Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Below are a few rules/strategy questions and scenarios that I've compiled from our recent experience at the GTR-E.

Even I am not sure anymore where I stand on many of these questions.

But they are offered here for you to discuss.

Please keep it civil!

Meta-Coopertition:

1. This year’s coopertition bridge points gave teams the ability to significantly affect the overall rankings.
2. If teams at a regional agreed to not cooperate with a certain team, it would lower that team’s ranking.
3. If teams at a regional agreed to always cooperate with a certain team, it would increase that team’s ranking.
4. Let’s call this practice “meta-coopertating.” Teams are cooperating as a group, yet competing against others, by selectively agreeing and refusing to balance.
5. Is “meta-coopertition” within the rules/spirit of coopertition points?

Coopertition Bridge Defense:

1. While “meta-coopertating,” teams may want to prevent the coopertition bridge from being balanced.
2. What level of defense on the coopertition bridge is permissible?
   

   Can we prevent other robots from getting to the bridge?
   Can you block the entrance to the bridge to prevent others from getting on?
   Can you drive on to the bridge, and leave it tipped such that no other robot can get on?
   Can you intentionally touch the bridge with an unbalanced robot to negate the balance?
   Can you lift/tip a bridge with robots on it to unbalance it?
   Can you ram a bridge with robots on it to unbalance it?

3. Coopertition bridge BALANCING causes the alliance allegiances to become blurred (Blue and Red are working together). While DEFENDING the coopertition bridge, should Red and Blue allegiances still be respected? i.e. if Red1 wants to balance the bridge to help Blue1, but Red2 does not want to help, can Red2 play defense on Red1?
4. Is it the intent of the GDC that no defense be played on the coopertition bridge? Should we just sit there and watch a successful balance occur, even though it will harm our team’s success?
5. Does coopertition imply that all 6 teams on the field have agreed to balance the bridge, or just a minimum of 2? If all 6 cannot agree, we have not successfully coopertated, thus should any team on any alliance be free to defend it as they wish?
6. There are no explicit rules governing the above scenarios; however, we have made assumptions about the appropriateness of each. I have no idea who is right, and who is wrong. I am hoping the GDC will give us clarification shortly.

Throwing Matches / Forcing Teams Not to Coopertate:

1. Blue alliance is the underdog in a match.
2. Blue alliance agrees to a strategy that requires Blue2 and Blue3 to balance on the alliance bridge for 20 points.
3. Without the 20 bridge points, it is a sure loss.
4. Red alliance approaches Blue3, and tries to convince them not to climb the alliance bridge but to coopertate instead.
5. Is the Red alliance (intentionally or not) asking Blue3 to throw the match?
6. Is it GP for Blue3 to unilaterally accept Red’s offer, knowing they have undermined any chance for the Blue alliance to win?
7. By trying to win, is the Blue alliance forcing Blue3 not to coopertate?
8. If Blue3 breaks from strategy and agrees to coopertate anyways, is the Blue alliance out of line if they defend the coopertition bridge?

6v0:

1. The 6v0 has made a return this year, and there are some compelling reasons to do it.
2. Blue alliance, the overwhelming underdog, is willing to concede the match, as long as they can still guarantee themselves 2 coopertition points by successfully balancing the coopertition bridge.
3. Red alliance, the favourite, includes Red1, a “powerhouse” team that can shoot and balance extremely well.
4. To give both alliances the best chance to balance, Blue alliance asks Red1 to spend the full 2 minutes balancing the coopertition bridge.
5. Since Red1 will be unable to score baskets, the entire Blue alliance agrees to score minimal points, such that the Red alliance will still win the match.
6. Is this 6v0 considered GP?
7. During the match, Blue alliance made a grave mistake – they scored too many points and are winning the match by a few points.
8. Blue1 is balanced on their alliance bridge, and if they get off, the loss of those 10 points will ensure a Red win.
9. Blue alliance pleads with Blue1 to drive off the bridge, and they eventually comply.
10. Blue1 is extremely angry because they wanted to showcase their ability to balance.
11. Who should Blue1 direct their anger at? Blue alliance? Red alliance? Red1? Themselves?

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Not to sound too cynical here, but i think it's valid to prevent a teammate from balancing on a coopertition.
However,:
1. Why not just "try" to balance yourself and fail, instead of looking like a bad alliance partner and pushing your teammates off the bridge (or whatever)?
2. I haven't gone to a regional competition yet this year, so my feelings could definitely change by then.

Just my thoughts,
I will be reading this thread closely though because im not too sure on my opinion yet.... :confused:
-Duke
:)

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I don't think that I can answer each point individually, but your post did raise a couple questions in my mind.

1) with regards to meta-collaboration: if its considered acceptable to deny a chosen team points toward their ranking by preventing the balancing of the co-op bridge, is it now acceptable to have teams they are allied with start throwing matches?

2) with regards to defense: red v blue alliance defense has many rules and penalties associated with it that dictate what is and isn't acceptable. As far as I can tell, there are no such rules for inter-alliance defense. This worried me, if this sort of thing becomes common. Do I need to worry about my alliance deliberately damaging, tipping, entangling, disabling, etc. my bot to prevent my from balancing a co-op bridge?

3) finally, the human element: while the above questions lean toward the extreme, I think events have shown over the past weekend that they may not be. As much as we work to prevent it, there are clearly very strong negative feelings against some of the top teams. When emotions are running high in mid competition, what may have been start as an objective and strategic execution of meta-co-opertition might turn into a vendetta by jealous teams against a perceived super team.

Just some more thoughts to chew on.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Unfortunately this is part of the problem that comes up when a game element like this comes into play.
From the regionals that I have seen/ been to so far i have no noticed any deliberate de-scoring yet i have heard of an incident or so other wheres. So at least its not a major developing problem. I think working to stop anyone on your own alliance from doing well is ungracious and unprofessional. And I completely understand where the other side is coming from with not wanting to lose ranking to another team because of the cooperation bridge. But every team has the same opportunity to balance the bridge as every other team and its where scouting and paying attention to what teams simply balanced on the cooperation bridge for the sake of points vs what teams deserve to be ranked as high as they are, becomes important.
I do however believe that come the Championships that the cooperation bridge will most likely be reduced to 1 point just to eliminate the chance that a team loses the match to ensure getting the equivalent 2QP

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Say my team has the choice to cooperate and we choose not to (or we sabotage attempts by the other members of our alliance). By doing so, we not only keep the opposing alliance from gaining ranking but we potentially hurt our own ranking possibilities. So... why should I sabotage my own ranking ?

Regional competitions are just that: competitions. Do what is best for your team, not what other teams think is best for you. Make your own decisions and your own strategy.

We all talk about "lawyering the rules" and "intent of the rule." What was the intent of the Coopertition Bridge? I'm certain the intent wasn't to have teams plot a conspiracy against each other. IMHO, attempts to unbalance the Co-Op bridge should result in a Red Card for the offending team. I hope today's team update reflects that.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I couldn't agree with you more.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

First of all, Mr.Lim those are some tremendous points and have clearly raised huge controversy so the GDC should most definitely revisit them.

To address the point of "Why should I hurt my own ranking" well that's a matter of how you see the regional playing out. If you can only see that you are an alliance captain and want to seed as high as possible you would always cooperate. However the interesting situation when a team in in a regional where the remaining matches even with 4 QS each match only results in the highest seed of 2 or 3, and where the first seed can from a "powerhouse alliance" things change. By NOT cooperating in the remaining matches you hurt your own "ranking" but in the process allow for certain teams to drop low enough to change the course of alliance selection in the favour of just your team or maybe even a few other at the regional.

Of course now the argument is the "don't play to make a team lose, but to make your team win." But my rebuttal is that the 6v0 in past years is similar, because you would be requiring at least 1 or 2 teams involved to not play for themselves, and thus not benefit their own ranking.

In my opinion, the reason this years strategy seems much less GP than previous years just because the CP is just a much more defensive game. In previous game the decision for a team to "score" for another team was still "positive display for getting picked." This year the ability to affect the rankings relies on both using the CP and preventing them which comes across as a much more negative display of game-play.

Ultimately its the opinions of those who feel that the strategy was useful, versus that of those who see no place for it. This discussion may last forever but I am not so sure that a red card is making it easier for any teams to do well at a regional where inferior robots who lose a lot of matches can place high enough even with the CP bonus.

*NOTE: The opinions expressed in my post are of my own, and in no way express the opinions of my team or any other members associated with FRC TEAM 188 in any way. Its just what I feel, and should not be attached to any judgement of my team.*

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Would your grandmother be proud of you?

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

My grandmother would be proud of me if we won, yes. However she isn't the ends justify the means kind of person so I can't be too sure. However I do believe you missed the point of my post, or at least the note at the end which clearly states these are my own opinions. I understand if you don't completely agree with my point of view, and I am not saying that some of the things that occurred are excusable but there are just as many reason for a team to not cooperate as there are for another team to cooperate.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I think a clear line has to be drawn between competition and match strategy. The distinction is that competition strategy is the strategy your team decides to go with over the course of the weekend, while match strategy is the agreed strategy of each alliance on a match-to-match basis.

Meta Coopertition
In my opinion, the coopertition bridge is solely a match strategy item. This is because the incentive to use the bridge changes from match to match. Furthermore, each robot on the field should be acting in their own best interests. If those interests include not coopertating, then all power to them. But what should NOT happen is having the vested interests of a team that is not playing in the match be a strategic factor. If you aren't on the field, you should have no say whether or not the teams that are coopertate.

If you are selectively choosing which teams to balance with, then that's fine. But the line is crossed when you try to convince other teams not to balance. To balance or not to balance is each individual alliance's concern, not teams'.

Coopertition Bridge Defense
Should not be allowed. There are inherent risks to defending a robot on that sort of playing surface. What if you're a rookie team that agrees to coopertate, but your alliance partner doesn't like that, so they tip the bridge while you're on it. In this situation, you fall off the bridge and your robot, which is not as robust as it should be (but hey, you're a rookie, how could you know?) is damaged and prevents you from using your shooter for the rest of the weekend.

As for less violent defense, the answer is still no. When you're on the field, you are an ALLIANCE, and therefore must act in the ALLIANCE's best interest. I'll talk more about this below.

Throwing Matches
In your scenario, Red is not asking Blue to throw the match. Red is asking to coopertate. How could they know that Blue's strategy depends on the robot they just asked to balance? It's Blue's decision whether or not to coopertate or not. What should happen is a Blue alliance meeting, where the idea of coopertating is presented. If the alliance decides to coopertate, then they coopertate. If they decide not to, then they don't. No hard feelings. Like I said, the value of the coopertition bridge changes from match to match. If an alliance feels that a win is better than a coopertition balance, then power to them.

(Although, if the chances of winning were so slim that you need a double balance to even have a shot at winning, then I'd go with the coopertition. 2 guaranteed points are better than none if you mess up a balance.)

