Everyone is getting very bent out of shape here, for what many people have already shown is a non-issue.

The biggest opposition I would have, personally, to my team doing this (and I'd like to think that most drive teams are with me here) is that it limits the chances a team has to win.

Picture two scenarios:
1 - Your team is losing near the end of a match, and you can't get on the ramp because your opponent is blocking you. You left his HP stacks standing because you're concerned about QP's, and this is the smartest way to increase your score. So what do you do? You knock over his stacks because it makes sense in the context of the game.

2. Same deal, only this time you left the stacks standing because you promised your opponent you would. Now you have to choose between winning the match and going back on your word. (Which, incidentally, is the same situation a boxer who has agreed to throw a match is in.)

What agreements like this do is limit the options that you have in the context of the match, which is bad because you never know what will happen once the match starts.


And on a side note - let's please tone down the rhetoric in this discussion - there's no need for it to be as heated as it has been.

Play the game however you want to but don't go crying to me when team A Knocks down team B's stack at the last second.

The TIGERTRONS will not participate in this "fixing of matches". We may have been the only team to get a high score of 210 in Arizona, without participating in this.

We may also have been the first to have been asked to participate in this but we said to the one guy:

If you can guarantee us a WIN, we will guarantee you that your STACKS will stand. The guy replied no......

Our team didn't build a robot in 6 weeks to play the game with 3 robots we built it to play with 1 robot, our alliance......

What fun would it be to watch sports if teams started making agreements like this??????

Several anti-agreement people said that their team follows the strategy of not knocking down the other teams stacks unless nessisary. Now, you obviously feel that it is ok to tell others your strategy b/c you're posting it here. How is it different to tell your opponent this strategy.

Those that say that it removes the advantage of certain type of bots, are wrong. If a team feel that way then that team uses a different strategy, and the game is played with no agreement.

Also, seed number doesnt matter. Especially since a lot of you say that wining shouldnt be the goal. Dont forget that 2/3 of the teams in the finals DIDNT qualify! if a team has a well built robot then they will either qualify of be picked.

Our team didnt qualify, but we were picked. I consider it to be more of an honor to be "chosen" by another team than if we qualified.

It would be less GP to try to keep your score low to hurt your opponent. I saw this in a match where a team stayed off the ramp, b/c they knew it wouldnt make them win, and didnt want to help the other team (at least I think that was the reason).

btw- It is good strategy to let your opponant on the ramp. If you are winning by enough, it even makes since to take one of yours off and let both of theirs on. It is good for all 4 teams.

I dont like this type of scoring anyway. I think that teams should just get their points, and mabey 1/2 of their opponent's. This would cause teams to compeate b/c a box on your side is more valuable than their's.

just my $0.02 - sorry if I'm rambling

Matt

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Read some of these posts: people are getting SO upset and SO arguementative over this, to the point that it is becoming rediculous.

Oh, and dispite what "FIRST" said, it is NOT against the rules, and is very much a gray area, ethics wise.

After all: if I knock down my opponents stacks if I win, I get lower QPs. If I knock down my opponets stacks if I lose, they get lower QPs, and I get the same amount.

Which one is more professional - letting scores run high, or dragging your opponents into the grave with you?

*confused* FIRST didn't say it was against the rules.
FIRST said FIXING the game to achieve a tie is against Gracious Professionalism
link

It's different because, prior to the match, you tell the other team that their stacks will be standing at the end of the match. That can limit your options, depending on the outcome of the match, to either losing or breaking your promise. There is nothing wrong with telling your opponents that you're going to leave their stacks alone until you're sure that you need to knock them down, but saying that the stacks will be left standing for the whole match is just a bad deal strategically.

To CHSRobotics03:

So far I've watched part or all of VCU, OHIO, BAE, UTC and NAVY. All of which are East coast regionals. The 2 regionals you mentioned(Arizona, Sacramento) are West coast. There are differences in how these regionals play out every year. 1 difference is the East coast are more physical than the West. Now I haven't seen it yet but apparently it has happend but is it an epidemic.

There are limits to everything. I can buy a gun but I can't buy a howitzer. If teams agree not to knock over a stack created by another bot or prevent bots from stacking then that is acceptable and isn't unfair. I'm not saying FIRST should make a rule saying teams can't knock down robot stacks but professional sports have rules that make the game more exciting. How long would basketball last if players could just knock down an opposing player and rip the ball from his hands? It would make some matches more exciting if stackers could make stacks and the points were huge. The limit would be "planning" a match for an 8 stack everyone on top maximized match. That is no fun. Should teams agree to let each other stack then it still challenges them to stack and get the wall and fight for the ramp.

Summary: Agreeing not to knock down stacks, OK.
Planning match for 8 stack, Tie for 500 pointsm not OK

I don't know if this has been posted or not but what about in a case where a team is without a robot because of damage or something else? This was our case twice. We were allied with a team that had damaged their robot and were unable to compete. We made an agreement with the opponents. I don't see the unfairness in that.

As for fixing the match to maximize scores, it will eventually come down to the playoffs and that strategy won't work anymore. If your robot is really great, others will notice you even if you didn't make the big points. That was our case again, even though we were 28th after the seeding matches Clark Magnet Robotics was nice enough to pick us to compete with them. It's not against the rules to make the agreements, its just not very "professional."

I think the 3+ threads have accomplished enough discussion about this.

Let's put it on the back burner and bring it up in a week or so if there's more to be said.

Ken L said it best: