Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage

[Tristan Lall]

How about another philosophical question, applied to a hypothetical situation?

Isn't it possible to contend that, after considering the likelihood of the various outcomes, on a per-elimination-rank basis, your team makes the best overall use of its ranking?¹ That's to say, that for some function of how far you advance in the eliminations—we could say community inspiration, charitable contributions received by FIRST or number of STEM undergrads produced, or even the combination of these and other factors—the world (or some other community) will be best off if your team goes as far as possible.

So in theory, if you're looking at the big picture (and taking things like other teams' displeasure into account), isn't it possible to conclude that you might have to throw matches in order to go as far as possible in the eliminations, and hence do the most good? In that case, isn't the higher objective not to win, but to make everybody as well off as possible?

(There's a Rawlsian counterargument to be made here—that you can't totally screw people, even if it maximizes society's well-being—but I think it probably applies most strongly to extreme cases. While it could be considered objectively wrong to ruin some team's entire competition, it might not necessarily be wrong to ruin just one match, for the greater good.)

I don't think that logic is wrong; merely subject to enormous practical difficulties in calculation. It wouldn't be wrong for a team to believe this—though the likelihood of self-delusion is substantial. But therefore, a discussion of morality needs to show that this is not applicable to the case at hand, in order to draw a distinction between what's immoral (what's generally being discussed in other posts) and what's moral, but problematic (because the team has likely failed to predict the situation accurately, but has good intentions).

Incidentally, I'd better disclaim responsibility for subscribing to this train of logic in its entirety: I don't believe that I've been adequately well informed to make anything approaching a definitive prediction about the outcomes resulting from a team's ranking. The uncertainty is staggering.

Nevertheless, for this and other (perhaps less noble) reasons, I don't think that throwing a match is always a bad thing. After all, what underlies the expectation that your teammates should depend on you? It's a convention, (indeed one that serves us well most of the time), but is it also part of the tacit agreement that you make as a participant?² (And while you may believe it is, how can you be sure that everyone else feels the same way?)

Furthermore, who's in violation of the convention/agreement? The whole team? The strategists that put them up to it? The drivers who executed it? And was the violation the product of deep consideration, or a spur-of-the moment decision? If we're going to apportion blame, we've got to do it carefully, recognizing that every situation is unique.

What I think this really comes down to is a question about what FRC is. While it's reasonably obvious that it is neither a pure competition nor a pure collaboration, there is no one combination of the two that all teams can be expected to take to heart. Accordingly, they will differ as to their tolerance for strategies which are disproportionately beneficial to their team, and harmful to others.

At the risk of striking a nerve, let me use a religious analogy. The team that is unwilling to harm any opponent³ to the slightest degree is like a Jain fundamentalist—powerless and ineffective to an amazing degree. By contrast, the team that would place their goals above those of other teams is a lot like a Christian crusader—they think they're right, and maybe they are, but the consequences of being wrong are pretty deplorable. But just as a continuum of religious belief is acceptable in society, I think it's reasonable to accept a variety of beliefs as to the acceptability of strategies that might run afoul of the simplistic and possibly unrealistic ideal of complete fidelity to your alliance partners.

Ultimately, people are going to judge each team for their actions, but I think it's worthwhile to discuss the basis and philosophy behind those judgments once in a while.

¹ And furthermore, the rest of the world also maximizes the utility when you rank highest. (Again, this is a pretty uncertain proposition.)
² I mean this in the sense of a sort of social contract of FIRST: by participating, you agree to certain things, like following the rulebook. What else is included?
³ Perhaps this betrays my opinion, but I'm considering opponent in the broad sense as "some team that you'd prefer to outrank". You can still be nice to them, but I think this recognizes the fact that much of our motivation is derived from the opportunity to demonstrate a level of superiority.

[NachoCheese]

I am student from 1086 and I am part of the pit crew. It may be obvious that this was not our best year but we still played strong and to the best of our ability. Our team knows that even if you have an amazing year doesn't mean you always will. Part of the learning experience is losing and the way I see it is, we didn't lose, we just found new ways to improve. Each competition is a learning experience for each student, and to be taught that the point of the competition is to win isn't expressing the ideas of FIRST.

The FIRST mission statement says:
"Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership."

If your teaching them that the excitement only comes from winning then they are not getting the full experience.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by NachoCheese

Each competition is a learning experience for each student, and to be taught that the point of the competition is to win isn't expressing the ideas of FIRST.

The FIRST mission statement says:
"Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership."

Not to clobber your first post ever—because this isn't directed at you in particular—but I hate when people drag out some random mission statement to justify what FIRST means to them. (I agree with your main thesis.)

Let's identify these mission statements for what they are: general principles in a concise format that are neither intended to be, nor useful as substitutes for explicit rules and implicit conventions. They write these to fill appropriate spaces on brochures. The real mission statement comes from the examples that all of FIRST's participants are setting—from the top management down to the teams competing. And the real mission statement is fluid and ever-changing.

I think an interesting example of this was the change in Dean's demeanour when making his speech yesterday: he toned down the language of conflict between popular culture and FIRST, and I think we're going to see that détente eventually reflected in the attitudes of people who once decried the involvement of seemingly-vapid celebrities in the affairs of FRC.<sup>1

1</sup> I don't think Dean has fully wrapped his head around that change: he stumbled at one point, and it seemed he was about to make one of his habitual criticisms—then he paused, presumably thinking better of it, and went in another direction.

[NachoCheese]

No offense taken and there is definitely no problem with expressing your opinion. The way I see it, the mission statement creates the idea which begins to build into bigger things. Nothing ever stays the same and its hard to avoid change. Every person builds off of experience, but it has to start somewhere.

[EricH]

The only way I'd throw the match would be if everyone on my alliance agreed to do the same thing. The odds of that happening are slim--after all, a win can move you up multiple slots in standings, potentially into top-10 or backup range.

If my entire alliance doesn't agree to throw the match, I have one choice left: play to win, no-holds-barred, drive-it-like-you-stole-it, full-blown do my best to win that match. And I would expect my opponents to be doing the same thing to stop me. If I lose then, that's because my alliance partners and I are up against a better alliance.

Then, if I wasn't picked by the team I wanted in eliminations, what would I do? Build the best alliance I could and try to beat that team at their own game.

[pfreivald]

I just wish FIRST would put out a statement that it is in the spirit of gracious professionalism to try to win every *match*. I can see why they wouldn't -- because gracious professionalism encompasses good sportsmanship, so this shouldn't even be a discussion we're having on a yearly (or more often) basis -- but I wish they would.

So I'm going to say something that some people will immediately try to rationalize as not true, too black-and-white, naive, or what-have you:

Every team should try as hard as they can to win every match. To do otherwise is to shortchange your alliance partners, your sponsors, the spectators, and yourselves.

[Tom Ore]

I'm a bit hesitant to post this, but we had an experience like this at a regional. Another team had struggled with several problems through the first half or so of the qualifying rounds but had them worked out. They were a very low seed at that time and it was clear by then that we would be a high seed. A mentor for this team came to us and said they would be willing to make sure they stayed a low seed if we agreed to pick them as our 3rd alliance partner. We declined to make any agreements regarding alliance partners and reassured this team that they would get picked by someone. I was a bit surprised, however, by this open attempt to make a deal like this with apparently no regard for their future alliance partners.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I just wish FIRST would put out a statement that it is in the spirit of gracious professionalism to try to win every *match*. I can see why they wouldn't -- because gracious professionalism encompasses good sportsmanship, so this shouldn't even be a discussion we're having on a yearly (or more often) basis -- but I wish they would.

I hope they don't. There's really no need to enumerate the things that are FIRST-approved-graciously-professional.

If FIRST wants to bless or condemn a particular strategy, that's fine—there's a rulebook for that. But by conflating strategy with gracious professionalism, they'd just be blurring the line between personal conduct and gameplay.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

So I'm going to say something that some people will immediately try to rationalize as not true, too black-and-white, naive, or what-have you:

Every team should try as hard as they can to win every match. To do otherwise is to shortchange your alliance partners, your sponsors, the spectators, and yourselves.

How's this for a simple, concrete counterexample: you're in the first match of a best-of-three elimination, and losing badly to a strong opposing alliance—let's say you're down by 50 with only one fast, reliable minibot: yours. You could compete as hard as possible for the rest of the match, and try to win—in what will almost certainly be a futile effort, and which will expose your robot to the ordinary perils of a match. Or you can bide your time until match two. Let's say you elect to play hard, and try to release your minibot in this nearly-unwinnable match, and accidentally drop it and it breaks. It died for nothing.

Isn't it possible that you've actually done everyone a great disservice by playing hard to the bitter end? Your obstinacy may have swung match 2 in your opponents' favour, and now the spectators are even less likely to have the benefit of a closely-fought second match. Will your partners have a lower opinion of you, because you made a strategic error that substantially increases the likelihood of elimination? Would your sponsors have noticed (or cared about) the fact that you played it safe during one match?

That's not to say there aren't situations finding yourself down on points, you should actually play harder—like switching to interference when down a few tubes, to give your alliance a chance to win the minibot race. But that doesn't make playing hard a universal imperative; only a good idea a lot of the time, and a bad idea some of the time.

It's like running out a ground ball in baseball. Most of the time it's a good idea, because it puts pressure on the defence to make a mistake. But if you're going to pitch the next half-inning, maybe it's not such a good idea, because of the effect it will have on your stamina. Another good example is football: sometimes you'll run down the clock instead of trying for more yards. Why add risk when you're ahead at the end of the half? If we're concerned about sportsmanship, those are examples of acceptable conduct, even when not trying one's hardest.

[gblake]

Long post...

Originally Posted by Duke461

It most certainly is not appropriate. ...

You do not give an logic to back up your assertion - I assert that it can be appropriate, in some narrowly defined circumstances, to consult with your allies and purposefully lose (not "throw" or "tank") a match.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... throw a match like that. It isn't fair to team C, or the third team on your alliance, most of all it isn't fair to your team. ...

The OP didn't say they were going to "Throw a match". That phrase has connotations of secretive, duplicitous, violations of trust and/or rules. The OP said "lose on purpose".

They could clearly and publicly announce and explain their intentions and purpose. They could (should) discuss the suggestion with their allies and carry it out only with their allies' permission.

All of these clearly take the situation out of the match throwing realm and into the realm of thoughtful execution of a strategy aimed at maximizing their chances of winning the tournament.

Sometime you sacrifice a pawn to win a chess match. Sometimes you walk a batter to win a baseball game. Sometimes you hit a sacrifice to win a baseball game. But - You 100% don't sacrifice unconsulted allies or allies who disagree.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... my kids would be absolutely floored if we purposefully tanked a match as a 'strategy'. ...

So I guess they would be pleased to tank a tournament instead? (again "tank" has negative connotations that imply skulduggery, and that is not what was described).

Originally Posted by eyu100

Well, you can lose a match without making it obvious that you're throwing it - have your robot "break" (like by secretly deleting the code) and have your human player throw badly. Obviously, you shouldn't do this.

This would be bad. It would be deceitful and would indeed be "throwing the match". That is not what the OP described.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... it's not about the competition, ...

I beg to differ. People I respect have encouraged us all to "compete like crazy" when on the field. FIRST isn't only about the competition, but it does contain a useful and important component that is about competition.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... What's inspiring about making a fool out of yourself to win a plastic trophy and a blue banner? ...

This and other statements you have made seem to indicate that you are not giving the question a dispassionate examination, but are instead substituting prejudices brought in from other domains, and knee-jerk reactions, for debate. However, the OP should take into account that many people will have similar reactions. It is evidence that not everyone uses game theory math to guide their strategies.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... I propose that winning is this manner is more detrimental than losing fairly, even losing horribly, but fairly. ...

You create a false dichotomy, there is no evidence that the strategy proposed is unfair in any sense, or that following a strategy that causes a team to forgo winning a tournament should be declared "fair".

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... If B is in 30th, the odds are slim they'll even have a chance to pick C. ...

Irrelevant to the discussion of the premise submitted by the OP.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... What does a victory mean? A plastic trophy and a blue banner? Or improving the lives of the students involved? Winning a tournament at the expense of integrity, as mentioned before, is not going to do anything towards improving a students life, or their opportunities, or their own morals. As much as high school students like to disagree, they're still being molded and growing, and learning to win by cheating (and that's what this is) is a terrible lesson. ...

Again another almost absurdly false dichotomy that assumes some sort of heinous treachery on the part of Team C. Teaching students to consult with their allies about publicly pursuing a strategy that wins a tournament would be a heck of a good lesson to teach them. Among other things, it would teach them that Pyhrric victories are not something to covet; and that looking past your nose in order to keep your eye on the big picture is a valuable skill that should be cultivated. Again, however, part of this situation's big picture is considering the likely reactions of folks who enjoy Pyhrric victories and invest each match with a moral purpose that actually doesn't exist in this context. ... [/quote]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... They seem to mean a lot more to you than myself. ...

Yet another unfounded, disrespectful pejorative, assumption that doesn't belong in a useful debate.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... People (myself included) are making a ridiculous point out of highlighting the logical flaw of B being a 30th seed as a mild rejection of your idea I believe. I obviously can't speak for them personally, but I do believe the intent was to politely dissuade the idea. If I'm correct, that should give you a pretty clear indication what the opinion is of this strategy. ...

Yours and the others you refer to are not the only voices responding.

Originally Posted by santosh

... Let the red dots rain.

I'll go down with you

Originally Posted by thefro526

... I know I'd seriously be considering doing something that's not "right" in hopes of making it to Einstein...

Another false dichotomy couched in prejudicial terms. I wouldn't consider doing anything that wasn't/isn't "right"; but, when done without deception, I assert this tournament-winning strategy isn't "wrong". It might contain flawed logic in that it might not maximize Team C's chances to be on the winning alliance, but it isn't ethically wrong.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

In what way is cheating (albeit subtlety) considered what is best for a team? ...

In what specific way does the OP suggest cheating? I presume your answer will include citing a plan (in a quote taken from the OP or a subsequent post) to violate a specific rule.

Originally Posted by santosh

... If I had to throw a match to win a world championship, ...

In common contemporary English, "Throwing a match" implies deception. The OP made no mention of deception. Otherwise, I agree.

Originally Posted by Joe G.

... Sabotage within any type of team is frowned upon, ...

The OP did not suggest sabotage. They were silent about consulting with allied teams. I choose to presume that they would only carry out this strategy if their allies agreed with it.

Originally Posted by Joe G.

... Play your hardest at all times. ...

It appears the OP is playing their hardest, by considering all possible ways to to use the tools at their disposal to succeed in the field competition aspect of FRC.

Originally Posted by Joe G.

... It makes the competition a challenge, and it makes the competition fair. ...

"Fair" is not an absolute. No competition of the sort that we are discussing is purely "fair" in all possible senses. Instead things like an FRC tournament are only "fair" is some defined sense(s). Arguing whether the proposed strategy is fair or unfair is a red herring.

Originally Posted by Joe G.

... not in shady, manipulative tactics. ...

The OP said nothing about anything "shady" or hidden. Arguing against manipulating the course of events (in a tournament) to tilt them in a team or alliance's favor is not going to hold water. Teams purposefully attempt to manipulate tournament outcomes from the moment they are formed. Manipulate is not a bad word, unless in your mind it carries a connotation of deception or cheating; and those are things that were not suggested by the OP.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

... Throwing a match hurts your alliance partners.

The OP didn't say whether they would do this as team or as an alliance. I choose to assume the alliance would be fully informed and in agreement.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

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. ...

In my opinion (and reasonable people may disagree) you are not providing any evidence of unfairness, dishonor or "screwing over". See above.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

... 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. ...

Again - Reactions like the one you have expressed in this thread, not the validity of the strategy or the result of a dispassionate examination of its ethics, are a reason to tread carefully in the minefield.

Originally Posted by Molten

... teach them something wrong) and win, you lost. ... you sent the wrong message to the students ...

Nothing "wrong" is being advocated, except perhaps by those who are advocating teaching your students to lose tournaments.

Originally Posted by Molten

... that it is ok to hurt your alliance if it is for personal gain. ...

One more time - When did the OP advocate doing this without the full understanding and support of their allies????

