fixing of matches in Seattle
 

I went to Seattle as a spectator and I had viewed that team 233 from Florida had continually gotten high scores. At the end of every match stacks had been left up in both zones giving the winner a high score. But after talking to teams about why they thought this always happened I found that they talked to the opposing alliance before every match. The only problem I have is that since they did this all of the time they became #1 seed not by being the best robot out there but by fixing their matches by high scores.

I just wanted to know if this happened at any other regionals.

-Bobby

This happened at most regionals except the Philadelphia regional, the Chesapeake regional (with the exception of one team) and most of the early season regionals.

I think that this proves that the fixing of matches gives FIRST a bad image when a spectator asks a question about this.

They learned that at their first regional....Florida.....I really FIRST issues a statement against it soon.

Re: fixing of matches in Seattle
 

It was the reason we dropped 3 places in the rankings in the 3rd day of the Peachtre regional.

One of the other teams in our last match - which we knew was gonna be tough because we wee up against two veteran bots - wanted to make such a deal. We almost said yes, but changed our mind at the last moment because we all agreed it would make things boring and unfair to the other teams. So we didn't, but still finished all of our matches seeded 3rd. We figured we'd stay there, as we had a 30 or so point lead over the 4th place team.

Of course, we were one of the first teams to finish all of our matches, and immediately after that it seemed as if ALL of the veteran teams started fixing the matches. Scores in the high 200s to low 300s popped up like weeds and our rankdropped like a rock.

To be fair, most of the teams who ended up above us did have very good robots. However, that begs the question of why they weren't ranked higher than us before...

As I said before (and will keep saying until everyone gets it):

Collusion = controversy among teams
NO Collusion = NO controversy among teams

Which does the FIRST community of teams prefer??

Which is the path that a Chairman's award winner would profess to follow?

We don't play that game .....
 

We were asked repeatedly to participate in this at the Peachtree regional but declined every time. We still managed to be the #1 seed.

Most, if not all teams at the Lone Star regional, signed a letter that we each posted in our pits that basically said we would all play a fair game without collusion. This was a very cool thing and I applaud the folks that came up with this idea. I was disappointed that the FIRST folks, during the drivers meeting, basically said they didn't care if you participated in collusion.

Not in Jersey
 

I think it is safe to say that there were no cases of collusion this past weekend at the J&J NJ Regional. A number of the senior teams have been talking about it and agreed not to tolerate it.

Quite frankly, if you saw the matches you would have seen a battle for every stack and robots working hard for every bonus.

Thats the way the game should be played!

If you don't allow it to happen the offending teams can't do it. Lets hope the Nationals go the same way.

WC

Kudos Ed
 

Kudos to Team 34 for their stance. I would like to add that the J&J Mid-Atlantic Regional was totally free of "match fixing." It was an awesome experience in NJ, seeing 44 quality teams and quality robots play the game the way it was meant to be played. Philadelphia was the same, and Chesapeake was limited to a few instances.

Our team witnessed collusion in Phoenix, decided it was not an appropriate "strategy" and would take a stand against it. On Saturday morning, Team 68 had distributed a letter for the participants to sign stating that they would not participate in collusions. There were no such collusions on Saturday in Arizona. When it was time to select alliance partners, we considered only those teams that signed the Team 68 letter.

In the SoCal regional, a red flyer was distributed for teams to post indicating that they would not participate in making arrangements with opponents prior to a match. I didn't see signs of collusion in any of the matches. For those who thought collusion was needed to generate high scores: there was a great match between teams 986/898 and 259/992 where 282 QPs were scored - legitimately!

Responses from FIRST officials have been along the lines of "we're going to let the teams work this out" rather than to legislate ethical behavior. Over the past few weeks, there were hundreds of posts and several polls in CD on the subject of collusion. Based on the matches I saw in LA, I believe the teams have spoken and we should expect to see only purely competitive matches in Houston.

