Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

What I mean is very clearly more than just my team was told about this non-functioning or poorly functioning robot.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

This is not a new strategy in the FIRST universe. However, it is a very risky strategy. If the #1 alliance came up to you and said, "Play dead and we'll pick you second," you have two choices: trust them and do it, or play it safe and make yourself available. It is a very risky strategy and in my many years of doing this, I have found that people's promises are not reliable.

It is important to remember that teams are made up of many individuals who may or may not the details of the strategy. Student A could tell you one thing because he or she honestly believes it is true, but could be totally unaware of what Students B, C, D, E and Mentors A, B, C (etc) are planning.

Did they lie to you? Possibly. Did they get lucky? Absolutely.

FIRST is great at teaching students about gracious professionalism and the ability to overcome obstacles. But it is not an unrealistic sport. There is lying, cheating, and unfairness. But that is life. The best lesson for our students is to teach them how to deal with the negative aspects of FIRST (and life) and overcome them to succeed.

Besides, that kind of behavior brings bad karma anyway. Believe it.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

The joystick statement is mine -- it was something control-system related, maybe a port or something else. On that detail I'm admittedly fuzzy. (Last year, our classmate had a loose USB connection -- it cost us two qualifying matches, and was not something we could just replace.)

Either way, here ain't the place.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

Wow - I hope this un-GP story is not true. I don't see how one could be 100% sure. I'm inclined to stick my head in the sand, assume this is simply a mis-understanding and not common place in FIRST. Either way, I'm with preivald, CD is not the right place.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

I have stated what I experienced. And I am 100% sure of what I experienced. The events occurred as I recounted them.

If we can't discuss this here, where then can we?

Once again, I offer this as a great answer:

The quote is from another thread discussing questions of GP. It still applies here.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

The problem is that you are not discussing it with the team that you have the issue with. Instead, you are accusing the team in a very public place that might not have any of the team members present.

Talk to the team. Phone/Email/CD Private Message/In Person.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

I wouldn't recommend doing that! We don't know the details so we are all making false accusations. What good could come from hashing out accusations/emailing the team? It happened, you can't change it, its not the end of the world, you don't know what happened.

In short move along, nothing to see here!

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

First: It is entirely possible that both of you are correct. Either different people on a team told different people not on the team different stories, or you're talking about different events, or some combination. Either way, discussing it in public doesn't do much. And insisting that you are 100% right doesn't do much for relationships with people that disagree. There're always at least two ways to look at this sort of situation

As for where you can discuss it:

You can discuss it at the event with the team in question.
You can discuss it as a team.
You could pass it off as "maybe they got it fixed with some help and the runner wasn't told" and not discuss it beyond that.
You can discuss it in PMs.
You can even ask a general question about what someone would think about if a team told everyone they were broken only to be picked. You could put it in FAHA's mailbox or (with care) in YMTC--I think this is the kind of topic that could go in either--as a hypothetical situation.

But to post it in the way you did makes it almost an accusation of cheating--if one person can identify the team/event correctly, and makes a mistake in how they refer to it, everyone knows. And accusations of cheating tend to turn into flame wars, which we don't like. I've seen more than a few.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

I think the general discussion of cheating and finding ways around the system is an important discussion. Perhaps it is a discussion for another thread that does not involve finger pointing or calling any teams out.

FIRST, as an organization, can only do so much. The GDC, as the Game Design Committee, can only do so much. It boils down to the individual team mentors and the values they want to instill in their students and what kind of reputation they want their team to develop and to maintain in the FIRST community.

We have many teams that are new to FRC and they are probably receiving a lot of mixed messages. Healthy discussions can help with the confusion.

Jane

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

I must disagree with all of you on this. After an event is over and you have time to calm down is the perfect time to discuss situations like this. Tom went about this in the best way, and left the questionable team's name and number out of the conversation (I applaud everyone else for doing the same). Did he come out and say they should be banned from competing or that their regional win should be stripped from them? No, Tom specifically asked for our thoughts and previous experiences with situations like this.

Proceed to thread derail. Everything in FIRST is not hunky-dory. Teams sometimes use questionable strategies and referees sometimes make questionable calls. We're playing basketball this year. If something questionable happened in the NBA would it be swept under the rug or would Skip Bayless aimlessly talk about it for an hour on SportsCenter? Many things get discussed in depth on CD, often on controversial topics and leading to heated discussion. CD is FIRST's SportsCenter.

