View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 12-01-2016, 13:50
bstew's Avatar
bstew bstew is offline
Registered User
FRC #3928 (Team Neutrino)
Team Role: CAD
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Ames, IA
Posts: 62
bstew is a splendid one to beholdbstew is a splendid one to beholdbstew is a splendid one to beholdbstew is a splendid one to beholdbstew is a splendid one to beholdbstew is a splendid one to beholdbstew is a splendid one to behold
Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coachm View Post
In general, I think the idea of "agreeing" with the other alliance on easier defenses, scoring intentionally in your own tower, or any other agreement I'm seeing posted on these threads in an effort to boost teams' rankings and scores artificially is UNETHICAL at best and CHEATING at worst, even if the rules don't specifically prohibit it.

Seriously, why even bother building a robot to play the game if you are going to collude on ways to advance in the tournament without actually playing the game? It's dishonest, and I hope that referees catch anyone attempting it. As a coach, I would prohibit my team from engaging in any such agreements. The point of FIRST and FRC is to overcome the challenges and play the game, not weasel around the rules and try to advance to the next level.
That's an interesting opinion. Why do you think advancing in the rankings is not a part of the game? FIRST created a game that is designed so that teams could help each other advance in the rankings. Was coopertating in 2012 or 2015 in order to boost both alliance's rankings collusion? The only difference I see here is that in 2012 and 2015 it was more explicitly stated in the rules.

Playing based on what you feel the intent of the rules is, according to the game manual, against the intent of the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2016 Game Manual
The intent of this manual is that the text means exactly, and only, what it says. Please avoid interpreting the text based on assumptions about intent, implementation of past rules, or how a situation might be in “real life.” There are no hidden requirements or restrictions. If you’ve read everything, you know everything.
While you define these strategies as "trying to weasel around the rules," I view them as following the text based on exactly and only what it says. As there are no hidden requirements or restrictions, anyone who reads FIRST's manual for what it says could see that these strategies are not only legal, but also ethical because everyone has access to them unless they artificially restrict themselves. It seems that a team playing to the best of their ability would try to boost their rankings, not restrict themselves to their preconceived notions of the game's intent.

This is how I see these agreements, if you disagree, please let me know why.