Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

lol i love how you put the comment about 2 wheels and ball casters (we are using 4) but thank you for clearing it up cause he stated that post the worst way possible...sorry andrew

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

what i meant by exploiting a strategy or design flaw was more along the lines of bumping a robot with a poor claw in order to make them drop their tube. or playing extreme defense against an alliance that is only likely to score a few tubes. an example of strategy exploitation might be dropping a square near a robot which has a circle and a square in place in the last 20 seconds, in hope that they will take it and not consider going to get a triangle to complete their logo.

the same thing as throwing a "spitball"

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

haha sorry guys if i came off wrong

There are pors and cons for every type design...for example, drive train. A team that takes the time to go through every design possibility knows the pros and cons for each type of drive. So...if i see someones weakness in a drive train...you better believe if i have to...i will use that con to our advantage.

example, if somes out with there with omni drive...GET OUT OF MY WAY:rolleyes:

Its all part of the competition. but in the pits, ill be one of the most GP person ever.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Agreed.

Too many people drink the GP kool-aid and become trigger happy in labeling other teams "Un-GP".

Help people, but never consider being noncompetitive.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

If they are passing that kool-aid out for free, can I have seconds?

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

I have to echo the opinions of many other posters here.

ON THE FIELD - you play to win. Not just to win that match, but to win the entire competition. I'll diverge with general opinion by saying that if "going easy" on the opponent during a match will give you a better shot at winning the whole shebang (thanks to Coopertition points, they do), then I will be the FIRST to propose doing so.

OFF THE FIELD - do everything you can to help other teams succeed. If the GP aspect isn't enough for you, you could always remember the fact that you may end up being on their alliance later in the day.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

IMO there is no such thing as too much GP, however, it does not apply directly in the game. When the game is being played, there are unspoken laws about how to act: IE, don't drive into another robot and screw with it's electronics. Even if that was allowed in the rules, I would guarantee that FRC teams wouldn't. Its cheap and a bad way to win. However, there are places that GP and competition can be mixed:

Last year at Philly, we were the 5th seeded alliance captains, and were against the first seed, 341, the chairmans award winners. We lost the first match, due to the failure of the C-RIO of our defense robot. We called a timeout, and tried to fix it, but due to not enough time, we were unable to. Instead of taking the easy win, 341 used their timeout for us. We were able to fix the robot, and play to an 8-8 score, which we then lost due to a penalty. However, it was the most competitive game I have ever seen, and was a huge amount of fun to watch. After the game I went away happier than if we had won the regional.

My point is, is that the two "differing" concepts can be mixed to create a better experience for all.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

If you ever call something that happens within the rules on the field as "un-GP" - I think you're misunderstanding what the term means.

This clearly isn't the case for the many things not allowed within the rules (intentional destruction, etc) - but using GP as a judgement tool demonstrates an inherent misunderstanding of what GP is supposed to be.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

The gross misuse of the term gracious professionalism has made people think FIRST is some sort of Disney production where we all hold hands and play nice and live happily ever after and such.
Sometimes the most "GP" thing you can do is give a hard lesson to those who do not know better so they learn to change their ways.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

My point is is that just because something is a rule doesnt mean that is the only reason not to do it. You misunderstood what I was saying: In other sports, the point is to win at all costs. In FIRST, the point is to be graciously proffesional.

EDIT: I don't see how using GP as a judgment too is a misunderstanding: In real life, if someone falls over, I help them up. If someone's robot breaks, then I help them fix it. I dont kick dirt into their face, or give them poor advice. If you ask yourself "is it GP" before doing something, either in FIRST or IRL, then that can be a very could way to judge the action.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

The only thing one must be careful of is using the term "non-GP" to describe a person who simple doesn't agree with you. If someone does something or says something that you don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they are not being gracious or professional.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Intentional destruction is, imho, acceptable so long as it is within the rules. It isn't nice but if you can shut down an opponent by damaging a part of their machine that is weak or exposed and you can do so legally it is a failure on the team to adequately protect critical portions of their machine. Note this is different than just repeatedly ramming an opponent at high speeds and hoping something breaks. This is a physical game and playing physical should not be frowned upon.

Disclaimer: I've HAD arms ripped clean off in matches, I know how it feels. I've had a bot have the front forks torn clean off too. We didn't build it strong enough to withstand a legal hit and it was OUR fault. Looking at 397's 2010 bot we have gouge marks in our frame from where our bumper mounts bit into the frame during a hit.

Now, doing something illegal (intentional entanglement of arms and such) and getting away with it because the ref was looking the other way is a completely different story. As long as you are playing inside the rules you are not behaving in a manner in which your grandmother (who is aware of the rules) would be ashamed of. I never met my grandmother but I would assume she would want me to win as long as I didn't cheat.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Listening really, really carefully to as many Woodie Flowers speeches as you can on this topic, I think, would make things much more clear to everyone.

To parrot some of Woodie's recurring lines...
"This is not feel good, sticky sweet."
"Compete like crazy, while treating each other well in the process."
"fierce competition and mutual gain are not separate notions"

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Regarding teams scoring for other teams, I believe that rule change was put in place to prevent teams from artificially inflating their qualification score. If they were going to clearly win the match they could score for the opposing team to increase their qualification score, it was entirely legal prior to the change and is a strategy that has been employed by some of the best teams in FIRST's history none of whom I believe will ever be labeled anything other than GP. I think it was just a move by the GDC to result in proper rankings for alliance selection and to encourage competitive high scoring matches.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

What I am confused on is how the present ranking system is helpful or even necessary in that regard. If you're so far ahead that you're scoring for the other team, there is no way that match will ever be competitive. And honestly, the nature of competition is that some matches will be blowouts.

One adult said it best: "When the NBA wants higher scores, they add a shot clock and a three-point line. When FIRST wants higher scores, they add a complicated algorithm that rewards unproductive behavior."