Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage

[Molten]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

To quantify a thing is to destroy a thing?

The whole point of GP is doing what is right because it is the right thing to do. If you make guidelines, people will do it because that is the rule not because it is right. People will be doing the right thing still, but for the wrong reasons. If a person helps a person out because they want to, they are a good person. If they do it because they have to, it really doesn't say much about the person. GP is not, has not, and never should be a law. It should be something we all define for ourselves with the intention of being the best person we can be. Making GP a rule would be the equivalent of making a law that says you have to help get kittens out of trees. Yes, it might lead to more people helping others and doing the "right" thing. It will also eliminate the possibility of being truly GP. It doesn't destroy GP, it destroys the meaning of GP.

Jason

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Molten

The whole point of GP is doing what is right because it is the right thing to do.

I'm sorry, but this GP-as-all-encompassing-morality take is rather funny to me. Don't get me wrong -- I take doing good for the sake of doing good very seriously, and I impress upon everyone I know the importance of exactly that -- but this idea that 'gracious professionalism' is the best thing since Jesus is a bit tiresome.

Humanity as a people can't agree on what 'good' is, for a variety of reasons both good and bad. Elevating GP to that level is, to my mind, downright silly.

I'm all for "Do good things. Just because." It's what I live by, and the primary reason I became both a teacher and a FIRST mentor. My philosophy is "if you have to choose, choose the option that would make your priest/pastor/imam/rabbi/mother/grandmother/father/grandfather/teacher smile the biggest". A corollary is, "if you have to ask on a matter of ethics, you shouldn't be the one making the decisions". A further corollary is "if you have to explain to your parents, mentors, or sponsors, you probably didn't make the right decision".

All that aside, good sportsmanship and faithfulness to your alliance obviate the need to bring GP per se into this. Matches are special, because your sponsors, parents, school administrators, and alliance partners will be extra-happy when you to win matches.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'm sorry, but this GP-as-all-encompassing-morality take is rather funny to me.
...
Humanity as a people can't agree on what 'good' is, for a variety of reasons both good and bad. Elevating GP to that level is, to my mind, downright silly.

The first part I quoted: I generally define GP as a term for doing the right thing for the right reasons. Its really just a phrase attached to the already existing ideology that you've mentioned towards the end of your post. How do you define GP? I guess that might be where we disagree on whether it should be written into rules or guidelines. Just because I refer to something as GP and you refer to something GP, doesn't mean we are talking about the same topic. We might just give that title to two completely different entities. Depending on your definition, I might agree that your GP should be written into a set of rules. I am almost certain that I am not the only person here that uses the definition(or one similar) to the one I used above.

The second part I quoted: It is because nobody can agree on what GP is, is exactly the reason it can't be written into direct guidelines. Once again though, I'm not elevating GP to the level of good. I'm just defining GP as a synonym of sorts.

[pfreivald]

I reject the premise that because GP cannot be easily defined that it cannot be used as a guideline for delineating specific behaviors as acceptable/unacceptable.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I reject the premise that because GP cannot be easily defined that it cannot be used as a guideline for delineating specific behaviors as acceptable/unacceptable.

Gracious Professionalism can be defined quite concisely just by taking the words in isolation. It's relatively easy to classify whether a practice is gracious, and whether it is professional.

This thread makes clear that whether it is acceptable is a matter of opinion.

[pfreivald]

As I just said in a private message to Molten:

'GP is like Justice Stewart's definition of obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it."

I agreed with you that it to some extent defies complete codification, but I think I can phrase it thusly: Do the right thing, and if there's any ethical/moral doubt or rationalization behind an action, don't even think about it.'

[huberje]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

In a fair, reasonable, normal tournament, each party tries to win each game (that is, each *match*), and can expect their opponents to do the same.

Does one win matches in order to win the competition, simply to look better, or some other reason? While the answer probably varies among teams and individuals, if it is the former, why would it be unreasonable to lose a game to obtain an advantage later on? In fact, this reminds me of a tactic I heard quite often this year. While on a slightly smaller scale, giving up first place on the minibot to increase one's ranking score was a relatively common idea.

[pfreivald]

I may not have a perfect definition of GP, but it certainly isn't WAAC. I cannot envision a situation where all six teams would agree to hurt one's standings -- including the one whose standings are hurt -- and I'm not particularly interested in hypothetical situations that will never happen.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason to throw a game is to gain advantage at the expense of someone else. While one tries to win games for the same reason, trying to win games doesn't bring up issues of pride, honor, and integrity.

Edit: Alas it is bed time, and I shall not become this fellow http://xkcd.com/386/

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The fact of the matter is that the only reason to throw a game is to gain advantage at the expense of someone else. While one tries to win games for the same reason, trying to win games doesn't bring up issues of pride, honor, and integrity.

Once again, I turn to my previous comments. I'll even define it further to include my own team.

