[Rook]

Pro-Agreement people say... Teams who have adopted this strategy should be congradulated for using their minds to maximize their scores.

I say... Not every good idea is morally sound. A bank robber may come up with the perfect plan to rob a bank. Society does not pat him on the back for his great idea and let him keep the money. I am not placing teams that use this strategy on the same level as bank robbers, but you get the point.



Pro-Agreement people say... FIRST is about cooperation. Teams making agreements are cooperating.

I say... So where do we draw the line? What if I can get the other alliance to throw the match completely? Say we have something they need. We agee to give them what they need for the win. I haven't looked in the rules, but I bet there is nothing that states a team can not throw a match if they want to. So does that make it OK? No, of course it doesn't. The same goes for agreements to maximize scores. The reason is it is unfair to the other teams who have not made any agreements.



Pro-Agreement people say... The simple fix is that all teams should adopt this strategy. Then we will all be playing on the same level.

I say... That is easier said than done. It won't happen because many people see these kinds of agreements as morally wrong. So, if one team doesn't partake in this strategy, then no teams should. Even if all teams did agree, it would remove a basic part of the game out of play. Stacking robots are no longer useful since human player made stacks are now the only stacks needed.



Pro-Agreement people say... The agreements have no affect on the outcome of the competition. The best teams will still win.

I say... Then why do it? But, anyway, it has already been pointed out many times how making these agreements could alter the outcome.


I do not agree with blacklisting or other hardball tactics to stop these agreemements from being made. Teams using this strategy are NOT bad teams or bad people. They just see things differently. I'm hoping that by vocalizing why this practice is not to the mutual liking of all FIRST teams, that all teams will agree to no longer make these deals, even if they do not agree with the morality issue. In that way, we can keep the competition friendly and fair. I hope that FIRST will in the future consider this issue when designing games. The coop game of 2001 wasn't a bad idea. I liked it. But, in the least, teams can be kept in the dark on who they are playing against, or find a different scoring system altogether.