Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I love fun!


And on another note, explained the situation to an outsider, didn't really see an issue with it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

302. I win.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Unfortunately I was lacking that context. Thank you for your clarification. I apologize for quite possibly taking your statement out of context, Cory.

EDIT: To be clear, I do think there are better ways to point out that bragging is becoming irritating though.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

What is "that bad" is the precedent it sets, and the pandora's box it opens. Where does this stop if it is allowed? Do we want any individual with money to be allowed to offer cash prizes at FIRST events to see teams perform feats they would like to see performed? This challenge was not directly in sync with the goals of the game and the competition. It encouraged teams to achieve a scoring feat just for the sake of the scoring feat. What do you tell the next sponsor who would like to pay to see their favorite feat achieved? Who can make the longest shot? Who can complete the most catches? Who decides if a challenge with a monetary prize is a legitimate one and whether to allow it? What amount is considered OK to offer, and what amount is too much? How many cash prizes can be offered at one event? This all may sound absurd, but once the precedent has been set to allow it, on what basis do you not allow it? I understand that the sponsor's intentions were good, and that he only wanted to "raise the level of competition", and that he had done it before. Having third parties offer cash prizes at FIRST competitions for performance feats is a bad idea. Not just because of this incident, but because of the next one, and the next one.

Putting into question the legitimacy of the results of the regional. Putting into question the legitimacy of the scoring and OPR data from the regional. Tempting teams and students to play in a different manner than they would otherwise play in straight competition. Tempting teams and students to play for a goal other than goals of the tournament. Setting the precedent for additional 3rd party monetary rewards that cannot be governed. Creating discord between the events with cash prizes and those without. Most importantly, inviting accusations of "pay-for-play" from FIRST detractors that could discredit the FRC and FIRST.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Perhaps Mr. Sanghi can take that up with the FIRST board at the next board meeting. After all, he and the rest of the board run FIRST; we don't.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

With all due respect to Mr. Sanghi and the board, in my humble opinion this is a dangerous precedent. Pandora's box has no regard for who opened it.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Thought experiment time. In 2011, how would you have felt if all 6 teams in a match on Einstein agreed to not use their minibots, and to let the match be decided entirely on tube scoring alone?

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

In this situation, I'd be perfectly fine with it, provided both teams honored the agreement. Both alliance's must have decided that they had better tube scoring and worse mini-bots.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I would understand why they would want to make that kind of bargain, due to the point value for the minibots being out of whack.
However, deals like that have no place in FIRST. The Minibots are part of Logomotion just as defense is a part of Aerial Assist. It would be like the Broncos and Seahawks agreeing not to kick field goals.
Each element mentioned above is part of it's respective entire game. Everyone had a fair chance to know about it ahead of time and accepted a responsibility to prepare for it whether they knew or not. Therefore whether it's football, Logomotion, or Aerial Assist, if you're playing the game, you should be prepared and willing to play the whole game, warts and all.

Now that doesn't mean that there can't be official rule changes or re-evaluation of point values, especially in cases of increasing fairness, improving safety, or putting a better product on the field for the spectators, but the players should play to the rules in effect at the time of the match.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Or in 2012, when many of us didn't give priority to actually winning matches, but were "bribed" with the QP awarded for balancing on the co-op bridge instead.

Shouldn't we all have only tried to balance our alliance bridges instead? That logically was the only way to demonstrate a 100% commitment to trying to win the match...

In hindsight, were all those teams who gave up on winning the match, and co-op balanced instead just as culpable? All they did was end up artificially boosting everyones' QP, at the cost of not trying your hardest to actually WIN the match anymore...

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Seriously? Karthik, your experiment failed. My faith in people to draw logical and sane conclusions is gone.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

Idk about you guys, but we didnt balance the middle bridge unless we were ahead.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

If it turned out that they had made the agreement to seek a cash reward offered by someone, I would have felt very disillusioned.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

That depends on how you define "win." I define win as winning the tournament, not any given match.

The co-op bridge was an interesting social experiment that, not unlike the situation in Arizona, encouraged collaboration between opposing alliances. The difference here is that this was encouraged by one board member/sponsor, as opposed to the GDC.

Re: 301 points! and could have done more
 

I would still feel disillusioned even without a reward. Completely ignoring part of the game by designed conspiring taints the outcome.