As for your analogy, one thing I've learned from being on Debate is that analogies always get ripped apart, and arguing them just wastes time. It all depends on how you percieve it. Lets just stay away from analagies - their meaning depends on your side of the debate (and since in a debate, you have two different sides, well, you get the point - they get nowhere). It gets more done to debate the central theme, so lets just stick at that.

Does it really? Both are movable field elements. Both have to be moved to score points. Both are worth the same amount of points. You get penalized if you damage any of them. What it comes down to is that both are elements of the game. You said the goals are manipulated by teams. Why are they manipulated? To score points and earn you the victory. In the same way, robots are there to score points. Why should you be able to manipulate goals, but not robots - both of which are just game elements there to score points?

I'm also on debate, Dan, and a proper analogy never gets ripped apart, it's just attempted to be misinterpreted. All too common, however, are improper analogies. Sorry if you don't like my analogy.

Why are they different? Let's count the reasons

1. The goal is not the property of any team or team member. They are the property of the event coordinators.

2. Goals are not an active component; they are passive.

And the big one...
3. A goal cannot be damaged by simply moving it, as it is designed to move in all directions. This is not true with all robots.

This doesn't really matter by itself - see my response to number 3...

But that doesn't change their ultimate purpose - their ultimate purpose is to gain points. Same thing with other robots.

Going back to my origional point, the purpose of FIRST is to advance the field of engineering, to recognize science and technology - Gracious Professionalism is designed to facilitate that. If you didn't design your robot with the idea that it can be pushed - if you designed your robot hoping that a key element of this year's game wouldn't be applied to it - should you be able to achieve victory over someone who DID incorporate that part of the game into their robot? Each year, teams learn lessons about different aspects of engineering - that is the purpose of FIRST. If you didn't design your robot to be able to withstand being pushed, well you learned something for next year. Of course, if your robot is actually damaged, Gracious Profesionalism states that the team that damaged you work with you to repair it.

Oh, I'm not talking from a personal standpoint. We've been pushed around and we weren't damaged. Dean said you should prepare to have your robot pushed at Kickoff. I'm merely stating my views.

And as to your comments, they have almost nothing to do what I've said. The purpose of FIRST is to educate, but not by loss. It's designed to make people think creatively within the constraints.

And as to your second rebuttal, it does change them by a great deal. I'll try to avoid analogies this time, even though they make things clearer.

The goal, designed to be moved in all directions, is not anyone's concern. Under normal circumstances, the goals aren't broken. Extreme cases can occur, and penalties will be suffered for damages.

This is not the same with robots. By forcing a robot to do something it's not supposed to, it becomes very likely that something will break. Fixing a robot does not erase the fact that you broke the robot to achieve victory. Accidents happen, but your strategy is with intent. Think about it.

The question that is really the issue here is "Is a Graciously Professional strategy to hinder your opponent from scoring points instead of simply scoring more for yourself?"

I would have to say, that simply trying to hinder your opponent is a reasonable strategy in this game.

You can't really compare this to any other sports. For example doing this in hockey, and having no defense would be ridiculous. Meanwhile in other sports such as cycling, hindering your opponents will get you kicked-out.

I admit simply trying to score as many points for your team, does have a certain noble, gentlemanly, can't-we-all-just-get-along, children-singing-it's-a-small-world, I-love-you-you-love-me, communist feeling to it. This was present at the competition last year, but not quite as strongly this year.

One more question.. this has been bugging me since last year. What is the opposite of gracious professionalisim?

ungracious professionalisim
nongracious professionalisim
ungracious unprofessionalisim
nongracious unprofessionalisim
gracious unprofessionalisim

what one is it? or none of the above,

One of our teammates said the opposite of gracious professionalism is malicious unprofessionalism...I guess it means acting with unrefined manners and an intent to cause damage, physical or mental. What do you think, Wolfe?

To the opponents of wedging, lifting, bot moving, kidnapping strategies...

