[gblake]

Long post...

Originally Posted by Duke461

It most certainly is not appropriate. ...

You do not give an logic to back up your assertion - I assert that it can be appropriate, in some narrowly defined circumstances, to consult with your allies and purposefully lose (not "throw" or "tank") a match.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... throw a match like that. It isn't fair to team C, or the third team on your alliance, most of all it isn't fair to your team. ...

The OP didn't say they were going to "Throw a match". That phrase has connotations of secretive, duplicitous, violations of trust and/or rules. The OP said "lose on purpose".

They could clearly and publicly announce and explain their intentions and purpose. They could (should) discuss the suggestion with their allies and carry it out only with their allies' permission.

All of these clearly take the situation out of the match throwing realm and into the realm of thoughtful execution of a strategy aimed at maximizing their chances of winning the tournament.

Sometime you sacrifice a pawn to win a chess match. Sometimes you walk a batter to win a baseball game. Sometimes you hit a sacrifice to win a baseball game. But - You 100% don't sacrifice unconsulted allies or allies who disagree.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... my kids would be absolutely floored if we purposefully tanked a match as a 'strategy'. ...

So I guess they would be pleased to tank a tournament instead? (again "tank" has negative connotations that imply skulduggery, and that is not what was described).

Originally Posted by eyu100

Well, you can lose a match without making it obvious that you're throwing it - have your robot "break" (like by secretly deleting the code) and have your human player throw badly. Obviously, you shouldn't do this.

This would be bad. It would be deceitful and would indeed be "throwing the match". That is not what the OP described.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... it's not about the competition, ...

I beg to differ. People I respect have encouraged us all to "compete like crazy" when on the field. FIRST isn't only about the competition, but it does contain a useful and important component that is about competition.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... What's inspiring about making a fool out of yourself to win a plastic trophy and a blue banner? ...

This and other statements you have made seem to indicate that you are not giving the question a dispassionate examination, but are instead substituting prejudices brought in from other domains, and knee-jerk reactions, for debate. However, the OP should take into account that many people will have similar reactions. It is evidence that not everyone uses game theory math to guide their strategies.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... I propose that winning is this manner is more detrimental than losing fairly, even losing horribly, but fairly. ...

You create a false dichotomy, there is no evidence that the strategy proposed is unfair in any sense, or that following a strategy that causes a team to forgo winning a tournament should be declared "fair".

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... If B is in 30th, the odds are slim they'll even have a chance to pick C. ...

Irrelevant to the discussion of the premise submitted by the OP.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... What does a victory mean? A plastic trophy and a blue banner? Or improving the lives of the students involved? Winning a tournament at the expense of integrity, as mentioned before, is not going to do anything towards improving a students life, or their opportunities, or their own morals. As much as high school students like to disagree, they're still being molded and growing, and learning to win by cheating (and that's what this is) is a terrible lesson. ...

Again another almost absurdly false dichotomy that assumes some sort of heinous treachery on the part of Team C. Teaching students to consult with their allies about publicly pursuing a strategy that wins a tournament would be a heck of a good lesson to teach them. Among other things, it would teach them that Pyhrric victories are not something to covet; and that looking past your nose in order to keep your eye on the big picture is a valuable skill that should be cultivated. Again, however, part of this situation's big picture is considering the likely reactions of folks who enjoy Pyhrric victories and invest each match with a moral purpose that actually doesn't exist in this context. ... [/quote]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... They seem to mean a lot more to you than myself. ...

Yet another unfounded, disrespectful pejorative, assumption that doesn't belong in a useful debate.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... People (myself included) are making a ridiculous point out of highlighting the logical flaw of B being a 30th seed as a mild rejection of your idea I believe. I obviously can't speak for them personally, but I do believe the intent was to politely dissuade the idea. If I'm correct, that should give you a pretty clear indication what the opinion is of this strategy. ...

Yours and the others you refer to are not the only voices responding.

Originally Posted by santosh

... Let the red dots rain.

I'll go down with you

Originally Posted by thefro526

... I know I'd seriously be considering doing something that's not "right" in hopes of making it to Einstein...

Another false dichotomy couched in prejudicial terms. I wouldn't consider doing anything that wasn't/isn't "right"; but, when done without deception, I assert this tournament-winning strategy isn't "wrong". It might contain flawed logic in that it might not maximize Team C's chances to be on the winning alliance, but it isn't ethically wrong.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

In what way is cheating (albeit subtlety) considered what is best for a team? ...

In what specific way does the OP suggest cheating? I presume your answer will include citing a plan (in a quote taken from the OP or a subsequent post) to violate a specific rule.

Originally Posted by santosh

... If I had to throw a match to win a world championship, ...

In common contemporary English, "Throwing a match" implies deception. The OP made no mention of deception. Otherwise, I agree.

Originally Posted by Joe G.

... Sabotage within any type of team is frowned upon, ...

The OP did not suggest sabotage. They were silent about consulting with allied teams. I choose to presume that they would only carry out this strategy if their allies agreed with it.

Originally Posted by Joe G.

... Play your hardest at all times. ...

It appears the OP is playing their hardest, by considering all possible ways to to use the tools at their disposal to succeed in the field competition aspect of FRC.

Originally Posted by Joe G.

... It makes the competition a challenge, and it makes the competition fair. ...