Just as Tom mentioned above, Paul Copioli's comment from the Elitist thread applies here. Was there a misunderstanding of whether the robot or the control system was broken? Sure sounds like it, and discussing things like this will help teams understand that they should be more clear with information like that.

If anyone disagrees, I gladly accept PMs. The main forum is not the place to discuss the validity of a topic that is already being discussed, it only leads to further off-topic discussion.

/derail

Eric nailed it. Teams (as a whole) must live with the decisions made by any member of the team.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

Why not just request them anyway if you want them bad enough? If they are broken beyond repair you still have the backup robots. This is particularly valid if you are a low seed alliance because risks often need to be taken to beat a typical 1-3 seed alliance. A worthy risk is grabbing a robot that might break down in a match, but if it doesn't is one of the best robots at the regional. Anyway, if the problem was bad enough, they would likely decline your invite out of GP.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

Once again, I'm finding myself advocating for a more libertarian position. It's uncomfortable to do that—because most systems don't self-regulate very well, and libertarians screw this up all the time—but I think under the circumstances, it will lead to a better outcome.

Regarding the team that allegedly deceived you. Hopefully it was just an innocent miscommunication: maybe the team member delivering the message was mistaken about the nature of the problem. And if it was innocent, someone from that team can hopefully be persuaded to come onto ChiefDelphi and make a statement to that effect. That serves everyone's interests, because the record is set straight.

And if it wasn't innocent, it's good to know that some teams need to be watched a little more closely. Like Eric said, we have long memories—and the community's opinion matters.

Nevertheless, I don't think they were strictly wrong in a moral sense to be deceptive (if they did so), because they have no obligation to tell the absolute truth. I'm unwilling to stretch gracious professionalism to the extent that it would represent a commitment to the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to every potential alliance partner. Teams have real preferences with respect to who they play with, and will be playing against many other alliances later—so being fully forthright can be like sabotaging your own alliance's chances of competing effectively. (Think of this from the perspective of the team being picked: should they lay it all out on the table and leave their eventual fate to others, or is it acceptable to also be strategic in the release of information to take some control over their own destiny? On one hand, this messing around represents friction opposing rational decision-making. But on the other hand, that friction is already there as a result of innocent mistakes—the picking team has to do its due diligence anyway.)

If we don't have this discussion on the forum, then some people may well ostracize the team—because they don't want to take the risk. Others will go in without knowledge of the backstory, and may get burned because of it. It's like journalism: a clumsy and imprecise way of getting at important details, but one that's nonetheless frequently more efficient than everybody having to draw their own conclusions without the benefit of evidence. And by having this discussion, here on the forum, we allow the system to self-regulate: every team has access to the same information, has a similar ability to digest it, and can each make rational choices based upon it.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

If they believed their robot wasn't working, why did they accept their invitation?

And what's with this sudden sentiment that anything even remotely controversial should absolutely never be discussed or even brought up on CD? What, exactly, are we supposed to be using this forum for then?

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

No surprise I disagree with you here -- there's nothing even vaguely gracious about lying to someone for your own advantage.

...but given that this particular, very ugly and fictional cat is out of the bag, this:

is reasonable.

People are free to believe Tuba4 or me or whomever else -- but I hope they'll be willing to give the benefit of the doubt that they themselves would like to receive if similar accusations were leveled at them.

That's the point: I'm the wrong person to ask. You'd have to ask the parties involved.

I didn't say that we should avoid controversy (and indeed, anyone who has followed any of my posts since I joined this wonderful place knows I'm not one to shy away from such discussions) -- what I said was that making accusations against a team on Chief Delphi is inappropriate. Discussions of questionable behavior are fine, but this is personal and besmirches every member of the accused team.

We know what regional he's talking about, we know what teams he's talking about... This isn't reasonable discussion, it's libelous smearing.

Re: Gracious Professionalism?
 

I have re-read my comments in this thread. I have never mentioned the regional, nor will I. I have never mentioned a team name or number, nor will I. I have simply stated here is what I saw, here is what I heard and here is what I experienced. To state otherwise, I believe, is irresponsible and perhaps in and of itself libelous.

This situation is at best a misunderstanding or at worst questionable behavior. And you have just stated discussions of questionable behavior are acceptable topics for this forum.