Would you really want to win against a team who was intentionally not playing at the top of their game in the interest of preserving your brand of GP? Would you really want to deny an opponent the full use of their carefully designed and -legal- game strategy?

Under this year's rules the robots are game pieces that can be used to score points - for any team with the will and ability to score them. The rules explicitly allow kidnapping strategies. Although it seems that many teams ignored this contingency, it is within the set of constraints under which the game is played; the set of constraints under which our robots were designed.

There's nothing ungracious or unprofessional about playing by the rules. It is neither gracious or professional to play with an arm tied behind your back because your opponent didn't consider every strategy the rules allow.

-Joel

The IRS.


-dave

I think that teams that proposly "bug" you and push you around is just part of the game. It makes it more exciting. If there wasn't any it would be like last year. A really boring competition. You need to have those kinds of teams out there or it would be as fun.

well...
 

Hi everybody!

I saw Team #610's robot in Canada (I was that green guy with cowpants that bugged you about your robot lifter...)

I wasn't sure if FIRST would allow the robot handler all the way through the competition, just because I thought it could very easily happen that robots that get caught by your mechanism get injured. Well, I saw that FIRST was fine with it, and I understand both sides of viewpoints that people showed in this thread, and I kind of agree with both of them...

Re: well...
 

Actually, to our suprise, the refs at the competition actually sort of encouraged us to use the wedge!

IMHO gracious professionalism means doing the right thing at the right time, all of the time. If your strategy is to move the goal, and someone else's robot is attached and gets moved along with the goal, fine. But to repeadely attack another robot by rammiing it to try and move or dislodge when it has not and will not be moved is clearly not gracious professionalism. Similarly, if your strategy is to gather balls, and a goal or another robot is blocking your path, push it out of the way. But to dash across the field to ram another robot to prevent it from scoring balls is not gracious professionalism. Physical blocking, preventing a robot or goal from scoring, is also a great strategy. Just don't do it by incapacitating the competition. Prove your engineering , design, and construction using strength and manueverability. Having said this, it is always good engineering practice to design for the ramming, pushing, and pulling that may "accidently" occur. Because our strategy is "two-goal anchor", we've seen our share of bumps and bruises. We have the battle scars to show. As our friends at 312 Heatwave will attest, there is nothing better to watch that a good-ol tug-of-war. Our team is ready to play - bring it on -- 343 MIM.

This gracious professionalism stuff is getting real
old. The idea is to win.. without cheating. Thats it.
Not everyone was meant to build a robot just like not
everyone is good at sports and not everyone is good at
math. Things should try and be kept fair, but its a
game guys. NOTHING can be kept ultimately fair. Say
Hockey... some guys are bigger.. they hit people...
thats their strength. Some guys are quick, thats their
advantage, its what they do. So every robot has their
advantage, which is fine. Let em use it. Robots
should be fair play, they're not coffee tables,
they're not made of glass. They're (probably) made of
metal or aluminum. That's not exactly a weak material.
If it gets hurts, the team should have done a better
job at protecting it and countering that stragety. I
mean, stick an RC out in the open in a robotics
competition, and you have to EXPECT it to get broken,
or stick an unreinforced arm out and not expect it to
be bent, thats just plain dumb. The only time people
complain about things is when its something they can't
beat, and then they look for technacalities that they
can use to their advantage. If everyone just followed
the rules and prepared for all (or most) of the
possible situations then it would be fine.

You don't want to be wedged up, be low to the ground.
You don't wanna be lifted up? Don't leave an exposed
surface grippable. Don't want to be pushed? Use strong
motors and good traction tread on ur wheels. Don't
want to lose? Then do your best and play the game as
it was intended, don't play it like a court case with
lawyers.


---I say use the wedge and use it proudly. If people complain that much about it, then it must mean that it is ahead of its time. When a good counter-stragety is formed, then people will stop talking about it because it will be beaten... :D