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.