Amanda,

Your post highlights the need for people to avoid conduct that FIRST itself has stated is not Gracious Professionalism.

When a team takes an action that other teams consider outside of what is appropriate a degenerative cycle is created that leads to even more negative actions.

This, in turn, leads us farther and farther away from the ideals that FIRST is fostering.

Therefore the need for all combatants to hold a higher mark becomes even more important.

Right now I am hearing the voice of Yoda in my head, "Avoide the dark side of the force, you should. Hmm?" :)

Best,

Danimal

Any agreements about not knocking down stacks changes the game and makes it unfair for all the stacking bots. This makes all the time spent building a stacking bot a wasted effort. You can not change the basic strategie in the middle of the game and say it is fair for anyone. If you wanted to keep stacks, you should have built your robot to protect the stack. This agreement would be easier to take if no one had built stacking bots. But to build a non stacking bot and then achieve the equivalent by an agreement for the match is not fair and changes the challenge presented by FIRST. So, I strongly disagree that this should be between the teams and not have FIRST take a stand on this. Stacks are important for higher scores and I am sorry that those teams that are agreeing to this did not understand that and build a bot to stack or block. Now that the game is underway is not the time to change the rules because you did not understand them to begin with. You have made your choice on the type of robot to build. If you do not like your choice change it, but do not change the game to suit your robot. It is too late for that, the game is afoot.

From what I've seen, many people complaining about this strategy are mostly vet teams who lost to rookie teams with this strategy.

Just an observation.

fixing matches
 

I am a sponsor and mentor for team 271. some members of my team started to be involved in a match fix in Annapolis for whatever reasons they considered justifiable and i stopped it. I do not know how the "mentors" on the other teams qualify their decisions, however i consider this nothing more than cheating. i have never seen anything from usfirst which suggested or implied that coming up with strategies to increase scores by taking a dump on the motives for scoring was something that usfirst would consider intelligent, resourceful engineering and planning.

My team is in the regional on Long Island this week. I have posted a letter to usfirst asking for a posted statement as to whether they accept or reject rigged game agreements. I have also asked that it be a specific stated ruling at the coming regional game when the team players gather for the game regulations. I am sure it will be addressed, but if it is not, i will ask the question in a very loud voice.

I understand to some degree that the students go through an understanding/learning process as they grow up. I do not understand the decisions of the mentors and/or teachers involved. The decisions are nothing more than the philosophy of ENRON. The results are the destruction of the dream for intellectual and analytical growth that USFIRST has created.

Now thats not fair.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is but I hope that it isn't "cooperation and agreements are always bad." That means its okay for the United States to go to war with Iraq rather than use diplomatic channels and its okay for Iraq to evade the UN weapons inspectors. A world without cooperation and compromise is a world where everyone pursues their own self-interest no matter what the moral or human cost and I think thats EXACTLY what FIRST is trying to avoid.

Our team avoid is avoiding these "agreements" because we want to keep a much bigger and more important "agreement" the spirit of FIRST.

Besides, FIRST teams practicing "collusion" are hardly Nazi's.

Oh geez, please don't make this debate become philosophical now too.

The argument is that teams practicing this collusion intend to look out for their own self-interest at the expense of all the other teams. This is unfair to the teams who have worked hard designing and building their robot, their designing ability, and their strategizing ability.

Certainly all "cooperation and compromise" is not bad. But collusive activities that work at the expense of other, perhaps more qualified, individuals, IS bad.

My team hasn't even played and we are against it.


Gracious Professionalism - It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not or even if you understand it. The practice of aggreements has devided FIRST and has put a black mark on the entire competition. All teams should be gracious and professional and agree not to make these pre-match agreements, just because there's such a bad stink about it.

Our team is gracious and professional, and I personally don't feel the need to sign a petition. I don't know about the rest of my team.

I wouldn't do something just because there's a big stink about it.

I agree. What is the old saying: "United we stand, divided we fall".

If we all agree not to use pre-match agreements, we can get on with our goals of expanding FIRST, helping new teams, and having great competitions.

The problem we are having is that the points reward teams for "colluding" but colluding spoils the game. Therefore we need to agree not to do it. (We also need to get FIRST to change the point system, so it doesn't reward colluding.)

By doing so, we are establishing agreements on the fundamental nature of how the game is played. Without those agreements, we have chaos. To repeat from an earlier post, what would happen if tennis players were allowed to agree to split their first 2 sets evenly with each player winning a set by 6 games to 0 to save their energy, and then playing hard the last set. That would be unfair to the other competitors who were playing their hearts out for all their sets. Any players making such agreements would be kicked out of the tournament. Making agreements with your opponents is not acceptable in a competition which is what Stack Attack is, a 2-on-2 competition.

Please sign the petition at

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=19301

I have a story about the first match I ever witnessed involving a robot. Last year our robot fell over backwards on its first match. Oddly enough the other team thinking that they have won this thing tried inflating their score so they deployed a mouse to the other side. It didn't work very well and we won by a fluke. I think that first has a weird scoring system that allows this stuff to go on. If the reverted back to a regular scoring system where a team would would get their own points and not the losers this wouldn't happen.

