "at what point does persuasion become bullying / manipulation"?

I'm a person who has been an advocate for the "hostile 6v0" strategy in 2010. And no, I'm not "hanging my head in shame" like some posters want to allude to, because the 2010 ranking system was designed in such a way that it made zero strategic sense to score for yourself if you were all but going to lose a match. For one particular match, my team was partnered with a second year team with a kitbot and a very notable team in the region. Neither of which were willing to do 6v0, and we had a pretty intense 15 minute discussion about what our best moves would be. When does advocating an oddball strategy, morality aside, become harassment and bullying? I know for certain my team made some blacklists just because I suggested the strategy (and I personally regret doing anything to make 2791 look bad to anyone).

This all makes my brain hurt - and probably not in the way the GDC intended.

As for this year's game... I don't see actively stopping the use of the coopertition bridge as something I would personally do. I can't really justify it, and hey, it might be a complete reversal of the same logic I used to justify scoring on myself in 2010. It just seems wrong to take a strategy dispute and take it to the field. Maybe it's okay to try and talk teams on your alliance into not cooperating for a match, I don't know, but I certainly think ramming a balanced bridge and defending the coopertition bridge are both pretty clearly decisions I would never make.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Would your grandmother be proud of you for scoring points for the other alliance if they couldn't keep up? I've never taken my grandma to a FIRST event, but I'm quite sure she would think of it as a slap in the face. I know how the seeding system used to work, and I don't see anything wrong with it, but to an outside observer it could certainly seem wrong.

I think an argument could be made that ramming the coop bridge like we saw at GTR should probably be a red card on the basis that if you tip the bridge you could seriously damage a robot that is basically defenseless. I see no problem with telling another alliance you won't balance the coop bridge -- it's essentially a strategic match within a match.

I can't believe the GDC didn't see this coming though. It is pretty well known that there is a lot of pent up dislike in FIRST for the really competitive teams. Ironic that in a competition that celebrates excellence, many of the participants try to tear down the accomplishments of the great ones.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

-agreed

Have you ever been to an Ontario regional? You can't experience this over a webcast but to be there in person all you need to do is listen to the crowd- the applause and cheering when 1114 and/or 2056 are walloping a team... the lack thereof. Everyone knows what the outcome will be. I remember being at the GTR regional last year and during one of the quarter finals it was so quiet you could hear the solenoid valves firing on the robots. I respect these teams immensely for their awesome achievments but the reality of the situation, like it or not is that there are many many teams out there who are becomming less and less hopeful toward winning a regional when they find themselves up against this alliance. That being said they are a huge driving force behind the Canadian robotics effort. As a kid on one of my teams said- "We don't have to win, we just have to beat 1114 or 2056!"

I know of several Ontario teams who steer clear of their local competitions simply because they don't feel they have a fighting chance at a win. It's rather sad IMO. So you can bet your pants that there are teams out there who will refuse to cooperate with them if only to try and split them up for eliminations.

I can't think of a better series of finals where 1114 and 2056 are forced to play against each other- THAT would be a serious fight which I very much hope to see this year!