Re: fixing of matches in Seattle
 

Hey you guys, I'm one of the drivers from team 233 and I would like to clarify a few things. First, In a few matches we did have an agreement with the other team, in all of those either the stacks went down or we had to defend our stacks, sometimes accidents sometimes the others didn't want to play. The rest of the time we had a simple thing, we simply stated to our opposing alliances that we had no reason to hit the other teams stack as long as we had our stacks(some teams even when winning were killing all stacks and often people would hit them right away both of which meant low scores even when not needed so we hoped to get the idea accross). I would also like to say that in the highest match of the regional(324 qp's) an opposing team tried quite hard to knock out our stack while also clearing the zone, and we eventually pushed them over the ramp and then got on top. In the 2nd highest match of the regional we fought hard defending a stack kept it alive getting a score of 314qp's. We also did very well defending stacks and so could plan within each of our alliances to make sure we left up the opposing stacks so as never to get a low score(in one case we played 2 on 1 defense for the entire match to keep our stack alive and did still getting 154qps). I know this is a long reply but I couldn't let that opening statement stand, thanks.

Josh

The question we need to answer here is whether Collusion is within the rules -I.E., LEGAL. If so, then all this debate is moot. If not, then all who participate(d) should suffer the appropriate consequences.

IMNSHO, the rules call for alliances of TWO for the seeding matches and THREE for the elimination matches. It follows that teams that take it upon themselves to form alliances other than those specified are operating outside the rules.

Jack J.

Not to be overly picky, Mr. Brinza, but I believe that was team 968 there, not 986. :)

And yes, I didn’t see anything that could be construed as “collusion” during the SoCal regional. We posted that red flier in our pit as well. I actually found it fairly amusing that it actually existed and a team was passing it around… but it was also an almost sad commentary on the state of things when that sort of thing would be warranted, I believe.

Let’s hope that Nationals would be smooth and fair ride, as well, for all teams that participate (which won’t include us, unfortunately).

In response to post 11, FIRST has chosen to leave it up to the teams thus it cannot be called illegal.

OIC - most unfortunate stance. Was neither gracious nor professional. Another lesson for my son to learn by example:
"Talk is cheap / Action speaks louder than words"

My views do not necessarily reflect those of Chief Delphi

"I will say no more forever" - Chief Joseph

what upsets me the most and seeing the Vet teams doing it. This is 157 10th year and we are discusted with some of the other Vet teams. They have been in FIRST long enough to know what FIRST is about. I'm happy to say that 157 will NEVER participate in collusion, and i have already said to others if anyone asks me to participate, I will let them know what I think of it.

The Game has Layers
 

Using this logic all the NBA games must be "Fixed" because they continually achieve higher scores than High School or College teams playing the same game.

In my opinion "fixing" would be setting the outcome of the match prior to playing it, who wins and who loses, and by how much. Teams that have figured out that you get more Qp's by not knocking over stacks are no more fixing the matches than the NBA basketball players are, they have just began to understand the levels of the game and how to play it better.

So many people are trying to apply the simple logic or solution to the FIRST game should be the same as baseball, basketball or any other sporting event. FIRST has been called the "Olympics of the Mind" many teams have realized the simply strategy of win/loss don't necessarily always work in this game. Strategies can be more than one layer deep.

Have any of you seen the movie "Shrek"?
Most everyone in the village were single minded in their perception of the "Ogre" Shrek. But like an onion, Shrek had layers. Even the Donkey understood that after it was explained to him.

This game has layers

Once you figure them out, and decide what is needed to advance in the game, the better off you'll be. The simply solution is not alway the best.

Think of who designed this game, Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, Dave Lavery, Bob Hammond, these are not simple minds and they have relished in confounding all of us with these games for years, if they had wanted it to be simply there wouldn't be Qp's just raw scores.

It seems to me that the "fixers" are setting themselves up for a big fall when they come up against teams that won't play that game. What goes around will inevitably come around. The vets should know better and be the ones setting the good example.

Frankly I personally despise the practice and take it as an underhanded attempt to subvert the rules. There is nothing clever about this. All of the CD posts of "new highest score in the Nation" and all the pride they seem to emanate is tainted by the question on everybody's mind- "was it fixed?"

Likewise the attitude of "it's not against the rules so it is OK" is equally disturbing, especially from certain posters that regularly brag of their gracious professionalism and take a holier than thou attitude about it. It is disappointing to see FIRST ignore the problem. I expected more from them.

This is an ethical issue, not a legal one. How your team plays the game is a measure of your character and a matter of honor. If winning means that much to you, as stated before, I will find you a trophy. Lets play the game as it was meant to be played. Grandma is watching.....

