[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by stevend1994

While it's a great way to word all of it and to address the situation, it'd be nicer if they actually gave a ruling and would set forth a penalty for some of this stuff. Obviously, there's no way to know if certain "meta-coopertition" strategies actually are those strategies, or if they're just a simple mistake. But they should at least address teams intentionally ramming the cooperititon bridge...

Despite the update being full of platitudes and non sequiturs, I do appreciate that FIRST has considered the controversy. Indeed, I'm all for outlawing predominantly destructive strategies employed against robots—but that's why we already have [G26]. And [G15] already covers bullying and most unsportsmanlike conduct. And there's [G12] for breaking the bridge (or other arena parts).

Is there any particular reason we needed an update to reinforce those obvious aspects of the competition?¹ (Yes, I see what happened at GTR East. And yet, this merely skirts the real issues exposed there.) Fortunately, this update also gives the impression of action, which ought to be enough to quell the controversy (mainly because of people, officials included, jumping to conclusions that will serve to limit the behaviour of a few).

Despite the unsavoury parallels with libertarianism in government, I do like the fact that they haven't established a new penalty for it. What would that new penalty be for, anyway? Perhaps I'll lay out my thoughts in more detail later (or in that other, excellent thread), but essentially, it would be an impractical judgment call to speculate about the intent and eventual effect of contact with the bridge.²

And despite what Woodie said, the issue isn't of "incompetent jerk[s]": it's of competent ones. Competent jerks are willing, under the proper circumstances, to hurt a few feelings to advance their position in the rankings. That's not against the rules, but it might be offensive to moral values held by individuals in the community. The competent jerks are taking that risk, in the hopes that the good that comes of it outweighs the bad.

In fact, I really shouldn't even go so far as to label all such teams as jerks—the (good or bad) motivations of one team shouldn't reflect on all teams utilizing these controversial strategies.

Originally Posted by Peck

I see it as a rule without being a rule. It is a way of saying: "this is not what we want, don't do it" that is perfectly black and white.

It accomplishes that effectively. I just hope we don't fall into the trap of believing that one carries the same weight (morally, practically, etc.) as the other.

Aside: Real life intervenes for a week, and I miss most of a good controversy? How disappointing.

¹ Given that the update changes nothing (apart from removing uncertainty about whether FIRST would change something), it would have been more than sufficient to say: 'The white bridge's purpose is to motivate participating players, teams and alliances to collaborate with other players, teams and alliances (even in the heat of competition) by rewarding them for working together. Bullying, coercion, and unsportsmanlike conduct—even directed toward that purpose—have no place in FIRST. No rules or official interpretations of rules are being changed at this time.' Next time, could they please spare us the recapitulation of FIRST's "principals"?

² For example: Is the team trying to adjust its own ranking? An alliance partner's ranking? An opponent's ranking? The winner of the co-opertition award? (Or a combination of those?) Or maybe they're trying to appear stupid to avoid getting picked by a #1 alliance they don't like. Maybe it's a driver who didn't read the rules. And what about honest mistakes that have similar consequences? And if there was a penalty for trying to unbalance the bridge, how would you determine the proportion of culpability between the robots on top, and the ones on the ground? (After all, if FIRST had added a new penalty, in a limited set of circumstances, you might reasonably unbalance the co-opertition bridge yourself despite being on top, in an effort to secure the penalty for an opponent that could be interpreted to be attempting same.)