[DougHogg]

Originally posted by sevisehda
I have yet to see any matches where it appears teams have fixed a match. FIRST has been about coopertition for the past 4 years. 3 yeras ago you had to cooperate. I don't see it fixing a match for everyone to agree not to knock over stacks, or to let everyone on top of the ramp. Its a strategic move in order to increase your score. It may be a little "cheap" but there have been other teams with strategys that some would deam cheap and others think are beautiful.


Personnaly I'd love to see 4 teams go out there with human player human player 4 stacks knock down the wall, only fight over the fallen boxes, then all 4 take the ramp. A score in the high 400 would be great. It doesn't hurt anyone it doesn't break any rules. Dean and the Judges would love it and teh crowd would go nuts over the score. It may not be as exciting as bots tipping but it would great when they posted the scores. Then maybe the stackers would have something to do.

But would you want to see every match with human player 8 stacks at each end untouched, the bins split between the teams (with 1 pushed out) and then all 4 teams on top of the ramp, match after match for 2 days?. Every match would have scores over 400, and all the same (unless someone dropped a bin). At that point, it becomes a farce and boring beyond belief. That is where the "agreement with your opponents" leads. If 1 agreement with your opponents is okay, then any such agreement is okay, and then we don't have a game. In Arizona, one team was ready to vote on withdrawing and going home because of the "opponent agreements".

(I don't think any stacker robot is going to be doing much stacking with 8 high human stacks just sitting there.)

Originally posted by Jason Morrella, FIRST

- I DID say that if I was still coaching a team, I personally wouldn't make one of these agreements.
...
- I did say that "if EVERY team and EVERY match had these agreements, it would be bad for the competition in my opinion".

From the FIRST Forum

http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...=360&trange=15
Gabriel
Posts: 1
Registered: Jan, 2003

"rigging" the game Posted: Jan 12, 2003 3:47 PM _
If the two alliances decide before the beginning of a match how they will play the game and execute a strategy where the two alliances cooperate with each other to acheive a tie, are the two alliances violating the spirit of FIRST or the maxim of "gracious professionalism"?

first
Posts: 1,519
Registered: Dec, 2002

Re: "rigging" the game Posted: Jan 12, 2003 9:28 PM _
Yes
36F

At the Arizona Regional, Team 68, 624 and 980 and others went around to ask teams to sign an agreement not to make pre-match agreements with their opponents to leave up each others stacks. That was effective in getting teams to stop making such agreements. However, Jason Morella told me that if enough teams petitioned in this forum that they do not want to have pre-match agreements between opponents, then FIRST would take notice.

Therefore if you would like to have competitions with no "opponents agreements", please sign our petition at
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=19301