6v0
Your scenario should never happen. If Blue decides to hand Red the win, then why take any shots at all? Why even run autonomous? Or if autonomous has to be run every time, turn your robot around so they shoot away from Blue's nets. OR if you still want to show you can score, pull a 2010 and score on the Red hoops.

----------

Remember, coopertition requires cooperation. Not just between alliances, but between teams on your alliance. If a team doesn't want to balance because doing so would hurt their seeding then fine, BUT if another team on that alliance wants to balance, is it your place to stop them? NO! This is where the good of the many vs the good of the few comes in. Maybe your seeding chances would be hurt because of a coopertition bonus. But if the other teams on your alliance would benefit from an extra 2 CP/QP, then you should support their choice to balance. You don't have to balance yourself, you just need to agree not to stop them from balancing. You don't need to be happy about it. But, it's the gracious thing to do.

Just my $0.02

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

My post wasn't targeted at you specifically. In fact, your post hadn't appeared by the point I opened the thread, so I didn't read your post before I made your response. Not that it makes your response any less valid.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

It may be something unique to Ontario, where regional results are very predictable despite the high quality of local robots.

In Ontario, there is a widely held belief (including being held by myself) that if either 1114 or 2056 seed on top, one picks the other and the competition is effectively over once alliance selection concludes**. As Looking Forward pointed out in his week 2 predictions, these two teams haven't lost a regional in Ontario since 2005 (and 2056 hasn't lost a regional ever).

If you're playing to win the regional, then there's an argument to be made that your seed doesn't matter if 1114 or 2056 are going to end up on top.

Put another way, if you hold certain axioms:
a) 1114 or 2056 on top implies you lose the regional, unless you're their lucky 3rd robot (which I've been once :) )
b) 1114 and 2056 split up means you have a better chance of winning
c) You're aiming to win the regional, not just seed high
d) Your team will likely be drafted in eliminations before the 24th pick (that is, you don't expect to be the final bot on 1114/2046's team)

Then it makes sense to try to deny 1114 and 2056 CP points, even at the expensive of your own seeding position, since your winning chances go from 0% (or near-0%) up to something nonzero*. I'm not sure how common this dynamic of the same two teams winning over and over is across the other regions, so I don't know how often teams will be doing this kind of CP-strategizing. The strategy is further motivated by the fact that Waterloo and GTR-east are both small regionals where teams have a >50% chance of getting drafted, so seeding low doesn't perturb a team with a decently-functional robot since they can be confident of getting drafted anyway. They lose a little control over their destiny, but since their destiny in one scenario is a near-guaranteed loss and in the other scenario is a mostly-guaranteed loss, I'd think it would be rational to choose the slightly higher chance of victory.

*Though nobody knows for sure, since I don't believe the two teams have ever been split at a regional that they both attended.
**This year will prove an interesting test of that theory, since both 1114 and 2056 are attending all 3 Ontario regionals. GTR-east came down to the last match seeding-wise, so perhaps Waterloo or GTR-west will have them split.

Disclaimer: Though I support strategies using the CP bridge to affect tournament seeding, if someone on your alliance wants the CP bridge for their own strategies (maybe they think they can form a solid alliance or make a run for #1 seed, or they simply consider seeding high to be good enough for them), then you should let them, or at least have a decision made pre-match. Don't coerce people, don't try to unbalance CP bridge, and don't throw matches (that really shouldn't have to be said).

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

This year we have the interesting experience that teams really have two opportunities to affect the ranking of the other teams at the event.

The first is traditional: to win matches. This has a negative affect on the opposing alliance and a positive affect on you.

The second is non-traditional: to mess up their chance at the co-op bridge. This has a negative affect on both the opposing alliance, and your alliance.

By choosing to do the second, you accept the negative affect on you to bring down the other alliance. I don't think this is similar to the 6-0 of the past because when the opposing team choose to score for the other team, they were actually scoring for themselves (taking the loss, but raising their ranking score). In this case, it's just a net loss for you (and them) when you screw up the co-op bridge on purpose. It only brings everyone involved down.

IMHO...and maybe not of my team, this discussion is solely to try and justify actions of a few select teams in FIRST who would go to this length to try and stop certain "powerhouse" teams from teaming up at a competition because they know they can't beat them otherwise (and won't be picked by them). I honestly believe that there are only a handful of teams in FIRST that have used tactics such as these and I believe that the FIRST community for the most part knows who these teams are and have reflective opinions of them.

If you can't beat them, you can either keep reaching higher or try and bring them down to your level. How would you rather be known?

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Preface: When discussing non-violent, non-destructive methods, Gracious Professionalism has nothing to do with team, alliance, or meta strategy. Put the GP measuring stick away. This isn't BattleBots - in fact, BB is expressly disallowed by 3.1.5.

It's not explicitly disallowed. To me, this is analogous to "icing the kicker" or "icing the free-throw shooter" - not illegal, certainly prevalent, but to my mind not ethical and I would not want to associate with a team that employs these methods.
My greater FRC-view is that I know how hard our team works - at design, at fabrication and assembly, at strategy, at scouting, at practice. If another team bests us in any or all of those realms, and is on the opposing alliance, I will certainly do my best to win the match, but if the strategy allows it, I will work with that team given the win-win situation presented by the CB.

1. Alliance strategy should be known before the match begins. Drive teams are literally standing next to each other - they can communicate easily. If one team exhibits this behavior against a fellow alliance member, I will assume one of those teams are going against alliance strategy for that match, and I will seek out the coaches after to determine why this behavior was used.
   
   Quote:

   Coopertition bridge BALANCING causes the alliance allegiances to become blurred (Blue and Red are working together). While DEFENDING the coopertition bridge, should Red and Blue allegiances still be respected? i.e. if Red1 wants to balance the bridge to help Blue1, but Red2 does not want to help, can Red2 play defense on Red1?

   When on an alliance, it is each team's duty to play as an alliance partner. Each team has an obligation to do what is best for their alliance in that match. In my view, that includes gaining as many QPs as possible, whether via a match win or CPs.
   
   Quote:

   Is it the intent of the GDC that no defense be played on the coopertition bridge? Should we just sit there and watch a successful balance occur, even though it will harm our team’s success?

   I may be proven wrong when the Tuesday Update comes out, but I tend to think the GDC doesn't really care. Each year the game is laced with strategies and substrategies and that's what makes coaching fun. I loved Lunacy from a coaching/strategy standpoint. It's part of the challenge.
   That being said, if a local news station chooses to air footage gathered from an event of a robot exhibiting aggressive behavior (and I wouldn't begrudge them that), it would seriously undermine a lot of elevator speeches given to sponsors and partners who may have caught the evening news.
   
   Quote:

   Does coopertition imply that all 6 teams on the field have agreed to balance the bridge, or just a minimum of 2? If all 6 cannot agree, we have not successfully coopertated, thus should any team on any alliance be free to defend it as they wish?

   In a match, there are not six teams. There are two alliances. Teams that choose not to comply with alliance strategy, I would classify as rogue and they are responsible for their own behavior.
   If an alliance strategy includes the CB, then great. If it's a tight match and an alliance would rather shoot those last three balls for a 2QP-0QP win vs. 2QP-4QP loss, they're entitled to that. Alliance strategy is certainly fluid and pragmatic given the game situation.
   
   Quote:

   There are no explicit rules governing the above scenarios; however, we have made assumptions about the appropriateness of each. I have no idea who is right, and who is wrong. I am hoping the GDC will give us clarification shortly.

I hope the opposite. This is a level of strategy and gamesmanship not seen before in FRC play - I hope the GDC allows us to compete as we see fit.

Is never valid. End of story. Unethical behavior and coercion have no place in sports - or life.

Caveat: In the early stages of 2010, 6v0 was not throwing matches. 6v0 was a valid strategy that used the tournament rules to everybody's benefit.

ps. Mr. Wright absolutely lives up to his name.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

There are very real scenarios where choosing the outcome of "0 QS for me, 2 QS for you" is preferable to "2 QS for me, 4 QS for you" in the meta-game. I don't think there is a reasonable person that will argue that breaking up 1114 and 2056 increases everybody else's chances of winning the event. And I see no inherent problem with that analysis being acted upon by teams.

For that matter, at the Chestnut Hill District Event we had a situation where an opposing team came up to 1218 and said that their alliance did not plan on coopertating in that match (to increase the odds of breaking up the 341/1218 pairing that won together the prior week). I have no problem whatsoever with that.

I personally draw the line in two places:

1. In Qualification rounds, you are part of a THREE team alliance. You should all get on the same page. Maybe one of you needs the win, the other wants to showcase their new manipulator, and the third wants to deny the opponent Coopertition Points. Regardless, you need to come up with a common understanding of what you will do during the match - and try to honor it as best as you can. Hopefully it is done through consensus. Worst case, take a vote (or do Rock, Paper, Scissors). But I am disgusted when I see teams who absolutely refuse to compromise with their partners because of their own self interests (and I have seen World Champions do this more than once). Knocking your partner off the Coopertition Bridge is reprehensible for this reason. You can try to convince them not to co-op balance beforehand, but once the match starts, you need to honor whatever you decided to do as an ALLIANCE.

2. Lying to your partners or to your opponents is not honorable. You don't need to divulge every detail of your strategy, but don't say you want me to get on the Coopertition Bridge at 45 seconds and then go try to double balance on your Alliance Bridge. I would have to think long and hard about ever wanting to work with a team like this in the playoffs.

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!

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

First of all, I really respect that everyone has kept this at a very high level. There are specific teams and specific behaviors involved and yet, to my mind at least, it appears that people have kept things from degrading into name calling and personal attacks. Thanks.

Second, even though I am a rookie, I am also an old dog in this game. This conversation is one that with a few details here or there changed could have been about many of the FIRST games throughout the years.

The question is almost part of FIRST's (Dean's?) DNA. FIRST has competing motivations. They want to tap into the excitement and passion of sports... ...but they don't want to import all the negative aspects that come with those passions. So FIRST continually tries to motivate FIRST participants to cooperate with each other (even naming a game Coopertition FIRST*).

BUT FIRST knows in its heart of hearts that it is the competition aspect of FIRST that is the workhorse pulling the wagon. SO...

In the end, FIRST is going to want us to PLAY TO WIN. Not win at any cost but trying to win the game is important to the integrity of the whole system. In my view, throwing games or playing 6V0 or keeping an alliance member from trying to do their best** is not in "the best interest of the game" regardless of how the ranking system is set up and therefore I think that this is not appropriate behavior for a FIRST team that "gets it."

That is how I am going to advise my team at least.

Joe J.

P.S. Do the folks in Canada REALLY believe that 1113+2056+ANY OTHER TEAM = CERTAIN VICTORY? I can't believe this.

Step up to the plate and take your swings man. Up your game in the off season if you have to but really?

As much as I love teams 67 & 469 (they're awesome) I have been competing with and against them for years. It never enters my mind that in any given year, I could build a robot that, when partnered with one or two of my fellow non 67 and 469 teams could give them a run for their money on any given Saturday afternoon.


