That's the conclusion we came to and how we played.

*chuckle*

STACK ATTACK? what don't you read the name of the game? attacking stacks is the purpose of this game....

Also if you noticed in the kickoff the game is 2 vs 2 not 4 v 0....that was 2001 it is time to move on from diabolical dynamics.
What you are doing is not in the spirit of FIRST and is just awful. I am happy you are not in our division at nationals. What you are doing is circumventing the rules and it is appauling.

....what kind of example is it to circumvent the rules and find ways to beat the system? This is just setting an example for the next Enron or Worldcom. The reason there is not a rule against it is because FIRST never imagined this would happen.

Sugarcoat it however you like to make yourself feel like you are doing the right thing, but when it comes right down to it you should know you got to the top of seattle by cheating plain and simple.

Ahhh...maybe that's a difference of opinion we have too. Even if it's called stack attack, we didn't feel the need to attack the stacks - unless the "need" came up.

like I said sugar coat it however you want to....

If you were there, you would think differently.
Your statement is completely off-base.

No one can take away from 233's accomplishments in Seattle. They consistently played the game smartly and quickly rose to the top. Their robot was one of the most impressive there, and was given the Motorola Quality award, arguably the most prestigious (technical) award FIRST gives out.

From my unique perspective in Seattle, it did not appear 233 made any agreements. They simply made sure their opponents knew what most smart teams already know: Knocking over a stack is pointless, if you are winning. By showing this, they let the other teams know that they would not play defense, unless they NEEDED too. Is this really collusion? Or is Rocco-bot simply teaching rookies how to play the game?

Rocco-bot showed other teams they didn't have to attack stacks unless they absolutely needed to. If the other teams decided they needed to, Rocco-bot was there to (most of the time) out drive, out maneuver, and our muscle them to protect the stack.

I dont believe this is the same as saying:
"Even if your losing, don't attack our stacks, because we'll attack yours, and everyone will score low."

What is collusion?
Where is the line drawn?



FIRST cannot, and will not issue a statement on collusion. They are not taking a stance on it either way. This has been made clear, time and time again by official FIRST representatives.

It's part of the game people. Deal with it in your own ways.

I'm not going to get into the entire philosophy again, but I will say this to comment on thost last two comments. FIRST specifically said that it woud leave this issue up to the teams(was discussed else where) and before you say we won by cheating you should talk to the people who were there. Collusion aside we were there with you at UCF I'd play you in Houston :)

thanks,
Josh

Are you the type of person who enjoys winning matches 25-0?

Why would you take points away from yourself?

Teams are posting, in my opinion, valid justifications for their actions. If you don't like it, don't play that way. But don't come in here and complain about the way other teams are playing.

I saw what i needed to when they were at UCF....they defend 1 stack 1 time.....the rest was prearranged...no I wasn't at Seattle true, but frankly I've seen 233 do this before so it is nothing new....there are a bunch of teams who said you got to the #1 seed by making "deals" just look in the start of this thread. I've said my peace and I'm done with this topic.

Do whatever you like, but do not come to 312 with an offer of this nature.

What I would like to know is if team 233 was told by first not do continue doing what they were doing, as someone already said?

Well we were with 233 twice and neither time we fixed the match. the first time we got like 268 total points or something. Then we had 233 again and we got a raw score of 233 and i think thats still the highest in the nation . either way 233 was a great group and the only thing i can say is they know how to play the game now. they won every thing in the pacific northwest regional because they did what they needed to do to stay on top.

good luck at nationals 233!

FIRST has no official position on collusion.
They have not, and will not issue any statements concerning collusion.

I'm sorry 312...
 

I hope you realise where I'm coming from. I am the base driver for team 233. I was driving at UCF. I did only defend one stack. We did arrange a match at UCF. During the finals I almost passed out I was so nervous. I was overwhelmed.

Then I flew to Seattle.

I knew what to look for. I had already done this. I wasn't overwhelmed anymore (talk to your drivers, they will know what I'm saying). I could pay attention to the GAME instead of the driving. And halfway through the first day, I realised what I should do. Defend the stack. Yes, I know its called Stack Attack. Yes, you can win by knocking over stacks.

But you can also win by not knocking them over.

Do you think the brains behind the game are so shallow as make the only strategy of the game the title of the game? There is a depth to these games...

Also, I thought that the 2001 games were supposed to embody the spirit of FIRST more completly than any of the other games. I thought that cooperation and teamwork was the real reason behind FIRST, not mindless destruction (a.k.a. BattleBots).

I defended my stacks. When I was the only robot moving on the field, I pushed boxes to the opponents scoring zone, not away. I didn't subscribe to the wanton destruction some alliances thought was needed to win. In fact, thats why we won the Seattle regional... because instead of destroying, I protected. It worked during qualifying, and it worked during the finals.

I hope you can realise the game can be played differently.

233's mentor specifically came up to my team and said "If you leave our stacks up we will leave yours up". This sounds like a deal to me. However, I can see both sides of this issue.

The way the points are given out in this game, and the way that points are emphasised over wins and losses, it is beneficial to get more points. Since the ranking is based solely on point average, it doesn't matter if you win all of your matches.

Personally, I would prefer a system based on wins and losses, where you don't have to worry about points, but only the rules of the game, and dominating other bots. But, this game was not designed that way.

If you can find a way to "manipulate" (maybe a bad word choice) the rules, to come out on top, so be it. That may, or may not be an intention of the design of the game. But point system may be the fairest way to decide rankings of teams. Even if it is not the most fair way, there may not be a perfectly fair way.

It is hard to argue with results though, and the way the averages worked out, almost all of the bots ended up in the top 8, and I would say that 233 was if not the best, one of the best teams there. Even if they were ranked number one by agreements, they deserved 1st place, since they had one of the best bots.

The debate on this topic may never be settled, but we should move on and enjoy the great experience teams had to compete.

*Team 233, nothing against you guys. You had a great bot and great strategy. I realized some people didn't agree with your strategy, but you guys deserved the win at Seattle. You had a great autonomous, and bot, and truly knew what it meant to play this year's game. Good luck at nats.*

Thanks all of you, good things have been said, I hope we've all had our say, and thanks Ash I think you said some good stuff. From what I saw in our team and every other team there(everyone talking and dancing even the robots :) I think we all had a great time in seattle and I hope we all have a fantastic time at houston, it's going to be amazing.

Josh

368 again
 

well we are bcak to the argument about collusions / agreements


there were many more teams out there that tried those collusions not only 233.

many teams failed

one match at the seattle, no robots except one (which later died-technical difficulties?) moved

233 was able to accomplish it,...so..ill congragulate them again


dont get me wrong....368 was against it form the start, and when a mentor from a different team (other then 233) asked us, we refused.

as a operator of 368, i did not want to have agreements because i belived it would not be fair

but it is not against first policy, and it happens in real life(first reflects the real world rite?)

if they believe it was okay,

if the other team agrees to it also, there should be no problem

team 233 753 and us, were teamed up in the finals, and i must say that 233;s robot was awesome..(the judgese agreed, they got a award for their robot "robustness")

they could (without agreements) defend stacks better then any other robot ive seen.

^ive said that on a different post, and i have to say it again

no stacks they were defending in the finals came down.

i also have a question to the other teams that are complaining about this...

233 is not the only one who did this yet i only see 233's name here

would u have complained this much if they had NOT taken firsT?

O_o?

please think about that before u post any more hate mail towards 233

i was/am proud to be part of their alliance.