I did not mean to imply that all "cooperation and agreements"
are "BAD" .........

But that was a shining example of 4 conspirators out to screw
Everyone else......"in their own self-interest"

And NO! I am NOT Calling or Em plying ANYONE is a "Nazi"

Remember, I was talking "THE BIG PICTURE" not just FIRST,
But the VALUES we Teach the Leaders of Tomorrow!

AS for USA/Iraq...... this has parallels to this thread too,

Geo.

P.S. My son is deployed (Medic, ARMY) and I do feel that we have
been using diplomatic channels

Re: On the subject of Stacking
 

Yeah, and you forgot to mention one of your opponents was completely dead, and the other had a malfunctioning arm. That stack was hardly the reason you won that match.

Stacking Bots in the Finals???
 

Originally posted by Gary Stearns
You need to go back and watch the NASA archive of Annapolis.

Alliance 7 came from behind to win their second Quarterfinal match by having a stack of 3 bins and 23 additional bins in their scoring zone. Final score 69 - 68. STACKS COUNT!!!
Alliance 7 came from behind again to win their second Semi-Final match by having a stack of 4 bins and 14 additional bins in their scoring zone. Final score 81 - 45. STACKS COUNT!!!
In the second match of the finals, Alliance 7 failed to get a stack made and lost the championship. If just one stack of 2 bins was made they would have come from behind in all three elimination matches to win the championship. (Do the math.) STACKS COUNT!!!

We have video of Dean jumping out of his chair after the Quarter and Semi final matches to check the thrilling ending of each of those come from behind victories. Bottom line is STACKS COUNT AT ALL TIMES!!!

Cooperation is in the "Spirit of FIRST"
 

I don't know what the fuss is all about, some teams have found that there is a strategy within the game that others have failed to recognize. The problem or flaw isn't with the team who has been wise enough to discover it, it's a flaw within the game and/or the rules. Don't blame teams that found it.

Four teams working "Together" to gain high qualifying points, I believe is fair more "gracious" than four teams smashing and beating containers and each others robots to bits.

Don't be upset with the teams who have exposed this opportunity to score, you should be singing there praises for sharing the strategy with you.

Doesn't anyone remember the "Coopertition" Game a few years ago?

I don't think anyone of these teams prearranged who would win only that they would "leave your stacks alone" if "you leave our stacks alone" nothing wrong with that.....

Re: Cooperation is in the "Spirit of FIRST"
 

Sorry Don- You can rationalize on this all you want but it is just wrong. The game this year is NOT coopertition or otherwise we would all have the same color domes on our robots.

Strategic maybe- ethical-no. And FIRST has said as much.

WC

We ARE complaining and didn't lose to a rookie team.

In fact losing to a good team fairly is no big deal. Hey- we lost to you, fairly I hope. We aren't complaining about that and your alliance deserved to move on. No problem there.

I think the people who are complaining are the ones who respect the rules and SPIRIT of the game. It is distasteful to be associated with this sort of behavior.

There are some sore losers out there, but I don't see them in this forum complaining. I DO see people concerned that the FIRST game, like many other things in our society, is being corrupted by a few individuals who think they are cleverly avoiding the rules. They don't want to see FIRST go the way of corporate america these days.

Quite frankly, if winning the trophy by this sort of deceit is that important to them I think we should make a special award for it and present it at the awards ceremony so all can see who the real "clever" teams are.

I bet they wouldn't get much respect from many in the FIRST community

Fixing the game is simply wrong. It offends. It degrades the spirit of FIRST. It shouldn't be tolerated.

WC
(PS- congrats on a great competition. Isn't is great to know your hard work paid off?)

Re: Cooperation is in the "Spirit of FIRST"
 

That was where I was leaning.

My daughter, captain of the team, just arrived home. She and I hadn't talked about this issue, and now I've learned that our team decided not to sign the petition, which is exactly what I said about myself today on this forum.

Angela did remember similar agreements last year.

Our team doesn't feel the need to blacklist the teams who choose to participate in gentleman agreements, and we'll be making our own decision about whether or not to participate in gentleman's agreements.

And our decision will also NOT be based on a mentor outside of our team threatening that if we follow that strategy we'll lose their company's funding.

Ok, Ok, enough already
 

After reading page after page of this stuff I must say I have been quite shocked at the uproar this has caused. As a coach on a FIRST team, I feel I must point out some things:

Gracious Professionalism & "the spirit of FIRST"-
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of "agreements", I believe that we could all agree that the following do not express a sense of GP or the spirit of FIRST:

Threats of physical violence,
Suggestions that some teams may deserve help while others do not ,
Forming "blacklists" (or speaking of revenge),
Suggesting that teams who have not broken any rules be removed from the competition,
Comparing students at a robotics competition to current or former international military/political events,
Suggestions that teams who have not broken any rules are not worthy of playing with in the elimination rounds.