*which imho was perhaps FIRST worst games ever. In fact, I use it as an argument for the robustness of FIRST FRC, if we can survive that game, we can survive pretty darn near anything.

**"best" is broadly defined. I don't think that a team that is out of the running for an alliance capt on Saturday morning has to try to maximize their score if showing that they can add to the winning effort by playing defense or balancing a bridge or doing some other special skill that is within the bounds of their grandma's being able to understand that they were trying to help their team win (perhaps in a futile effort but grandma's seem pretty tolerate of such things).

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

You mean 2000? One of the best FRC games ever, with the two troughs and a ramp? Because I think you're really thinking of 2001's "Diabolical Dynamics", the one and only 4v0 game. (I think a lot of people get those two confused...)

It's pretty close, Dr. Joe. "2056" and "losing regionals" don't work in the same sentence--because 2056 has not lost a single regional event they've attended (started in 2007). 1114 is no slouch either--they've not lost any events since 2005, when competing within Canada.

Though, there's finally a guarantee that those 4 teams will not be in the finals of a Canadian event--none of them is registered for Montreal.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

It's beginning to look like the double competition going on at tournaments is to "blame" for all the thoughts of "misbehavior." As long as there are two prizes, there will be turmoil in the strategies to attain them - both. Perhaps it is time to re-work the "minor" prize of alliance captains for eliminations. How would it be if the top 8 qualifiers still got to be captains, BUT the sequence of alliance selection were random? That is, you play to be a captain, but you don't know which seed you'll be until it happens. I don't know if this has been proposed before, but I'm sure there could be fairness tweaks to this that could iron out the wrinkles.

Wouldn't this at least deal with the kind of scheming and collusion we've been considering so far? It's hard to believe that teams are going to get so worked up about knocking a "powerhouse" from 8th to 9th. They're going to get picked even if they're not a captain.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

No. No. No. A thousand times no.
Why are people taking measures to discourage excellence? Why are people attempting to encourage artificial parity? Is winning because of the dumb luck that you somehow managed to win the random selection order and pick a powerhouse really better than losing to that powerhouse? Would you be more proud of your effort/robot/team just because you lucked your way into a gold medal? Is it fair to the team who really did have a better performance in qualifications that they then lose the chance at gold?

Knocking the powerhouse from 8th to 9th isn't the big deal. It's removing them from the #1 seed. In the Canadian example that's dominating this thread, if another team ranks #1, they have the ability to separate 1114 and 2056. Instead of one superpower alliance, there are then two power alliances.

Additionally, knocking a team from 8th to, say, 11th or 12th does create a big difference. It puts their ability to decline an invitation in serious question, as they're no longer sure that they could move back up into the top 8 and become a captain. At 9th place, they're likely still confident that another top 8 seed will be picked and they can move up. At 10th, it begins to get hairy depending on how the field stacks up (see Galileo last season).

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I'm gonna take a balance at this from the perspective of the game and then within/context FIRST.

Game
In the context of it on the field, it is a major game changer. It completely altered the way a team is ranked and way alliances work together/against each other. It's the wild card element to it all.

When it comes to teams interfering with balancing, a foul/penalty is needed. However, the question is against who, what extent, etc. Any points that would come from a balanced coop bridge could be withheld from the team that attempted to interfere with balancing as well as a foul for each instance of contact. Even a possible disablement for belligerency in their attempts.

With the third week of play getting underway in less than 48 hours, this all just a discussion as applying penalties or such rules at this point would stir the pool up.

So yes, there should be a penalty.

As it applies to FIRST

The bridge is in short the spirit of FIRST competition. One of the biggest stigmas/mindsets we all have to break when we explain what we do is we are not battle bots. The coop bridge is an easy way to point to someone who's watching a match and say watch. If two robots balance on it and the crowd cheers, they're gonna ask what happened. The bridge and coopertition shows that even though these teams are against each other, you can still work together towards a goal.

The goal bridge, in a physical manifestation, could be considered Gracious Professionalism in a simple form that anyone can see and serve as the seed to a conversation about who we are and why we do this.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I think you missed my most important point entirely. A team cannot be "cretinized" by anything other than their own actions. Again, you are what you do.

If a team tries to (a) win the game and (b) balance the coopertition bridge, every time, then at worst they might be considered starry-eyed and naive in the best of ways, but never dishonorable cretins.

Figuring out the right thing to do is rarely harder than pausing to think, "if I were the other parties involved, how would I want me to behave?" Nowhere in there lies throwing matches or refusing to cooperate on the bridge.

When it comes to honor and integrity, anything that must be justified invites further scrutiny. Err on the side of honorable non-cretinism.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Anyone who doesn't think the way I do must be a cretin.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

How far is your team willing to go to win?

That's the question.

Some believes class is more important and some thinks otherwise and most are in the middle of the spectrum. Everyone draws the line differently and that's just the way it is.

Is 1114 & 2056 unbeatable? No. Nothing is impossible.

Do 1114 & 2056 seem unbeatable? Definitely.

As much as people would like to say history is history and it's a brand new year, we all know past history has direct correlation to how successful a team projects to be. However, there are "cinderella" stories in real competitions (I've witnessed and been in a few).

It's the journey not the destination. Not everyone gets to be a winner in competition. FIRST's purpose is to inspire, and regardless of how you do in competition, that should be the priority, through whatever medium.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Yes it is, and one of the reasons we created the District Competition structure was to specifically address this issue. We often don't like to openly talk about non-GP behavior, but it does exist and should be addressed.

The problem is not how good 1114/2056 are; the problem is that the traditional FRC regional model ONLY promotes the winners. Thus a team who perpetually finishes as a finalist or semifinalist never gets promoted to the next level, and this leads to eventual resentment of the top teams. Believe it or not, back in the 2005-2008 time frame, there were very clear cases of this going on here in MIchigan, targeted at some historically great teams such as 67, 217, and 469. These teams typically win the events they attend. They are also role models to all of us. Hatred toward them or anyone else has no place in FIRST. When we were given the opportunity to make some systemic changes back in the summer of 2008, fixing this was at the top of my list.

In a nutshell, one of the design objectives of our system is: "Teams who exhibit good performance at both of their district events should be promoted to the State Championship". Simple. If you are good and prove it, you move on. The exact threshold of "good performance" moves up a little bit each year as our league grows, but no where are you ever required to be the best in order to succeed.

A team who places as a Semifinalist at both districts will advance, and the State Semifinalist move to Worlds. This system basically distills any hatred that may have once existed. Now another team's success really does not affect your own team's fate very much. HOT winning Waterford last week does nothing to prevent 573 and 3098 from going to States, they all will go and all will have a great time.

Any system which only promotes the very best will naturally tend to generate negative sentiments from the group who almost won. This problem is solvable and it has been solved. Our best FRC teams should be role models to all, and anything which works against this should be obsoleted.

"Don't hate the player, Hate the game"

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Perhaps Michigan is weird in this aspect, but it seemed to me that at the Waterford district getting on the Coopertition Bridge was a given for most teams. When working on strategy it wasn't really a question of "Do we get on the Coopertition Bridge with someone this match?" Rather, it was "Who is their best bridge bot? Let's get on the bridge with them."

Teams realized the value of the points, and to miss out on the Coop Bridge was a pretty big loss and could drop you quite a few spots in the ranking. In only one match were we approached about not getting on the bridge by someone in the other alliance. Three of the teams playing were all seeded high, losing out on the extra two points would have risked us all slipping down in the rankings. A reminder of this changed the game plan right there.

The Coopertition points are meant to get opposing teams to work together. Hearing that alliance partners are actually out sabotaging their own alliance partners attempts at the bridge just seems so...wrong...

If you want to keep up with the top teams you still have to win. They aren't getting up their by simply relying on the bridge (though the bridge doesn't hurt). If you have a problem with the bridge impacting rankings, then get on it every time. If every match ended with two bots on the Coop Bridge, the extra 2 points are a non issue. I think Michigan is on its way to seeing that real soon.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I attended GTR often the past few years and many of the teams are funded through a grant similar to what JC Pennys does in the states. These team are lucky if they build something functional much less competitive. There's not much depth there and with American teams not going to Canada much anymore is it really any surprise that 1114 and 2056 dominate so easily? There's only a handful of teams that can even hope to challenge them.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I would hope that no one in FIRST would be the slightest bit concerned about whether or not I consider them a dishonest cretin. I would hope beyond hope that they would be tremendously concerned about whether or not they, in retrospect especially, would consider themselves a dishonest cretin*.

*Edit: it has been pointed out to me that the word "cretin" has many meanings, and the technical definition involves a medical condition -- I didn't know that, and certainly don't mean it that way. I picked up the word from Bugs Bunny; I apologize if I offended anyone with what was meant with mild levity.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the depth in Canada, especially at the non-mississauga events:
188, 610, 781, 1241, 1503, 2852, and 907 are all excellent teams that consistently put up very competitive robots, and those are just the ones that competed this week. GTR-east was the 2nd-highest scoring regional this week. The thing with Canada is that we are blessed with exactly two 99.9th percentile teams in our midst, which consistently and rationally wallop the many 95th percentile teams that have grown here. We had a ton of teams in CMP divisional eliminations last year, and 1503 and 781 made it to einstein. Interesting theory I just thought of, that would be hard to test: if there were one elite team or three elite teams, I don't think things would be so predictable year after year.

Here's a chart that should give you an idea for a small Canadian regional vs a small American regional. Notice that GTR actually has a larger 2nd tier of teams in the 15-25 area of OPR (which are, in order, 610, 2852, 907, 188, 4334, and 1241). This chart appears to somewhat contradict my assertions of 1114/2056's unbeatability as compared to the folks that lead Waterford in OPR (the 2 'best' robots at Waterford were more better than their competition than 1114/2056 were at GTR), but la la la I can't hear me.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

My point was that you were approaching this is a more hostile manner than is necessary. Mr. Lim clearly set out to make a level-headed and open-minded discussion. Any merit in your responses was quickly overshadowed by the name calling.

The point that you should act in a manner that you would be proud of is valid. The fashion in which you are presenting said point is ruffling feathers. Also, the closed-minded fashion in which you seemingly refuse to accept differing value systems isn't productive to the discussion. Different teams will draw their limits in different places, as should be readily apparent. Simply passing your mental limit of behavior shouldn't make them "cretins." There should be a distinction between violating your moral compass and egregiously violating your moral compass. It's not a binary system. There has to be a point where you go "I do not agree, but I can understand why they did it."

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

So today's Team Update contains absolutely nothing pertaining to this sort of behavior. Perhaps FIRST hasn't noticed it, of course, but I'm increasingly beginning to wonder if the GDC considers this kind of behavior within the spirit of the rules of the game. Has anything on this topic been asked on the Q&A?

