Gracious Professionalism VS Competition

[Dr Theta]

In this case it means that if your match is in fact a blow out you can not then further your standing by scoring for the opposing team. I think that making this change will result in a more accurate representation of the relative strength of schedule if you beat several good alliances in high scoring, close matches you are rewarded accordingly in your ranking score whereas if you play a few matches against alliances with missing or disabled bots you can't score for the opposing team to artificially inflate your strength of schedule which will also be reflected in your ranking, you still get the two points toward your qualification score for the win but your ranking score will be lower. A team that plays in and wins tough competitive matches will be rewarded for that and this system makes team try o do their best to score even in a losing effort because in a loss your score is reflected in your ranking score as well.

[Chris is me]

I don't agree with the idea that it's desirable to prevent scoring for the opponent for a more accurate rank - just because two teams went undefeated and one had stronger opponents doesn't mean they're necessarily the better bot.

However, teams playing blowouts do have ways to help their opponents run up the score on the other side. They can throw or pass tubes, let them win the minibot race, etc.

[SirTasty]

One must keep in mind that it's not all about strength of schedule; the rule penalizes defensive robots as well.

[MagiChau]

Originally Posted by SirTasty

One must keep in mind that it's not all about strength of schedule; the rule penalizes defensive robots as well.

I find it more specifically, the rule penalizes "weak" defensive robots. No offense but if the team's robot is unable to properly defend then the robot isn't much of a defensive robot.

I agree with the theory that controlling the center is key to defense rather than near the scoring zone. In the center defensive robots could not only block robots from going to score, but also help pave a path for robots on their alliance. Defending by the scoring zone means center is open. And in the middle the chance of a penalty lowers a bit.

Back with the OP's question:
I also agree with someone earlier mentioning that Gracious Professionalism and Competition should not be viewed as two separate entities.

In GP you help out the competition by helping to remove a hindrance that hides a team's true strength like a dead cRIO or battery.

While competing you show GP by showing all of your team's strength and giving the other teams the honor of facing your team at their best. Underhanded methods do not show the team at the best. If it is a blowout match then show mercy by no mercy. Just my views on this topic.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The gross misuse of the term gracious professionalism has made people think FIRST is some sort of Disney production where we all hold hands and play nice and live happily ever after and such.
Sometimes the most "GP" thing you can do is give a hard lesson to those who do not know better so they learn to change their ways.

Amen and amen. (Somebody rep him - I gotta spread it around again.)

If a team pulls back to not play hard against a weaker opponent, how will that opponent know how much improvement is needed? And, then a GP team will follow that team back to their pit, and offer tips to improve their robot or their strategy.

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

To parrot some of Woodie's recurring lines...
"This is not feel good, sticky sweet."
"Compete like crazy, while treating each other well in the process."
"fierce competition and mutual gain are not separate notions"

Especially that last one - mutual gain.

Originally Posted by Dr Theta

Regarding teams scoring for other teams, I believe that rule change was put in place to prevent teams from artificially inflating their qualification score. If they were going to clearly win the match they could score for the opposing team to increase their qualification score, it was entirely legal prior to the change and is a strategy that has been employed by some of the best teams in FIRST's history none of whom I believe will ever be labeled anything other than GP. I think it was just a move by the GDC to result in proper rankings for alliance selection and to encourage competitive high scoring matches.

I don't know why they put in an anti-scoring for opponents rule this year. Some years it is legal. It was added in Team Update 4 this year, but I think that was only to clarify that you couldn't score for an opponent, even if you could do it without entering their ZONE.

In the ranking system, there is a benefit for having scores as close together as possible. There is no benefit in scoring a blowout.

[MagiChau]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I don't know why they put in an anti-scoring for opponents rule this year. Some years it is legal. It was added in Team Update 4 this year, but I think that was only to clarify that you couldn't score for an opponent, even if you could do it without entering their ZONE.

In the ranking system, there is a benefit for having scores as close together as possible. There is no benefit in scoring a blowout.

Maybe the GDC didn't like seeing scoring for the other alliance to help your alliance's ranking score.

In scoring a blowout you have to remember that others teams will be scouting. It doesn't matter what your seed is if everyone knows how capable your team's robot is. It is always desirable to pick your own alliance but I am firm in the belief a good robot and drive team will bring forth fruit. Someone on Chief Delphi posted their assessment that this year, two good robots can beat 3 average robots. I believe in this because of the nature of the challenge requiring speed and well designed scoring mechanisms. Having good minibots helps close the gap also.