PLEASE. If FIRST is not entirely about winning (or maxing QPs, or trophies, etc.) then lets act like it.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Team 599
RoboDox

This is turning into a very heated debate.

Let's put it down a notch, please...

My thoughts: "fixing matches" is not something I would personally do.

However, the strategy of this years game is as follows:Both alliance's stacks standing up = higher points for everyone. My team quickly learned that you only knock down enemy stacks if they knock down yours.

However, my team never even considered (I was the student coach) rigging a match with any pacts or agreements with other teams.

With all seriousness, people need to stop flipping out in this thread: it is getting out of control.

You are right Ben- I've said my piece. I'll back off and get ready for Rutgers ; )

WC

Re: Cooperation is in the "Spirit of FIRST"
 

Hi Don,

Thank you for a great event. Your committee did a wonderful job.

On this subject, I would like to request, if you haven't done so, that you read the other posts on this subject.

I have talked to other people who, at first look, thought that this "cooperation" of teams was a good thing. However, the game this year is not a 4 team cooperative game. The expectation is that teams are competing 2-on-2. When they start to make agreements with their opponents, they are violating the basic agreements per the Kickoff on how the game is to be run. Taken to it's extreme, we would have all 4 teams choregraphing exactly what each robot will do to achieve the highest possible points. Picture the human players making 8 high stacks and the robots taking exactly their share of the bins, and then heading up to the top with everyone making room for each other. Well the 45th bin would have to be pushed out. Now we have a maximum score for each team. Well everyone else will get the same score if they do that. Why did we go through days of lack of sleep if we are all going to get the same score? That is not a 2-on-2 competition.

In other situations of FIRST, we applaud teams cooperating and helping each other, and rightly so. However when we are supposed to be competing, it is not okay to then start working with your opponents and thus change the game to a version of 2001. We need to be operating on the same page.

Example:
In a doubles match of tennis, the partners cooperate against their opponents. They do not cooperate with their opponents, but they could. They could say, guys, we are tired so let's make this an easy match. We will let you win the first set by 6 games to 0 and you let us win the second one. That way we will only have to play 12 games. Then we will really play hard in the third set. No harm to anyone, right? Wrong. It harms the other teams because they are competing as expected and will be more tired. They expect a level playing field. That is all we are asking for here.

If we are going to make the game like 2001, well let's design it that way. But FIRST abandoned that format last year, for good reason. Watch the 2002 kickoff where Dean discusses this.

Cooperation is wonderful, except when the basic concept of a game is competition. Then cooperation between opponents is wrong because it is not what was agreed upon. It is a fundamental violation of the agreements of the game, whether it is stated in the rules or not. Are there rules forbidding tennis opponents from making agreements? I don't know, but I do know that anyone doing that would not be competing long, and there would soon be rules against it if it were done, because it just isn't fair. See the FIRST forum for their response to the question as to whether it is okay or not for teams to make agreements with their opponents.

We were called together for a 2-on-2 competition and put unbelievable effort into creating our robots so we could get points in the match. To have teams then decide to leave up huge stacks on both sides with no effort to knock them down and no one protecting them, is to create a phony competition. They are really working together to beat all the other teams. Well then everyone would have to do that and that is the real problem. That would look really stupid on NASA channel, and as Dean said this year, we want to make the game more audience friendly. Are we going to have baseball games where the teams have agreed to pitch softly? No because no one would come, and no one will come to fake FIRST games either. I have parents who flew in from Los Angeles to watch the match who were upset by the pretense of the teams, who had obviously made agreements between them. That is dishonest if you are supposed to be opponents.

It is absolutely necessary for us to separate the wonderful cooperation in the pits and on this forum as examples, from when teams are opponents in a game. If there are no opponents, there isn't a game and that is what we have to avoid.

I am sorry but I couldn't ask my volunteer engineers to come day after day, sometimes sleeping on floor when they got tired, to then put on a theatrical performance of choregraphed robots, unless that was the agreed upon format as in 2001.

What the fuss is about is that I care very much about FIRST and feel that this behavior threatens it. When I heard a mentor on Friday at the Arizona Regional say that their team was voting on whether to withdraw from the competition, I think that is serious. Let's just agree on what game we are playing, 2-on-2, or a cooperative 4 team game, and then stick to it.

As for the petition that we are asking people to sign, it is really just an effort to come to an agreement on the format: 2-on-2 or cooperative 4. See

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=19301

I think the sooner that it is made clear what the format is, the sooner we can all get on with other matters. I was told by Jason Morella of FIRST that FIRST does watch this forum. I am requesting that all teams who are in favor of keeping the 2-on-2 format post a message on the above thread that pre-match agreements between opponents should not occur. If people really want to change to a 4 team cooperative format, they can start a thread for that. We just have to settle it one way or the other.

Best regards,

The "collusion" strategy will not necessarilly result in weak robots winning top seeds if most teams use the strategy.

