I found a
question on the FIRST forum asking that if the 4 teams in a match discussed beforehand to maximize their points to by coming to a tie (or attempting to) would it not be in the spirit of FIRST or not be graciously professional, to which FIRST answered a blatent "Yes."
Why in a competition where points (not wins) matters is it not in the spirit of the game to maximize your points? It can be argued that in other team sports (football for example) if you rigged the game by not scoring a touchdown or allowing the other team to score intentionally it would be a major offense, but they are playing to win, not to score the most points. And if they win 50-0 rather than 25-24 it's just as well for them.
If FIRST is going to say it is not in the spirit, then there's no reason to make it such that you get DOUBLE your opponents score. In every other year it was a major benefit and (I thought) somewhat encouraged to score for your opponents. Few did it out of gracious professionalism solely but rather because every point you gave them benefited you 3 times more than it benefited them. But regardless, it put everyone in the 'don't slaughter your opponent' mentality, eventually leading to gracious professionalism as the behavior whether you were trying or not.
There are plenty of experiences of the past, even ones I've had personally, where it has been 2 v 1 due to a broken robot and the two alliances discussed prior to the match to ensure the "1" didn't lose out completely if they weren't quite as capable. It doesn't always work right (but neither do many strategies), but when it does, all those teams gain. There have been points scored for the other team, there have been points intentionally NOT taken from the other teams in defensive moves, etc, etc, etc, etc.... why is this in the spirit of FIRST but all 4 teams cooperating not (hello 2001)?
I have a feeling there are people with views on both sides of this coin, and I think it's worth a civil discussion about. If it's against the spirit of FIRST to work on a plan with your 'opponents' beforehand.. I think its equally valid to say it is illegal to intentionally leave bins for your opponents to get, intentionally allow them to score points, or to chose to not remove points from them if you have the opportunity. These are all deliberate acts which allow your opponent to increase their points (and your number of points by double that if you're winning) as does telling them beforehand "we're going to let you get those x # of bins."
Back in the day of 1 v 1 v 1 competition, it was harsh when 2 of the 3 teams talked beforehand about ganging up on another team. However, it was the nature of the beast of competitions designed in such a way. It was part of the game and you rolled with the punches.
Since '99 however, FIRST has moved the importance off that type of competition and onto "coopertition", where points matter and your points depend in large part on your opponents'. It no longer benefits you to just win, it benefits you to cooperate, control, and gain as many QPs as possible (which means your opponents get close to as many points as you do as possible)
If you want to say it's not in the spirit of FIRST to 'rig' the game by scoring zero (like 2000) then ok, but to say it's not in the spirit to do your best.... just doesn't seem right to me.
I think it's strategic. It's playing the game to do what you set out to do. And if you set out to get the most points, you'll want your opponent to get some so you can get double. It's the nature of the beast...
I think it's an interesting point to discuss. Give it some serious thought and let's hear what you think...
(and this thread is not about trying to change rules or whatnot, just perspective on the game and how it is played strategically within the 'bigger picture' of FIRST's goals)