[DougHogg]

Originally posted by Sean_330
As a referee at the Silicon Valley Regional in San Jose, Jason made it clear in the driver's meeting that FIRST was neither for nor against it and it was up to the teams themselves to do what is right. We saw neither collusion nor any hard feelings, because the teams put their differences behind them and got on with the competition. Everyone had fun, and it was an awesome event.

Very well done to everyone in San Jose.

After seeing "opponent stack agreements" in Arizona, and reading comments on this forum about some of the "boring" matches in Florida and other regionals involving such agreements, I was very happy to hear they didn't occur in San Jose. What occurred in San Jose (and other regionals with no "stack agreements") is the FIRST that I love and am trying to protect. Maybe this was helped along by the posts on chief delphi and the survey results showing that the majority of people are against such agreements. Anyway, the tide has turned, and I for one intend to help keep it that way. Why? I don't want boring matches. That is not good for FIRST. In fact Dean himself said that we need to make the game more audience friendly, and "boring" games won't help that cause.

Quite honestly, I couldn't ask a team of mentors and students to work their hearts out on a robot if the competition continued in the direction of "opponent agreements". For example, why work for days to make a robot that can stack if teams may just agree to make your stacker worthless?

Originally posted by Sean_330

Furthermore, speaking as a referee, I have no idea how it would be physically possible to enforce the "no collusion" rule should there exist one in the future.

I agree. The referees really can't be expected to make such a ruling. However referees can't tell if someone designed and made new parts after the shipping date either. That is left to the gracious professionalism of the teams, as should this matter. We still tell the teams that they are expected not to continue building after the ship date. We can do the same with regards to "stack agreements". For the Nationals, FIRST can just ask the teams not to discuss their matches with their opponents. Then next year, we can change the scoring system so it doesn't celebrate (reward) such agreements. That will save us all a lot of time and energy trying to keep things on track.

"Stack agreements aren't bad because they are against the rules. People who made stack agreements aren't bad people. Stack agreements are bad because they are bad for the game and thus bad for FIRST. Why? Because if it became the norm, it would cause a deterioration of the game. The game would become a play with bunch of robot actors, as in professional wrestling. Personally I don't want anyone comparing FIRST to professional wrestling. You might say that the game didn't deteriorate to that point, so why all the worry. I say it didn't happen because people who care made sure it didn't. My hat is off to everyone who has helped (talking to people, by posting, by writing letters, flyers, posters, etc.) to keep this competition on track by which I mean a 2-on-2 competition where opponents are opponents and where we can ascertain which robot design and driver team is the best.

At the end of the season, I expect to learn which strategy worked the best. Because of that, I will be able to think better next year, and try to help come up with a better strategy for our team. And that gives me something to come back for next year. I just want to know that the best strategy really did win. Then we can celebrate that team with no reservations, no doubts about how they got there. It is awesome! Let's keep it that way.