[Mike Martus]

Posted for Mr. Lim. by Mike martus

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim
The 2012 Greater Toronto East Regional was an amazing experience. I would like to thank all the individuals involved in the planning, organization, and running of this regional. As a UOIT graduate (B.Ed 2009) I am fiercely proud of my alma mater, and it was nice to finally see an FRC event here.

I have taken the time to distil my thoughts about the GTR-E competition into a series of points and questions:


Meta-Coopertition:

1. This year’s coopertition bridge points gave teams the ability to significantly affect the overall rankings.
2. If teams at a regional agreed to not cooperate with a certain team, it would lower that team’s ranking.
3. If teams at a regional agreed to always cooperate with a certain team, it would increase that team’s ranking.
4. Let’s call this practice “meta-coopertating.” Teams are cooperating as a group, yet competing against others, by selectively agreeing and refusing to balance.
5. Is “meta-coopertition” within the rules/spirit of coopertition points?

Coopertition Bridge Defense:

1. While “meta-coopertating,” teams may want to prevent the coopertition bridge from being balanced.
2. What level of defense on the coopertition bridge is permissible?

   Can we prevent other robots from getting to the bridge?
   Can you block the entrance to the bridge to prevent others from getting on?
   Can you drive on to the bridge, and leave it tipped such that no other robot can get on?
   Can you intentionally touch the bridge with an unbalanced robot to negate the balance?
   Can you lift/tip a bridge with robots on it to unbalance it?
   Can you ram a bridge with robots on it to unbalance it?

3. Coopertition bridge BALANCING causes the alliance allegiances to become blurred (Blue and Red are working together). While DEFENDING the coopertition bridge, should Red and Blue allegiances still be respected? i.e. if Red1 wants to balance the bridge to help Blue1, but Red2 does not want to help, can Red2 play defense on Red1?
4. Is it the intent of the GDC that no defense be played on the coopertition bridge? Should we just sit there and watch a successful balance occur, even though it will harm our team’s success?
5. Does coopertition imply that all 6 teams on the field have agreed to balance the bridge, or just a minimum of 2? If all 6 cannot agree, we have not successfully coopertated, thus should any team on any alliance be free to defend it as they wish?
6. There are no explicit rules governing the above scenarios; however, we have made assumptions about the appropriateness of each. I have no idea who is right, and who is wrong. I am hoping the GDC will give us clarification shortly.

Throwing Matches / Forcing Teams Not to Coopertate:

1. Blue alliance is the underdog in a match.
2. Blue alliance agrees to a strategy that requires Blue2 and Blue3 to balance on the alliance bridge for 20 points.
3. Without the 20 bridge points, it is a sure loss.
4. Red alliance approaches Blue3, and tries to convince them not to climb the alliance bridge but to coopertate instead.
5. Is the Red alliance (intentionally or not) asking Blue3 to throw the match?
6. Is it GP for Blue3 to unilaterally accept Red’s offer, knowing they have undermined any chance for the Blue alliance to win?
7. By trying to win, is the Blue alliance forcing Blue3 not to coopertate?
8. If Blue3 breaks from strategy and agrees to coopertate anyways, is the Blue alliance out of line if they defend the coopertition bridge?

6v0:

1. The 6v0 has made a return this year, and there are some compelling reasons to do it.
2. Blue alliance, the overwhelming underdog, is willing to concede the match, as long as they can still guarantee themselves 2 coopertition points by successfully balancing the coopertition bridge.
3. Red alliance, the favourite, includes Red1, a “powerhouse” team that can shoot and balance extremely well.
4. To give both alliances the best chance to balance, Blue alliance asks Red1 to spend the full 2 minutes balancing the coopertition bridge.
5. Since Red1 will be unable to score baskets, the entire Blue alliance agrees to score minimal points, such that the Red alliance will still win the match.
6. Is this 6v0 considered GP?
7. During the match, Blue alliance made a grave mistake – they scored too many points and are winning the match by a few points.
8. Blue1 is balanced on their alliance bridge, and if they get off, the loss of those 10 points will ensure a Red win.
9. Blue alliance pleads with Blue1 to drive off the bridge, and they eventually comply.
10. Blue1 is extremely angry because they wanted to showcase their ability to balance.
11. Who should Blue1 direct their anger at? Blue alliance? Red alliance? Red1? Themselves?

Imagine taking 36 teams of passionate students and mentors in a high-energy, competitive environment, with each trying to top the other in the most intense sport I have participated in.

Now imagine if those 36 teams all had very different answers to the questions above…

… it would create friction and misunderstanding between teams/individuals, as shown in this thread.

Many of you have heard 2nd and 3rd hand information from this regional. Most, if not all, of what I have heard is simply untrue. I respectfully ask the FRC community to understand that I will be addressing any issues that have arisen from the GTR-E directly and privately with the teams/individuals involved. There will be no mention of them on CD, or any other public forum.

To quote a fellow CDer, we should “rise above the hate.”