[DougHogg]

Our team was saddened by the "collusion" that occurred at Arizona, and certainly hoped for a statement from FIRST, for which we are still waiting.

There has been a lot of confusion generated because there hasn't been a ruling on this matter, which is very basic to the game: are we playing 2-on-2 or team of 4. Per the surveys on chief delphi, the vast majority of people want this to be a 2-on-2 game.

Furthermore, the animation at the kickoff refers to using on board sensors "to detect opponent alliance stacks" and "to defend their own stacks from attacks by the opposing alliances." That seems pretty clear to me. In my opinion, by not making its intentions clear in this matter, FIRST has made it necessary for a lot of people to try to do FIRST's job, by posting messages, circulating petitions, writing letters or putting up flyers. Personally, I would like to thank all the teams for their efforts in that regard. We circulated a letter at the S. Calif. Regional referring to the chief delphi survey results and requesting that teams do not make "opponent agreements" for reasons given here and others. Team 330, the Beach Bots, circulated flyers that teams could post saying that they wouldn't accept "stack agreements", and we displayed one at our pits. Although I heard there was some collusion at the S. Calif. Regional, I personally didn't witness any. We will circulate the same letter at nationals. And we will get another flyer to post.

Here we have a case of the tail trying to wag the dog. As team members, we didn't create this game but we are trying to fix a loophole in it. We should be able to appeal to FIRST and have them handle it with a simple ruling.

Perhaps there is some idea on FIRST's part that it is educational for us to debate this matter. Well some debate is fine, but we have better things to do than spin our wheels for weeks over what the basic rules are.

At this point, I feel collusion has been a stain on the reputation of the FIRST Robotics Competition and has generated some hard feelings amongst teams, reducing the comradery. And that is not beneficial and in this case, it is totally unnecessary.

I feel for teams that put their heart into creating a robot that can stack really well who then find these "stack agreements" occurring. Why bother, if teams can just "make agreements" to have an 8 stack. (Our own robot, while not the best stacker, has stacking ability, so our stacker team certainly doesn't like it.)

I am unhappy about FIRST's unwillingness to take responsibility for clarifying this matter, and I do intend to make that known at the forums and in any other way possible.

If when a team discovers that some of their more exuberant members have made an "opponent agreement", they then take steps to stamp out collusion, to me, those teams are showing integrity.

However some of the teams that have used collusion feel it is necessary to justify their actions, thus further "cementing" their opinion on the matter. So then we have a rift forming, and that is never helpful to a group.

It is very clear that if collusion became rampant, the game would be a total bore with everyone going through choregraphed routines. I wouldn't invite anyone to see that, let alone my grandmother. So those of us who care about the game and FIRST in general, refuse to let it get ruined. (And yes it did get ruined in some matches. All that anyone has to do is go through the posts on this forum about the matches where collusion occurred. There is a certain sadness about many of those posts, a sadness I think brought about by a sense of impending loss of the FIRST we love.)

There is some idea that the game is not important. Well true, the spirit of FIRST, the teams helping each other, the personal growth we experience are more important than winning, but the game is the vehicle by which we are achieving these other things, so it is important to preserve its integrity. Otherwise, when we start to lose the integrity of the game, we start to lose the rest. In other words, the integrity of the game is an essential part of FIRST.

To FIRST officials, this is a 2-on-2 game as per the kickoff, so let's just say it out loud for the record. Please.

(Hey, well done to the referees in Canada who, per one post I read, just told the teams that the referees were watching for collusion.)