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Of course it is with in the spirit of the rules. There is nothing close to preventing it. Is it withing the spirit of FIRST? It depends on how far you take it. As others have said, denying to balance the co-op is totally fine. Much more then that and it becomes clear that "grandma wouldnt be proud". Will they rule against it? Probably not.
The fact that people want this ruled illegal so badly bothers me.
We shouldnt need a rule... Its called graciously proffesional common sense.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I'm sorry. At no point did I intend hostility -- indeed, I wasn't even calling names, I was giving a warning. Let me try again:

What I was trying to say was that
1. Your actions define who you are, and that these actions...
(a) throwing matches
(b) lying (either to alliance partners or opponents)
(c) bullying
(d) bad-mouthing other teams
might -- and only might -- help your ultimate tournament standing, but they are despicable.

2. It's easy to not be despicable; you achieve it by not doing despicable things.

I wasn't at any point saying that this label applies to anyone in this thread or elsewhere; only that it could, and it's entirely up to them whether or not it does. The choice lies entirely with the person(s) choosing to commit or not commit the match-throwing, lying, bullying, or bad-mouthing. That said, it's much harder to slough off a negative reputation than it is to not earn it in the first place.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Forgive an old man's memory. Yes you were right the 2000 game was awesome. It was the 2001 4V0 game that I use as an example of a game that would have killed a lesser competition.

As to 2056 and not losing, I refuse to believe that all the talent* in Canada has settled in two teams. That is all I am going to say on the matter.

Joe J.

*and not just engineering talent because it takes much more than that to consistently do well at FIRST

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

For the up coming regionals is there a way to prevent this kind of behavior without the GDC having to make a ruling? Something like a collective list of teams that agree to no take part, with a list of teams that refuse to promise to play fairly? Would it curb participation if the list was widely distributed?

IMHO if i would support an idea like this myself. Just trying to keep the Milwaukee regional the friendly place it is.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

More than likely, it's just that the GDC doesn't read Chief/know what happened at certain events (yet).

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I'd be absolutely shocked if the GDC didn't know what transpired in GTR-East. The GDC communicates with each other and with the events. Even if they don't read CD (don't Jeremy, Ryan, Collin, and Aidan have accounts?), they have other networks of communication.

I find it much more likely that they figure we're big kids and we can sort it out ourselves.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Well, not only that, but how would you change the rules so that teams can't "abuse" the coopertition bridge? It's virtually impossible to separate teams with good intentions from teams with bad intentions from a rules standpoint (is a team using its robot to help another robot on its alliance get on the coopertition bridge actually sabotaging the process? It's impossible to tell!).

I was thinking a little about this and I just can't envision a way that would elegantly prevent "abusing" the coopertition bridge.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

How about like this:

"Strategies aimed at interfering with a coopertition balance are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: Red Card"

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

That is a very arbitrary and almost impossible rule for the refs to enforce. What defines interfering?

-If a team goes to the coopertition bridge and then sits there but doesn't go up while their partner is waiting, is that interference?
-If a team accidentally touches the coopertition bridge while a balance attempt is going on, is that interference?
-If there is confusion about the coopertition bridge and three teams show up, the confusion is never cleared and the balance fails, is that interference?

I realize these are extreme examples, but the point stands that defining interference on an aspect of the game where both alliances are involved is going to result in "bad" calls. Intent is already very hard to determine with things like tipping and abusing fouls, which are between alliances. Previous games have proven that open-ended rules like this do not work well.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

So, you want a simple solution? Two robots may not touch on any bridge. Red card to both robots.

Situation solved. No one ever goes near a bridge again...

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I think this type of behavior is already addressed in <G12>, <G15>, <G23>, and <G26>, which have all been in the rules since we received them 1/7. We all know the definition of Coopertition. No update necessary.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Reasonable arguments can be made for a 6v0. I can/will make them if necessary. "META-Coopertition" as layed out above was an attempt at a 35v2. "v2" being the most important part of that statement.
It really could have just as easily have been "v3" or "v4" talking with the folks out that way. While everyone thinks they know who will be in the #1 alliance, most were pretty confident who would be against them in the finals. How do you think the 2 lead teams of the Finalists would have dealt with a 33v4 scenario?

In 2008, a friend gave me a card that has some quotes that have helped him in his life. One in particular that pertains to this converstation:

Can you look yourself in the mirror and say with confidence that you have:
*accomplished much
*with the help of many
*at the expense of none

The last point of that quote is very difficult to achieve, but a great thing to strive for.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Addressing the Canadian talent not good enough point, I would like to mention that 1114 and 2056 have had superior robots to any Canadian team in most if not all years. (2008 1114 had arguably the best robot in FIRST) However it is not that the other teams in Canada have no hope of beating them or that they have given up hope. The reason why choosing not to cooperate was a viable strategy was because it gave the weaker teams a possibility to win the regional, as well as had they been effectively split up, 4 teams would've had the distinct honour in working with both 1114/2056. Which may have help them figure out how to do things differently in order to do better in upcoming years.

By not cooperating a team isn't "bringing down the powerhouse" to their level or anything, they are simply giving themselves the best chance to compete. There is a significant difference between actively choosing not to cooperate, which i think is well within the spirit of FIRST, and not allowing other teams to cooperate. In my opinion it is comparable to initiating contact with an opponent's robot if you are in the key/alley to keep piling up penalty points, especially if that robot is having difficulty driving out as a lot of teams run into that problem. It is arguable that that strategy is just as far from the spirit of FIRST as disallowing coopertition. It in a small way can even be compared to playing defencee on a team knowing that your robot has the mechanical advantage to push that robot around and pin it down for extended periods of the match.(pinning within the rules) I may be wrong about this but i do believe that at one regional a team was red carded for intentionally trying to get penalty point while they were in the key/alley, but no other regional has done so(again could be wrong on that). This is just an interesting ruling for this years game and I think falls under the same discussion. Thoughts?

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

It could fall under the same discussion. More later.

I think you're right about most of what you said above this about coopertition, with the exception that not cooperating with the powerhouses doesn't necessarily give you the best chance to compete; it simply says that in that match they have to beat you to get qual points. (And at that point, all bets are off--you have to do the same thing.) In any other match, it's to your advantage to cooperate, especially if you're going to win.

Back to the red card for intentionally trying to get penalty points: This is a valid ruling, it's a potentially valid strategy, but it's got to be one of the toughest calls a ref has to make. Did the team intend to force the penalty? Intent is one of the hardest things to call. (Actually, I can think of a very "interesting" eliminations strategy if you're at an event where the refs do give red cards for that...) There's a reason for the rules being the way they are; it's a matter of "you can bump to tell them to move, and again if they're a slow learner, but you can't bump just to get the points", and the ref gets the unenviable job of determining if that line's been crossed.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I like you! :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

So how does the new Team Update factor into this now?

With this out Mr. Lim's argument is moot. I think it's reasonable to overlook Mr. Lim going around educating other teams about the coopertition bridge, and explaining how declining the powerhouses could affect the rankings. He was acting without this update, but for the future it is apparent that the GDC doesn't want this. This however, reveals some problems which should be addressed:

I personally would like the GDC to make games which are more airtight and don't require self-regulated moralism to work, but that's what we've got. (Also, what's with that snake draft?!?!?)

I also think the fact that this happened only at GTR east bears well for the community at large. However it shows a deep problem in Canadian FIRST that deserves to be rectified (by far the loudest cheer all weekend was the semi-final when 1114 lost!).

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

For those of you who may not have seen it yet/don't want to go searching...

I'm so glad for this team update. It makes no official statement on the strategy choice to cooperate (or not).... but it makes the PERFECT statement about making sure there are no repeats of such appalling behavior. It's not a red card to the bullies, but rather a reminder that such action isn't in the spirit of FIRST and should not be tolerated.

Thank you, Game Design Committee. Nice job. :)

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I see a lot of posts that say: I wouldn't do it but I am not going to judge other peoples actions.

I say that we need to judge each other, or at least judge each others actions. We just need to do it in a loving and respectful way.

Looking the other way can be another way to not live up to our full potential as humans.

Now, how to confront other people about things that we observe, that is a very delicate thing. Make sure that you are focused on the action and not on the actor, make sure that you are thinking about helping someone else get to a higher place and not about building yourself up. Make sure that you remember that you have made some pretty questionable calls more recently then you care to admit.


If all else fails listen to Lavery:

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I'm glad to both see the update and to see the language expressed in the strongest of terms: "FIRST does not celebrate being an incompetent jerk."

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

One of my students showed me this and some how it seems fitting :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HFTP...feature=relmfu

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I'm very happy that the GDC has given us more clarification on the coopertition bridge.

It think it goes a long way to avoiding any further incidents of robots trying to unbalance an already balanced coopertition bridge, or interfering with a balance in progress.

After reading the questions, I realized it would be near impossible to add specific rules to address the issues.

I would like to try and use this update to answer some of the specific questions raised.

Here are some questions that I think this update could address. I've removed the ones that I think are very clearly answered. I've simplified some others to make directly relevant to the new information from the update.

I would love it if everyone took a shot at answering these.

Explanations to your answers would be nice, but not necessary!

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

For me, the "meta-coopertition" is something like the collusion debate from 2003. In that case, the agreement was to not play defense on your opponent's scoring stacks to boost both sides' ranking. A number of teams said publicly that they would not participate. Others said they would.

It's a bit tougher here, but for this case, I'd call it a team's call to make. It's a strategy. As a strategy, I don't see an issue with it. However, trying to force other teams to join in is an issue, as the GDC noted.

6v0: Again, it's a strategy. I don't see an issue with it, but I do note that it isn't to a team's advantage to go that way, except on the bridges.

With the intentional tipping of the coopertition bridge, I think that might be pretty close to the behavior the GDC commented on. It's not quite there, IMO, but it is saying that "I'm going to deny both of us any chance of the coopertition points." That's (almost) forcing teams to join in. Given that situation, I would expect that some teams would try to push that team up the bridge, taking advantage of the slightly-reduced traction on the bridge--a fair penalty for trying to force your view on someone is that they try and force their view on you, at least in this case.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

IMO:


No.

While it is acceptable to predict defeat as a reasonable outcome and therefore place a higher priority on balancing than on scoring, it is NOT acceptable to make a deal with the other team that involves reducing your offense.

No; you have some options available. You can choose not to attempt balance and you can choose to influence your alliance or the opposing alliance to not balance. Any passive or active blocking of balancing is over the line.

No.

You can't make cross alliance bargains; therefore M-C is unavailable to the teams that are on the opposing alliance. You can't compete against your alliance partner, therefore M-C is unavailable to teams on the 'friendly' alliance.

So, I guess its nos all around.

Blocking the bridge is the grayest one for me; the others that rely on making deals with the other alliance just seem like non-starters.

That's how it looks from where I am sitting.

p.s. hey Mr. Flowers: turns out GP doesn't mean what you thought. It means Grandma's Proud!

Alan Gilgenbach

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Meta-Coopertition: Teams are cooperating as a group, yet competing against others, by selectively agreeing and refusing to balance.
1) Is “meta-coopertition” acceptable?
Yes, as long as you go about doing it in a gracious and professional manner. If you think this is a viable strategy for you, and you can get your alliances to agree with you, by all means go for it.

