Gracious Professionalism VS Competition
 

I've seen a few threads on CD and the FIRST forum that got me thinking. Lately Ive been wondering how compatible Gracious Professionalism and Competition are. I think some people start to forget that while we are expected to act graciously and professionally, FIRST Robotics Competition is still a competition. For example I saw a post on the first forums about passing a tube back to an opposing alliance member who dropped it. Even though this is extremely sportsman-like I can't help feeling that this is a little backwards. Then there is the fact that the GDC had to update the manual to say that it is against the rules to score on an opposing alliance's scoring grid. These, along with a few other threads which I wont mention for the sake of attention spans, make me wonder whether people are actually taking gracious professionalism too far. So what do you think?

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

I'm pretty sure the post you're referencing is about passing a tube to another alliance partner - not to an opponent.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

How can the world we live in have too many people who act in a gracious or professional manner? That would be a problem I would love to have.

As for the implied statement that competition and GP are incompatible, I will tell you what I tell my students before every event: I want to win, but I want to beat my opponent when they are at their best. Not, because they weren't running as well as they should. If there is something we can do to help our opponent out, we should do everything in our power to help them.How else can we find out how good we are or where we need to personally improve?

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

There was a thread on passing tubes to alliance partners but then I distinctly remember a post mentioning an opposing alliance robot dropping a tube and the other alliance giving it back to them. I may be wrong and i would rather not directly point out the post but I'm pretty sure...

Please don't misunderstand me. I am all for GP and I wholeheartedly believe in it. If another team is having a problem, I know there isn't a soul on my team who wouldn't jump up to help as best they can, including me. I just think it might be a little to much to directly help an opponent during a match.
To be honest I'm a little conflicted within. Helping an opponent off the field is one thing but to aid them during a match where the whole point is to win (graciously and professionally albeit) seems like one may be taking gracious professionalism too far. I'll put it this way: lets say that a robot on the opposing alliance shuts down because the battery wasn't charged prior to the match. The moment the battery dies, the claw/grabber mechanism goes dead and drops a tube that they would've been able to hang had their battery held out. Would it be in the spirit of gracious professionalism to hang the tube for them (assuming its not against the rules)?

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

agree 100% the game is not fun without a little competition, i would be glad to give our opponents help off the field, and to some extent not exploit their weakness in strategy or design. better to win for real than because the other team had something stupid happen.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

First let me state that I agree with the GP off the field and to a large degree on the field as well.

"The moment the battery dies, the claw/grabber mechanism goes dead and drops a tube that they would've been able to hang had their battery held out. Would it be in the spirit of gracious professionalism to hang the tube for them (assuming its not against the rules)?"

Your above quote refers (at least to me) to the 'coopertition' points that they instituted last year or the year before to keep strong alliances from racking up triple digit scores against much weaker alliances and then bragging about it (at least IMO that's why they may have done it). By the same token I don't think you should score points for your opponent to try and earn the 'coopertition' points. I want to see a great match. I don't want to see one team target another to flip their bot just because they can (I have seen it happen).

"I want to win, but I want to beat my opponent when they are at their best. Not, because they weren't running as well as they should. If there is something we can do to help our opponent out, we should do everything in our power to help them.How else can we find out how good we are or where we need to personally improve?"

Ditto totally...

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

I'm going to give you my two cents on this topic in a pretty simple way. I will help you (and love your help) off the field but when we are across the field from each other you OWE me your best. Don't you dare pull any punches, don't expect me to either. Leave it all on the field and may the best bot win.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

+1 on the previous post. Competition is a driver for gracious professionalism, and you owe it to your opponent to try your best to spank their little bottoms while on the field of play! (And likewise.)

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

GP and Competition together is symbiotic. I wanna dominate you during our match but when we get back to the pits, I would try my hardest to make sure that you can overcome our match and dominate the rest of yours.

Gracious Professionalism AND Competition
 

My short answer to the question posed is this: No, you shouldn't score a tube for your opponent out of "Gracious Professionalism". That's about like a football team giving their opponents the ball back after a fumble. Personally, that would be an insult.

That said, I think its misguided to consider GP and competition as dueling ideals. Don't forget the second half of GP: Professionalism. Professionalism means we work our hardest, we play our fairest, and think our fastest. We play to win. But although the object of the game is to win, the object of FIRST as a whole has nothing to do with winning: it's about the inspiration and recognition of science and technology.

As others have well said, "Compete with all you've got in front of the curtain, cooperate with all you've got behind it."