Lets say I'm the United States, and you are the Soviet Union and we each have thousands of ICBM's pointed at each other. I won't launch my nukes because I know that you will retaliate by utterly destroying me with mine and that is an unacceptable outcome. But, if I know that all of your ICBM's are defective than it becomes a little easier for me to push the button. (This is of course a thought experiment)

Lets say I'm a strong alliance in FIRST and I decide to use the "collusion" strategy with another strong alliance. Since neither alliance is sure they can win if they decide to betray their opponent, the "gentlemens agreement" will go off as planned. Now lets say your a weak alliance and I'm a strong alliance, I will feel a little bit better about betraying you at the last minute because my chances of winning will be higher. In this way weaker alliances will be weeded out.

If we were only playing to win, then this strategy would be fine. Here's the problem though: all of a sudden I don't know whether my opponent will betray me or not. Any trust between teams is shattered, and because betrayals will inevitably occur, rivalry and strife will spread from the arena to the pits. We have enough trouble not being bitter towards teams that beat us fairly, I doubt many FIRST people would take outright betrayal in stride. The best part of FIRST is the friendliness and cooperation between teams. Unless it is universally accepted "collusion" will shatter any trust teams have in each other. Thats why my team (782) will not use this strategy.

Re: Ok, Ok, enough already
 

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Van
After reading page after page of this stuff I must say I have been quite shocked at the uproar this has caused. As a coach on a FIRST team, I feel I must point out some things:

Gracious Professionalism & "the spirit of FIRST"-
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of "agreements", I believe that we could all agree that the following do not express a sense of GP or the spirit of FIRST:

Threats of physical violence,
Suggestions that some teams may deserve help while others do not ,
Forming "blacklists" (or speaking of revenge),
Suggesting that teams who have not broken any rules be removed from the competition,
Comparing students at a robotics competition to current or former international military/political events,
Suggestions that teams who have not broken any rules are not worthy of playing with in the elimination rounds.

PLEASE. If FIRST is not entirely about winning (or maxing QPs, or trophies, etc.) then lets act like it.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Team 599
RoboDox [/QUOTE

Mr. Van,
I was not comparing "students at a robotics" competition to
military/political events.

I was using well-known examples of Agreements (Bad agreements) or inaction which affected other groups of people adversely.

"if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it"

if you can not see the parallels, I am Sorry.

is this any different from using tennis, boxing, nascar or ENRON as example?

I do not see how citing precedents is not in the "spirit of FIRST"
or is not "GP" (maybe not PC, but what is?)

I agree Blacklists, Blackballing and Physical violence has NO place in FIRST!

With all seriousness I am not "flipping out" And I disagree that this thread is "out of control"

This is an ethics issue that can only be solved by Group Debate.

To not debate this would be a crime.

All along I have ask what are we TEACHING??

Geo.

I'm extremely curious of what Dave Lavery is thinking about this whole situation right now...

The team at FIRST that develops the game is very smart. I think I read that they had discussed this "collusion" issue and I bet there were several differing opinions. I think it would be fascinating and helpful to hear about the discussions they had.

George,

I misinterpreted your post, sorry.

~Gabriel

See above quote example.
Someone compared the rigging the matches to corporations that agree not to undercut each other unfairly. This is known as pools. Corporations would agree not to raise prices so they would not have to compete. Unfournatly they would drive the little companies out of bussiness because they couldn't compete with those prices. Which means that this is an unfair practice. To have people agree to have high scores means that other teams can not compete with the ones that actually compete.

Thanks.

Indeed, I would like to hear what Dave Lavery would have to say about all of this, but moreover, if I could just have 10 teensy-weensy minutes with Dean Kamen to talk to him about this, I wonder what he would say? I'd live for the chance to just sit in the stands at a regional with Dean, and just ask him about his opinions.

All of the teams that are all for collusions... would you tell Dean about your arrangement? What about Woodie? Would you put it on your Chairman's Award submission? Or for the Woodie Flowers Award?

If you can go through this with a clear conscience and a grasp on gracious professionalism, that that is your decision, and no team is going to change your mind. This is what it comes down to.

You can argue yourself in circles about who is right and who is wrong. It's not who is right and who is wrong that matters. It's come down to, are you doing the right thing for these students and teaching them gracious professionalism, or showing them an easy way out?

Said it before and I'll say it again - There's nothing wrong with losing, especially if you lost fair and square. If you know you did a good job, have pride in yourself.

'Winning' and 'Losing' are just two words FIRST threw in this competition to make it interesting. The world doesn't end if you lose, you just go back to your pits, fix what needs fixing, and try it again.

That's the difference between other clubs and communities and FIRST - you still leave the regional shaking hands, admiring everyone else's work, and respecting them for both what they have built and how they have carried themselves during competition. Whereas a football team might badmouth their opponents at a game (no matter what strategy they use), FIRST kids think, "Wow, [insert team here] was really good last year. I really liked their [robot, handouts, attitude, friendliness]. I can't wait to play against them again."

There is a very simple solution to this problem. We don't need blacklists, bullying, sabotage, etc.

