Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lim
...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molten
...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamM
Blake,
I believe it is implied that B would be losing the match without the consent of C. Why would C agree to a strategy that leads to them eventually losing in the eliminations to the A-B alliance?
...
|
Sam/Alan, I understand and I don't disagree, but, out of all the responses in this thread, I think 2, maybe 3, took the time to say that they would find nothing wrong with the strategy if alliance partners agreed,
and that they would never carry it out if alliance partners disagreed. I found that willingness to think outside the box refreshing.
Everyone else appears to be saying that they abhor the strategy regardless of whether the entire alliance wholeheartedly embraced it (and would paint a scarlet letter on any alliance that employed it) . If I am mistaken, please correct me.
I too find it quite improbable that all three allies in the OP's scenario would agree to lose the match; but I think there are other scenarios in which all allies might agree. Regardless, please notice that I emphatically list agreeing allies and publicly announcing the strategy as two requirements that have to be satisfied before employing it.
Then we get to the topic of all the moral/ethical baggage that many folks pile on when they assert that losing one part of a contest to improve your chances of winning the entire contest is simply reprehensible. Well, I personally think that folks are extrapolating from other contexts, and in the process are overlooking the subtly different (odd/unusual) nature of FRC tournaments. In very extreme/unusual (but not impossible) circumstances the unusual nature of an FRC/FTC/VRC/etc. tournament can turn upside down the rules of thumb that apply in so many other contexts.
In just about any other sports type competition, I fully agree that trying your best to win every game/inning/quarter will monotonically maximize your success. That doesn't apply to every pitcher/batter match-up, or similar parts of games, but it is the rule to live by as far as games against an opposing team are concerned.
However, it is also undeniably true that there are many circumstances in which (
without deceiving any allies) the right thing to do is to lose a battle in order to win a war.
In some extreme circumstances I 100% believe an FRC team (
without deceiving any allies) can benefit on the scoreboard by intentionally losing a match. But - so long as many, many observers can be expected to react as strongly as folks have in this and other threads, and can be expected to apply the yardsticks applied in this thread; I would advise the teams in question to lose a battle (the tournament) in order to avoid losing the war (getting incorrectly labeled by observers).
The tournament arithmetic might be as clear as a bell in those extreme circumstances; but it is the psychology of the observers that is even more important. To me this (instead of blanket statements that anyone-who-does-it-is-evil) is the better and more educational answer.
Blake