[Henry Williams]

I will tell you a story, I think this shows well how gracious professionalism and a competitive spirit may coexist well. It is the finals of cagematch (an indiana off season invitational) and I am Driving for my team, we are winning and a team who's rookie driver is getting frustrated (i will not divulge the name/# of the team) decided to ram our robot to try and stop us from scoring. It didn't work they got a yellow card and we won the match. In between that match and the last match we were in the pit and the other team requested a tool. Without hesitation I took it over to them and they fixed their robot in time for the final match where they rammed us for a red card. In the heat of the moment I was pretty mad but I no longer hold any kind of grudge and I was still pretty psyched because we won the second competition in our team's history despite everything. Now one of their former team members is a mentor on our team. I think this shows how cool FIRST can be.

[davidthefat]

Just remember: all teams are defeatable. Remember the 1980 Winter Olympics; America, the underdogs, beat the Soviet Union's undefeated hockey team.

Another note: sportsmanship and competition go hand and hand. In any sport, whether it is football or track and field. As the ball is snapped, you pound the guy across you and drive him until he is on his butt. After the whistle blows, you help him on his feet; repeat every down.

[GGCO]

I agree that, at times, these two ideas seem to conflict with each other. However I think that there is a healthy balance that can be found.

First, a competition is only interesting when you compete against another evenly matched team and you both play at your best. So in the interest of a great competition, teams should attempt to help other teams out.

However, once teams compete on the field the gloves should go off! It's totally fair to exploit design flaws in the other bot just like it's fair to exploit strategic and tactical errors made by the other teams. I owe this to my opponent and they owe this to me. Anything less is not fair.

Where things become blurry are:
1. Designs - if we have a great design idea during build season should we share it with everyone?
2. Strategy at games - I know I said exploit this, but do you go out of your way and give advice to EVERY team in the competition? Or should you let them figure out the optimal way to play the game for themselves?

To go full circle, there is a line between GP and intense competition. The debate is just where exactly is that line.

[MagiChau]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Just remember: all teams are defeatable. Remember the 1980 Winter Olympics; America, the underdogs, beat the Soviet Union's undefeated hockey team.

Another note: sportsmanship and competition go hand and hand. In any sport, whether it is football or track and field. As the ball is snapped, you pound the guy across you and drive him until he is on his butt. After the whistle blows, you help him on his feet; repeat every down.

Don't forget that I think 2 rookie teams got onto Einstein last year and did pretty well.

[SirTasty]

Originally Posted by ZonChau

I find it more specifically, the rule penalizes "weak" defensive robots. No offense but if the team's robot is unable to properly defend then the robot isn't much of a defensive robot.

You get ranking points based on how many points your opponents score. If your opponent never scores, you get no ranking points. Ergo, an undefeated defensive team is ranked lower than an undefeated offensive team. The rule penalizes ALL defensive robots.

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Just remember: all teams are defeatable. Remember the 1980 Winter Olympics; America, the underdogs, beat the Soviet Union's undefeated hockey team.

That was a great movie.

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Another note: sportsmanship and competition go hand and hand. In any sport, whether it is football or track and field. As the ball is snapped, you pound the guy across you and drive him until he is on his butt. After the whistle blows, you help him on his feet; repeat every down.

You deserve like nine thousand internets for this. I'll just rep you and put that in my sig.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by GGCO

I
Where things become blurry are:
1. Designs - if we have a great design idea during build season should we share it with everyone?
2. Strategy at games - I know I said exploit this, but do you go out of your way and give advice to EVERY team in the competition? Or should you let them figure out the optimal way to play the game for themselves?

To go full circle, there is a line between GP and intense competition. The debate is just where exactly is that line.

Now I would say that it does not matter if the other teams know our designs or strategies. Now consider this: football coaches trade game film with other coaches. That is essentially giving all the teams the strategies and designs. The coach now knows every play of the other team; he also know what kind of plays are called during certain situations. What wins games are the "Max"s and "Joe"s, not "X"s and "O"s. What that means is that the games are won by they players not the strategies. The opponent may know what plays we are running, but we will drive it down their throat and outperform them on every level.

Sorry for so much football analogies, but football is a wonderful sport. You will be surprised how much you can learn from it.

[JaneYoung]

Sports can be a good analogy but if we are only applying the question/discussion to a game, then we have already lost.

Jane

P.S. It hurts to see this typo in this title.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Jane
P.S. It hurts to see this typo in this title.

typo fixed ... pain relieved ... wooo for moderator tools

[NyCityKId]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

P.S. It hurts to see this typo in this title.

Sorry about that. I can't spell to save my life. Ask me to engineer you something and I'll give you a thousand designs, but ask me to spell a 5th grade level word and I'm stumped.