[DougHogg]

Originally posted by Norm M.
I have to disagree with this. The game is presented as a set of rules. It is up to the teams to figure out how to play the game. What is wrong, especially in the spirit of gracious professionalism, to work out a plan such that the losing alliance gets 100 qualifying points while the winning alliance gets over 300? If FIRST didn't want this to happen, the qualifying points would look something like the number of points scored by the winning alliance.

We saw examples of teams pushing boxes onto the opposing alliances side to boost up their score. How is this any different than making an agreement up front to not zero out each other's stacks? Was it unsportsmanlike to leave scoring points on the opposing teams side? Did the spirit of FIRST command us to knock down the stacks on the other side when their robots couldn't cross the ramp?

Goofy scoring systems are a part of the FIRST competition. If you want it to be a competition, then teams are going to have different strategies for maximizing their scores. Unsportsman like? I don't see it that way. If FIRST wanted the scoring to be Alliance RED against Alliance Blue, with no cooperation, they would set the qualifying points to be only their alliance points, with no adders for the opposing alliance. If they wanted it to be ruthless, they would award you the difference in scores.

The set of rules encourages cooperation, even between opposing alliances.

I get what you are saying. That is why we have to get the rules changed for next year. It is supposed to be a competition, not play acting. What if all 4 teams from every match got together and decided on what everyone should do so that they all get the highest possible points. That wouldn't be a competition, it would be a play, with 4 actors in every match. So it is time to alter the rules, so that collaboration between opponents is not a temptation. We just have to arrange the rules so they don't reward such actions.

What do they call it when 2 boxers get together to decide how the match will be run. They call it "fixing the fight".

Let's not get into fixing our FIRST matches. After all, the spectators think that they are watching a competition. Some of the matches are on TV. Let's not fake it. We just need to come up with some new scoring patterns that will result in interesting matches without tempting people to fix the match.

As to how people should behave given the current scoring, every team should strategize with their partners on how to optimize the score, but not get into making deals with their opponents. After all, how would you feel if the New York Yankees starting working out deals with other teams for everyone to get lots of home runs to make the crowd happy or something. That would be fake. Let's not go that way. We want an honest competition. It's a GAME. There needs to be opponents. Otherwise we are all wasting our time. NO OPPONENTS = NO GAME = WASTE OF TIME.