Gracious Professionalism?

[Tuba4]

The following is a recap of an incident I witnessed at a recent regional. The names have been omitted to protect the not so innocent.

My team was on the bubble of being an alliance captain. If one or two alliance captains were picked, we would move up and select. I was busily finalizing our pick list when a student from another team approached me and another one of our mentors. This student told us their robot was broken, would not run and we should not pick them. I took this individual at his word. I could see his team's pit. They were two or three spots away from us. The robot was there, but no repair activity was taking place. This was at most 5 or 10 minutes away from the start of the alliance selection process. So it certainly looked like the robot was beyond repair.

The selection process began. And as expected we did move into the process and became an alliance captain. We were subsequently picked by a higher ranked alliance.

The plot thickens. When it came time for the number one alliance to make their second choice, lo and behold they picked the team that told us their robot was broken. This alliance of course went on to win the regional.

Thoughts anyone? Ever had an experience like that?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tuba4

Thoughts anyone?

My thoughts are that we should all worry about our own actions and integrity, and let other teams worry about their own.

If indeed this is true, you now know more about the team in question than you did previously, and can take that new information into consideration going forward.

I'd leave it at that. And delete this thread.

/my thoughts

[xSAWxBLADEx]

I have seen this not this year but last year. we were 7th seed and a team did the same thing to us. It says the extreme opposite of Mr.Kamen's vision for FIRST. If you want to be picked by the first seed alliance go up to the team that you think might pick you and show them your scouting. You show them a better pick than you. Please don't say that your robot is broke. This is extreme ungracious professionalism and it's sad to see more teams doing this. I feel you discust.

[JaneYoung]

There's always a way to get around core values and the visionary aspect of the program, isn't there? Playing dead sounds like a great work around.

What does that teach the members of a team that are a part of the game of playing dead? That's my question.

Jane

EDIT: After reading Patrick's post below, I thought about deleting my post, initially. I've rethought it and have decided to leave it in as food for thought - not as an assumption or criticism.

[pfreivald]

The team didn't play dead, by the way. They had a known, legitimate hardware problem with their drivers' station -- and by the way it did impact play once during the elimination tournament, though fortunately for them and their alliance it wasn't disastrous.

The facts here have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have good friends on the team in question, and when I heard this rumor before elims started I did something crazy -- I went and spoke with them about what I heard. The response was, "Yeah, we have a broken joystick. It cuts out intermittently, and it's been a problem all weekend."

They were as surprised as anyone that they were picked in spite of this problem -- and it's wonderful that they contributed well to their alliance throughout eliminations.

[Tuba4]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The facts here have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have good friends on the team in question, and when I heard this rumor before elims started I did something crazy -- I went and spoke with them about what I heard. The response was, "Yeah, we have a broken joystick. It cuts out intermittently, and it's been a problem all weekend."

Where to start with this...The facts are correct. There were three people party to this particular conversation. Only those three people would know what was said. After the student left, I spoke with the other mentor that was present. I recounted what I heard and it was confirmed back to me.

And curiously enough, the component we were told could not be repaired was NOT a joystick.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tuba4

Where to start with this...The facts are correct. There were three people party to this particular conversation. Only those three people would know what was said. After the student left, I spoke with the other mentor that was present. I recounted what I heard and it was confirmed back to me.

And curiously enough, the component we were told could not be repaired was NOT a joystick.

There's nothing I can say to that except that I simply do not believe it. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying that somewhere the facts got confused -- perhaps by the students, perhaps by you, perhaps somewhere in the telling.

I stand by my original post: even if you're 100% correct on the facts (and thus I am not), posting it here is the wrong way to deal with it.

[JosephC]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

There's nothing I can say to that except that I simply do not believe it. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying that somewhere the facts got confused -- perhaps by the students, perhaps by you, perhaps somewhere in the telling.

I stand by my original post: even if you're 100% correct on the facts (and thus I am not), posting it here is the wrong way to deal with it.

Emphasis mine. I agree 100% with the bolded statement. If you have a problem with a team, talk to them about it person to person, or PM them. The entirety of Chief Delphi doesn't need to know about it.

[BrendanB]

Whenever I hear this, I ask what is broken sometimes it is basic and other times it is detrimental. Odds are the number 1 seed didn't know about the issue, picked them, and fixed the problem over lunch or said team told everyone but the number 1 seed that they were broken because the number 1 seed said they would pick them if they were still around.

In either scenario whether false or true its not my team, not my problem, and we probably shouldn't be talking about the GP of another team on an online forum. Its kinda like gossiping about the integrity of another person, you're just dragging yourself down even more.

