Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage

[Leav]

My simple answer to this complicated question: if you were on Team C, how would you feel about Team B throwing the match?

Looking beyond that single match and championship: how do you want to be remembered?

This is very similar to the 6v0 discussion in 2010, most would agree that was a gray area and that was allowed and encouraged by the rules of the game.

What I'm trying to say is that, although slightly Naive, I would go with what feels right and not do whatever it takes to win.

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Except the latter happens all the time. "Tanking" is a common occasion in professional sports. From the general manager and owner on down through the players.

I'm in no way saying that it's a positive thing for FIRST (nor am I condemning it with this post), but if you're going to attempt to use a sports analogy, at least use one that doesn't counteract your point.

I dont think the focus of my post was the analogy, so im sorry if my analogy doesnt work the best (even though i dont see how thats counteracting my point), but the point here is you just dont do that. There are too many non-GP reasons to tank a FIRST game like that.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Leav

This is very similar to the 6v0 discussion in 2010, most would agree that was a gray area and that was allowed and encouraged by the rules of the game.

This absolutely isn't the same, for one simple reason.

6v0 helps everyone on your alliance. It is a strategic move that gets you points and hurts no one.

Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners.

[Leav]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This absolutely isn't the same, for one simple reason.

6v0 helps everyone on your alliance. It is a strategic move that gets you points and hurts no one.

Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners.

True, I accept the very strong distinction. I guess what I meant was "this discussion reminds me of the 6v0 discussion".

One could discuss the theoretical situation where all 3 alliance partners want to lose for various reasons, but that's not the point of this thread.

[gunsanbob]

doesn't make sense

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by santosh

In what way do you mean you are disappointed. If I had to throw a match to win a world championship, I would highly consider it. I am looking out for my kids.
If I know that I am a part of an awesome team, should I not do what is in the best interest of my team? Should I not consider the option at the very least?

The purpose of the competition aspect of FIRST is to win. Trust me, off the field and for the most part on the field, I am gonna be the most GP person you can meet.

The purpose of the competition is to compete. Competing doesn't mean doing whatever necessary to win, competing is playing your best to try to win, and playing your best is more than strategy and points. You need to be able to play the game fairly, and honorably. Especially in FIRST the pressure is on to set a good example for the students, and to inspire. I am disappointed because I believe this 'strategy' to be a horrible example of proper sportsmanship, and integrity, and I would not want anyone teaching the kids on my team it's ok to screw someone else over, as long as it helps up win.

To answer your other questions, no, you should not consider the option, and I do not believe it is in the best interest of the team.

Matt

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Duke461

I dont think the focus of my post was the analogy, so im sorry if my analogy doesnt work the best (even though i dont see how thats counteracting my point), but the point here is you just dont do that. There are too many non-GP reasons to tank a FIRST game like that.

To paraphrase:
This is bad. It's like doing a commonly accepted action.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by santosh

In what way do you mean you are disappointed. If I had to throw a match to win a world championship, I would highly consider it. I am looking out for my kids.
If I know that I am a part of an awesome team, should I not do what is in the best interest of my team? Should I not consider the option at the very least?

The purpose of the competition aspect of FIRST is to win. Trust me, off the field and for the most part on the field, I am gonna be the most GP person you can meet.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If you teach your students and lose, you won. If you fail to teach your students(or teach them something wrong) and win, you lost. In this case, I think you'd lose even if you won the trophy just because you sent the wrong message to the students. That it is ok to hurt your alliance if it is for personal gain.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This absolutely isn't the same, for one simple reason.

6v0 helps everyone on your alliance. It is a strategic move that gets you points and hurts no one.

Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners.

This situation is losing for personal gain. That situation was losing for mutual gain. I see the distinction, but disagree that it isn't the same in some rite. Afterall, both are losing for gain regardless of who benefits. I would never condone losing for gain no matter the circumstance. That is why from my view these two strategies aren't so different. I could see though how a person that strongly supported 6 vs 0 would see a big difference though. Though I never agreed with the line of reasoning, I understand the reasoning you(and many others) used to rationalize it. That sort of reasoning won't work in this scenario so you see it as different. My reasoning for my conclusion remains the same, so I see them the same. It's really a matter of perspective on this one. In short, I wouldn't throw out the comparison completely. Yes, there is a distinction. But it was bound to come up at some point and should not be thrown out as a precedence. It shows people are willing to lose for gain in the world of FIRST. The question is: how many people must gain for it to be worth considering? 1 out of 6? 2 out of 6?....5 out of 6? A line must be drawn somewhere and I would be interested to know what number of people on the field must benefit from you purposefully losing to make it acceptable.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Molten

Afterall, both are losing for gain regardless of who benefits. I would never condone losing for gain no matter the circumstance.

6v0 wasn't losing in the sense that it resulted in anything bad happening to anyone. The only similarity between 6v0 and "losing" is based on societal constructs.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

6v0 wasn't losing in the sense that it resulted in anything bad happening to anyone. The only similarity between 6v0 and "losing" is based on societal constructs.

By this definition, you can't lose if you gain an advantage from it. Kind of an interesting solution to the thread's question.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Molten

By this definition, you can't lose if you gain an advantage from it. Kind of an interesting solution to the thread's question.

Except wins and losses weren't used for the seeding in 2010. So losing the match really didn't impact you in any way.

[Rick TYler]

You can either choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing, and it's pretty clear that "anything you can get away with is OK" is the wrong thing.

How would you feel if YOUR alliance partner was throwing a match at your expense? Why would you do that to someone else? This isn't really that complicated.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Leav

My simple answer to this complicated question: if you were on Team C, how would you feel about Team B throwing the match?

I think this is the bottom line. If team B could throw the match to improve their overall chances of success (lose the battle to win the war, shall we say) without harming or betraying the trust of another team, then I would be willing to accept that this is a legitimate strategy.

The catch is that the premise of the qualifying rounds is that the teams with which you have been randomly allied will work with you in order to win the match.

The issue here is not whether "throwing the match" is right or wrong, but whether betraying your alliance partners is right or wrong. Kind of makes it a simple choice, doesn't it?

Jason

[WizenedEE]

How is losing on purpose to hurt your alliance parter worse than winning on purpose to hurt your opponent? It's a competition, someone's going to get the short end of the stick. All we hope for is that the best teams do the best, and if team B is the best team, don't they deserve to be in the eliminations?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by WizenedEE

How is losing on purpose to hurt your alliance parter worse than winning on purpose to hurt your opponent? It's a competition, someone's going to get the short end of the stick.

Well, one is betraying your teammates and one is a hard fought honest victory against opponents. If you don't see the difference in that, I'm not really sure what to say.