Making pre-match deals
 

==============================================

EDIT: I had not realized that this discussion had already taken place many years ago when I originally posted this thread. Given the flame-warish nature of the previous discussion I'd like to respectfully ask the moderators to close this thread, and that we let this thread die without another unnecessary controversy.

Please forgive me.

-Chris

==============================================









When it gets to Finals, most of the top teams have very similar win/loss records, it really comes down to those Qualification Points, which are derived from the opponent's score. The higher scoring the game, the better the team's QP.

What were to happen if a team made an agreement with the opposing alliance like so... "We'll let you have the middle row for 256 points, we'll take the top row for 256 points, no spoiling those rows, though you can try to block us from scoring. All competition will be on that lower row."

If both teams honored the agreement, they'd have considerably higher QP than other teams.

I'm not advocating for this, but it does merit discussion. Is it in the FIRST spirit of Gracious Professionalism and co-operation? Or does it go too far and compromise the integrity of the game? What do you think?

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

We had something like this in 2003 before the W/L counted, it was basically "don't mess with our stack and we won't mess with yours"

Frankly I don't like it...I don't really know why, but something about it doesn't seem quite kosher.

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

To be honest, my first reaction is don't agree to that top row. If you're in the middle, you'll get a bunch of collumns of 2!

But seriously, I won't touch the ethics or gp point of the question, though it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. All I can say is that it's a bad idea. If you make deals to win rankings, you'll never win or have a fun game against those who don't.

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

As much as this may be a real world situation, these sorts of agreements aren't honorable within the realm of FIRST's ideology. While it may offer teams a considerable advantage, it is not something I would indulge in. There's something enjoyable about working for your goals, about challenging yourself to play better and harder each time you set the robot on the field.

In the end, its a personal decision, one that reflects upon what you are seeking to achieve through FIRST.

_Alex

Plus, I would want to win that match. :D

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

It's not a new concept--you could agree to any sort of this-for-that in any recent FRC game.

But I don't think it's gonna be that popular--too many ways for things to go wrong for me to take that route. And I would strongly protest any such agreement on my end.

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

Basically if that happens folks will prob probably react like this.
What's a FIRST season without contreversy anyways?

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

Collusion has happened before. It has generally been frowned upon, but it is technically legal. If you don't like collusion, don't agree to collude, and don't join a finals alliance with someone who has previously asked you to collude. There are enough principled people in FIRST to keep teams from actually doing this.

In any case, I suspect that it's not going to be a huge issue, because it's sort of a prisoner's dilemma. Collusion is not in your best interest if it looks like you're going to lose the match. Spoil one in their row at the last second, and you regain the advantage that you lost fighting over the neutral row. Nobody is going to accept a loss to help the other team get their QP. In this game, asking for collusion begets backstabbing.

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

It will happen at least once this season. Therefore those teams that watch this thing happen will call shinadigans.

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

Shinadigans = shindig + shenanigans?
(Pardon me for interrupting an otherwise serious thread. I think I've discovered a new favorite word.)

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

It would only need to happen once for an incredible difference in QP. I would guess it would happen towards the end of finals, when teams aren't so much as concerned with their WL record as their QP points. Really what would be interesting would be seeing if the other alliance honored the agreement. If they didn't, they'd probably gain enough of an advantage to win, but that "backstab" would not help them win any friends in later matches. But if an alliance honored every agreement that they made, even if it made them lose, would they gain respect for that?

It's a very interesting thing to think about.

=============================================
Edit: Who changed the Thread Title? Is this a normal thing?
=============================================

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

I agree with M.O.R.T. The way I see it, this just ain't kosher. The game is played to win. Winning is not only outscoring your opponent, but outscoring them by as much as possible. I think that such match fixing is definitely wrong. Not only you leave too big of a door for cheating and disrespecting each other, I personally would also lose all respect to a team that did this in order to improve their qualifying situation.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Honestly, just the thought of it sounds very sketchy. Not only are there so many possibilities for things to go wrong, it seems just downright dirty to me. To make some kind of underhanded agreement in order to benefit yourselves and drive up your QP doesn't sound very GP like to me. This goes back to the whole idea of scoring for your opponent in order to boost your QP (which obviously cannot be done in this game, but has been done by teams on a number of occasions in previous years).

