Re: My case against <G14>
 

Our team is one of those with fairly limited resources. We have however done petty well for ourselves in spite of that fact, winning a chairmans award, a regional, a couple of judges awards, and reaching the finals or semis a few times. The nice thing about all of that is that we EARNED it. Winning because the other team was penalized for their past success would take all the fun out of it in my opinion.

Re: My case against <G14>
 

This could come into play at some point but in the rules each alliance is given 4 empty, and super cells so we would still have either 2 or 3 so thats still 4,6,13, or 30 you could still get. But i dont think there will be high scoring matches all that often where there are tripled scores and what not

Re: My case against <G14>
 

This rule is backwards. Don't penalize the winning team, bolster the losing teams.

Let the winning team keep their cells next match, give the losing alliance teams 1 extra or 2 extra cells depending on the margin of loss (2x or 3x). As is this current rule does NOTHING to help the teams that just got blown out in their next match. It only serves to punish the alliance that did well, which doesn't line up with the intent of the rule at all.

Still, I highly dislike this rule even if it was altered to the format I just posted

Re: My case against <G14>
 

So the first Team Update, and sadly, rule <G14> has not been excised from the rulebook with fire. I can't say I'm surprised, but it would have been nice. However, I am somewhat surprised that no changes have been made at all. I mean, GDC, come on-even if you really thought about this rule and found some benefit to it that I'm missing, is there really nothing you can do about the zero-score issue, or the penalty issue, or the affecting of other teams during qualifying, or... well, you get the point. I mean, it's obvious they're responding to other issues that have been brought up here on Chief Delphi, so why not this one?

Re: My case against <G14>
 

It seems like G14 is designed to alleviate some of the problems with the random matches. It takes far more skill to do well against a good team than it does to blow out a weak one, but they both get you a boatload of points. G14 is an attempt to get the legitimately skillful teams the best qualifying spots, as opposed to the luckiest ones.

That being said, it'll never work. As bduddy has stated, everyone will just sandbag like hell if there's a chance that it'll happen. Some may say that's not gracious professionalism, but how gracious is it to your teammates to incur a penalty on them by letting G14 happen?

I think the best way to avoid G14, if it's not removed, would be to throw out the super cells early to get the 10 point penalties. Having everyone play well and then adjust their scores with purposeful penalties to avoid G14 would be way more interesting than watching a team play poorly the whole match just so they don't score too much.

Re: My case against <G14>
 

Continuing the football analogy, what if in that 50 - 10 football game the 50 scoring team stopped playing as well as they could so they wouldn't get a blowout? Would that be more interesting?

G14 encourages teams not to play their best. Anything that doesn't encourage someone to do their best is useless,in my opinion.

That said, I don't think the rule will be much of an issue. I know I'd rather play my best no matter what, and deal with the penalties later. I'm willing to bet you'll actually see MORE blowouts than usual, as you have alliances where no one can use their robot to score, versus even just one team with an incredibly accurate shooter.

Re: My case against <G14>
 

Alright so here is my bottom line as to why this rule is no big deal. Great teams find a way to win even with the odds stacked against them. If you have no super cells in a match, consider it a challenge. Ever win a match where your alliance only has 2 robots and the other has 3? It feels great. Consider it a challenge if you should be in this situation at some point.

Secondly, GP is not something people inherently know how to do. They have to be shown how to do it. Go out and compete at the highest level you can no matter what. Who knows, you may lose a match but it could result in another team noting your GP by playing your hearts out the match before. Then who knows, maybe they will spread it to their next regional, or practice it more in their everyday life.

Spreading the FIRST culture is what this is all really about. When I was a student, my best moment was winning a gold medal, without question. My best moment in FIRST? That would be my first year of mentoring when I saw two of the students on our team stand up for a design they created and believed in. That was the moment I realized that these two will be successful in life in part because of their experience in FIRST. The matches do not matter. I would trade a hundred gold medals for the feeling I get when I pass along the FIRST message to someone. If it's still a big deal that you might lose a match at the expense of showing gracious professionalism by trying your best, then I hope that you will pay very close attention to Dean, Woodie, Dave, Paul, or anyone else at FIRST the next time they make a speech. If you notice, they do not concern themselves much with who wins.