Coopertition Bridge Defense:
Some teams in the match want to balance on the coopertition bridge, but for some (let's assume, valid) reason your team doesn't want them to.
2) Is it acceptable to get to the coopertition bridge first, drive on to it, and leave it tipped to prevent others from getting on?
Or is the above scenario now not acceptable?

I really feel that if any part of the alliance wants to get the coopertition points, than you shouldn't prevent them from attempting to get them. You should always respect the opinions and wants of your alliance, even if that makes things a little bit worse for you.

6v0
An alliance that believes they are going to lose is willing to score less points and instead work with the opposing alliance to guarantee a balanced coopertition bridge and a loss.
3) Are 6v0 arrangements acceptable?
I kinda lean towards no I guess. I don't understand why you would ever need to formally declare that you are doing this. Before every match you should be meeting up with your opponents to figure out the logistics/the timeline of balancing the center bridge. That should, if not guaranteeing you the coopertition bridge, make it at the very least highly likely, because if they can beat you handily, you both should have plenty of time to get on the bridge. And if you lose, well, these things happen. Planning before hand to throw the match though, just sounds, well, weird to me. Basically though, I just don't like this on a gut feeling kind of level.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

The GDC ruling still leaves some questions remaining. If You have 2 teams on an alliance agree the bridge should not be balanced but the third disagrees, must the alliance allow the third team to balance the bridge? If a team is breaking strategy or refusing to cooperate with their alliance, is the alliance not playing fair by unbalancing the bridge?

The idea that the alliance takes precedence over the team seems to be floating around, hence the attitude that unbalancing the bridge is selfish and should not be condoned. But does this apply when the alliance decides not to balance? You could even have 4 robots on the field who all don't want the bridge balanced, but it only takes 2 to balance.

Thoughts?

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I would go so far as to say that even agreeing with your alliance to not balance the bridge (in order to influence the seed of the other alliance) is not a celebration of excellence, and thus not in the spirit of FIRST. It's not a collectivist "alliance > team" quandary, it's a simple "robots showing off > robots not showing off".

I'm comfortable interpreting the GDC's statement on the matter as this: Refusing to engage in an aspect of the game in order to deliberately hurt the seeding of your opponents is not acceptable.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Alex,

This is a really interesting point.

I'm not sure if the GDC's update necessary wants us to stop educating other teams about the intricacies of the coopertition scoring system. Few teams realize just how much power they yield with a simple decision: "yes" or "no." Particularly when a large enough number of teams start making similar decisions. I think information like this should be shared and carefully discussed, because it certainly leads us all to be more "competent". To stop doing this could be detrimental, for a number of reasons.

We could be denying each other a wonderfully complex discussion and learning experience about what coopertition is, or should be.

Could you imagine if it became "unacceptable" for me to even post the questions I raised in the first post of this thread?

Coopertition in real life is just as, if not even more complex. Being a former executive, I can honestly tell you that helping or accepting help from each and every person I came across was not necessarily in the best interests of myself, the company, the community, the country, or society as a whole.

Each opportunity needed to be carefully considered, the pros and cons of each weighed competently, and the right decision being the one that helps the most while harming the fewest. In order to do this, you need to educate yourself, and hear as much as you can from all sides.

...but I digress...

I think what the GDC DOES make perfectly clear, is that once a team understands these "meta-coopertition" concepts, we MUST leave them to make their own decisions to act on them or not.

We should NEVER coerce, bully or force a team into making a decision they do not want to make. And this likely(?) works both ways, where a decision to say "no" to coopertition should be respected as much as a decision to say "yes."

I am optimistic that this GDC update will end these reported incidents of bullying and coercion, but teams still need to be VERY careful. Just because the GDC said it, doesn't mean it can't still happen.

If you read Gray Adam's post, he outlines a situation where bullying or coercion can happen very quickly, and unintentionally.

What if your alliance wants to do one thing, and you want to do another?

If you can't resolve an issue like this amicably, and within the short time you spend with your alliance in the queuing line... you can see how feeling bullied and coerced can happen really fast?

Imagine yourself in that position.


It may be the greatest test of Gracious Professionalism that FIRST has ever thrown at FRC teams.



A few of us didn't quite pass at GTR-E, but luckily we have a few more cracks at it.


More importantly, I am very confident that we will eventually get it right.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Very interesting thoughts.

Our team was actually the recipient of "being left" at the bridge (being stood up for the prom?) twice. In one of the two matches the two bots on our alliance that had said they could do our bridge couldn't balance, so our alliance received no balance points while the team on the opposing alliance that had agreed to cooperate never came near the coopertition bridge and went and made a two bot balance for their own alliance.

Why couldn't the teams have to report to the refs the numbers of the cooperating "teams" as they set up their bots on the field and then at the bridge, if a team is left and they can get on and balance, they could earn the points and the other alliance would all be dinged the the same number of points. The points total for balancing on your own bridges would all stay the same.

Yes, under this scenario many teams will never agree to cooperate, but if they do agree and are not a team of their words they would receive a penalty.

Fortunately, I did not see any sabotaging of the coopertition bridge at our district. I am saddened to think a coach let that happen. I hope I could pull a driver off the controls before I let them do that. I know the rules did not spell that out as not permitted, but like so many have said, there are interference fouls, there are fouls for holding, and fouls for touching other robots' safe zone. Sabotage at the bridge is so "un-FIRST."

But I think it's also "un-FIRST" when teams do not honor their plans or make plans without the rest of their alliance. Teams that are dishonest in this way should be "known" to the other teams before elimination selection.

And if many qualification matches go without coopertition bridge attempts that's not the end of the world, at least dishonorable conduct would not be rewarded like happened to us twice.

Sadly, I have to say we have learned our lesson and will probably not attempt a coopertition bridge at our next district because we were hurt very badly by this strategy. And I am disappointed because I am sure the lesson we learned is nothing the GDC had in mind either.

All in all, it's a tough but fun game. The championships and state/area regionals should be very interesting.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I think we as a community are all in agreement (even before this update) that egregious attempts to unbalance the Coopetition Bridge are wrong and should be unquestionably frowned upon.

However, even after this update from FIRST, I continue to stand by the strategy of choosing, as an alliance, not to balance the Coopetition Bridge in certain situations. There are, of course, several conditions that MUST be met to make this strategy acceptable. These have been captured in in any number of preceding posts - the entire alliance agreeing to do so without any coercion or bullying on the part of any member(s) of the alliance being the dominant one.

It seems that there is some "contentious" strategy that arises each year which causes people to cry foul citing it as an affront Gracious Professionalism. As has been said so many times before: let's not forget that we are all competing in a competition. We all want to have fun and enjoy ourselves. We all want to cooperate and help each other out. We all want to win. Often, that means finding strategies to accomplish certain tasks that help us to achieve this goal - choosing not to balance the Coopetition Bridge in certain situations is just such an example.

I worry a little about teams using this update as a basis to "bully" or "coerce" teams on an alliance that chooses, as they are perfectly entitled to do, not to balance the Coopetition Bridge. I certainly hope this is not the case, but I know that if a situation arises in the future where my alliance chooses not to balance the bridge, I will be at least a little bit on edge about how things will play out.

I don't know if I agree with this. If I am scoring in the last thirty seconds, am I not showing my robot off? If I am balancing the alliance bridge, am I not showing my robot off? In both instances, I am exhibiting plenty of excellence (arguably, in certain situations, with the added element of strategic excellence).

I know that everyone may not see eye-to-eye with me on this. If that is the case, let's agree to disagree and play the game in the manner which we think is in each of our best interests?

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

This was the thing that I feared the most about this game. Whether it happened in actuality or was merely percieved that way, decieving your opponents can benefit you in this game. This aspect has the real potential to damage relationships between teams.

Lets not confuse deciding not to balance with your opponents with the 6v0 matches. Deciding not to balance alway hurts all of the teams on the field. They only time it helps a team on the field is if they have some outside interest in seeing a team not in that match seed higher than one that is in that match. The 6v0 scenario actually helped some of the teams on the field seed higher. It was weird that the rules the GDC laid out worked that way, but they did not make that mistake this year.

Teams have always (since 2000) had the option of pulling other teams down with them by intentionally losing matches they were in. To me, choosing not to participate in cooperitition this year is the same as "throwing" a match.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I really want to see how this bridge thing plays out at michigan state champs and to a lesser degree at michigan troy district. It is possible at these events that the number one seed will look across the field, half way thru the comp, and see the 2nd,3rd and 4th seeded teams playing against them. Now does the 2-3-4 alliance co-op too maintain standings or just go for the win to catch up to the number one seeded team. They all lose some ground but maybe they can catch up later.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

In most cases I would agree with this.

However, in at least one situation, I would vehemently disagree:

A match that is going to be difficult to win where you need 2 robots on the alliance bridge, and 1 robot scoring baskets the entire match. If you do this, you can eke out a win, earning 2 CP for your alliance, and 0 for the opponents. A +2 differential.

If you send a robot to the coopertition bridge, you're losing valuable alliance points, and can't play for a win anymore. Although this results in your alliance still getting 2 CP, you're handing your opponents 4 CP. A -2 differential.

I certainly won't roll over and let my opponents jump ahead of me in the rankings, just because I'm guaranteed 2 CP either way.

It seems trying to win is still good for something in this game... ;)

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Johnr,

The difficulty here is not #1 facing all three of #2, #3 and #4 all at once, in a single match.

It is if #1 faces #2 in a match...

then #3 in the next...

then #4 in the next...

If #2, #3, and #4 all say "no" to coopertation, they each take a SMALL 2 CP hit.

By the end of these matches however, #1 has taken a MASSIVE 6 CP hit, and likely #2, #3, and #4 all overtake #1.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

That last point raises an interesting philosophical point. Do you favour Pareto optimality (striving for net societal improvement, with nobody any worse off) over something a little more Rawlsian (striving for net societal improvement, with nobody unduly harmed), or even Benthamite (striving for net societal improvement, period)?

Personally, I tend toward Rawls most of the time, and I suspect that's part of the reason why we differ. (I'd avoid Pareto except in circumstances where there's not enough information to guess at what undue harm is. And Bentham is for cases where the impact on any individual is trivial enough to be neglected rather than analyzed.) I'm resigned to the idea that the most positive choice for society can sometimes involve negatives for some people, and yet may be justified if the negatives are modest.

Firstly, there are two kinds of acceptability that need to be distinguished: acceptability due to legality (irrespective of whether legality is clear, or subject to disputable interpretation), and acceptability due to moral standards (which come in personal and societal flavours, as well as other permutations).

If we're talking legality, then I'd say this is pretty straightfoward:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

No rules prohibit these strategies.