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

im playing devils advocate. exploiting their weakness is strategy... If you don't show them their flaw in design, then how are they to learn it was a flaw?

I honestly think sometimes we get a little TOO GP around FIRST. I agree with the above few posts, spank em on the field...but the pits are not a place for compeition

Re: Gracious Professionalism AND Competition
 

I personally don't think they're dueling ideals and I probably should've given the thread a different name. However, I think there are some people/teams who try to take Gracious Professionalism to a whole other level where its no longer gracious professionalism but some other monstrous thing that ruins the competition aspect of FRC.

I also don't think I like this whole cooperatition points system. While I think cooperatition should be part of the game, giving an incentive isn't the right way to improve it. Just by virtue of being an FIRST Robotics Team you should automatically and without persuasion of any sort, play with cooperatition in mind.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

WOW....THATS HARSH....i would be the first one to say i want a blue banner but im also the first (maybe second) one on chief delphi telling rookie teams (even some vetern teams) there designs wont work and how they could change it....i just think that comment was very unneeded and just totally against every thing Dean Kamen wants for his program of F.I.R.S.T.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

I'm pretty sure you're taking his quote out of context. Consider a team that doesn't post on Chief Delphi (like 80-90% of FRC teams) and creates a robot with what many would consider a flawed design. There is no way they would know it was a flawed design until the competition, where other teams would exploit the design to its advantage.

E.g. A team only powers two wheels and uses two casters in place of wheels. Your bot has more pushing force than it. In the competition, will you push it around while it's trying to block you? Or will you gingerly avoid trying to "explot" the flaw?

Now, if said team were to make a post on Chief Delphi about its design and/or ask local teams to help with the design, he would almost surely oblige.

Sorry if I am answering for Andrew... but FWIW 2415 is a very GP team from my personal experience.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

On the whole exposing weakness thing, I personally believe that GP means helping others in the pits, with mentoring, on CD forums etc. But to go easy on them in competition is insulting, no one wants to win when their opponent lets them win. On the field you give it your all, no exceptions, anything less isn't in the spirit of competition. Insulting "weaker" teams by going easy on them isn't in the spirit of GP at all. If you win great, if not, you tried your hardest, and if you do end up crushing a team, you tell them they played hard and fair and that it was a good match. Nothing more, nothing less.

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."

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

In this case it means that if your match is in fact a blow out you can not then further your standing by scoring for the opposing team. I think that making this change will result in a more accurate representation of the relative strength of schedule if you beat several good alliances in high scoring, close matches you are rewarded accordingly in your ranking score whereas if you play a few matches against alliances with missing or disabled bots you can't score for the opposing team to artificially inflate your strength of schedule which will also be reflected in your ranking, you still get the two points toward your qualification score for the win but your ranking score will be lower. A team that plays in and wins tough competitive matches will be rewarded for that and this system makes team try o do their best to score even in a losing effort because in a loss your score is reflected in your ranking score as well.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

I don't agree with the idea that it's desirable to prevent scoring for the opponent for a more accurate rank - just because two teams went undefeated and one had stronger opponents doesn't mean they're necessarily the better bot.

However, teams playing blowouts do have ways to help their opponents run up the score on the other side. They can throw or pass tubes, let them win the minibot race, etc.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

One must keep in mind that it's not all about strength of schedule; the rule penalizes defensive robots as well.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

I find it more specifically, the rule penalizes "weak" defensive robots. No offense but if the team's robot is unable to properly defend then the robot isn't much of a defensive robot.

I agree with the theory that controlling the center is key to defense rather than near the scoring zone. In the center defensive robots could not only block robots from going to score, but also help pave a path for robots on their alliance. Defending by the scoring zone means center is open. And in the middle the chance of a penalty lowers a bit.

Back with the OP's question:
I also agree with someone earlier mentioning that Gracious Professionalism and Competition should not be viewed as two separate entities.

In GP you help out the competition by helping to remove a hindrance that hides a team's true strength like a dead cRIO or battery.

While competing you show GP by showing all of your team's strength and giving the other teams the honor of facing your team at their best. Underhanded methods do not show the team at the best. If it is a blowout match then show mercy by no mercy. Just my views on this topic.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Amen and amen. (Somebody rep him - I gotta spread it around again.)

If a team pulls back to not play hard against a weaker opponent, how will that opponent know how much improvement is needed? And, then a GP team will follow that team back to their pit, and offer tips to improve their robot or their strategy.

Especially that last one - mutual gain.

