[Taylor]

Preface: When discussing non-violent, non-destructive methods, Gracious Professionalism has nothing to do with team, alliance, or meta strategy. Put the GP measuring stick away. This isn't BattleBots - in fact, BB is expressly disallowed by 3.1.5.

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?

It's not explicitly disallowed. To me, this is analogous to "icing the kicker" or "icing the free-throw shooter" - not illegal, certainly prevalent, but to my mind not ethical and I would not want to associate with a team that employs these methods.
My greater FRC-view is that I know how hard our team works - at design, at fabrication and assembly, at strategy, at scouting, at practice. If another team bests us in any or all of those realms, and is on the opposing alliance, I will certainly do my best to win the match, but if the strategy allows it, I will work with that team given the win-win situation presented by the CB.

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?

1. Alliance strategy should be known before the match begins. Drive teams are literally standing next to each other - they can communicate easily. If one team exhibits this behavior against a fellow alliance member, I will assume one of those teams are going against alliance strategy for that match, and I will seek out the coaches after to determine why this behavior was used.
   

   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?

   When on an alliance, it is each team's duty to play as an alliance partner. Each team has an obligation to do what is best for their alliance in that match. In my view, that includes gaining as many QPs as possible, whether via a match win or CPs.
   

   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?

   I may be proven wrong when the Tuesday Update comes out, but I tend to think the GDC doesn't really care. Each year the game is laced with strategies and substrategies and that's what makes coaching fun. I loved Lunacy from a coaching/strategy standpoint. It's part of the challenge.
   That being said, if a local news station chooses to air footage gathered from an event of a robot exhibiting aggressive behavior (and I wouldn't begrudge them that), it would seriously undermine a lot of elevator speeches given to sponsors and partners who may have caught the evening news.
   

   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?

   In a match, there are not six teams. There are two alliances. Teams that choose not to comply with alliance strategy, I would classify as rogue and they are responsible for their own behavior.
   If an alliance strategy includes the CB, then great. If it's a tight match and an alliance would rather shoot those last three balls for a 2QP-0QP win vs. 2QP-4QP loss, they're entitled to that. Alliance strategy is certainly fluid and pragmatic given the game situation.
   

   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.

I hope the opposite. This is a level of strategy and gamesmanship not seen before in FRC play - I hope the GDC allows us to compete as we see fit.

Throwing Matches / Forcing Teams Not to Coopertate:

Is never valid. End of story. Unethical behavior and coercion have no place in sports - or life.

Caveat: In the early stages of 2010, 6v0 was not throwing matches. 6v0 was a valid strategy that used the tournament rules to everybody's benefit.

ps. Mr. Wright absolutely lives up to his name.