Originally Posted by Molten

... This situation is losing for personal gain. ...

No, this situation is about winning a tournament if your allies (I assume) support the method you recommend employing.

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

... right thing or the wrong thing, ... "anything you can get away with is OK" ...

You are asserting rightness or wrongness, without justifying the assertions. Opinions should be respected, but not advanced as facts.

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

... This isn't really that complicated.

You are right, it's not complicated. If your ally/allies agree(s) with it, then the math appears to says you should do it. However, the psychology of the rest of the world makes it dicey.

Originally Posted by dtengineering

... betraying your alliance partners is right or wrong. Kind of makes it a simple choice, doesn't it?

The OP did not say to do it in secret or without consulting their ally(s). Otherwise I think we agree.

Originally Posted by WizenedEE

... hurt your alliance parter ...

If you allies agree, then pretty much by definition, they aren't being hurt. The OP didn't say to conceal the strategy from allies.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

... Nevertheless, for this and other (perhaps less noble) reasons, I don't think that throwing a match is always a bad thing. After all, what underlies the expectation that your teammates should depend on you? It's a convention, (indeed one that serves us well most of the time), but is it also part of the tacit agreement that you make as a participant?² (And while you may believe it is, how can you be sure that everyone else feels the same way?)

Furthermore, who's in violation of the convention/agreement? The whole team? The strategists that put them up to it? The drivers who executed it? And was the violation the product of deep consideration, or a spur-of-the moment decision? If we're going to apportion blame, we've got to do it carefully, recognizing that every situation is unique.

What I think this really comes down to is a question about what FRC is. While it's reasonably obvious that it is neither a pure competition nor a pure collaboration, there is no one combination of the two that all teams can be expected to take to heart. Accordingly, they will differ as to their tolerance for strategies which are disproportionately beneficial to their team, and harmful to others. ...

I disagree with this part of your post for the reasons outlined above, but otherwise I applaud that you are actually trying to advance genuine arguments/debate, and I agree with much of it.

Originally Posted by NachoCheese

... If your teaching them that the excitement only comes from winning then they are not getting the full experience.

If you are teaching them that the excitement comes from successfully carrying out (or thoughtfully deciding against) an unusual strategy that comes from an insightful and out-of-the-box analysis of the situation, then they are getting more than the typical experience.

Originally Posted by EricH

The only way I'd throw the match would be if everyone on my alliance agreed to do the same thing. The odds of that happening are slim--after all, a win can move you up multiple slots in standings, potentially into top-10 or backup range.

If my entire alliance doesn't agree to throw the match, I have one choice left: play to win, no-holds-barred, drive-it-like-you-stole-it, full-blown do my best to win that match. And I would expect my opponents to be doing the same thing to stop me. If I lose then, that's because my alliance partners and I are up against a better alliance.

Then, if I wasn't picked by the team I wanted in eliminations, what would I do? Build the best alliance I could and try to beat that team at their own game.

Eric gets my full support.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

... Every team should try as hard as they can to win every match. To do otherwise is to shortchange your alliance partners, your sponsors, the spectators, and yourselves.

Why didn't you suggest winning every tournament or every autonomous period, instead of winning every match? Are you assuming that all three are the same? I know that they are not? Or do you believe is there something special about a match that doesn't apply to complete tournaments, or to portions of a match?

Blake

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

... I was a bit surprised, however, by this open attempt to make a deal like this with apparently no regard for their future alliance partners.

I would have been too. Disregarding your alliance partners is not what I have espoused in my other message.

Blake

[SamM]

Blake,
I believe it is implied that B would be losing the match without the consent of C. Why would C agree to a strategy that leads to them eventually losing in the eliminations to the A-B alliance?

I do not see a situation where the purposeful loss strategy would be both viable and morally acceptable. Either B discretely informs A they will try to lose the match leading A & B "colluding", something I believe would generally be defined as amoral(and possibly against the rules of the given game). Or B does not inform A of their intentions, B looks very weak in the final match before pairing, likely leading to C being picked over B.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by gblake

It is evidence that not everyone uses game theory math to guide their strategies.

