|
SWBaum,
I noticed the parallels to iterative prisoners dilemna too, and I agree, "collusion" is a VERY sound strategy. If this was nuclear war, or baseball, or NASCAR, where the objective is simply to win then I would use the "collusion" strategy without remorse. FIRST isn't like that. The biggest trophy doesn't go to the winners, it goes to the teams that best embody the ideals of FIRST and gracious professionalism. The objective of FIRST is to promote scientists and engineers and to inspire kids to want to be engineers. Its a little corny, but its very effective. If this was little-league baseball or high-school basketball teams would be tripping all over each other trying to sabotage each other. In FIRST teams go out of their way to help each other. I remember last year a team announced that they needed a PBasic expert and no less than 30 people showed up! Once you experience how FIRST teams interact, its intoxicating, you won't want to trade it for anything in the world. FIRST is like a cult...
The "collusion" strategy creates all sorts of trust problems. Teams are afraid of being betrayed. (If I was the #1 seed by 50 points, wouldn't it be a great strategy to sabotage a climbing alliance by betraying them at the last second?). It's not fun to watch. (Who wants to watch a game where we know the outcome ahead of time?) Regardless of whether its true or not, everyone will question whether a winning team that uses "collusion" "deserves" to be where it is, and that team will be hated.
I will gladly trade my teams success for the success of the mission of FIRST.
~Gabriel
|