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

GP: acting in a way that would make your grandmother proud.
making an agreement such as the one described in the first post is practically cheating. it takes the fun out of the match. sure you might gain a lot of QP, but are you really that good? making a deal which increases your QP is the cheap, dirty way of making it into the elimination rounds, and should not be done. its not GP, and if its not GP its not the way of FIRST

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

I can tell you that the majority of teams out there will just drop a spoiler onto your row with a couple of seconds left, losing you atleast 128 points and effectively garunteeing themselves a win. Any team that is sly enough to try to cut a deal is definitly capable of going back on it to get the win. 128 qp mean nothing compared to the 2 rp you get for the win.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Alright I think this topic is just plain bad to bring up. FIRST will never condone it, it will never be looked up in a good way and it's already been viciously beat to death, and for once I think it'd be nice to go a season without controversy. (Load bearing surfaces anyone?). I say we lock this thread up and let it go, and let's focus on finding a way to improve things, not screw em up more.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

On top of this, it's not like you'd be surprised by the spoiler. You'd probably be able to see their human team grabbing it, placing it in the slot, and waiting for the robot to come pick it up. Plenty of time to drop whatever you're doing and prep your own.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Well, I think most of us are again missing the point of first. It is not about the robot or the game. It is about learning new things that you wouldn't be able to learn normally. I would prefer to see my robot win a match on its own merit than work with the opposing team to win. Winning is one thing, accomplishment is another. The competition is there for you to test what you have done in the environment you have designed it for. This sort of action is NOT what you should be designing for thus defeating the purpose.

I am strongly against this, but there is nothing that can be done to stop it. It does require that all 6 teams agree and looking at this thread, most people wouldn't agree to it. It only takes one ringer to screw it up, and that one ringer can also ruin possible friendships.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

I see that many are opposed to teams making an agreement during competition that is something like "you take the top row, we'll take the bottom row - no spoilers and we'll compete over the middle row."

Is this substantially different from teams making an agreement during the building season that says "You design and fabricate a drive system and we'll design and fabricate a scoring arm and we'll put 'em together then compete at events allowing the best team to win"?

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
The RoboDox

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

I'm inclined to say yes, there is a difference. Things can be learned by collaborating with another team, particularly a team not near you as with Division by Chickens or the various 254 collaborations (which I never quite realized were spaced that far apart--when you're three thousand miles away, everything is close), or when you have to get three teams all to agree to a general direction or apply a tweak one's discovered to all three. I'd love to see what can be learned by these sorts of deals.

Re: Deal with the Devil?
 

Ed pointed to the right thread. IMHO collusion of this kind cheats the other teams and the viewing public of an honest, honorable competitive experience.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Here we go again. When this happened in 2003 (as previously mentioned in this post), there was a flurry of discussion here, and at the various events that I attended. There were a lot of interesting points made on both sides.

Nonetheless, I (and our team) took a very strong stand in 2003 which I would like to reiterate here.

Point 1: Collusion is not "technically" against the rules. That is to say it is not against the letter of the rules. FIRST was quite clear on this when the official response to queries about the legality of collusion were effectively not answered.

Point 2: Collusion is (in my opinion) contrary to the spirit of gracious professionalism and contrary to the spirit of FIRST.

Point 3: In the "real world", collusion is illegal. Corporate executives and sports stars have been fined and sent to prison for participating in collusion.

FIRST attempts to prepare students to enter the world of technology through these competitions. Technology, without the business of technology does not accomplish much. Businesses that participate in collusion typically get themselves into trouble (think of Enron). I doubt seriously that FIRST would condone the practice of pre-match deal making, but I also understand their reluctance to make an official ruling on the subject (each of us has to decide if we are going the break the law or not).