"Fair" is not an absolute. No competition of the sort that we are discussing is purely "fair" in all possible senses. Instead things like an FRC tournament are only "fair" is some defined sense(s). Arguing whether the proposed strategy is fair or unfair is a red herring.

Originally Posted by Joe G.

... not in shady, manipulative tactics. ...

The OP said nothing about anything "shady" or hidden. Arguing against manipulating the course of events (in a tournament) to tilt them in a team or alliance's favor is not going to hold water. Teams purposefully attempt to manipulate tournament outcomes from the moment they are formed. Manipulate is not a bad word, unless in your mind it carries a connotation of deception or cheating; and those are things that were not suggested by the OP.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

... Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners.

The OP didn't say whether they would do this as team or as an alliance. I choose to assume the alliance would be fully informed and in agreement.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

The purpose of the competition is to compete. Competing doesn't mean doing whatever necessary to win, competing is playing your best to try to win, and playing your best is more than strategy and points. You need to be able to play the game fairly, and honorably. Especially in FIRST the pressure is on to set a good example for the students, and to inspire. I am disappointed because I believe this 'strategy' to be a horrible example of proper sportsmanship, and integrity, and I would not want anyone teaching the kids on my team it's OK to screw someone else over, as long as it helps up win. ...

In my opinion (and reasonable people may disagree) you are not providing any evidence of unfairness, dishonor or "screwing over". See above.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... To answer your other questions, no, you should not consider the option, and I do not believe it is in the best interest of the team. ...

Again - Reactions like the one you have expressed in this thread, not the validity of the strategy or the result of a dispassionate examination of its ethics, are a reason to tread carefully in the minefield.

Originally Posted by Molten

... teach them something wrong) and win, you lost. ... you sent the wrong message to the students ...

Nothing "wrong" is being advocated, except perhaps by those who are advocating teaching your students to lose tournaments.

Originally Posted by Molten

... that it is ok to hurt your alliance if it is for personal gain. ...

One more time - When did the OP advocate doing this without the full understanding and support of their allies????

Originally Posted by Molten

... This situation is losing for personal gain. ...

No, this situation is about winning a tournament if your allies (I assume) support the method you recommend employing.

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

... right thing or the wrong thing, ... "anything you can get away with is OK" ...

You are asserting rightness or wrongness, without justifying the assertions. Opinions should be respected, but not advanced as facts.

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

... This isn't really that complicated.

You are right, it's not complicated. If your ally/allies agree(s) with it, then the math appears to says you should do it. However, the psychology of the rest of the world makes it dicey.

Originally Posted by dtengineering

... betraying your alliance partners is right or wrong. Kind of makes it a simple choice, doesn't it?

The OP did not say to do it in secret or without consulting their ally(s). Otherwise I think we agree.

Originally Posted by WizenedEE

... hurt your alliance parter ...

If you allies agree, then pretty much by definition, they aren't being hurt. The OP didn't say to conceal the strategy from allies.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

... Nevertheless, for this and other (perhaps less noble) reasons, I don't think that throwing a match is always a bad thing. After all, what underlies the expectation that your teammates should depend on you? It's a convention, (indeed one that serves us well most of the time), but is it also part of the tacit agreement that you make as a participant?² (And while you may believe it is, how can you be sure that everyone else feels the same way?)

Furthermore, who's in violation of the convention/agreement? The whole team? The strategists that put them up to it? The drivers who executed it? And was the violation the product of deep consideration, or a spur-of-the moment decision? If we're going to apportion blame, we've got to do it carefully, recognizing that every situation is unique.

What I think this really comes down to is a question about what FRC is. While it's reasonably obvious that it is neither a pure competition nor a pure collaboration, there is no one combination of the two that all teams can be expected to take to heart. Accordingly, they will differ as to their tolerance for strategies which are disproportionately beneficial to their team, and harmful to others. ...

I disagree with this part of your post for the reasons outlined above, but otherwise I applaud that you are actually trying to advance genuine arguments/debate, and I agree with much of it.

Originally Posted by NachoCheese

... If your teaching them that the excitement only comes from winning then they are not getting the full experience.

If you are teaching them that the excitement comes from successfully carrying out (or thoughtfully deciding against) an unusual strategy that comes from an insightful and out-of-the-box analysis of the situation, then they are getting more than the typical experience.

Originally Posted by EricH

The only way I'd throw the match would be if everyone on my alliance agreed to do the same thing. The odds of that happening are slim--after all, a win can move you up multiple slots in standings, potentially into top-10 or backup range.

If my entire alliance doesn't agree to throw the match, I have one choice left: play to win, no-holds-barred, drive-it-like-you-stole-it, full-blown do my best to win that match. And I would expect my opponents to be doing the same thing to stop me. If I lose then, that's because my alliance partners and I are up against a better alliance.

Then, if I wasn't picked by the team I wanted in eliminations, what would I do? Build the best alliance I could and try to beat that team at their own game.

Eric gets my full support.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

... Every team should try as hard as they can to win every match. To do otherwise is to shortchange your alliance partners, your sponsors, the spectators, and yourselves.

Why didn't you suggest winning every tournament or every autonomous period, instead of winning every match? Are you assuming that all three are the same? I know that they are not? Or do you believe is there something special about a match that doesn't apply to complete tournaments, or to portions of a match?

Blake