View Single Post
  #60   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 12-01-2016, 14:42
coachm's Avatar
coachm coachm is offline
Coach
FRC #3865 (Riley Robotics)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: Indiana
Posts: 19
coachm will become famous soon enough
Re: The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bstew View Post
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.



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.
I guess that I don't see advancing in the rankings necessarily as the objective. I see overcoming the challenges with engineering, quality of construction, and creative problem solving as the point of FRC. Working together with an alliance member to open a difficult obstacle is an example of creative problem solving. Finding ways to game the system and loopholes to pass through in order to get ahead is not. Suppose, and this may not be a likely scenario, but it is possible, that you advance by one of these agreements in the rankings past a team whose robot is objectively better than yours at scoring points without such machinations because they couldn't get someone to agree to something the same conditions. Is that a desirable outcome?

Maybe it's a philosophical difference about the point of FRC. I don't see the competition as the point, it's more like a fun bonus aspect. Perhaps that is partially because I am part of a team who is underprivileged... we have few resources, few students, and very little support from the school. We have to fight tooth and nail for a corner of space in which to meet. Generally speaking, we are not terribly competitive with our robots. It's easy to get blinded by the thrill of success and there is a strong social value placed on "winning", it's especially important in the US. But bottom line, I think you should advance in the rankings because your robot is objectively better at breaching obstacles, scoring goals, and challenging or scaling the tower than other robots. Those are the challenges set by the game design committee.

From a more objective point of view, I can see how T7 can be used to suggest that these agreements are within the rules. I still feel like they are underhanded in the overall scheme - but that's my opinion. Can you use an agreement with your alliance to get ahead of another team not in your alliance? Yes. But if you really wanted to get ahead, you should have built a better robot.

Further, I am a little disturbed by your concept of "ethical". The fact that everyone has access to the rules and is able to find ways around them does not make it "right" for someone to try to skirt the edges of the rules. Fair, maybe, but not ethically questionable. Win by completing the challenge or don't win. That's true in all aspects of life, even if it doesn't stop people from trying to get ahead any way they can.