Back to packing.....put the soap box away...

WC




:cool:

Team #991 will have color signs suitable for displaying in your pit if, like us, you are against collusion as a part of the game. Stop by Team #991's pit at Houston to pick one up.
If you want to see what the sign looks like, then check it out at our home page at http://www.brophyrobotics.com.

I was at Seattle this year. Half way through the first day our team (1158) was ranked first. That is when 233 started to make huge scores. The first time I supected it but didn't want to make a comment. The second time I overheard them talking with 833? and found out that this is what they were doing for certain. When we were scheduled to compete against them, one of thier coaches told me "I don't think we need to knock down your stacks if you don't knock down ours." I refused and we suffered one of our few losses during the competiton.

Technically this is not cheating. Moraly I think that it was wrong unless every team at the competition agreed to do it. Some teams that did not do well enough to advance like they did should not have been ahead of teams like 492 which earned it the whole way. I still think that 233 was the best robot at the competition and when combined with 368? Kiko Manga (sorry if i got number wrong but I am very tired) they were unstoppable so it didn't affect the competition in the end it shouldn't happen.

When it was time to choose alliance partners for the finals I chose 492 and 955. The main reason for 955 was that they were big enough to defend a stack if needed. So if you want that big multiplier then maybe you need to commit a robot instead of making under hand deals.

I did want to repeat that in almost every match we ended up watching the other teams carefully, often having robots distract other teams and in most matches defending our stacks. If you want to read my other post I said a few more things, it's on the other seattle regional thread.

My team score the two highest scores during qualifying play with matches of 280 and 230. We achieved this by HP stacks of 5, 3 robots on top and not clearing the opponents area. We discover that blocking a team from a stack and getting to the top is a good strategy. No agreements were made. A handshake, telling a team good luck, asking an opponent about their robot(considering they are willing to tell), and showing your robot to the opponent are acceptable actions while waiting, not planning collusion strategies. We barely made alliance strategy before going on the field tell HP stacks with hand signals and yelling loudly in the drivers stations. Our team chose not to sign and put up the petition at LSR deciding to allow teams whatever choice they wished. I am glad that our choice to not display the petition did not limit us from becoming allianced with great teams from Huntsville, Alabama, and from Killeen, Texas.

I hadn't even thought of collusion as a possiblity until I read some of the threads here on Chiefdelphi. At the Lone Star Regional I don't think there were any matches that involved agreements like this. Not only does it not sound like its fair when teams collude, but it sounds like it takes all the fun out of the matches.

An agreement between teams to leave stacks would make it boring. Knocking down opponents stacks is one of te key objectives of the game.

I'm sick of this. Some teams are turing robotics into wrestling. Robotics is no hic sport extrodinaire, it's supposed to inspire us, not lead us to cheating, or following a script. Collusion is a bad thing, when it's obvious that your'e team fixed a match, any respect for your team that others had is as good as gone. I suggest that teams who are approached with offers to fix a match should post the numbers of those teams for all to see. A team who fixes a match does NOT deserve to win anything. It's all about gracious professionalism here, winners never cheat. If your team won something at a regional, and you had gotten there by fixing matches, wouldn't you feel just a little bad inside. Cheaters never win. A good team doesn't need to fix matches to win. My team won plenty of matches at our regionals, without fixing a single match, and it felt darn good. No offence, but I have taken note to those teams who have admitted to fixing matches in the past, and I have lost any and all respect for those teams, and I for one, will be looking past those teams when we're in Houston.

Here we go...
 

Hello everyone. I'm just waking up from the jet lag caused by the return trip back here (Florida). Boy is it a killer.

Well, it seems that everyone is getting all upset about some high scores or something or other. I would like to clarify a few points that walesjd might have left out when he posted. Seeing as how I'm the base driver, I am also a bit better suited to say what was going on with the robot anyway.

First of all, I admit that at the UCF Regional, our drive team wanted to work with the opposing team to get a high score. We succeeded, but only for a short while, until our score was surpassed by others. However, to the best of my knowledge, we tried that only once, and nothing of the sort was commited when we successfully defended an 8 stack (if you want proof, go to Soap108 and download the match).

