![]() |
Re: Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage
Quote:
Quote:
I suppose the other primary approach is to tilt toward dealing with intentions before the system is announced; and then after it is announced, dealing with the actual implementation. I hope that most folks would agree that there is room in FIRST for both approaches and that neither suffers from some great moral, ethical or logical flaw. I think both groups use a perfectly reasonable set of ethics and create perfectly reasonable educational experiences for students who pay attention to which path is chosen, and why it is chosen; and who are (implicitly or explicitly) trained to understand that both paths exist. Blake |
Re: Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage
Quote:
As for the rest, I think Alan said it as well or better than I can. |
Re: Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage
Quote:
Moreover, what's to say a team should do what was intended? After all, from time to time, FIRST accepts (sometimes gracefully) the fact that mechanisms are occasionally designed to do things that weren't intended by the GDC. The fact that FIRST didn't rule against 71 in 2002 or 469 in 2010 indicates they're sometimes willing to countenance this, and the fact that FIRST severely restricted 68 in 2003 indicates that sometimes they're not. I think it's fair to assume the same applies to qualifying strategy: sometimes FIRST will permit a strategy that violates their intent, and sometimes they won't. But there's no a priori right answer, and insofar as we're looking to FIRST's intent for guidance on what's acceptable, we have to wait for their ruling. So that's why I think the more interesting question avoids trying to read the GDC's minds, and instead asks whether there's actually anything universally wrong with not giving 100% every match, from the point of view of a rational, honourable team. |
Re: Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage
I should have said that in 2010 I was approached by our one of our alliance partners about our alliance intentionally losing. If all 3 agreed upon it, then we would have given 100% to our alliance strategy of seeding higher rather than 'going down in a blaze of glory' by getting annihilated by a far superior alliance. Such was the system in 2010, and I didn't realize until Atlanta that I'd made a mistake.
Other than that, I've only ever been approached about it once ... (Blake might remember it from a long time ago) to which I was almost kicked off the team for refusing, yet I stuck to my guns, we won the match, and things worked out in the end anyways. |
Re: Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage
Quote:
Quote:
More over, where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable? Should a team be condemned if they decide to skip a match in order to fix their robot? Or should they put their semi-functional machine on the field and potentially end up hurting even more alliances later in the day when their robot still isn't 100% working? Should I give 10/10 of my alliance partners a robot working at 50% or give 5/10 of them a robot working at 100%? What if the latter case is 7/10? 9/10? And should I potentially deprive my team, and my potential elimination partners, of a chance at a 100% working machine because we kept fielding a partially functioning robot and didn't have time to fix our issues? And interesting example happened in the elimination matches at Championship this year. Team 71 sat out Final match 2 on Curie. I don't know exactly why or what happened, but it seems like (with their alliance leading 1-0 in the series), they sat out match 2 in order to fix their robot for match 3. Presumably they, and likely both of their alliance partners, felt that 71 would do a better job once repaired than a back-up bot would do. Their alliance would eventually lose the finals, even with 71 back in match 3. 2826 and 103 (71's partners) would only lose by 6 points in match 2, which 71 sat out. Hindsight is 20/20, but did the blue alliance (or 71 specifically) do anything that you would perceive as "wrong" by not "trying their hardest" to win match 2? By not calling a back-up bot or fielding a partially functioning robot? |
Re: Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage
"The purpose of the qualification matches is to allow each TEAM to earn a seeding position that may qualify them for participation in the elimination matches."
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage
I think this quote (which I will attribute to 'anonymous', as it isn't mine but I can't find the source) sums up the situation quite nicely:
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. |
Re: Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage
Sadly I've seen this happen twice where our team was the "victim" and a partner simply stopped playing to lose the match. And our team was approached once by a lower ranked team with the "idea" of them deliberately throwing a match to guarantee our seeding and their partnership (we didn't go for it)
Oddly at least 2 of these teams were CA teams who supposedly were pillars of GP For the record. Any time your team doesn't do it's best you not only harm your alliance partners but you cheapen yourself. I have no respect for these unscrupulous people |
Re: Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:27. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi