Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!

[Sean Raia]

Originally Posted by bduddy

So today's Team Update contains absolutely nothing pertaining to this sort of behavior. Perhaps FIRST hasn't noticed it, of course, but I'm increasingly beginning to wonder if the GDC considers this kind of behavior within the spirit of the rules of the game. Has anything on this topic been asked on the Q&A?

Of course it is with in the spirit of the rules. There is nothing close to preventing it. Is it withing the spirit of FIRST? It depends on how far you take it. As others have said, denying to balance the co-op is totally fine. Much more then that and it becomes clear that "grandma wouldnt be proud". Will they rule against it? Probably not.
The fact that people want this ruled illegal so badly bothers me.
We shouldnt need a rule... Its called graciously proffesional common sense.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

My point was that you were approaching this is a more hostile manner than is necessary.

I'm sorry. At no point did I intend hostility -- indeed, I wasn't even calling names, I was giving a warning. Let me try again:

What I was trying to say was that
1. Your actions define who you are, and that these actions...
(a) throwing matches
(b) lying (either to alliance partners or opponents)
(c) bullying
(d) bad-mouthing other teams
might -- and only might -- help your ultimate tournament standing, but they are despicable.

2. It's easy to not be despicable; you achieve it by not doing despicable things.

I wasn't at any point saying that this label applies to anyone in this thread or elsewhere; only that it could, and it's entirely up to them whether or not it does. The choice lies entirely with the person(s) choosing to commit or not commit the match-throwing, lying, bullying, or bad-mouthing. That said, it's much harder to slough off a negative reputation than it is to not earn it in the first place.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by EricH

You mean 2000? One of the best FRC games ever, with the two troughs and a ramp? Because I think you're really thinking of 2001's "Diabolical Dynamics", the one and only 4v0 game. (I think a lot of people get those two confused...)

It's pretty close, Dr. Joe. "2056" and "losing regionals" don't work in the same sentence--because 2056 has not lost a single regional event they've attended (started in 2007). 1114 is no slouch either--they've not lost any events since 2005, when competing within Canada.

Though, there's finally a guarantee that those 4 teams will not be in the finals of a Canadian event--none of them is registered for Montreal.

Forgive an old man's memory. Yes you were right the 2000 game was awesome. It was the 2001 4V0 game that I use as an example of a game that would have killed a lesser competition.

As to 2056 and not losing, I refuse to believe that all the talent* in Canada has settled in two teams. That is all I am going to say on the matter.

Joe J.

*and not just engineering talent because it takes much more than that to consistently do well at FIRST

[~Cory~]

For the up coming regionals is there a way to prevent this kind of behavior without the GDC having to make a ruling? Something like a collective list of teams that agree to no take part, with a list of teams that refuse to promise to play fairly? Would it curb participation if the list was widely distributed?

IMHO if i would support an idea like this myself. Just trying to keep the Milwaukee regional the friendly place it is.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by bduddy

So today's Team Update contains absolutely nothing pertaining to this sort of behavior. Perhaps FIRST hasn't noticed it, of course, but I'm increasingly beginning to wonder if the GDC considers this kind of behavior within the spirit of the rules of the game. Has anything on this topic been asked on the Q&A?

More than likely, it's just that the GDC doesn't read Chief/know what happened at certain events (yet).

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Libby K

More than likely, it's just that the GDC doesn't read Chief/know what happened at certain events (yet).

I'd be absolutely shocked if the GDC didn't know what transpired in GTR-East. The GDC communicates with each other and with the events. Even if they don't read CD (don't Jeremy, Ryan, Collin, and Aidan have accounts?), they have other networks of communication.

I find it much more likely that they figure we're big kids and we can sort it out ourselves.

[NickTosta]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I find it much more likely that they figure we're big kids and we can sort it out ourselves.

Well, not only that, but how would you change the rules so that teams can't "abuse" the coopertition bridge? It's virtually impossible to separate teams with good intentions from teams with bad intentions from a rules standpoint (is a team using its robot to help another robot on its alliance get on the coopertition bridge actually sabotaging the process? It's impossible to tell!).

I was thinking a little about this and I just can't envision a way that would elegantly prevent "abusing" the coopertition bridge.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by NickTosta

Well, not only that, but how would you change the rules so that teams can't "abuse" the coopertition bridge? It's virtually impossible to separate teams with good intentions from teams with bad intentions from a rules standpoint (is a team using its robot to help another robot on its alliance get on the coopertition bridge actually sabotaging the process? It's impossible to tell!).

I was thinking a little about this and I just can't envision a way that would elegantly prevent "abusing" the coopertition bridge.

How about like this:

"Strategies aimed at interfering with a coopertition balance are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: Red Card"

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

How about like this:

"Strategies aimed at interfering with a coopertition balance are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: Red Card"

That is a very arbitrary and almost impossible rule for the refs to enforce. What defines interfering?

-If a team goes to the coopertition bridge and then sits there but doesn't go up while their partner is waiting, is that interference?
-If a team accidentally touches the coopertition bridge while a balance attempt is going on, is that interference?
-If there is confusion about the coopertition bridge and three teams show up, the confusion is never cleared and the balance fails, is that interference?

I realize these are extreme examples, but the point stands that defining interference on an aspect of the game where both alliances are involved is going to result in "bad" calls. Intent is already very hard to determine with things like tipping and abusing fouls, which are between alliances. Previous games have proven that open-ended rules like this do not work well.

[wilhitern1]

So, you want a simple solution? Two robots may not touch on any bridge. Red card to both robots.

Situation solved. No one ever goes near a bridge again...

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by bduddy

So today's Team Update contains absolutely nothing pertaining to this sort of behavior. Perhaps FIRST hasn't noticed it, of course, but I'm increasingly beginning to wonder if the GDC considers this kind of behavior within the spirit of the rules of the game. Has anything on this topic been asked on the Q&A?

I think this type of behavior is already addressed in <G12>, <G15>, <G23>, and <G26>, which have all been in the rules since we received them 1/7. We all know the definition of Coopertition. No update necessary.

[IKE]

Reasonable arguments can be made for a 6v0. I can/will make them if necessary. "META-Coopertition" as layed out above was an attempt at a 35v2. "v2" being the most important part of that statement.
It really could have just as easily have been "v3" or "v4" talking with the folks out that way. While everyone thinks they know who will be in the #1 alliance, most were pretty confident who would be against them in the finals. How do you think the 2 lead teams of the Finalists would have dealt with a 33v4 scenario?

In 2008, a friend gave me a card that has some quotes that have helped him in his life. One in particular that pertains to this converstation:

Can you look yourself in the mirror and say with confidence that you have:
*accomplished much
*with the help of many
*at the expense of none

The last point of that quote is very difficult to achieve, but a great thing to strive for.

[gr8dragon]

Addressing the Canadian talent not good enough point, I would like to mention that 1114 and 2056 have had superior robots to any Canadian team in most if not all years. (2008 1114 had arguably the best robot in FIRST) However it is not that the other teams in Canada have no hope of beating them or that they have given up hope. The reason why choosing not to cooperate was a viable strategy was because it gave the weaker teams a possibility to win the regional, as well as had they been effectively split up, 4 teams would've had the distinct honour in working with both 1114/2056. Which may have help them figure out how to do things differently in order to do better in upcoming years.

By not cooperating a team isn't "bringing down the powerhouse" to their level or anything, they are simply giving themselves the best chance to compete. There is a significant difference between actively choosing not to cooperate, which i think is well within the spirit of FIRST, and not allowing other teams to cooperate. In my opinion it is comparable to initiating contact with an opponent's robot if you are in the key/alley to keep piling up penalty points, especially if that robot is having difficulty driving out as a lot of teams run into that problem. It is arguable that that strategy is just as far from the spirit of FIRST as disallowing coopertition. It in a small way can even be compared to playing defencee on a team knowing that your robot has the mechanical advantage to push that robot around and pin it down for extended periods of the match.(pinning within the rules) I may be wrong about this but i do believe that at one regional a team was red carded for intentionally trying to get penalty point while they were in the key/alley, but no other regional has done so(again could be wrong on that). This is just an interesting ruling for this years game and I think falls under the same discussion. Thoughts?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by gr8dragon

I may be wrong about this but i do believe that at one regional a team was red carded for intentionally trying to get penalty point while they were in the key/alley, but no other regional has done so(again could be wrong on that). This is just an interesting ruling for this years game and I think falls under the same discussion. Thoughts?

It could fall under the same discussion. More later.

I think you're right about most of what you said above this about coopertition, with the exception that not cooperating with the powerhouses doesn't necessarily give you the best chance to compete; it simply says that in that match they have to beat you to get qual points. (And at that point, all bets are off--you have to do the same thing.) In any other match, it's to your advantage to cooperate, especially if you're going to win.

Back to the red card for intentionally trying to get penalty points: This is a valid ruling, it's a potentially valid strategy, but it's got to be one of the toughest calls a ref has to make. Did the team intend to force the penalty? Intent is one of the hardest things to call. (Actually, I can think of a very "interesting" eliminations strategy if you're at an event where the refs do give red cards for that...) There's a reason for the rules being the way they are; it's a matter of "you can bump to tell them to move, and again if they're a slow learner, but you can't bump just to get the points", and the ref gets the unenviable job of determining if that line's been crossed.

[lemiant]

Originally Posted by Bongle

Notice that GTR actually has a larger 2nd tier of teams in the 15-25 area of OPR (which are, in order, 610, 2852, 907, 188, 4334, and 1241).

I like you!