Re: My case against <G14>
 

I think I can clear up some misconceptions. The rule is very precice and fair.Let me explain.Non-surrogate means non seaded games as in the finals.So this rule doesn't apply to qualifying matches or the first match of Finals(when you choose your alliance).And so most of the sinarios that you guys talked about would not happen.What this rule dose is even the game for the middle aliances (ranked 5-8) giving them more of a chance against teams 1-4 who can pair up to be powerhouses.iam on psp no space 2 write.

Re: My case against <G14>
 

I think you may misunderstand the meaning of a surrogate team. It is one which is filling in for an empty space in the schedule. Section 9.3.2 of the manual states

This means that a non-surrogate match is one where the match will impact the qualifying and ranking score of the team. However, it is still not entirely clear whether the rules will be for qualifying rounds and elimination rounds, or just one of the two. I hope that helps.

Re: My case against <G14>
 

BRAVESaj25bd8: I agree wholeheartedly with your 10:35 post (don't want to quote it just to say this!). However, I have to ask: how does it apply to this conversation? Overcoming obstacles is definitely a positive experience for any team, but the rules should not create arbitrary challenges to a team just because they have done well. I also believe in the value of overcoming a loss, maybe even a big one-something the GDC does not seem to do. And how is it any more graciously professional to win by a little by sandbagging or self-scoring as opposed to showing one's full potential? Yes, I agree that the game and the robot are not the most important things. But that's no excuse for a bad rule, and in my opinion, this rule teaches the wrong lessons to teams, decreases the inherent appeal of the game (which ~is~ important if FIRST is to reach the level of professional sports, always one of Dean's goals) and reduces the learning experience involved.

And the rule, as of now, simply applies to "matches", so I see no reason why that would not include qualifying and elimination.

Re: My case against <G14>
 

They should decide if the score is doubled before penalties come into play, because the people in the players station are paying attention to the field and not necessarily if the referee is waving his flag.

If your opponent scores 0 points it is impossible to win the match without losing both empty cells or super cells in the next match.

Re: My case against <G14>
 

It's even more severe than than you think. Remember, the "modification" is applied per team, not per alliance, so they're going to lose two empty cells and all four super cells.

Re: My case against <G14>
 

Well my point was that everyone SHOULD just try their best and score as many as they can. In my opinion, that is the most graciously professional thing to do. If you really hate that idea, it's still better to score some for your opponents than the purposely take penalties IMO. But I just think that scoring as much as you can is the best way to handle this. You can always try your best. If you worry too much about the score, you lose the fun of trying your best. I suppose it is a personal preference whether you would rather be able to say "we did our best every match for the entire competition" or "we won in part due to some seriously strategic score watching". If you do try to modify the score in a way that will benefit you in future matches, keep in mind you may have missed a penalty or two that your team received and that may lead you to actually losing the match for your alliance if you are "evening out the score".

Re: My case against <G14>
 

My first statement probably should sum up this issue:

You CANNOT legislate Gracious Professionalism.

Our team knows not to ridicule or take advantage of other teams that cannot perform on the field. We don't need a rule to do that. This is our choice... and I would rather err and lose a match here or there than not follow this path.

So in the end... I don't mind the rule... it is what we would do anyway.

What I do mind is that it penalizes teams that had nothing to do with the action.

I am team xxxx ... I am on an alliance with a team who does not really understand that's its not ok to take advantage... even on the field and even if its within the rules.... so they outscore our opponent by 3 times... WE carry the penalty into the next match... even though we had NOTHING to do with it...

AND our next ALLIANCE PARTNERS.. who did NOT break any rules....who did not even get a WIN by breaking this rule.... who are graciously professional on and off the field.... are penalized... and put into a disadvantageous position.... for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON..


YOU CANNOT TEACH Gracious Professionalism by making rules that require it.

thank you
and good luck to everyone this year!!