|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
making agreements also limits this "cooperation" to four teams. if we all agree not to make agreements, and figure out other ways of cooperating, it is no longer limited to the four that are in the agreement.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cooperation is not just for those 4 teams. The idea of everyone agreeing not to do it is the same as the everyone agreeing on doing it. It requires more cooperation and skills if we all agree on doing it. I think that would better promote FIRST spirit of "cooperative competition"
|
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by AlbertW : 17-03-2003 at 02:24. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
I tend to think of FIRST's spirit of "cooperative competition" as the comraderie that exists among teams working toward a fair competition. As an example, teams will gladly share tools, parts, expertise in the pits to help another team in need to make their robot competitive. I doubt any team's reasonable request for such assistance would be refused by a FIRST team able to help out.
I spoke with the player who admitted he came up with the idea and his rationale was one of "cooperation" among teams. I told him that the "cooperation" was only to the benefit of the 4 teams involved in the match, while the other 30+ teams were put at a distinct disadvantage. Since his team employed this strategy in a few subsequent matches, the "cooperation" then become a benefit to his team. I saw another team attempting to utilize this strategy - you should have seen the reaction by their human player when an opponent's robot autonomously rammed the tall stack he'd just created. ![]() Lesson learned: autonomous robots do not make agreements!! |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that the reason FIRST made the score equal to your team's + 2 X the loser's is so that 10 year veterans don't totally beat the new teams. Personally I think that the scoring system needs to go. Other ways need to be found to make it easier for rookies to compete. FIRST found some successful methods this year with the kit of parts having gear boxes, and the mid-field bar favoring low uncomplicated robots. (We chose a rookie team to join us in the elimination round partly because they caused havoc with our bins and stacks in a qualifying match.)
The problem with making agreements with your opponents is that it violates the basic idea of a competition. FIRST had cooperative matches in 2001, but then FIRST decided to go to a competitive format which is what we have this year. Teams expect that other teams will be competing. Audiences expect to see a competition between 2 teams. That is what the game concept is all about--a competition. If you want to change it to where all the teams on the field are working together to compete against other teams of 4, that should be announced as the format for the competition. To really see the problem with making agreements with your opponents, project that practice forward to all the possible ways of doing so. If all teams left each others stacks standing, no one would have an advantage, so they would have to come up with another way to cooperate to have an advantage: letting all the robots get up on top. Soon everyone would be doing that, and soon there would be no competition because they would be sharing the bins also. (They could push the 45th bin out of the scoring zone.) Making agreements with your opponents violates the basic idea of what a competition is. People watching such a performance will think that we are really weird. (Dean announced at the kickoff that we need to make the competition friendly to audiences so that we can grow faster and allow all schools to participate.) For a competition to be fair, everyone needs to know the ground rules. True there isn't anything in the rule book which forbids a player from making agreements with his opponents. Most competitions don't have to worry about such things. What advantage would a tennis player have if he made an agreement with his opponent? Not much. I guess they could agree to split the first 4 sets and then play hard on the last one to save their energy. Wow. Could you imagine the outcry if that happened? Our competition gives points based on matches which affect a team's ranking with everyone, so all the teams are affected when such an agreement is made. Basically we turn a competition into a fake because suddenly people who are listed as competitors are secretly working together. We had parents who went from LA to Phoenix and watched who were quite upset by what happened with the "agreements" between opponents. And as I said in the other thread on this subject, one team said they were going to vote on whether to withdraw from the competition and go home because they witnessed something occurring which they felt was unethical. Ultimately we need to get the rules on points changed so that they do not encourage teams to make agreements with the opposition. In the meantime, don't do it, because you will find that it does not bring about the rewards you thought it would. Winning by making hidden agreements would cheapen your victory. You want to win or lose without resorting to hidden agreements with people you are supposed to be in competition with. Teams