Gracious Professionalism?
 

The following is a recap of an incident I witnessed at a recent regional. The names have been omitted to protect the not so innocent.

My team was on the bubble of being an alliance captain. If one or two alliance captains were picked, we would move up and select. I was busily finalizing our pick list when a student from another team approached me and another one of our mentors. This student told us their robot was broken, would not run and we should not pick them. I took this individual at his word. I could see his team's pit. They were two or three spots away from us. The robot was there, but no repair activity was taking place. This was at most 5 or 10 minutes away from the start of the alliance selection process. So it certainly looked like the robot was beyond repair.

The selection process began. And as expected we did move into the process and became an alliance captain. We were subsequently picked by a higher ranked alliance.

The plot thickens. When it came time for the number one alliance to make their second choice, lo and behold they picked the team that told us their robot was broken. This alliance of course went on to win the regional.

Thoughts anyone? Ever had an experience like that?

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

My thoughts are that we should all worry about our own actions and integrity, and let other teams worry about their own.

If indeed this is true, you now know more about the team in question than you did previously, and can take that new information into consideration going forward.

I'd leave it at that. And delete this thread.

/my thoughts

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

I have seen this not this year but last year. we were 7th seed and a team did the same thing to us. It says the extreme opposite of Mr.Kamen's vision for FIRST. If you want to be picked by the first seed alliance go up to the team that you think might pick you and show them your scouting. You show them a better pick than you. Please don't say that your robot is broke. This is extreme ungracious professionalism and it's sad to see more teams doing this. I feel you discust.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

There's always a way to get around core values and the visionary aspect of the program, isn't there? Playing dead sounds like a great work around.

What does that teach the members of a team that are a part of the game of playing dead? That's my question.

Jane

EDIT: After reading Patrick's post below, I thought about deleting my post, initially. I've rethought it and have decided to leave it in as food for thought - not as an assumption or criticism.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

The team didn't play dead, by the way. They had a known, legitimate hardware problem with their drivers' station -- and by the way it did impact play once during the elimination tournament, though fortunately for them and their alliance it wasn't disastrous.

The facts here have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have good friends on the team in question, and when I heard this rumor before elims started I did something crazy -- I went and spoke with them about what I heard. The response was, "Yeah, we have a broken joystick. It cuts out intermittently, and it's been a problem all weekend."

They were as surprised as anyone that they were picked in spite of this problem -- and it's wonderful that they contributed well to their alliance throughout eliminations.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

Where to start with this...The facts are correct. There were three people party to this particular conversation. Only those three people would know what was said. After the student left, I spoke with the other mentor that was present. I recounted what I heard and it was confirmed back to me.

And curiously enough, the component we were told could not be repaired was NOT a joystick.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

There's nothing I can say to that except that I simply do not believe it. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying that somewhere the facts got confused -- perhaps by the students, perhaps by you, perhaps somewhere in the telling.

I stand by my original post: even if you're 100% correct on the facts (and thus I am not), posting it here is the wrong way to deal with it.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

Whenever I hear this, I ask what is broken sometimes it is basic and other times it is detrimental. Odds are the number 1 seed didn't know about the issue, picked them, and fixed the problem over lunch or said team told everyone but the number 1 seed that they were broken because the number 1 seed said they would pick them if they were still around.

In either scenario whether false or true its not my team, not my problem, and we probably shouldn't be talking about the GP of another team on an online forum. Its kinda like gossiping about the integrity of another person, you're just dragging yourself down even more.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

I can understand where the team that told you they were broken were coming from. Last year, I told a rookie team not to pick my team for eliminations. My team's robot was a poor performer and the rookie's robot never scored a point despite the fact that they were seeded 4th. We would not have been a good choice for them and I suggested other teams they could choose who were more capable.

Eliminations came and, to my team's surprise, we were chosen by the 7th seed and then ended up winning the quarterfinals against the same rookie team I talked to previously.

In the end, I did feel rather bad about the situation. However, I also knew that we would not have helped if we were picked by the rookies due to our own scoring issues.

Perhaps the team that told you their robot was broken did so because they thought they would cause more problems for your alliance than help it.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

Emphasis mine. I agree 100% with the bolded statement. If you have a problem with a team, talk to them about it person to person, or PM them. The entirety of Chief Delphi doesn't need to know about it.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

This. Not all robots work with other robots. A robot that scores well with you may not be of any use on another alliance. It's nothing against the team. Their strategy may not work with your strategy.

Another option regarding the OP's post. What I'm thinking is that, like Brandon said, the 1st seed told them if they were doing well by alliance selection time, they'd choose them. If another alliance before the 1st alliance chose them, and they declined, the 1st alliance may think their robot is still broken, and therefore don't invite them to join the alliance because of that. The one team who invited them earlier just ruined the team's chances of alliancing with the #1 alliance, by making it seem as if they are still broken. It could also be that the #1 alliance told them that they know how to fix the problem and will help them during lunch.

All in all, I highly doubt that the team in question purposely lied to you to bring you to a disadvantage.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

In this thread entitled Elitist Teams, http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=105021, Paul Copioli had this to say:

"Unfortunately, incidents like the one the OP mentioned will happen and the more we communicate about it, the less misunderstanding we will have."

Now this was pertaining to another matter questioning a teams gracious professionalism. It was because of that thread I decided to start this thread. And Mr Copioli's comment still applies here.

Apparently they told more than just my team. The rumor appears to have been making the rounds.

I would think a joystick problem would be easy to fix. Unplug one and plug another one in. There were no pit announcements I heard regarding a team needing a joystick.

A good way to ensure you are still around is to tell any other teams who could potentially pick you that you are broken.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

If they were selected by an alliance other than the alliance they wanted to be selected by and they declined it wouldn't matter what the 1st seeded alliance thought because they wouldn't be able to pick them.

You cannot decline and then accept a different offer.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

What to you mean?

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

If you decline, you can't get picked. That's the rules, not someone thinking the team is broken.

In this case, I don't know all the facts. Two different versions of events are being presented that are wildly different. So I'm not going to make any call.

What I am going to say is that if you have an issue with your robot, and you might be picked for eliminations, it's fair to mention that you have an issue to pickers. They'll help you to get your robot together, or will decide not to select you based on that--and if you're picked, it's to be expected that you'll get help with the issue and show up functional.

However, if you say that your robot will not run, or is otherwise completely unable to play in eliminations, and then turn up for eliminations with a fully-functional robot, you can expect some strange looks, some pointed questions, and/or some long memories in later years from teams that would have picked you and that you told that to. Hopefully, it's just that you thought the problem was worse than it actually was. If you deliberately lie to get on the alliance you want... well, you are the one that will have to live with that decision.