All that you need to do is not go along with the "cheating" teams.

This stategy requires the co-operation of all 4 teams competing in the match to work (duh). If even one team doesn't agree, then the match will proceed as a normal match would, with everyone getting as many points for their alliance as possible (the traditional way, mind you).

And lets assume that a team does get its opponents to go along, and ends up in seeded first. They will enter the finals and slam headfirst into the brickwall that is reality. If they must depend on their opponents to score highly, then they will be S.O.L., as I don't know of any teams that will be happy to settle for anything but first.

I know that there is a pretty high likely hood that this has already been posted, and that I missed it (123 posts is alotta posts to read at one time), but I figured I'd say it just in case.

good night, and good ridance
Roger Riquelme

Nah an easier solution would be to change the rules. It just subtracts from the confusion that is First. It would also make it easier to explain who got what points.:p

I think it's also about arguing what is right, and that can be a personal opinion.

You may choose to do something others think is wrong, you think is clever and not against the rules, and leave the regional feeling fine about your integrity despite what others think.

Amen and hallelujah. Make your own PERSONAL decision. Leave others to make theirs. See how it all plays out.

*******************************

Sure, I do not agree with any point collusion strategies.

However, I do not think your comments directed at teams were necessarily fair, or in the mindset of a gracious professional.

I would first like to commend this unnamed team you attacked on their long overdue success that finally played out in the final rounds of competition at the Arizona Regional event.

Singling out a team that did not frequently participate in such an act is wrong. To the best of my knowledge, it is true that this team did play in a match that had a point collusion strategy worked out ahead of time. However, the team’s alliance knocked over the other alliances stack. In return, their stack was knocked over. Coincidentally, the team that knocked the stack in revenge later went on to become a seemingly self-proclaimed martyr in the whole matter of point collusion.

Furthermore, as a previous member of this unmentioned team, I feel it my duty to defend this team that represents what I believe Dean Kamen designed FIRST to represent. The members and mentors have an extraordinary work ethic. This team reaching success is not any surprise to me. The combination of the extraordinary amount of talent that the team possesses, unbelievably dedicated faculty and mentor support has been due for success since its founding almost 5 years ago.

But more importantly, I find any attacks on their integrity to be downright wrong and offensive. From my experiences with mentors and members alike, I have found nothing but the embodiment of what FIRST really means. Truly gracious people working to help me not only learn about the principles of science and how fun it can be, but also about teamwork and gracious professionalism. Their efforts to expand the ideals of FIRST to as many people as possible, over the past years, has impressed me. I can only say that I am happy and proud for finally being able to reap the benefits of their efforts at the Arizona Regional.

As far as the participation of the student in question… this is a true act of gracious professionalism. The team offered for a student to participate in a program that was not offered at his school. The offer to allow participation to this student spread the ideals of FIRST to another person who would not have been able to otherwise participate. You should not criticize the team you attack for allowing the student to participate in a program that helps us grow as people in an environment that keeps sacred such high goals as teamwork and gracious professionalism.

All of this “insight” comes from the perspective of a veteran of three years. I stood behind you and watched the alliance in you speak poorly of edge my team, as well as yours Justin, out of the tournament. While this is upsetting, there is no question in my mind that the other alliance won by playing fairly.

Please do not try to bring down this team during a moment of celebration. Their success has been well earned and overdue.

I would like to finish by saying congratulations to the winners of the 2003 Arizona Regional - I hope to see you in Houston!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Justin and Pat,

You guys are talking about different teams. By "finals", Justin meant the elimination rounds.

In any case, it is time to get on with life. We need to focus on getting some agreement on the rules for upcoming competitions, and avoid any personal remarks about other teams.

Hopefully we will not have to continue discussing this issue of agreements with opponents for the next month.

I am hoping the FIRST will give us a hint of its original intentions for the game, without making any big rule change, since that has been unpopular in the past.

The "Fix" is Obvious
 

I'm a first-year mentor for Team 460. My views may not be the views of the team. But when I first heard about the "deal-making" at the Arizona regional last Friday, my reaction was, "Why does anyone need to talk about it? Isn't it obvious?" If our objective is to graciously and professionally have one of the 8 highest cumulative scores when qualifying is completed come Saturday afternoon, wouldn't we be advised to maximize our points in each and every match? And since stacks increase points, wouldn't it be appropriate to have one at the end? A tall one? On both sides of the ramp? Who needs to collude, cheat, fix, taint, violate the spirit of FIRST, _____________ [fill in the blank with your favorite derogatory characterization] to figure that out!?

What I suggested to our team before the start of the competition, and what I will continue to suggest, is that our strategy (as a general rule unless there are strong contrary indications) be cooperative (that is, let our opponents' stack stay up) until the other alliance shows us it doesn't understand the way the game we're playing is scored (and, I submit, played) by knocking ours down, in which event, we retaliate with all deliberate speed.