Second of all, it was early in the competition in Seattle that I realized how to score big, without "colluding" with the opposing alliance. Anyone who would have watched from the stands would have thought I was working with the other alliance, since it was so different from what all the other teams were doing. I knew that our robot could get to the wall before almost all the other robots at Seattle, so since I would be on our side of the field when the robot control period began, I would protect the higher of our two stacks. And that was it. Granted, I would occasionally stop other robots from descoring boxes, when I felt the stack was safe enough. But I never knocked down the opposing alliance's stack if my stack was still standing.

In fact, to other teams it may have even seemed like we were working together. That is because out of all the other matches I saw (excluding the last few in the finals) no one ever cared about the human player stacks. They were all concerned about making sure the opponent didnt get any points. I even saw a match where the two red robots were disabled, and the blue robots not only knocked down the red stacks, but proceeded to clear every single box out of the red scoring zone.

Dean Kamen does not think of games that are as easy as "get to the top of the ramp" or "knock over the stack". The games always have depth; they always have different ways of playing. The game can even change for the finals. But that is what makes the FIRST games great. They don't have only one method of play.

Now I don't know how I'm going to end this post, so I'm just going to to say this: I am proud of my high UNAJUSTED score of 233, and I am proud of my win at the Seattle regional. If you want to know why, ask someone who was there.

I'm sorry that I transposed the numbers for your Team 968. I spoke with your coach in AZ, and I know your team was wholly against anything that could be construed as less than a pure competition.

You've got an absolutely outstanding team and it's FIRST's loss that your team won't be in the Nationals. As champions of the AZ regional and winners of the GM Industrial Design award, there couldn't be a more deserving team to compete in Houston. Several of our students were surprised, then dismayed, that RAWC's won't be found on the fields of Houston. Fundraising is an under-appreciated aspect of FIRST, particularly for teams that have major big-$$ sponsors. Perhaps FIRST needs to consider a "financing plan" to help fund the teams who qualify late in the regionals for the nationals.

I'm sure Team 968 will continue to be a first-class FIRST team. You've got excellent ammunition to get a major sponsor. I hope you can attract a sponsor and even help field new FIRST teams in future years.

Funding can be a major problem but it can be overcome. We won the Lone Star Regional saturday with several other awards. We determined we needed approximately eight thousand dollars to go back on Wednesday. With hard work Sunday night and all of Monday we have covered that cost with more donations still coming in. We have decided to continue the fundraising until we leave to begin to acquire funds for next year. I do attribute this partly to my town of 5,000 and the connection they have with our school. But I believe the only way to get money is to go ask. They may say no but then again they may say how much and get their checkbook out. I can't wait to get back to Houston, it to cold in Kansas.

Our team was saddened by the "collusion" that occurred at Arizona, and certainly hoped for a statement from FIRST, for which we are still waiting.

There has been a lot of confusion generated because there hasn't been a ruling on this matter, which is very basic to the game: are we playing 2-on-2 or team of 4. Per the surveys on chief delphi, the vast majority of people want this to be a 2-on-2 game.

Furthermore, the animation at the kickoff refers to using on board sensors "to detect opponent alliance stacks" and "to defend their own stacks from attacks by the opposing alliances." That seems pretty clear to me. In my opinion, by not making its intentions clear in this matter, FIRST has made it necessary for a lot of people to try to do FIRST's job, by posting messages, circulating petitions, writing letters or putting up flyers. Personally, I would like to thank all the teams for their efforts in that regard. We circulated a letter at the S. Calif. Regional referring to the chief delphi survey results and requesting that teams do not make "opponent agreements" for reasons given here and others. Team 330, the Beach Bots, circulated flyers that teams could post saying that they wouldn't accept "stack agreements", and we displayed one at our pits. Although I heard there was some collusion at the S. Calif. Regional, I personally didn't witness any. We will circulate the same letter at nationals. And we will get another flyer to post.

Here we have a case of the tail trying to wag the dog. As team members, we didn't create this game but we are trying to fix a loophole in it. We should be able to appeal to FIRST and have them handle it with a simple ruling.

Perhaps there is some idea on FIRST's part that it is educational for us to debate this matter. Well some debate is fine, but we have better things to do than spin our wheels for weeks over what the basic rules are.