As for moral standards, I disagree with many above that the "spirit of FIRST", "Gracious Professionalism" or any other similar concepts establish a sufficiently homogeneous moral standard for us to impose on the entire competition with the specificity needed to conclude that a particular on-field action is always immoral. Opinion is inherently diverse, and even if you see broad agreement about end goals, it hardly follows that you should expect agreement about the reasoning used to arrive at those opinions. We all want competitors to have fun (an uncontroversial end goal), but I think that there is no agreement on how that fun should be apportioned (in parallel to the Pareto/Rawls/Bentham example above). Consequently, it's not enough to say that because a certain strategic direction is the least offensive to the majority, that it is the only acceptable one.

Similarly, we can't ignore other examples from sports, politics and everyday life, because those also affect our assessment of fairness in different contexts. In short, my moral compass can be self-consistent and rational, and yet still conflict with someone else's.

So with that in mind, I find myself wondering whether these actions are truly so outrageous, and so offensive to the morals of enough people, that it's safe to pass judgment on the entire strategy. I don't think I can do that. There are enough ways to employ these strategies that (to me, at least) exemplify a command of the meta-game, and an effort to trade some short-term reprobation for an overall strategic victory. You can complain that the Yankees have too much money—but when it comes down to it, that's not unfair, it's just part of the game of baseball at the major league level. So too with these strategies. They're an example of playing to win the tournament, rather than necessarily maximize the match score. That offends a widespread expectation, but not a fundamental one.

Therefore, my answers don't really change:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

I recognize the influence of unwritten rules, but I think one of the great virtues of FRC is that it is to a large degree a fresh start every year. The GDC has the freedom to tailor the rules specifically to their vision every year, and this consequently removes a big reason to lean on tradition and precedent as additional ways of regulating our behaviour. As a result, I read the GDC's recent message as reinforcement of principles that are already clearly articulated in the rules, but not a clear statement that teams must change any particular strategic behaviour. It's a statement of what the GDC would like, rather than a statement of what we must do. And while it would be very nice to please them, I don't think the recent update should be read as a new moral imperative.

Despite the fact that I'm unwilling to condemn those strategic choices, no examination of the topic would be complete without asking 'what will other teams think of us?' In this case, perhaps perception trumps reality, and even in the presence of well-reasoned justifications about morality, the price your reputation will pay is simply too great. That's a decision for teams to make on their own, rather than something that should be taken out of their hands by dicta from the GDC or the FRC community.

I don't think I'm even willing to go that far. If you try to smash another robot off the bridge, that's one thing (and you'll be rightly penalized)...but inserting your robot in a way that removes the balancing points is perhaps rude, but not that much more so than blocking a series of shots, or pinning an opponent's robot to the wall. The fundamental difference is merely that one has a direct and disproportionate effect on the rankings, while the others are perceived as simple gameplay interactions.

Good insight into the perils of reverse coercion. I don't want a situation where teams are unable to convince opponents/partners that acting primarily in self-interest is not inherently a bad thing. Managing other teams expectations and perceptions is very much part of the game, and I think this whole situation draws the meta-game to the forefront nicely, even if it does complicate the process somewhat.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Tristan, you might want to consider that your views seem to be diametrically opposed to those of the GDC and to the founders of FIRST.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

We are pretty naive I guess, because we don't even know what 6v0 means from 2010. And as a coach, I hate the fact that I will not encourage my team or my alliance to cooperate in the future.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

In what way? I don't think it's that clear.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I'm rarely entirely opposed, though I frequently disagree on numerous specific points. But there's more than one way to achieve good results.

In this case, I think FIRST's leaders are trying to leverage a perceived moral standard that unnecessarily limits a team's choice to play competitively. I also think that the practical impacts of choosing a controversial strategy (e.g. other teams might hate you) are often enough disincentive for me to avoid that strategy. But that's quite different from those strategies being inherently wrong.

In this instance, I don't think the GDC's moral standard is universal, and it seems that by proclaiming it in this way, they inadvertently suppress dissenting points of view. Changing the culture in a positive way doesn't have to be about homogeneity of opinion when faced with a moral choice.

Actually, I find it interesting that we seem to take somewhat opposite positions. I think a clear regulatory standard helps us to be permissive about varying moral positions. I believe you're advocating a strong moral position as a way of overcoming gaps in the rules.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Tristan, I apologize for the lengthy response. I appreciate the ability to engage in civil dialogue with someone who disagrees fundamentally with me on important issues. I tried to give each of your comments the time it deserves; I hope you receive my responses in the genuine, honest, non-confrontational spirit in which I intend them to be.

I believe that the moral standard set by FIRSTs leaders do indeed limit a team's options when considering choices in competitive play. Removing the value judgements of "perceived" and "unnecessarily" from your statement, I think we're in agreement on the facts, if not opinion of those facts. The moral strictures make FIRST what it is, in all of it's awesome thank-God-it's-not-basketball glory.

Not that either of our opinions really matter, mind -- when it comes down to it, it isn't either of our call.

I think we might be in agreement on pragmatic disincentive -- indeed, I think several people interpreted my earlier comments regarding long-term team impact to be judgmental as opposed to pragmatic in nature. (A reputation of dishonest jerkism -- thank you Woodie for the alternative to 'cretin' -- is hard to shed, and has the potential to negatively impact teams and team members for the rest of their existence. This makes it a decision bigger than "do I care what this does to our reputation", because it can tarnish the brand in its entirety.)

Pragmatic consequence of certain strategies *is* different from those strategies being inherently wrong -- but that doesn't mean those strategies are thus not inherently wrong. Don't fall for the false dichotomy: they can be both pragmatically unwise as well as inherently wrong.

I would posit that all inherently wrong strategies are pragmatically unwise, though pragmatically unwise strategies are not necessarily inherently wrong... that said, I'm not interested in the thought experiment involved with teasing out the wrongness matrix of any given action in Rebound Rumble.

I'm certain it isn't, as evidenced by your disagreement -- but it's their call, not yours. I approve 100% of the moral standards of gracious professionalism and coopertition in their full spirit; you clearly do not. It's critically important to note that both of our opinions are quite irrelevant when it comes to communicating with and interpreting the pronouncements of the GDC; they mean what they mean, and it's up to us to determine what that is as opposed to what we want it to be.

In other words, the truth doesn't care what you think. If you want to be an effective communicator (listener) in this case, then you must try to ascertain what it is the GDC actually meant, and that means using the moral standard under which they are operating to interpret their pronouncements even if you don't agree with those standards. To do otherwise is to apply willful ignorance as a shield against effective communication of intent.

I highly doubt it's inadvertent. Year after year after year, the message from the GDC has been "do the right thing, even if it's to your competitive disadvantage". Not all teams live up to this ideal, and not all team members live up to this ideal -- but it is indeed this ideal that makes FIRST fundamentally better than most (if not all) sports. (Yes, that's a judgmental statement on my part. Yes, I'm comfortable making it. Yes, I wish everyone in FIRST would just either buy into it, suck it up, or find a program they can stomach. No, I don't expect them all to do so.)

Yes, it absolutely must. Changing the culture in a positive way is a fundamentally moral venture. If you think otherwise, I don't think you understand much of anything*** about the interrelationships between morals and culture.

FIRST is inherently judgmental. Dean Kamen looked out at the glorification of sports and entertainers and cutthroat business and he said, "this is wrong". He set out to right that wrong, and to transform the culture into one that celebrates not only science and engineering, but also gracious professionalism and coopertition -- and he did so because these things are "right" and should be encouraged and celebrated. You're of course free to disagree, but when it comes to what FIRST is all about, it's not your call, it's theirs.

You're free to disagree, and you're free to express that disagreement, but you do not have the prerogative to impose your views of what FIRST should be upon FIRST (and neither do I. For the record, there are a variety of things I would change were I in charge... But I'm not, and I don't want to be, even if that means that the things I disagree with continue in perpetuity. It is sufficient for me to see that FIRST does a whole lot of good for a whole lot of people, and as far as I can see does no harm).

Honest, civil disagreement is a rare find. I wonder how much of ours lies in foundational assumptions, and how much in syllogism.

I would agree in principle that a clear regulatory standard allows permissivity in varying moral positions -- although we've already established that your vision of a clear regulatory standard has no basis in the real world vis-a-vis either game design or engineering specifications. (I suppose you can scoff or disagree if you desire, but my impression from our earlier exchange in the other thread is that when it comes to game design you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Without further evidence to the contrary, that's the impression I'm working with going forward).

The problem with your statement is that it seems to be entirely ignorant of the fact that in FIRST the competition is entirely subservient to the moral goals. (Don't take my word for it. Listen to 20 years of "it's not about the robots"). So your statement is correct, but entirely moot.

In that you are flat wrong, and it leads me to believe that you haven't made an effort to understand a single thing I've said on this subject. I happen to approve of both the moral stance and the game design of FIRST leadership -- but the two are orthogonal.

On moral stance: I am advocating a strong moral position because moral relativism is a bankrupt philosophy espoused only by those too lazy to contemplate the ramifications of the fact that "there are no moral absolutes" is a moral absolute.

On game design: I support the "reasonably astute observer" and "intent of the GDC" rulings because positivist game design, despite your expressed desires to the contrary earlier in the 118 thread, is not actually possible. Unpleasant truths are always preferable to pleasant fictions.

...and of course neither of those matter one whit, because I'm neither part of the GDC nor of FIRST leadership. That means that even if I agreed with you about everything, that wouldn't make our interpretations or our arguments hold even the slightest bit more water -- all it would do is make us both wrong when interpreting what the GDC means.

***Please note that accusations of ignorance are not pejorative. I know way less about most things than I know about the things I know about -- I'm a fundamentally ignorant person; I comfort myself in the fact that so is everyone else. People tend to defer to me on matters of quantum physics because that's where my background lies -- this makes some sense, even if it is an appeal to authority logical fallacy, because most people are happy to admit that they know little to nothing about quantum mechanics. So why is it that everyone seems to assume that they're experts on religion, philosophy, and politics? These subjects are at least as difficult to master as science and math, but people humble on science and math are crippled by hubris on religion, philosophy, and politics. I used to find this interesting... now I just find it frustrating, and have to keep in the front of my mind that this used to be me.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I'll note that for the most part, I was able to receive your comments as intended, though as you'll see, there was one in particular that I think was probably beyond the pale. Either way, there's certainly something fundamentally different about the ways in which we approach this issue.

You say that like it's a terrible thing. Am I insufficiently zealous for daring to approve only 90%?

(I can't really challenge your assertion in detail if I don't know to which definition of those terms you're referring. Gracious professionalism has been articulated many ways by many people, some of whom are senior enough at FIRST to be credible authorities on the matter. Co-opertition is typically defined as a combination of competition and co-operation, but it's clear that as embodied in this year's game, it is distinct from the oft-stated ideal of competing as hard as you can on the field, and co-operating as hard as you can off it.)

You'll have to enlighten me why the trajectory of positive culture change must absolutely culminate in homogeneity of opinion.