Sorry this got a little long winded, but I feel very strongly about this subject. Collusion should be rejected by all teams. For all of you who have the courage and confidence to reject collusion, I applaud you. For those of you who don't, remind be not to buy stock in whatever company you end up working for.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

If both teams made this agreement, then at least one of the teams is populated by fools.

Whether it is within the spirit of FIRST or not, making an agreement like this would be a massively stupid thing to do strategically. For the team that agrees to take the top row, they have effectively given away the game before it even starts. Assume Redabot takes the top row, and Blueabot takes the middle row. After that, every Ringer that Redabot places on the bottom row will be worth 2 points for a Singleton, 4 points if there is a red Ringer adjacent, etc. But for Blueabot, every Ringer they place is worth 4 points, as it makes a vertical row of two, plus 4 points if there is a blue Ringer adjacent, etc. Effectively, each blue Ringer on the bottom row is worth twice as much as each red Ringer. Unless Blueabot is incredibly incompetent, they will win the match every time. And a check mark in Blueabot's "Win" column is worth a lot more than the increased ranking points.

What you should be talking about is what happens if two teams make the agreement "you take the top row, we will take the bottom row, and we will fight it out over the middle row." (and on that topic, I will refer you to the immediately preceeding post by BillP).

-dave

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

I think that making deals before a match is wrong. I know in previous years teams would score for the opposing alliance in order to raise their QP and I believe FIRST wanted to get rid of this because it took away from the fun and excitement and that is why you can not even be in possession of the opposing alliance's ringer.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Was anyone listening to Woodie's Kickoff address about fame and fortune vs. self-worth and accomplishment? In my mind a win by collusion of this type clearly falls into the un-earned F&F category, because teams which "won" through the use of this strategy certainly wouldn't have earned their rank through their own accomplishment and their actions should diminish their self-worth.

As for the rules, wouldn't collusion be a violation of <G50> Respect and professional demeanor?

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Forget about top row, middle row, and bottom row for a moment and think sides. What if teams simply agree to only score on their respective sides of the rack? I have a feeling it is going to come down to this a lot of the time anyway simply because of visibility issues. If FIRST wants us to compete graciously what would be more gracious than simply saying “You guys stay over there and we will stay over here and lets just see who can get the most rings on in the shortest amount of time?” No penalties for contact, etc., let’s just have a race.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

9.3.8 Ranking Score
The total number of ranking points earned by a team throughout their qualification matches, divided by the number of matches played (excluding any SURROGATE matches), then truncated to two decimal places, will be their ranking score. Note: because your ranking score is derived directly from the match scores of the losing ALLIANCES in the matches you play, it is in your best interest to support your opponents and win by helping each ALLIANCE score as many points as possible.

"Collusion," or "Coopertition" as I prefer to call it, is the best way to "help each alliance score as many points as possible." How would you help your alliance score as many points as possible? You would (and probably do) meet each partner before the match a talk out a strategy. How would you help your opponent's alliance score as many points as possible? You would (and you can bet I will) meet with each opponent before the match, offer replacement parts or tools to fix anything broken, and offer a non-defensive match where you allow each other a row and free access to the ringers.

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Your match ranking score is derived from the unpenalized score of the losing alliance when you win and from your actual score with penalties when you lose. So high scoring and close matches will be key if you want to be high in the standings.

Please Forgive Me
 

I'd like to say... I'm sorry.

I had not realized that this topic had already been discussed, and beaten to death before. I just finished reading the the flame-warish (not quite, but close enough), outcome of the last time this thing was brought up and I'd like to appologize if I've accidentally revived an old flame-war. I don't think there is anything to gain from further discussion, and I would like to echo Matt Krass' suggestion that this thread be closed.


Please forgive me.


-Chris

Re: Making pre-match deals
 

Before you close the thread, I would like to get a thought process across. While the focus of FIRST Robotics is not on the game itself, but rather on inspiration, there is still a very significant GAME aspect involved.

It's a GAME.

Fixing a match takes out the GAME in a GAME.

Learn to think like a gamer.

P.S: This wasn't directed to any one specific person.

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.