Re: Making pre-match deals
 

This post deserves some more attention while this thread is open. I oppose collusion, but what ARE we supposed to do to "support your opponents and win by helping each ALLIANCE score as many points as possible"? This is the first game I'm familiar with where scoring for your opponents has been penalized.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

I doubt the "help" FIRST is referring to has anything to do with collusion.

The only way I see to "help" the opposing alliance score, since you cannot score for them, is to not play defense. This, along with the yellow/red flag, perhaps is FIRST's way to promote a more offensively minded game (without "behind the scenes" agreements being made).

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

That's the way I see it as well and thus as I stated above, I can forsee "gentleman's agreements" being made to simply stay on each others respective side of the field and just see who can get the most rings on in the time allowed.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

I see no ambiguity in this issue at all. My interpretation is that it is very clear through everything we do in FIRST that an agreement to fix the outcome of the match is not honorable at all. Collusion is not just sketchy, it is wrong. Think of the consequences for your fellow FIRSTers at the competition if just one match is fixed such that both teams can each claim a row without any interference. All of their hard work and honorable competition strategies would be demeaned since two teams decided to cheat in their match (yes, it is cheating because it alters the goal of the challenge).

The idea of "supporting your opponents" and helping them to earn as many points as possible as stated in our rules is designed to discourage competition strategies with the main focus of preventing your opponents from scoring anything so that you can win by a small margin. With this strategy, elegant design and creative engineering are not really praised, but at least this type of play is not dishonorable. It still presents a challenge for both teams, and the win is fair and square.

I really hope that no FIRST teams would agree to fix a match with their opponents. While it is probably impossible for referees to penalize this type of strategy, I would hope that such behavior would not go unnoticed by the other teams and judges and that the match is made an example of what NOT to do in FIRST.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

I can also foresee "gentlemen's agreements" happening, but any discussion of altering the games outcome is collusion (regardless of what it's called), and therefore not in the spirit of GP.

If the FIRST GDC wanted 2 teams to work together and discuss outcomes prior to the match, they would have made a game like 2001. As they have designed the game since then, there are 2 separate teams, and therefore the game should be played as such.

Re: Please Forgive Me
 

No problem. That is a very old thread in terms of the "life" of most CDers. Probably three quarters of the students here were not around for the 2003 game. So while us old-timers remember vivdly the controversy, it is not expected that the new people would even think to search for it.

So far from condeming you for bringing up an old contentious subject, I thank you for prompting our memories. This is something that needs to be discussed in the present.

ChrisH

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Whats the difference? "Gentlemans Agreement" or "Collusion" its playing tit for tat. Your still agreeing to help each other out in a course that would inevitably alter the outcome of the game.

FIRST has specifically defined that it is in your best interest for your opponent to score as many points as possible. If its in your best interest to allow them to do the best they can why not talk with them before a match?

Now, as far as ethically speaking, in general competition this kind of cooperation is typically frowned upon, yes, But if it is the rule are stated as such then what is the argument about? Until the rule is changed or modified, then this approach is not only ethical its just out right good strategy.

When people scored balls in the opponents goals last year this could have easily been perceived as collusion, however there was nearly no negative response, and no response from FIRST. This strategy was solid and allowed dominant teams to remain in the position they deserved. Since you are not allowed to score opponents tubes the only option left for people to boost their qualifying points is to come to a predetermined agreement. Whether its because of a " Gentlemans Agreement " or a outright "Collusion" its the same thing.

The point that is missed here, is generally no team agrees to lose a match, just to compete in a realm that maximizes points for both teams. Regardless of whether its frowned upon or not, if the rules remain as posted, it will happen, and it won't break the rules. If you find it unethical, the same way most of FIRST participants found collaberation between teams during build unethical, then don't participate. However it is within the realm of this years rules, and infact as per the rules is " In your best interest. "

I personally want the rule to be modified as to specifically by honor, state no such prematch agreements should ever take place, whether it be "Cooperation" or a "Gentlemans Agreement" but until the rules are changed then such agreements will take place.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

It should not have to come down to a team talking with another and making a pre-match agreement. It should be done during build season so they build a good robot. I'm not saying collaborate during the build season with other teams to formulate a master plan, this really wouldn't work because chances of two teams being in the same match are relatively low. But I am saying that teams should be seeking help. It is in the veteran’s best interests to help them during this more important time so they have a better chance! Not everything has to pertain to competitions and please do tell me everyone here remembers what FIRST is about.

I do agree that there is no rule set in place and that there is currently nothing stopping this action. People are in argument with this action because it does not follow within the spirit of FIRST. I will not agree though that it is ethical. Comparing this to a business environment (which is what teams are basing their structures off of) then it would be against the law and very unethical.

There is a slight difference between these two actions. A team who physically scores points for the opponent is doing so on their own will. They do not need the approval of the other alliance to do so. Making a deal with another team requires that that team agree. This is NOT the only option. Like I said above, help the rookies during build to help them make a better robot. Show them what they can do and help bring out their potential.

Please don't compare this with teams who are collaborating to build robots. They do this because they don't have the resources to do so. Also lets end that topic right now, we don't need more wildfire to spread.

This is the only statement that I almost 100% agree with. I do not think however that this sort of thing will happen because it requires 6 teams to agree. And from most responses it is a mixed bunch.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

What if your grandmother is a downright dirty cheater?
------
:D
But i would not want this to happen in a FIRST competition, the whole point of the game is to get the most points on your own(alliance), if you use anyother means of getting them then it is the same as cheating. Its like Baseball managers betting on/against their teams.

In the past games where you could score for your oppenent, it was deemed as a low blow on our team that we would not do it to avoid the feedback, its kind of mean to do it because they feel bad enough that they lost and your just putting alcohol on the wound.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Since when did so many people become authorities on matters pertaining to the "spirit" of FIRST; and yet... not quote a writtten credo, a rule, a code of ethics, a manifesto, or a something that lays out in authoritative words what that spirit is???

Until there is a rule that forbids agreeing to cooperate with "opponents" during a match and that assigns a punishment of on the order of a DQ, cooperation is a legal way for some teams to achieve their objectives.

And it is a legal way that requires skillful negotiation, adequate technology, and sound strategizing. All useful things to cultivate and inspire, I should think.

Maybe I'm wrong; but among all legal strategies, I think no legal strategy is more (or less) legal than another.

On the other hand, if you don't like alliances agreeing to race rather than agreeing to collide, or if you don't like alliances agreeing to trade their QP contributions in one match for something they consider equally valuable; then just cooperate with your "neighbors" to ensure that no team attempting that strategy is successful in the long run.

Hoist them with their own petard!

If on-field cooperation isn't a viable strategy then it will be infrequent, and when it does happen many of us will find it satisfying to see it fail to bear long-lasting fruit.

Alternatively, propose a new way to break QP ties.

You, I, each, and all of us have all the power needed to defeat any off-the-field strategy that needs to be defeated. There is no need to wave the spirit of FIRST flag. Just use one of the tools you were born with. Your wits.

Blake
PS: Please, please don't get me wrong, I think that "The spirit of FIRST" is an immensely useful and powerful thing. I just don't think it is the right tool (and it is certainly not the only tool) to use to get this job done.