The qualifying rounds are not a boxing match, they're not a car race, they're not badminton, they're not a conflict between foreign countries. The game is what it is (which as has been pointed out above, bears a striking resemblance to the Prisoner's Dilemma in the qualifying rounds). (Check out http://www.brembs.net/ipd/ipd.html for more than you want to know.) The fact that an effective strategy to do well in this game (it's known as "tit for tat") is counterintuitive, that we find it necessary to scurry about making prearrangements with one another to have any chance to play it properly, and that some of us find such prearrangements "unsportsmanlike," only confirms that we're competitive human beings and not cooperative ants or bumblebees.

I assume we can all agree that winning the game is a legitimate objective. Let's further assume that in order to attain that objective, a team adopts a strategy that science has shown is appropriate, given the rules of the game (FIRST IS about science, isn't it?). We can't be too concerned if it's boring, and we can't get caught up in how it plays for TV, that's not our department. (And it should be noted, there still remains a lot of game to be played around the stacks and up the ramp; the game is still 2 on 2, with each alliance striving to beat the other by at least a point.) When all is said and done, the thing that some of us are finding compellingly offensive when prearranged is the very thing that should be done regardless, prearranged or not. If that be the case, prearrangement is entirely superfluous and innocuous. To reiterate the wise observation of a famous frequent contributor, "I don't know what the fuss is all about."

(Of course, a lot of good any of this did our team (which will come as no surprise to the Prisoner); at the end of qualifying, Team 460 was seeded 24th. Luckily, our esteemed alliance partner from West Covina, California, RAWC, had the extraordinary vision (where all others had missed their chance, our invitation and acceptance coming in the 24th slot) to appreciate our finer qualities, despite the standings. Proving once again, there's more to this game than meets the eye. The gloves come off in the elimination rounds, don't they?)

See you at Nationals. Be sure to stop by and say hi.

GAME FIXING ---------

IS THIS HOW DEAN KAMEN GOT HIS PATENTS???????

Where did the fun go?
 

After browsing this forum, and actually having been approached by a team at our regional wanting to maximize a score, I have concluded that people in FIRST are starting to care a little too much about winning, and not enough about inspiration, fun, and fair play. The idea of FIRST is to teach young people about the ways of science of technology, not how to find loopholes in a system to get ahead. Good, fair competition is fun. Win or lose, if you go out knowing that you tried your hardest in a fair setting, there is no way you should walk away from the competition without some sort of valuable lesson learned. Fixing matches only promotes the idea of taking the easy way out instead of fighting through the good and bad, and learning from it. Lets not make this game anything more than it is, good, healthy, fun competition.

Good Luck,
Andy Grady

Well said Andy!

Geo.

Re: The "Fix" is Obvious
 

*chuckle* I like that!

SWBaum,

I noticed the parallels to iterative prisoners dilemna too, and I agree, "collusion" is a VERY sound strategy. If this was nuclear war, or baseball, or NASCAR, where the objective is simply to win then I would use the "collusion" strategy without remorse. FIRST isn't like that. The biggest trophy doesn't go to the winners, it goes to the teams that best embody the ideals of FIRST and gracious professionalism. The objective of FIRST is to promote scientists and engineers and to inspire kids to want to be engineers. Its a little corny, but its very effective. If this was little-league baseball or high-school basketball teams would be tripping all over each other trying to sabotage each other. In FIRST teams go out of their way to help each other. I remember last year a team announced that they needed a PBasic expert and no less than 30 people showed up! Once you experience how FIRST teams interact, its intoxicating, you won't want to trade it for anything in the world. FIRST is like a cult...

The "collusion" strategy creates all sorts of trust problems. Teams are afraid of being betrayed. (If I was the #1 seed by 50 points, wouldn't it be a great strategy to sabotage a climbing alliance by betraying them at the last second?). It's not fun to watch. (Who wants to watch a game where we know the outcome ahead of time?) Regardless of whether its true or not, everyone will question whether a winning team that uses "collusion" "deserves" to be where it is, and that team will be hated.

I will gladly trade my teams success for the success of the mission of FIRST.

~Gabriel

I have yet to see any matches where it appears teams have fixed a match. FIRST has been about coopertition for the past 4 years. 3 yeras ago you had to cooperate. I don't see it fixing a match for everyone to agree not to knock over stacks, or to let everyone on top of the ramp. Its a strategic move in order to increase your score. It may be a little "cheap" but there have been other teams with strategys that some would deam cheap and others think are beautiful.


Personnaly I'd love to see 4 teams go out there with human player human player 4 stacks knock down the wall, only fight over the fallen boxes, then all 4 take the ramp. A score in the high 400 would be great. It doesn't hurt anyone it doesn't break any rules. Dean and the Judges would love it and teh crowd would go nuts over the score. It may not be as exciting as bots tipping but it would great when they posted the scores. Then maybe the stackers would have something to do.

Its the RULES, not the Players
 

Hello All-

So here is my take on the situation:

I honestly do not believe that very many FIRST teams participated in "agreements" with the intention of "cheating", "making up for their robot's shortcomings" or "knocking teams down in the seeding ranks".