At this point, I feel collusion has been a stain on the reputation of the FIRST Robotics Competition and has generated some hard feelings amongst teams, reducing the comradery. And that is not beneficial and in this case, it is totally unnecessary.

I feel for teams that put their heart into creating a robot that can stack really well who then find these "stack agreements" occurring. Why bother, if teams can just "make agreements" to have an 8 stack. (Our own robot, while not the best stacker, has stacking ability, so our stacker team certainly doesn't like it.)

I am unhappy about FIRST's unwillingness to take responsibility for clarifying this matter, and I do intend to make that known at the forums and in any other way possible.

If when a team discovers that some of their more exuberant members have made an "opponent agreement", they then take steps to stamp out collusion, to me, those teams are showing integrity.

However some of the teams that have used collusion feel it is necessary to justify their actions, thus further "cementing" their opinion on the matter. So then we have a rift forming, and that is never helpful to a group.

It is very clear that if collusion became rampant, the game would be a total bore with everyone going through choregraphed routines. I wouldn't invite anyone to see that, let alone my grandmother. So those of us who care about the game and FIRST in general, refuse to let it get ruined. (And yes it did get ruined in some matches. All that anyone has to do is go through the posts on this forum about the matches where collusion occurred. There is a certain sadness about many of those posts, a sadness I think brought about by a sense of impending loss of the FIRST we love.)

There is some idea that the game is not important. Well true, the spirit of FIRST, the teams helping each other, the personal growth we experience are more important than winning, but the game is the vehicle by which we are achieving these other things, so it is important to preserve its integrity. Otherwise, when we start to lose the integrity of the game, we start to lose the rest. In other words, the integrity of the game is an essential part of FIRST.

To FIRST officials, this is a 2-on-2 game as per the kickoff, so let's just say it out loud for the record. Please.

(Hey, well done to the referees in Canada who, per one post I read, just told the teams that the referees were watching for collusion.)

There are a few things that need to be cleared up.

First off, some of you might not even know what collusion means, so here it is.

Collusion - A secret agreement for illegal or fraudulent purposes.

Are these agreements illegal or fraudulent?

Too many fingers are being pointed in this thread. Has anyone heard the saying "It takes two to tango"? Well in this case it takes four.

If team 233 colluded in seattle well then shame on them, but why just shame on them why not shame on the two teams that agreed with them in every match and their ally who also sat back and watched? This seems very unfair to point one finger when you should point four.

Next, after some thought I have concluded that Don Knight is completely right. This should not be seen as cheating or a loophole, but as a strategy. As we can see it is a good strategy too. Why should a team have to stop doing something completely legal just because you don't like it? Seems selfish.

This strategy is nothing new. Last year I was approached before many matches and told that we would be given one goal and they would take one goal and we would fight over the middle goal. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Why wasn't this adressed last year? Simply because the value of these agreements are much higher this year.

As for my stance on these agreements: If you ask me to leave your stacks alone I will gladly agree and shake your hand, then I will instruct my drivers to knock down your stacks just to the look on your face, because I think its funny. So be warned.

Plz allow me to clarify something for all of you, collsion implies that there is an "agreement". there were no actual deals initiated by our team, after a conversation with our drivers, they simply told the other side that knocking down the stacks was stupid.....and they weren't going to do it unless there was a reason to....which i agree with. Instead of everyone winning everyone loses. Other then that, there were no other arrangements. If you feel that you must knock down our stack to win...then by all means try...our drivers are very protective of said stacks. The problem here is that the game was designed for stacking and knocking down of stacks, but most people read the rules and decided not to build something that could stack...this has gone from a finese competition to who can build the biggest bulldozer.....and for that i fault the idealism of FIRST leaders...but that is for another thread alltogether

cant we give this a rest?
 

All this thread has become just like all other "collusion" threads is a bunch of fighting and finger pointing. With all these dire predictions of this being terrible and possibly the downfall of FIRST, I wonder if this is really the hill people want to die on. Is FIRST so fragile, that we will let a small issue devide such a wonderful organization? As far as the agreements are concerned, it is the team's job to police themselves. As a referee at the Silicon Valley Regional in San Jose, Jason made it clear in the driver's meeting that FIRST was neither for nor against it and it was up to the teams themselves to do what is right. We saw neither collusion nor any hard feelings, because the teams put their differences behind them and got on with the competition. Everyone had fun, and it was an awesome event.

