Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter
Being one of those who agrees that crossing the mid-line for auto is "unGP" I'd like to explain why.
By contrast, 2006, 2008, and 2009 all had autonomous modes designed for defensive interaction. 2006: charge across to stop the auto high scorer from getting in scoring position/knock them off-line. Teams like ours expected that and designed to auto-track the target with our turret. That was an accepted design challenge, it'd be pitiful to gripe about such defense when it was within the game! 2008: I need to tear around the track to get lines and knock off balls... obviously there are going to be 5 other robots there, only 2 of which I'll be coordinating with! Now, perhaps I'll drive forward a few feet and try to prevent their robot from getting more lines or maybe I'll just rack up my own lines, while avoiding the other teams... again, well within the challenge. 2009: now I want to pin my opponents to our HP station (or score on them), which was obviously well within the rules and expectations of the game.
Really, I do disapprove of the defensive auto on both the cost-benefit issue and on the GP issue. This may be different for other teams. Without some provided definition for GP to rule out some behavior, I can't say my GP-compass is the same as yours. Without knowing what your auto is like, I can't rule out whether or not the cost-benefit analysis works for you. I do know that we have a reliable 1-tube auto and are working on a 2-tube auto. For the 1-uber auto vs. blocking 2-ubers auto, I have a relatively low-gain (9 pts.), very high-risk situation (my defense failing to block the first tube or getting a red card both look pretty likely)... I know enough about betting to avoid those situations.
My $0.02... As I said, they're mine not yours... :-)
|
I totally see where your coming from, and I think most would agree with you.
Again just as with ethics, things are never cut and dry, and now I'll explain why I think stealing a tube would be GP, and it somewhat follows 2006. In 2006 we killed it in autonomous, actually our autonomous basically got us into the finals. In the finals we ended up getting blocks (which as you said was perfectly legal). In my case smart and tactful defense is different from just defense.
Crossing the centerline to come barreling at an opponent is IMO certainly not GP.
I stated this in another thread, but for me something is GP if it is intended to progress both FIRST and the world, and at the same time does not break your ethical beliefs.
Barreling across the field does not progress FIRST in anyway. In 2006 it did because it made you think about avoiding obstacles (a very real problem).
However I don't think 2011 is the same.
That being said I would think stealing a tube would be GP because it would progress FIRST. To be able to scan your opponents side of the field, find a tube, sneak over and take a tube, all while not contacting another robot, would be an incredible feat.
The camera which should be the ultimate sensor in the FIRST arsenal is used in most cases by the driver, but doesn't actually act like a sensor. However by using the camera to find and an acquire the ubertube in autonomous would emphasize the actual value.
I only think it would be GP if you did not touch another robot, this should absolutely be a yellow card (red card second offense). but if you're able to sneak onto the opponents side, and make a tube disappear. that would truly progress FIRST.
As always some people look to the rule book as a basis for GP, but I don't look at the rule book as the laws of FIRST, and even if it was breaking the midfield is obviously a civil offense. Most people speed, which is illegal, do you think they are being unGP?
Again life is all about assessing cost to benefit ratio. Sometimes civil offenses are okay.