[Seth Mallory]

This thread brings up a very good point that I try to teach. It is not what you say but what you are heard to say. This is why at times I ask for a summery of what I have just instructed someone. The problem could be between fellow team members and the misinformation is spread of as the message is given to other teams. Or a team may hear it differently. People hear differently. At FIRST you can have hurt feelings. Where I work you get sued or fired. This is a good lesson to learn from.

[Swan217]

I'm kinda astonished that nobody's brought up the most important issue, which is scouting/strategy communication.

Let's say I'm team 817, and I know that team 3113 is instrumental to our strategy, more than any other team. First of all, I know that they are, because I've scouted every single match, and know exactly what they're capable of. I also know that if there's an issue with their robot, it didn't take place on the field, because there's no scouting data on it. So unless they fried their electronics, I'm going to assume it's a fixable issue. Or if they did have an issue with their flux capacitor in matches 32 & 48, I know what it is. So the most Gracious Professional thing I could think of is to track down 3113's mentors and ask if my 817 mentors could help fix their robot before eliminations.

And getting back to scouting, I wouldn't be trusting the word of a student to know what's fixable or not. He could've overheard other 3113 students or mentors talking and misunderstood. I never give pit scouting credence. I tell all my students, "If someone comes up asking about the robots capabilities, tell them to watch the matches." I may even believe myself that my robot can score 10 balls in auton & balance in 5.3 seconds, but unless it translates into QPs, it doesn't mean squat what I say.

Take it as a lesson learned about scouting & next time, ask not what your alliance picks can do for you, but what you can do for your alliance picks.

[Chris Fultz]

A few years ago we had an incident with behavior from another team towards one of our students.

I instructed our students to "keep it off of CD". Instead, I found the team website and made contact with the lead mentor. We had some email exchanges and resolved the concerns. The mentor and rest of the team had no idea of what had happened but addressed the situation and we all moved on. Right now I don't even remember the team involved - so our discussion closed the issue. Had there been a debate on CD I am sure there would still be open wounds.

So, my point is, in these "situations", have a team mentor contact a mentor from the other team and have a discussion to get a clear understanding. The true story is usually somewhere in between.

[elemental]

I can understand where the team that told you they were broken were coming from. Last year, I told a rookie team not to pick my team for eliminations. My team's robot was a poor performer and the rookie's robot never scored a point despite the fact that they were seeded 4th. We would not have been a good choice for them and I suggested other teams they could choose who were more capable.

Eliminations came and, to my team's surprise, we were chosen by the 7th seed and then ended up winning the quarterfinals against the same rookie team I talked to previously.

In the end, I did feel rather bad about the situation. However, I also knew that we would not have helped if we were picked by the rookies due to our own scoring issues.

Perhaps the team that told you their robot was broken did so because they thought they would cause more problems for your alliance than help it.

Originally Posted by elemental

Perhaps the team that told you their robot was broken did so because they thought they would cause more problems for your alliance than help it.

This. Not all robots work with other robots. A robot that scores well with you may not be of any use on another alliance. It's nothing against the team. Their strategy may not work with your strategy.

Another option regarding the OP's post. What I'm thinking is that, like Brandon said, the 1st seed told them if they were doing well by alliance selection time, they'd choose them. If another alliance before the 1st alliance chose them, and they declined, the 1st alliance may think their robot is still broken, and therefore don't invite them to join the alliance because of that. The one team who invited them earlier just ruined the team's chances of alliancing with the #1 alliance, by making it seem as if they are still broken. It could also be that the #1 alliance told them that they know how to fix the problem and will help them during lunch.

All in all, I highly doubt that the team in question purposely lied to you to bring you to a disadvantage.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

This. Not all robots work with other robots. A robot that scores well with you may not be of any use on another alliance. It's nothing against the team. Their strategy may not work with your strategy.

Another option regarding the OP's post. What I'm thinking is that, like Brandon said, the 1st seed told them if they were doing well by alliance selection time, they'd choose them. If another alliance before the 1st alliance chose them, and they declined, the 1st alliance may think their robot is still broken, and therefore don't invite them to join the alliance because of that. The one team who invited them earlier just ruined the team's chances of alliancing with the #1 alliance, by making it seem as if they are still broken. It could also be that the #1 alliance told them that they know how to fix the problem and will help them during lunch.

All in all, I highly doubt that the team in question purposely lied to you to bring you to a disadvantage.

If they were selected by an alliance other than the alliance they wanted to be selected by and they declined it wouldn't matter what the 1st seeded alliance thought because they wouldn't be able to pick them.

You cannot decline and then accept a different offer.