I don't know why they put in an anti-scoring for opponents rule this year. Some years it is legal. It was added in Team Update 4 this year, but I think that was only to clarify that you couldn't score for an opponent, even if you could do it without entering their ZONE.

In the ranking system, there is a benefit for having scores as close together as possible. There is no benefit in scoring a blowout.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Maybe the GDC didn't like seeing scoring for the other alliance to help your alliance's ranking score.

In scoring a blowout you have to remember that others teams will be scouting. It doesn't matter what your seed is if everyone knows how capable your team's robot is. It is always desirable to pick your own alliance but I am firm in the belief a good robot and drive team will bring forth fruit. Someone on Chief Delphi posted their assessment that this year, two good robots can beat 3 average robots. I believe in this because of the nature of the challenge requiring speed and well designed scoring mechanisms. Having good minibots helps close the gap also.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

I will tell you a story, I think this shows well how gracious professionalism and a competitive spirit may coexist well. It is the finals of cagematch (an indiana off season invitational) and I am Driving for my team, we are winning and a team who's rookie driver is getting frustrated (i will not divulge the name/# of the team) decided to ram our robot to try and stop us from scoring. It didn't work they got a yellow card and we won the match. In between that match and the last match we were in the pit and the other team requested a tool. Without hesitation I took it over to them and they fixed their robot in time for the final match where they rammed us for a red card. In the heat of the moment I was pretty mad but I no longer hold any kind of grudge and I was still pretty psyched because we won the second competition in our team's history despite everything. Now one of their former team members is a mentor on our team. I think this shows how cool FIRST can be.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Just remember: all teams are defeatable. Remember the 1980 Winter Olympics; America, the underdogs, beat the Soviet Union's undefeated hockey team.

Another note: sportsmanship and competition go hand and hand. In any sport, whether it is football or track and field. As the ball is snapped, you pound the guy across you and drive him until he is on his butt. After the whistle blows, you help him on his feet; repeat every down.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

I agree that, at times, these two ideas seem to conflict with each other. However I think that there is a healthy balance that can be found.

First, a competition is only interesting when you compete against another evenly matched team and you both play at your best. So in the interest of a great competition, teams should attempt to help other teams out.

However, once teams compete on the field the gloves should go off! It's totally fair to exploit design flaws in the other bot just like it's fair to exploit strategic and tactical errors made by the other teams. I owe this to my opponent and they owe this to me. Anything less is not fair.

Where things become blurry are:
1. Designs - if we have a great design idea during build season should we share it with everyone?
2. Strategy at games - I know I said exploit this, but do you go out of your way and give advice to EVERY team in the competition? Or should you let them figure out the optimal way to play the game for themselves?

To go full circle, there is a line between GP and intense competition. The debate is just where exactly is that line.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Don't forget that I think 2 rookie teams got onto Einstein last year and did pretty well.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

You get ranking points based on how many points your opponents score. If your opponent never scores, you get no ranking points. Ergo, an undefeated defensive team is ranked lower than an undefeated offensive team. The rule penalizes ALL defensive robots.

That was a great movie.

You deserve like nine thousand internets for this. I'll just rep you and put that in my sig. :D

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Now I would say that it does not matter if the other teams know our designs or strategies. Now consider this: football coaches trade game film with other coaches. That is essentially giving all the teams the strategies and designs. The coach now knows every play of the other team; he also know what kind of plays are called during certain situations. What wins games are the "Max"s and "Joe"s, not "X"s and "O"s. What that means is that the games are won by they players not the strategies. The opponent may know what plays we are running, but we will drive it down their throat and outperform them on every level.

Sorry for so much football analogies, but football is a wonderful sport. You will be surprised how much you can learn from it.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Sports can be a good analogy but if we are only applying the question/discussion to a game, then we have already lost.

Jane

P.S. It hurts to see this typo in this title.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

typo fixed ... pain relieved ;) ... wooo for moderator tools

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Sorry about that. I can't spell to save my life. Ask me to engineer you something and I'll give you a thousand designs, but ask me to spell a 5th grade level word and I'm stumped. :o

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Going off-topic here, but you'd better try to learn to spell. There's a lot more to engineering than putting things together. You have to sell your designs - either literally to customers or figuratively to bosses, clients, coworkers, etc. Since you can't speak to them all individually, the only method is a good technical report on your product and process. Good writing skills are a must.

Re: Gracious Proffesionalism VS Competition
 

Thank you for the advice. Writing is not my problem per-say, it's just the spelling part. I think I speak quite eloquently when I need to and my grammar isn't too bad. I'll just have to make sure that I use spell check ;)