Though Dean's vision for cultural change might be grand and sweeping, I think it's fair to represent the actual process as incremental. And not every increment of change is going to lead in exactly the same moral direction. Surely there are many solutions to the problem of increasing the recognition of science and technology in our culture. Why should every one be expected to eventually converge?

And as for the interrelationships between morals and culture, you're going to have to back that assertion up with something a little more concrete. Is there a relevant relationship that supports your assertion, and denies mine? (Or were you merely highlighting the uninteresting fact that to call something "positive" requires drawing a conclusion about the morality of the process that caused it?)

While I sometimes talk about alleged flaws in the rules, this sentence wasn't an instance of that. I was merely stating the obvious: that there are important issues that the rules do not speak to. My assertion was that a strong moral position could be used to provide guidance where the rules do not—I don't think this is controversial. Furthermore, I think you're relying upon that process—and I said as much, without implying a value judgment.

Given that sentence in its proper context, I don't think you should draw the conclusion that I have not attempted to understand you. (Actually, I'm baffled by what led you to that conclusion, even in the absence of context.)

Are you counting me among them? Because that's not even remotely what I said or implied.

But digressing for a moment—because this is interesting—are you saying that it would be fine to say "I have insufficient evidence of the existence of moral absolutes"? It would seem to pass your stated test, but without repudiating moral relativism.

And incidentally, if you are advocating an absolutist position, how do you reconcile that with uncertainty or disagreement about what those absolutes are? (And if you're not advocating for absolutism, why bother lashing out against relativism?)

You're half right, in that I do not like the "reasonably astute observer" standard as applied this year (for reasons I explained in that thread).

But as for the other half, you seem to be recalling your own expressed opposition to positivist game design. I did not advocate for a completely positivist rule book, because I realize the inherent futility of expecting to write a truly universal set of definitions. (That means that at the extreme, while not a realistic situation, I agree with you, and never indicated otherwise.) To quote myself:
In other words, I was advocating for more specificity in certain areas. The lack of a positivist solution to the rulebook in no way precludes the possibility of improvement of the document as it stands. It is entirely possible, and arguably desirable, to achieve greater specificity without running afoul of philosophical impossibilities.

FRC is not a cult or a religion, where the doctrinal interpretation is the only valid interpretation. Instead, it is a community, with a competition at its centre. It is absolutely my call, to a very limited extent. Indeed, to an extent, it's every participant's call. FRC is about what we collectively make of it. The FIRST leadership and FRC GDC clearly drive the community's standards, but they do so in a manner akin to the leader of a political party: through manifestos, exhortations and examples. If the party disagrees with the leader's position, it pushes back, and change tends to occur. (We saw this with the request for transparency in FIRST's operations a couple years ago. It also happens behind the scenes, when FRC volunteers and staff lobby headquarters for improvements.)

So, no, I don't single-handedly set policy for FIRST—and obviously, I wasn't under that illusion. But discussions here, like conflicts and controversies at events, help advance the conversation, which in turn affects FIRST's policies.

As for your suggestion that one must interpret the rules by applying the GDC's moral standards, I find that highly suspect. Given that the GDC members' positions are not homogeneous (or even necessarily self-consistent), and only a few collective pronouncements of moral fibre are provided, one can hardly ever expect to be right (in the sense of understanding the rules in the manner intended). But more importantly, I don't see any indication that FIRST actually expects this of its participants. Sure, they make statements telling us what type of reasoning to employ when interpreting the rules—but that's not a moral standard, it's merely a vague suggestion about reading comprehension, and frankly, an eminently practical attempt at avoiding argumentation.

Also, adoption of FIRST's moral outlook is simply not the standard that many (perhaps most) officials apply in practice. First of all, most officials don't address the problem with anything approaching that level of philosophical depth. They just read the rulebook, and enforce their understanding of it. They're not actively considering whether their moral compass is aligned with that of the GDC.

Furthermore—at least according to my own moral outlook—officials aren't supposed to have the luxury of choosing the interpretation that is most comfortable for them or for the GDC. Instead, they're burdened with the entire set of interpretations that satisfy the written rules in the book. When it comes to enforcing the rules, simple equity dictates that (subject to other important considerations), a solution that satisfies the letter of the rulebook is right enough, whether or not it strictly follows from the GDC's intent. (The GDC doesn't always like this—but as a matter of principle, equity is usually more important than keeping them 100% happy.)

That must be kind of infuriating, because it suggests that multiple contradictory opinions can be simultaneously right, despite the existence of what's supposed to be an objective standard. But there's no objective way to enforce unstated intent, and trying to give it the veneer of objectivity by claiming that the GDC's intent trumps all only serves to make teams mad at the officials and the competition.

Worse, it implies that it might be acceptable to allow a team's innocent misunderstanding of an ambiguous rule to ruin their experience—that would be unconscionable. (Note that if the rule is not sufficiently ambiguous in the eyes of the official, then unfortunately, the team's experience will have to suffer. But that's a last resort, not an automatic response to a team's failure to understand the GDC's intent. Officials mustn't—and don't usually—make things up or overstate the ambiguity to placate teams.) In other words, for an official, the morally superior choice is to give less (but rarely zero) weight to the GDC's own moral stance, and instead to ascertain whether the team's interpretation of the rules reasonably follows from the book, and strictly judge their compliance with the actual specifications.

I think that's a statement of fact, but not an axiom.

FIRST is what it is, in large part because people choose to consider moral strictures that go above and beyond the rules. But it is illogical to imply that because many (or most) obey that moral code, that everyone should or must comply. We can't be penalizing teams for following the rules, but not the spirit. Feel free to castigate them after the fact for their moral weakness, but in terms of the game itself, they've acted acceptably.

We agree that the pragmatic disincentive is real. Perhaps we disagree on the details of how much and for how long it will tarnish the brand under a particular set of circumstances. I can live with that state of affairs.

(And incidentally, I don't think I was in any danger of falling for the false dichotomy. My statement was intended to distinguish between those properties, not claim that they cannot simultaneously be true.)

I find it amusing the degree to which Dean has backtracked on this outlook (at least publicly), to secure the participation of one particular popular entertainer. I offer that observation as evidence that perhaps it's not so simple as a bright line between right and wrong.

Complementary, not subservient. Without the competition, the moral goals lack currency—why would the average FRC student care about what Dean Kamen had to say, if it weren't for the cool robots? For that matter, many sponsors wouldn't care about Dean's morals, if it weren't for the robots. It's inescapably about the robots, because without the robots, nobody would listen to the valuable moral lessons.

That's not the message I get at all. It's much more subtle than that. There are definitely undertones of "do the right thing" and "play nicely". But it's still clearly a competition, and you should feel free to do things that partners/opponents may not agree with, as long as you're willing to accept that there may be consequences to those decisions.

Though I probably shouldn't dignify your repetition of baseless attacks with a response, I'll simply point out that I'm pretty sure I have an adequate academic background to make reasonably strong statements about engineering, law and policy. What's more, I suspect I have as much FRC experience as you do—as a team member, mentor and lead official. There's a traceable lineage between rules I co-developed and the past and present FVC, FTC and VRC competitions. I've built a big flying robot, consulted on a solar car, and worked in enough actual engineering positions to know my way around a production line or design shop in a few different industries—and there's stuff I directly developed in thousands of vehicles and several factories. Moreover, I've worked for governments on actual technical codes and policies—and am reputedly quite good at it, at least according to real-world experts. While I'm impressed by the fact that games you designed are played on tabletops all over Western New York, I didn't dismiss your expertise as a substitute for a cogent argument.

So let's not make this about us as individuals, and agree to avoid the personal attacks in future.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

No, I didn't -- that was an observation, not a judgment.

...and its effects. It's a fundamentally moral process, and so agreement (or at least compliance) at least on those positives being worked toward is necessary. I meant nothing more profound than that.

Very good. That's not what I took away from your earlier comment.

I was equally baffled that you believe that I am advocating a strong moral position as a way of overcoming gaps in the rules, when I have not at any point said anything even remotely like that.

After sifting through why you might believe this given our various conversations on the topic, that was my best guess -- that you were sufficiently busy defending your position by picking at mine that you lost the forest for the trees and ended up believing I said something I didn't.

I could of course be wrong; that was my best guess. It wasn't my intent to offend, but it's still my best guess.

No, I'm not.

I'm also not interested in having the moral relativism vs. moral absolutism argument on Chief Delphi. It strikes far too close to peoples' hearts (and foundational belief structures), and the flat affect of e-mail or forum almost always results in somebody getting offended at something somebody didn't say.

So while it's critical to my views on this issue, please forget I brought it up.

You were advocating for a move *toward* a positivist rules set, wherein the GDC should define grab/grasp/grapple beyond the very general "reasonably astute observer" test they have decided to use. Maybe that's an argument about where the line is drawn -- if so, that's cool -- but what I take away from your argument is, "I want the rules to be perfectly clear and not subject to interpretations that could be overturned"... which is just a statement of another impossibility in game design.

That misses my point entirely. It's not that it isn't your call because of some cultish devotion; it's not your call because you're the listener/reader in that conversation, and the GDC is the speaker/author. While it's their burden to be clear, it's your burden to parse out what they actually meant.

Again, this was a statement of pragmatics and the nature of communication, not a statement of who has (or should have) what power and why.

...and yet they agree on what they're going to publish to the community before they say it -- and thus it's our job to determine what they collectively mean when they do so. You don't have to agree with or accept their moral standards, but you must take them into account if your goal is understanding what they've said/written. Again, this is a strictly pragmatic issue.

You might want to investigate how complicated the process of reading for information actually is. If they seek to actually understand what the rules say, they must, in fact, actively consider the relevant attributes of the authors. Given just how much emphasis FIRST puts on GP and Coopertition, they must be near the forefront when parsing the meaning of the GDC's words.

You might find Stephen Pinker's writings on neurolinguistics englightening -- his books are very cool.

I don't think a superposition of meaning-states is at all how anybody reads rules (or anything else for that matter). Reading for intent requires evaluation of likely meanings.

It's statements like these, by the way, that give me the very strong impression that you have no idea how games are written. That's not the personal attack you took it as, by the way. I know nothing about biology and little enough about women -- if someone tells me so, I'll happily agree. I'm certain we can come up with an enormous list of things about which I'm ignorant; I try not to speak authoritatively about those subjects.

I encourage you to consider stepping back and trying to (a) educate yourself on the technical aspects of game design and (b) be less authoritative in your criticism and/or demands of the GDC until you have done so. You're welcome to take or ignore my advice, of course.

It could, but it doesn't have to. That's up to how the teams choose to respond to it. I would advocate that instead of getting mad these teams suck it up, lick their wounds, and take it as the learning experience that it is -- including perhaps especially ways to engineer things so that if the rules end up not being interpreted in their favor they aren't put out much (like 118's brilliant bridge balancing is a low-risk innovation as compared to the high-risk trollbot. There are more and less smart ways to take risks with the rules).

Sure we can, because FIRST has made it clear that the spirit and the letter are inseparable. (They make this clear by telling us outright not to lawyer the rules, and instead to read them with an intent to understand what they mean.)

