[Travis Hoffman]

Rival corporations often partner together to share technology or collaborate on research projects. Both companies stand to benefit equally and positively from this cooperation. I consider any mutual agreement between alliance opponents to leave stacks standing to be a sensible and just agreement similar to those I mention above. Both parties recognize the possibility - not guarantee - of increased productivity (scores) as a result of such an agreement.

While these rival corporations recognize the positive mutual benefits technology and research sharing can yield, they also understand that they are competitors in a free marketplace, and to collaborate or collude any further to predetermine prices, profits, etc. in that marketplace is unethical and destructive to the concepts of competition and free enterprise. Opposing alliances that collude to predetermine the final match outcome in any way are destroying the competitive spirit of the competition and are creating a less exciting version of the game for the spectators. ALL TEAMS SHOULD FIGHT TO WIN THEIR MATCHES AT ALL TIMES. As discussed above, fighting to win does not necessarily include toppling the opponent's stacks.

In summary, I believe that:

A.) Agreements to leave stacks standing are fair, legal, and indicate an understanding of the scoring rules. The rest of the match MUST, however, be played with both alliances trying their best to win.

B.) Predetermination of match outcomes is unjust, destroys game excitement for the spectator, and violates the spirit of FIRST.

C.) It would be difficult and perhaps foolish for FIRST to institute disciplinary actions for match "fixing", primarily because it would be hard to demonstrate concrete proof of such violations, and such a system would only serve to spread mistrust and doubt among teams at these competitions.

I hope everyone can take a step back from this argument, relax, and take a breather. I wish those people who have a problem with the conduct of other teams would put their faith in gracious professionalism. Let's trust that those who predetermine match outcomes learn the error of their ways (their conduct in the qualifying rounds certainly doesn't help them any during the eliminations, does it?). In the meantime, perhaps it would be more honorable, productive, and preserving of our sanity to focus on improving the quality and performance of our own teams. That is the one thing we always have direct control over, and isn't it more satisfying to celebrate our own accomplishments than to question the performance of others?