I believe that most teams who participated in "agreements" felt that they were executing a strategy that was within the rules and perhaps even encouraged by the rules. Perhaps even being an example of adversaries working together as is often supported by FIRST.

The problem is that not all teams have interpreted the rules in this way. The solution is to clarify the rules. Since "official" FIRST responses have been somewhat vague, I suggest the following:

At each regional to come, announce a meeting of ADULT COACHES on THURSDAY (perhaps at lunch, or after the last practice round) to discus (briefly) and ultimately agree on the "opposing alliance agreement issue". Take a vote if necessary, but I feel confident that if we consider what we are doing and WHY we are doing it, people at each regional can come to an agreement before the next match is played.

Level the playing field again, help each other, celebrate what we've learned and get back to what FIRST is all about.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Team 599
RoboDox

Did I miss something here?
 

Ever since I have been here I have seen poster who list what accomplishments their teams have done in what competitions, arguments about student built vs. engineerer built robots and constant constant complaints of rookie spoiling it for everyone when the veteran team act just as bad.
Now all of the sudden this and everyone say "All they care about is winning." And these other people didn't? If winning never matter then why list how your team did in every regional, the nationals and ever off-season comp they attend. Don't go blacklisting these teams for taking the next step from what they see from everybody else here. This has been a policy of alot of team for a long time!

But would you want to see every match with human player 8 stacks at each end untouched, the bins split between the teams (with 1 pushed out) and then all 4 teams on top of the ramp, match after match for 2 days?. Every match would have scores over 400, and all the same (unless someone dropped a bin). At that point, it becomes a farce and boring beyond belief. That is where the "agreement with your opponents" leads. If 1 agreement with your opponents is okay, then any such agreement is okay, and then we don't have a game. In Arizona, one team was ready to vote on withdrawing and going home because of the "opponent agreements".

(I don't think any stacker robot is going to be doing much stacking with 8 high human stacks just sitting there.)

At the Arizona Regional, Team 68, 624 and 980 and others went around to ask teams to sign an agreement not to make pre-match agreements with their opponents to leave up each others stacks. That was effective in getting teams to stop making such agreements. However, Jason Morella told me that if enough teams petitioned in this forum that they do not want to have pre-match agreements between opponents, then FIRST would take notice.

Therefore if you would like to have competitions with no "opponents agreements", please sign our petition at
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=19301

Pro-Agreement people say... Teams who have adopted this strategy should be congradulated for using their minds to maximize their scores.

I say... Not every good idea is morally sound. A bank robber may come up with the perfect plan to rob a bank. Society does not pat him on the back for his great idea and let him keep the money. I am not placing teams that use this strategy on the same level as bank robbers, but you get the point.



Pro-Agreement people say... FIRST is about cooperation. Teams making agreements are cooperating.

I say... So where do we draw the line? What if I can get the other alliance to throw the match completely? Say we have something they need. We agee to give them what they need for the win. I haven't looked in the rules, but I bet there is nothing that states a team can not throw a match if they want to. So does that make it OK? No, of course it doesn't. The same goes for agreements to maximize scores. The reason is it is unfair to the other teams who have not made any agreements.



Pro-Agreement people say... The simple fix is that all teams should adopt this strategy. Then we will all be playing on the same level.

I say... That is easier said than done. It won't happen because many people see these kinds of agreements as morally wrong. So, if one team doesn't partake in this strategy, then no teams should. Even if all teams did agree, it would remove a basic part of the game out of play. Stacking robots are no longer useful since human player made stacks are now the only stacks needed.



Pro-Agreement people say... The agreements have no affect on the outcome of the competition. The best teams will still win.

I say... Then why do it? But, anyway, it has already been pointed out many times how making these agreements could alter the outcome.


I do not agree with blacklisting or other hardball tactics to stop these agreemements from being made. Teams using this strategy are NOT bad teams or bad people. They just see things differently. I'm hoping that by vocalizing why this practice is not to the mutual liking of all FIRST teams, that all teams will agree to no longer make these deals, even if they do not agree with the morality issue. In that way, we can keep the competition friendly and fair. I hope that FIRST will in the future consider this issue when designing games. The coop game of 2001 wasn't a bad idea. I liked it. But, in the least, teams can be kept in the dark on who they are playing against, or find a different scoring system altogether.

Making agreements to throw a match for a spare part would kill a team. They wouldn't get any kind of award for years if the judges ever heard about it. More than likely they would be asked to leave for just suggesting it.

Since I haven't seen any 8 stacks and few 4 stacks survive I don't even know why this topic is being debated. Its a waste of time. There is no problem with teams making this kind of agreement. I said that making such agreements not to knock over stacks or to allow everyone on the ramp would would be legal and actually encouraged by FIRST. Alot of people posted arguements against me earlier in the season because I thought rampdoms would be a effective bot. Many of you argued rampdoms killed scores and stackers were better because they only increased scores. So if an agreement not to knock down stacks also increased both teams scores then why is it wrong?