should talk to their partners but not their opponents. Otherwise, we will have a fake competition and audiences will not want to support us. Do you want to take the chance of losing your sponsors? Would you like to see a newspaper article stating that some teams quit a FIRST competition and went home because teams were collaberating with their opponents? Think about it. If we are going to say that each match is a competition between teams of 2, then they need to compete. Otherwise it's a fraud. Fake. Not real. Phony. Dishonest. The point system does reward making agreements with your opponents, but I have talked to Jason Morella of FIRST and it wasn't intended for teams to do that. Actually it's a trap (unintentional, but still a trap). My advice to other teams is, don't fall in the trap. I guarantee that you will not be happy if you do. Witness teams in Phoenix who changed their ways, but still wound up feeling like they had lost the respect of the other teams. True, you can gain that respect back. Team 68 wrote a letter apologizing and getting other teams to agree not to make such agreements. I respect them because they took responsibility to restore the integrity of the competition. See the dictionary: "Compete: To strive against another or others to attain a goal, such as an advantage or a victory." You are supposed to be competing as a team of 2 this year, not a team of 4! |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I'll leave a stack up if it benefits my score. If that stack will give my opponent (and through them, my team) a better score, there's no reason to knock it over. What I will not do, however, is make any sort of agreement regarding that stack. If it is in both alliances' mutual best interests, I will leave it alone, but I will never, ever make a deal with my opponent before the match.
|
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
and for god's sake, stick to one forum. and sign our petition against this. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=19301 |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
I bet that something similar to this is what happened to pro-wrestling.
![]() |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Let me start this post by clarifying that this is MY opinion ONLY and does not necessarily reflect that of my team.
1. For those who have said that "winning the match/event is not important", If that is the case then why even put our robots out on the field? Winning is an important aspect of FIRST ... granted FIRST is about MUCH more, but winning the battle on the field is a significant part. The intense 2 on 2 competition is what makes it so exciting. 2. If you play this game with ANY brains, you realize that you don't want to go after your opponents stacks right away, but you should wait until you see if you need to knock their stack(s) down to win the match. We all know how the scoring works, and that by maximizing your opponents score you maximize your own ... NO AGREEMENTS NEEDED ... 3. If any team approaches our team to pre-arrange inflated QPs, I will encourage our team to agree to do it, then with 15-20 seconds remaining have one of our alliance partners attack your stack while the other guards ours (maybe this will at-least keep us from being approached on this subject). ![]() |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Couple things:
I reject the idea that the number of years in FIRST shows how much you understand about the spirit of FIRST. Thats just absurd, a freshman can understand the purpose of FIRST just as clearly as a 10 year veteran. So don't say 'You are just a rookie, you don't understand the spirit of FIRST.' Thats really really obnoxious. Both veteran teams and rookie teams have established pregame plans, so don't let it turn into a veteran vs rookie thing. Second, don't agree to a deal with an opponent and not carry through on it. If you don't think the deals are gracious professionalism then don't go with them. Making any kind of deal with no intention of following through on it is in no way gracious or professional, its a lie. That is far far worse then any pregame deal. If you make a deal, follow through, don't ever agree to something just to stick it to the other alliance. That really pisses me off. -Andy A. edit: Speling |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
![]() If you don't like it ... don't approach us ... |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
this is not stu's first year, he's not stupid. so lay off his back!! ![]() [edit] this thread is ridiculous and absurd. it should be closed[/edit] Last edited by David Kelly : 18-03-2003 at 17:27. |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I think the 3+ threads have accomplished enough discussion about this.
Let's put it on the back burner and bring it up in a week or so if there's more to be said. Ken L said it best: Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Cedar Point Dates, Round 1 | Jeff Waegelin | General Forum | 0 | 27-04-2003 20:57 |
| Video of 510 point round... | archiver | 2001 | 3 | 24-06-2002 01:57 |
| FIRST @ The Point...Who's Going? | archiver | 2000 | 0 | 23-06-2002 23:24 |
| Cedar Point Anyone? | archiver | 2000 | 9 | 23-06-2002 23:21 |
| point of lower deck? | Jay5780 | General Forum | 7 | 11-01-2002 21:21 |