Furthermore, speaking as a referee, I have no idea how it would be physically possible to enforce the "no collusion" rule should there exist one in the future. The referees add up the score and look for any tangible rule violations such as pinning and entanglement. It is impossible to make a call on collusion as a referee because it is not a black and white area, but it was rather the 4 teams collective intentions which are impossible to regulate. There are times, when it is advantageous to leave the opponent's stacks standing, yet there was no collusion involved. This is a legitimate strategy if you are winning due to the scoring system this year. Therefore, as a referee, I am happy there was no ruling before because you can not referee people's motives. You can only referee that which you observe.

Anyway, thats my opinion

Note: this is coming from a member of a team with a good size bulldozer :D

I completely disagree with that assessment of the game. At the beginning, the idea was to build what would work to win the game, which is obvious. We decided very early on that it would take a lot of time to build, set, and defend stacks, and that it would be much easier to win with a good drive train, and the ability to get more boxes on your side, instead of worrying about getting boxes higher. Human players are used to stack. A team can win with other strategies. Obviously, from this thread, some strategies have become frowned upon for whatever reason, but are still legitimate ways to win the game. I love the game this year because it goes for a simple design, and not for an extremely complex robot with arms going everywhere.

Amen...
 

I for one agree Sean_330. This has devolved into no more than a finger pointing exercise. I think we should just let this thread rest in peace.

Also, we build our robot with stacking in mind, but after the first few matches at UCF, we realised stacking is not that practical. And now we know human player stacks are more important (also, I wish our bulldoser had a bit more B.H.P., if you know what I mean :rolleyes: ).

Finally, you can be assured that there will be no such "collusions" going on at Nationals, only our team trying to educate other teams of the many layers this game has (i.e., stacks are better than no stacks).

-Ash

P.S. Jrmc may be a member of our team, but he does not represent the views and opinions of our team. So if he says something silly, it's his fault (sorry Matt :D )

Seattle...
 

I feel I have to just make a short statement.
I come from the midwest...was at Seattle...viewed most of the matches there...

I make no comment about collusion...
whatever that means...

I want to congratulate team 233 and their alliance partners.
Their robot performed admirably...
I spoke with members of their team in their pit and they
were helpful and honest and proud of . their robot.and their team....
they had a right to be...

They had the best robot and the best strategies at the event..
They were on the winning alliance

Sitting in the stands I saw many robots make poor decisions during the quals and in the finals...

In fact, I believe a poor decision about going to the top of the ramp cost one alliance a shot at the finals...they forgot that +25 points costs them -50 for the other alliance...

Team 233 should be commended for a good regional...a great presence...and a fine robot


Thanks for a great show 233...

Good luck at Nationals

Then if you see a need to educate teams on the best way to score high, why don't you do it for all the teams at the competition? Not just the ones you are up against. In my opinion this isn't very gracious professionalism, by only selecting a few teams on how to score high. By one alliance telling another alliance how to play, it makes scouting that make hard for finals. I know that we look for teams that play the game "smart" not ones that always win.

Re: cant we give this a rest?
 

Very well done to everyone in San Jose.

After seeing "opponent stack agreements" in Arizona, and reading comments on this forum about some of the "boring" matches in Florida and other regionals involving such agreements, I was very happy to hear they didn't occur in San Jose. What occurred in San Jose (and other regionals with no "stack agreements") is the FIRST that I love and am trying to protect. Maybe this was helped along by the posts on chief delphi and the survey results showing that the majority of people are against such agreements. Anyway, the tide has turned, and I for one intend to help keep it that way. Why? I don't want boring matches. That is not good for FIRST. In fact Dean himself said that we need to make the game more audience friendly, and "boring" games won't help that cause.

Quite honestly, I couldn't ask a team of mentors and students to work their hearts out on a robot if the competition continued in the direction of "opponent agreements". For example, why work for days to make a robot that can stack if teams may just agree to make your stacker worthless?