I hadn't posted until today because I didn't see any indication teams were making unscrupulous agreements and thought this whole thread was a waste. But after 4 threads and hundreds of replies I had to throw in my 2 cents.

Just because you have not witnessed an event does not mean it hasn't happened. In both Sacramento and Arizona, these agreements had HUGE effects on the competition. Out of curiosity, just how many matches and competitions have you witnessed? Maybe you should realize that there are quite a few more that you haven't where there was a possibility of it happening and where it did happen. I saw at least 4 matches where there were two human player stacks of 7 left over at the end. And to reply to your comment about allowing everyone on the ramp and keeping the boxes-- how would it be a competition anymore? You've explained yourself why it doesn't work. It will lead to everyone being on the ramp in the end, and everyone having ties each match and each team in a tie at the end-- how will anyone show their robots strengths or do ANYTHING except a pre-planned routine that is the same for each match. If that's what you want you should join the WWF.

Alexis

Stop this childish bickering.

When stacks are left standing on both sides of the field, everyone benefits, the losers, the winners. There is no sense in knocking stacks down, since it translates into a lower score for everyone.

This discussion is better suited for a FIRST forum, with FIRST officials. This is just becoming a flame war.

a request...
 

I would respectfully request that people try to promote/support their views with their arguments and not use conversations with other people. Let people speak for themselves.

In Phoenix as in other events, I tried very hard to hear out every team member who wanted to speak about any issue.

Again, I told each team member who requested to speak to me that the issue of "agreements" is not one which I can speak for FIRST.

Did I say these things - yes. But each of these statements and many others are taken out of the context of the full conversations. I never said or implied anything other than if EVERY team and EVERY match was the same, it would be bad for the competition. THIS IS NOT THE CASE THIS YEAR and WILL NOT BECOME THE CASE, regardless of what "hypothetical scenarios" people can logically come up with. Just like if EVERY team built the same stacking robot, or every team built a king of the hill robot which couldn't go under that bar, the game would not be as good.


But I also said:
"there is no rule against it - so FIRST will not make any announcement or judgment on this issue, it is up to each team to decide"
"it is not fixing or cheating in my view. It may be score manipulating or maybe even collusion, but not cheating"
"While I wouldn't choose to do it, I also wouldn't get too worked up about other teams doing it. I'm not going to judge them either harshly or negatively. In my opinion teams still have to outplay other alliances and win the majority of their matches to seed in the top 8, plus 24 teams make the playoffs. FIRST teams scout, and they are smart - top performing teams typically make the playoffs regardless of where they seed"
Also, yes I said some FIRST staff monitor forums like these. I said FIRST tries hard to follow the views of the teams during the season and at the Team Forums. If that implied that any point of view would get "official" approval by FIRST just because it was supported by many teams on an Internet forum thread, then I miscommunicated and apologize. These forums are good for discussion - and these threads have shown that teams have different views on the subject.

I am flattered that some posts seem to think that referencing my opinion holds any value (there are many who would like to sit these people down and set them straight :) ) - but to take things out of context, or to imply I said things which I didn't, or to imply that I am speaking for FIRST on this issue is not fair to myself, FIRST, this forum, or the people exchanging their own views. My opinion about stack agreements is no more important or valuable than that of anyone else. I was asked by many to discuss it, and I did. Team leaders from Sacramento or Arizona should not refer to conversations to support their views, when I specifically said I am not the voice of FIRST on this issue other than to say "it is not against the rules and it is an issue for each team to decide" . If you want someone to give their opinion in a post, just ask them to post it - but please don't speak for people or take their thoughts out of context.

While there have been a number of reckless, irresponsible, and unproductive posts in these threads - MANY people have expressed very valid points and are having a very valid discussion. There is so much gracious professionalism in FIRST, and I was nothing but impressed by the quality of teams and people I have met at the events so far this year. Being able to speak with and get the views of very impressive people including the leaders from teams such as 60, 64, 68, 599, 624, 698, 980 and others was and is a great part of working with FIRST. I left the events with a TREMENDOUS amount of respect for each of the people I spoke with, and very much look forward to working with them and speaking with them at future events this year and for years to come. I learn a great deal from hearing the different views of different teams, and normally I learn that things are not as black & white as I may have first felt, that there is normally a middle ground with well intentioned thoughts on both sides.
"My" take in this FIRST discussion is that things will work themselves out as they usually do. Again - I don't speak for FIRST or anyone else, it's all my opinion.

Heck, even countries in the United Nations can't agree if War should be a last resort or is justified if you haven't been attacked first. Many opinions on both sides, and both sides seem convinced they are right and the other side is crazy. (sound familiar?). So if the United Nations can't come to a consensus about going to war, maybe working out little tiny issues like these "agreements" in qualifying matches can help us create future generations of better qualified and skilled leaders who understand the importance of working things out.

Good luck to everyone in week three and the rest of the season - have a great time and celebrate the great things your teams have done!!!

*confused* I don't experience it all as childish bickering, and FIRST has addressed the issue.

definitions

FIRST

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: