My issue with this challenge is that it gave teams two competing goals: One to try and win the regional and the other to get more money for next year.
There is no way anyone can argue that not playing defense will increase the chance of an alliance winning. Given the sheer amount of downtime in this game, there is almost always some defense to be played to lower the opponent's score.
As a result, encouraging a team not to play defense for a cash reward directly pits "winning the match" with "helping our program for next year". These two goals should not be opposing.
All the teams in this match that we have heard from on Chief Delphi are very insistent that this decision was completely voluntary, to play as they decided to. I won't second guess their decisions; I respect the choices they made. But if I were in their shoes, I would not like to be forced to choose between trying my best to win the match and $500.
If I were given this challenge, I would vehemently oppose playing any way but the way that gave me the best chance to win. I would hate giving up the chance for $500 and I'm sure I'd take some heat from fundraisers on my team as well as potentially less financially fortunate members of my alliance.
Quote:
With Gracious Professionalism, fierce competition and mutual gain are not separate notions. Gracious professionals learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness in the process. They avoid treating anyone like losers. No chest thumping tough talk, but no sticky-sweet platitudes either. Knowledge, competition, and empathy are comfortably blended.
|
The challenge given is an interesting twist on the 'official' GP definition. On one hand, it can be argued that 'fierce competition and mutual gain are not separate notions'. On the other hand, I wonder if not playing the match to the full potential might fall under not 'competing like crazy'.
Quote:
CoopertitionŽ produces innovation. At FIRST, Coopertition is displaying unqualified kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition. Coopertition is founded on the concept and a philosophy that teams can and should help and cooperate with each other even as they compete.
Coopertition involves learning from teammates. It is teaching teammates. It is learning from Mentors. And it is managing and being managed. Coopertition means competing always, but assisting and enabling others when you can.
|
The same conundrum is produced from the definition of coopertition. You assist others in fundraising for the next season but at the same time, you reduce the level of 'competing always'. Similarly, you are still competing but you have re-written the game.
There is also the issue of a slippery slope with challenges like this. What if the challenge was $500 if one alliance could hold the other to 0 points in teleop? Would it be OK to simply not try to score in the finals in an attempt to raise $1000 in two final matches?
Why is this different from 6v0 of 2010? In Breakaway, 6v0 was created by The Tournament, definitely part of the manual, and the game. It created a conflict between winning a match and winning a regional. Unlike this challenge however, it did not create a conflict between winning the regional and fundraising. It did not give a competitive advantage to better funded teams who needed the money less. It did indeed put teams in a tough situation where there is a decision teams have to make that they should not be forced to.