I agree. The referees really can't be expected to make such a ruling. However referees can't tell if someone designed and made new parts after the shipping date either. That is left to the gracious professionalism of the teams, as should this matter. We still tell the teams that they are expected not to continue building after the ship date. We can do the same with regards to "stack agreements". For the Nationals, FIRST can just ask the teams not to discuss their matches with their opponents. Then next year, we can change the scoring system so it doesn't celebrate (reward) such agreements. That will save us all a lot of time and energy trying to keep things on track.

"Stack agreements aren't bad because they are against the rules. People who made stack agreements aren't bad people. Stack agreements are bad because they are bad for the game and thus bad for FIRST. Why? Because if it became the norm, it would cause a deterioration of the game. The game would become a play with bunch of robot actors, as in professional wrestling. Personally I don't want anyone comparing FIRST to professional wrestling. You might say that the game didn't deteriorate to that point, so why all the worry. I say it didn't happen because people who care made sure it didn't. My hat is off to everyone who has helped (talking to people, by posting, by writing letters, flyers, posters, etc.) to keep this competition on track by which I mean a 2-on-2 competition where opponents are opponents and where we can ascertain which robot design and driver team is the best.

At the end of the season, I expect to learn which strategy worked the best. Because of that, I will be able to think better next year, and try to help come up with a better strategy for our team. And that gives me something to come back for next year. I just want to know that the best strategy really did win. Then we can celebrate that team with no reservations, no doubts about how they got there. It is awesome! Let's keep it that way.

Re: cant we give this a rest?
 

I like that!

FIRST is not a fragile organization, and simple things can divide us one year and unite us another year, the trend i am trying to avoid is one towards little simple robots being more useful than a finesse robot. The rules for the past two years games were geared more towards finesse, (for those of you who weren't here last years game involved goals and soccer balls), with the balls representing the larger amount of points. However, last year, as this year many teams read the rules and decided that building a stacker, (or a ball scooper as we were) was too hard. So they went for the goals and totally tanked on Qp's. However these same bulldozers came to dominate when winning was everything...the point i am trying to make is that BULLDOZERS are BAD. We built one this year because we also looked at the rules and decided that stacking was going to be too hard under pressure, because some team with nothing but a drive train attached to a box could come ruin our whole day. So here we are having no multiplier other than the one you can defend. This game is not being played the way Dean and Woody set it up...the scoring favors stacks...but everyone went to smash and destroy...scorched earth if you will. So all i am saying is KNOCKING OVER STACKS IS STUPID, it makes everyone lose. FIRST is about winning by giving everyone more, with one a little ahead....not by two alliances trying to take points away from each other. So let the stacks stand...in the end we will all win for it.

Thank you all for the compliments we've received about Seattle. To give a few brief parting comments(going to bed and leaveing for houston) I would say that I had more fun as a driver when the stacks were attacked and that as chris aka "Ash" said, we don't plan on making agreements with other teams just reminding them that it's smart to leave the stacks up. As for buldozers vs finess I think the game needs balance of both, and I think this year is a bit unbalanced because stacks are so so fragile when they aren't extreamly short. However, I do see that buldozers also allow the game to be more accessable and so there is a trade off. Either way, we're all going to have an amazing time in Houston and those who will be here next year will have a great time also.
I've been to a lot of competitions by this point(3 times KSC, 3 times nationals, UCF, connecticuit, philadephia, toronto, and Seattle) and though It's grown, the spirit is still there. Where else inbetween the matches of the finals(just before the last match of the entire regional) can you go up to your opponent and ask them for a master link and have them check for you?? The game changes, the focus can change, but the people are here. There's always been dissagreements and hard feelings, but there's no way you can put this much effort into something and not have a few people be touchy. We are fine, FIRST is fine, and we're going to have a fantastic time :) Hope you all didn't mind my ramble,
thanks,
Josh

see yall in houston
 

hmmm

I'm very glad that this didn't *seem* to happen at the J&J regional. I think it's great that Brophy decided to make a "just say no" sign. Seeing the teams communicate like this -- positive stuff!

Isn't FIRST grand?

I know this has been debated before but here is my two cents.