Again, because they make the rules, they have the prerogative to tell us how to properly parse their intent. It won't be perfect -- language never is -- but it will be much closer to correct if we interpret things the way they tell us to.

I haven't seen any backtracking on Dean's part -- quite the contrary, as recently as kickoff he was making moral judgements about where society is versus where it should be. Can you give some examples of his backtracking?

I'm not using a superposition of meaning-states to interpret their words, so go figure our interpretations will differ. That seems to be the root of several of our disagreements.

I would like to reiterate that I didn't make a personal attack. I pointed out that you appear to be quite ignorant in particular areas relevant to this conversation. I can't prevent you from taking that personally, but there's absolutely no reason why you should.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

So, uh, how bout that great weather, eh?

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

What's the CD record for total lines in 3 consecutive posts?

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

So you Delphi guys are coming to 'sconsin next week, ainna hey?

-alg

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I don't know, but I think you've found the CD-appropriate way to say tl;dr. Though from what I skimmed, both seemed to make good points that lead to the conclusion: there's no way we can all have the same "moral" views of the game! But I'll say something about this: chill out! It's a game!

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Chief Delphi - where a conversation about meta-coopertition evolves into a discussion about metaphysics. I love this place.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Although I petitioned the mods to have Patrick and Tristan's posts moved to another thread, I thoroughly enjoyed reading all the posts.

In reference to "chill out, it's just a robotics competition," I'd have to say that I again disagree!

FRC is about so much more than just the robots.

I couldn't tell you how bored I was during our mandatory "philosophy for engineers" course during my undergrad. The significance of relativistic moralism never really rang through to me, until now.

Although at times painful, it was really neat to see a tangible example of these concepts intelligently dissected, debated, and applied right before my eyes... using robots.

Crazy.

For a topic I despised so much in undergrad, I still can't believe I got roped in to reading every.. single... word... intently.

Seriously though, having a good handle on Tristan's and Patrick's points WILL ACTUALLY HELP YOU AT COMPETITION THIS YEAR.

You could just say "yes" to every opportunity to coopertate, take the "moral high ground," and throw every team who doesn't want to coopertate under the bus for being "cretins."

At the end of the day, you might just be encouraging teams to take coopertition bridge defense underground.

It is far more effective, and less damaging to a team's "moral reputation" to promise the opponent they will coopertate, meet them at the bridge, and then have an "intentional accident" which causes the balance to fail.

Intent is impossible to judge. And no one would dare make any accusations, nor should they.

You could never "catch" anyone doing this, and they would come off smelling like roses. At least they TRIED to balance the coop bridge, right?

I need to make it absolutely clear that I would find the above scenario absolutely disgusting...

...exponentially worse than anything we saw at GTR-E.

Instead of building a "universal morality" where teams feel pressure to resort to underhanded means, I would much rather have a balanced approach that said:

"Okay, there are some valid reasons NOT to balance that coopertition bridge. If you choose not to, I won't bully, coerce, convince or hold it against you. If you're going to do it, at least do it the right way. Get to the bridge first, tip it towards you, and stay on it so no one else can get on. Not everyone will agree with what you're doing, but they will understand why you did it, and not throw hatred at you. I would much rather you do this, and be transparent about it, as opposed to the underhanded alternatives."

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Your post is otherwise cogent and well developed, but these last two paragraphs seriously taint your credibility as someone whose moral beliefs should be agreed with. Your mistake is one that I see made all too often, and it's really frustrating for me when it occurs.

Essentially, you're making ad hominem attacks just as much as he was--perhaps more so, in that you actually call your shot by declaring you are aware the nature of such arguments before proceeding to make one. Listing your own accomplishments in a way like this is generally intended not just as a defensive response but also as a way of defamation, as in "you aren't as good as me": see the passive-agressive comment about tabletop games.

Then you turn around and say that the argument should not be personal. Right after making the argument personal. Essentially, all that a paragraph like this says to a reader like me is "I'm better than you, and if you disagree then that's an ad hominem attack, so I get the last word. Ha."

In the future, a better response would be to dismiss his ad hominem claims by pointing them out for what they are without bothering to refute them. If his technique is already fallacious, the factual correctness of what he is saying about you is of no import.

My two cents.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Or, you know, if you're against cooperation, just leave the bridge ALONE.

I'd consider intentionally blocking the bridge for someone who might want to go on it a form of coercion.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Indeed. Interfering with an alliance partner who wants to balance is, in the words of Woodie Flowers, being an "incompetent jerk".

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

Let me start with the disclaimer that outside of being an avid spectator, I haven't participated in a FIRST event for years.

I'm an ardent supporter of unintuitive strategies that can benefit a team in the long run as long as they do not: a) sabotage an alliance member in a match; b) rely on lying to the opponents; c) rely on promises made between teams regarding being picked. I feel that sharing these strategies are akin to sharing tools.

With all that said, I don't think cooperation bridge defense, pre-determined results and meta-coopertition are all that useful in this years competition.

Cooperation bridge defense is essentially alliance sabotage (or preventative measures against alliance sabotage - which should be unnecessary). The need to defend the cooperation bridge disappears if your entire alliance is in agreement whether to balance the bridge or not. I would hope that members within an alliance can communicate with one another their needs and graciously set aside some of their desires to come up with a compromise strategy.

Before continuing let's consider reasons why you would not want the cooperation bridge balanced. The reasons I can think of are: i) you think your alliance can win the match if your robots are engaged in other endeavors ii) you do not wish your opponents to receive the 2CP that come with a balanced bridge. (there's also iii) you do not wish your alliance member to receive the 2CP - but that's alliance sabotage).

I find the 6v0 situation described in the original post as extremely unlikely. If Red1 is such a powerhouse, they probably do not require the full 2 minutes to balance the bridge; if blue alliance is such an overwhelming underdog who is trying to score minimal points, it is difficult to imagine them up 10 points near the end of the match; lastly if the alliance bridge is balanced Blue1 has already showcased their balancing - driving off doesn't negate having done it. Nevertheless the gist of the scenario is that underdog alliance blue is attempting to avoid reason i as to why the bridge isn't balanced and is willing to lose the match to avoid it (with the understanding that they will probably lose the match regardless) while showcasing some of the robots abilities.

I do endorse communication between opponents but want to point out that agreements between opponents regarding bridge balancing don't have to be a binary yes or no, but can be conditional e.g "We will attempt to balance if we are winning by 10 or losing by 20 with forty seconds left in the match". Now in the example, if red alliance gives blue alliance a conditional statement, the blue alliance can develop a strategy to score minimal points to ensure that there is a balancing attempt, but without a set agreement to lose the match. Thus if they find themselves winning, they can do so in good conscious and receive the 2QP for winning instead of from CP as they had expected. I suppose things could still go wrong if blue is inside the margin in which a balance attempt is offered and end up losing, but the point is that teams can accomplish the goals described in the 6v0 scenario without having to agree which team will win or lose.

As for meta-coopertition, my thoughts are more jumbled and less clear. With the assumption that you usually want the cooperation bridge balanced, let us focus on reason ii as to why you wouldn't want the cooperation bridge balanced. Supposedly you are playing against a dominant robot (DR) and don't wish DR to seed 1st in order to prevent DR from picking dominant robot 2 (DR2). If there are more than 2 dominant robots, one must wonder how much preventing DR from seeding high going to help. So under that scenario consider:

1) How much are you hurting the DR vs How much are you hurting yourselves - To be truly helpful to you in the long run, other teams (meta-coopertition) must have the same thought process.
2) Can you predict that the other alliances in subsequent matches will join in refusing to cooperate with said dominant robots - Even if the DR plays subsequent matches against teams that may also be interested in preventing the DR from seeding 1st, those teams have to convince their alliance.
3) The benefit of splitting DR1 and DR2 goes primarily to the teams that get to pick (are picked by) DR1 & DR2. True all the alliances benefit from not having to play a DR1-DR2 alliance, but if DR1 and DR2 are that dominant, their two alliances will still be the favorites for the competition.

With all that in mind, I don't see meta-coopertition being all that helpful.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I accept the criticism.

I also note that rhetorically, even his fallacious argument could be influential—hence my desire to foreclose that line of argumentation.

Patrick recently (in another thread) wrote of his professional accomplishments in the design of games¹ as being a pertinent qualification to discuss FRC issues. (He also listed several academic degrees he earned.) He then insinuated that to understand the issue, I should acquire a level of expertise akin to his own, without actually knowing whether I might have alternative qualifications that give weight to my opinions. I let that slide in the other thread, but felt I should put the matter to rest when he reiterated his uninformed criticism above, adding "we've already established that your vision of a clear regulatory standard has no basis in the real world vis-a-vis either game design or engineering specifications". I obviously disagree that anything of the sort has been established, and listed some reasons why he ought not jump to that conclusion (and why I think others ought not believe him so readily).

In other words, I presented a list of accomplishments to refute his statement, and not to assert superiority; when I said "I didn't dismiss your expertise as a substitute for a cogent argument", I meant that.

But yes, the tabletop gaming comment was perhaps too pointed, was certainly ad hominem and diluted the point I was trying to convey. Although I'm usually reasonably good at avoiding it, sometimes a full-bodied insult is too tempting to pass up, especially in response to repeated slights.<sup>2

1</sup> He mentioned tabletop games before, so I'm assuming that's the experience he was citing.

² As has already been noted, Patrick disagrees with me that those were slights. I think they were, and think they were probably intentional, despite his protestations.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

To be perfectly clear, I am intentionally saying that you are ignorant on the topic of game design and that this ignorance is feeding into your argument in ways it doesn't appear you are aware of. It also appears to be coupled with an equally large ignorance on metareading and reading for understanding. That's not an insult -- not even a teeny, tiny, itsy bitsy bit of one -- and if you take offense to it I have some very bad news for you: you, me, and everyone else on this planet are profoundly ignorant about just about everything.

Telling you that you appear to be ignorant on any given topic is not a slight, any more than telling me that I am ignorant on the topics of biology, figure skating, baseball, programming, or any number of a large variety of topics I have never troubled myself to learn much about would be a slight. Given the infinite number of topics one can study, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with being ignorant on a great many of them.

There is, however, something wrong with simultaneously being ignorant on a topic and speaking authoritatively about that topic.

I had hoped that instead of taking offense, you might have taken a step back and said, "wow, maybe I don't know as much about this as I thought I did." Pride has a bitter taste, but eating some once in a while is good for all of us.

Re: Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!
 

I think why he keeps correcting you is because you are wrong, stating "you are ignorant, so stop arguing" isn't really a valid way to try ending this.

Myself and I'm sure many others on these forums hold Tristans words and thoughts in very high regard on the topics currently being discussed, and from a moral ground I'd probably side with the one who's not insulting anyone (just on the moral ground). As you're essentially telling a baseball player who's been in the league for awhile he doesn't understand baseball in the slightest and should be okay with it.