I have used math to do alot of things, but when it comes to right and wrong I use simpler means. I follow the way I was raised. I was always taught to have fun and try my hardest. Interestingly, math never came up. As for the fascination with winning each match rather then tournaments(which you mentioned later in the post), I was taught to have fun, try hard in every game, and to do my best. Winning the tournament was never mentioned. Whether you win the tournament or not, I was always told to focus on the game at hand. I'm not going to say that my parents have always been right, in fact they'd tell you they are wrong sometimes. I will say that following this line of thinking has kept my conscious clear this long and I don't plan on changing it. As for game theory, I've read the basics of it and find it interesting for a thought exercise. I don't intend to apply it in the real world unless the result is acceptable by my earlier method. When it comes right down to it, I care more about living with myself then winning no matter how it is defined. That includes matches, tournaments, or even championships.

Jason

PS: Feel free to poke fun at my simplistic method of reasoning with all the big words you deem necessary. I'm open to hearing your side, but in the end my mind is made on this one.

[Grim Tuesday]

Let me condense this thread down into a sentance:

Is being GP defined as trying to win every match or win the competition?

EDIT: On the field GP.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by gblake

Why didn't you suggest winning every tournament or every autonomous period, instead of winning every match? Are you assuming that all three are the same? I know that they are not? Or do you believe is there something special about a match that doesn't apply to complete tournaments, or to portions of a match?

It appears that you're trying to make these questions rhetorical, but I do not believe they are.

I certainly do believe that there is something special about the 'match' unit that makes it more special than the 'autonomous period', 'endgame period', or 'tournament' units.

I'm certain that there are those who will disagree with me, but I am equally certain that the match unit is more important than the rest, because FIRST uses the sports model, and coopertition still involves that 'rtition' part. I am equally certain that my administrators and most of my parents and students want to know if we've won a match -- not an autonomous period, not an endgame, but a match -- and that winning a tournament comes ultimately from winning matches.

Matches are special. Failure to recognize this -- or a refusal to recognize this -- will result in disagreement with my stance on how things "should be".

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

A mentor for this team came to us and said they would be willing to make sure they stayed a low seed if we agreed to pick them as our 3rd alliance partner.

^Fastest way to make our "Do Not Pick" list. PERIOD.

I've openly admitted to throwing a match in FRC before. I'm not going to call myself an "expert" by any means, but if you care to see my opinion on the matter, here's a situation summary on whether I would consider throwing the match:

OP's situation:
NO. Emphatically. Trophies, medals, division wins or not, any opportunity to beat the best team there, you take it every chance you get whether its Q1 or F3.

In our Canadian realm, I couldn't imagine backing down from ANY opportunity to try and beat 1114. Hypothetically if we were with 2056 and against 1114 in that situation, I play harder than I ever have and try and bury those guys. In order to be the best, you must beat the best.

To throw the match and screw 2056 out of all their hard work in ranking 1st, taking away their chance to pick the best alliance they can? SIMPLY DESPICABLE...END OF STORY

This situation:
I threw the match back then, hated doing it at the time, but this one of the few times I felt it was justified. I lost sleep over it, but eventually made peace with myself. I have no regrets doing it. If faced with the exact same situation today, I throw the match again.

A few hypothetical match throwing situations that came up this year that we did not act upon, or never had the opportunity to:

Qualification rounds. You are ranked out of the potential Alliance Captain positions. You are playing with a very good alliance partner who you really want to help move up into the standings. You are predicted to win this match in a blowout, with the opponents scoring very little. I tell my alliance partners not to deploy minibots right away at 15s. I take a team DQ, by deploying a minibot (or 2 ) on the opposing towers. My alliance deploys afterwards. Our alliance wins, but my team loses, our friends earn some major ranking points.

Qualification rounds. You are ranked out of the potential Alliance Captain positions. You are playing against a very good alliance that contains a team you want to knock down in the rankings. You are predicted to lose this match in a blowout, with your robot carrying the brunt of the scoring load. Instead of trying to win by scoring in teleop, our team plays the hardest defense we possibly can for the full 2 minutes, and does not even think about deploying a minitbot or trying to score. Alliance loses, but at least we win the ranking points battle.