FIRST is a great thing, we can all see that right here. It's why we come back every year, why we raise the money to enter and why we spend six weeks living off fast food in the oddest places with power tools. Most of all it is why we care enough about the game to argue this hard and long over what would look to an outsider like such a small thing. It is perhaps the best robot game out there today. That doesn't make it perfect, much as we all may wish it would. No one can see every loophole that might come up, not in FIRST not in law not anywhere. So the question is officially left unaddressed, just like it was in the beginning of when the game started.

Maybe it was suppose to be run this way. Maybe it was some puzzle for some bright student or mentor to come up with. However if it was I don't understand why the stacks were ever used at all in that case because if both sides are multiplied in every match then the advantage disappears to having stacks at all. Is the human player stacking suppose to be considered a skill that decides the match? I very much doubt it, FIRST is meant to be gracious professionalism demonstrated in a robotics competition. Athletics already recognize fairly thoroughly the talents of coordination speed and accuracy.

As for the stacks being left discourages bulldozers? I also don't agree to that. I'm sure most of you will agree it is much easier to destroy, or even guard, than it is to create. A working stacking robot is very difficult to make, we've seen that in the regionals already from the number of stacking robots that came compared to the number of stacking robots that worked. A stack of three was more than most teams could handle, but when stacks of eight are already set out on the field and left there who needs stacking robots at all? I have not heard of a robot that could make a stack of more than eight so stacking robots have literally no point with the stacks they would have made already there. I think it unfair to those teams who went the extra mile to try to do something a little harder and accomplished it, it takes them out of the running with their positions filled by humans. What does that leave? The bulldozers so many people want to avoid. The pushing shoving box herding robots that ram each other off the bridge and plow across the field shoving boxes back and forth are what are left to be competitive. They're great robots and it takes a good drive train to make one but honestly as for making the game exciting, the loudest cheers I heard whether over a webcast or right there in the stands or on the sidelines was when a robot successfully stacked even one box on another.

It is legal. You may get away with it in some places. Nothing in the rules will stop you, but does it make the game more interesting, more complex or adds another layer? No, I think in reality it takes layers off. It was smart for the team, no doubt about it but at the cost the game. Maybe whoever thought of it hadn't considered that possibility at the time they thought of it and neither did the people who decided to use it in the regionals. No matter how it was done though yelling at each other for what was done will not change anything. FIRST will not be reawarding the regional winner's titles. What's done is done. We can't change it and pointing fingers, no matter how many, will not help. We see it does not help the game. Just learn from it. Isn't that what engineering is really about anyway?

Best of luck everybody tomorrow at the championships.
Katy

I was at the Seattle regional, and your team mentor (on team 233) or coach came up to our team and specifically said that "If you leave our stacks standing we will leave yours up. And Also, it would be good to get all 4 robots on the ramp at the end because it hasn't happened yet and the audience would like it". He also said that his alliance could go to the outside of the ramp and leave room for us.
-I'm not saying he made us sign a contract, or even pressured us into doing that, that's just what he told our driver and I before we competed.

Now I don't know if he spoke for your team or not, so I am not saying that your whole team 233 is at fault.

Just talking to opponents about what the outcome of the match is going to be before it happens doesn't seem right. With agreements to not knock down stacks, and to all get on the ramp at the end...
There doesn't seem much left to do in the actual match that isn't agreed to before hand. It is kind of hard to earn a win and not have it scripted before hand with those guidelines. Especially when 233 has a great automous mode.

Well, that's just my take on things, and I don't represent all of team 949 either. So yeah, I don't think that there should be agreements. But I do see that advantageous strategy of leaving stacks up if you are going to win. But to go to the other team ahead of time seems wrong.

368's beliefs


team 368 believes that there should be no collusions (sp???)

but we can accept that people and teams do this

in the real world there are agreements and such..first is a reflection of the real world


it is up to the team and or drivers own beliefs of what they think is within the rules if team 233 and some other teams believe it is alrite, it is up to them. it is not against any rule that first has

but, 233 is not the only team that did this. they just did it well, mostly thanks to a awesome robot.

we were lucky to team up with them in the finals at seattle, and i was very proud to be part of their alliance.

they can protect stacks better then any other robot i have seen.....if my memory is correct, when we were teamed up wtih them for the finals no stacks they were protecting came down.

they would have done almost if not as well as they did even without the collusions

their robot was VERy nice and was recognized in the awards....