In our second qualification match of Philadelphia, we were with two teams who hoped to be able to play offense and against some capable scoring machines. My team had struggled through practice day on Thursday and didn't exactly come out swinging in our first qualification match, only scoring one tube. Our alliance was probably best off if we dedicated our match to trying to stop 56.
Instead, we played offense. We wanted to see if our robot could execute the functions it was designed for. We wanted to build driver confidence and hope to build off of that match for later in the competition. We were hoping to get to work out some more kinks in our machine by seeing the functions executed on the real field.
1712 only scored one tube and our alliance lost the match 81-15.

By not executing the function that gave us the best chance to win, you could say that we "threw" the match. We didn't do it in order to gain advantage at the expense of another team.

Were we wrong?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Were we wrong?

I don't see what the situation you've presented has to do with deliberately losing a match to manipulate standings. You're comparing apples to aardvarks.

G'night!

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't see what the situation you've presented has to do with deliberately losing a match to manipulate standings. You're comparing apples to aardvarks.

G'night!

It has everything to do with your assertion that teams should be putting forth 100% to win each and every match.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

It has everything to do with your assertion that teams should be putting forth 100% to win each and every match.

I'm talking about deliberately throwing a match. Your example is not an example of deliberately throwing a match. The situations are discrete.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Once again, I turn to my previous comments. I'll even define it further to include my own team.

In our second qualification match of Philadelphia, we were with two teams who hoped to be able to play offense and against some capable scoring machines. My team had struggled through practice day on Thursday and didn't exactly come out swinging in our first qualification match, only scoring one tube. Our alliance was probably best off if we dedicated our match to trying to stop 56.
Instead, we played offense. We wanted to see if our robot could execute the functions it was designed for. We wanted to build driver confidence and hope to build off of that match for later in the competition. We were hoping to get to work out some more kinks in our machine by seeing the functions executed on the real field.
1712 only scored one tube and our alliance lost the match 81-15.

By not executing the function that gave us the best chance to win, you could say that we "threw" the match. We didn't do it in order to gain advantage at the expense of another team.

Were we wrong?

I think more information is needed to accurately decide. Did you talk to the other teams first? If you communicated with both partners and explained the situation I think most teams would understand and allow you at least a turn to score. It depends on the agreement with the other teams. If I were one of the other teams I wouldn't have been thrilled about saying "sure take all the time you need" but I would have definitely said something along the lines of "try for the first 30 seconds and if it doesn't go well we'll take over". I've been in that boat. My first year, 1766 had a robot that only scored in one match. It was largely to my fault on missing a rule but the point is we had to completely redesign our robot and wanted to see it score. We were new and didn't discuss strategy with our alliance as much as we should have so I'm not really sure if the alliance would have approved. Given the fact that we didn't check or communicate with our team mates properly, we were wrong. If you tried communicating with your alliance and they said "no, we really don't think its a good idea" and you chose to go ahead with attempting to score, you were probably wrong.

Sean, I like the question. It really does show a bit of the gray line that is sometimes hard to bring into focus. In my opinion you did right by your students but wrong by your alliance. The question now is, which is more important to you? We've all been given a bad draw when it comes to alliances and know what that is like. We've also all been the barely functioning robot that gets stuck doing something other then what we worked so hard for. For me, teaching the students should always be the most important thing we do in FIRST. If this is your goal as well(which it might not be exactly), what is the most important thing to teach them? If you continue to try to score(as you did) you are teaching them to never give up and that their effort wasn't wasted. If you chose to do what was best for your team, you would have taught them that some things are more important then self-satisfaction and perhaps taught them humility. They are both valuable lessons to learn that I hope all teams get a chance to experience for themselves at some point.

Sorry I didn't give a yes or no, but I believe that was kind of the point.
Jason

[donnie99]

What I add to this thread is the idea to use the game to your advantage. During Breakaway in the Curie division at finals, Team 237 and our alliance partners were playing 469 and their partners during qualification matches. Because of the way the scoring was last year, we decided ton ask 469 if we could help them score to increase our points gained. I personally believe that this was alright because it matters to win, make memorable moments, make an impression on other teams that you will work together and for the benefit of everyone, and to play the way that best fits the way FIRST intended. Although the last part is questionable to different people, it allows for the flexibility that makes each robot and team unique. If this strategy achieves that goal, then go ahead, but remember, the number one alliance can have a bad match and end up losing, even if the best three teams in a regional are part of it.

[aldowyn]

My definition of "Gracious Professionalism" is being fair, courteous, and respectful to your competitors and teammates. What's under debate, as far as I'm concerned, is whether this kind of tactic is "fair", and I personally believe that its an unfair manipulation of the system. The simple fact that this is even something remotely possible does seem to signal an issue with said system, but nothing's perfect and as far as I can tell it's a pretty specific, out-there situation.