Team Update 03-14-2012

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Fair enough, but I think we need to consider more than just the bare action when deciding how to evaluate a team's behaviour.

Are they generally nice people, or do they have a history of being belligerent? Are they cunning strategists, or do they rarely have a good sense of the big picture? Is there evidence of malice, or merely a desire to compete more effectively?

It should reflect on them only in conjunction with several other mitigating and aggravating factors. I would not be comfortable ostracizing a team solely on the basis of their choice of one of the strategies discussed here.

Well, I know that once a team (or a person) has been dishonest or underhanded in any dealing with me, they will have to do something really special over a long period of time to be considered anything but dishonest or underhanded. Trust, once lost, is not an easy thing to regain.

I know lots of generally nice, smart people who I wouldn't trust with my wallet, my sister, or in my pit at competition. Whether or not they believe their dishonesty/underhandedness is intended with malice is quite moot.

[Peck]

I think what he means is that to decide If they were being dishonest/deceitful/whatever, you must consider other factors.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Peck

I think what he means is that to decide If they were being dishonest/deceitful/whatever, you must consider other factors.

Of course there's a difference between agreeing to cooperate with no intention of doing so (lying), agreeing to cooperate with intention of doing so and then during the endgame making a tactical decision not to in order to win the game instead (not lying, but reneging on a deal -- so almost as bad), and agreeing to cooperate but failing in the attempt (maybe your robot died or slipped a chain or something). Only the last is acceptable, IMO.

[fox46]

I was really expecting a new rule to be made that penalized an individual team for interfering with a co-op balance in much the same way an alliance is penalized for interfereing with a balancing attempt on an opposing alliance bridge.

[Grim Tuesday]

Well, I'm glad with the way this update went, because I have seen teams interfere with the bridge for good reasons (twice today at Virginia, I saw a team help another robot onto the co-op bridge). However, it seems that some teams haven't gotten the memo: I just watched at LA, a team push a team on their own alliance that was trying to get onto the bridge off course, so they couldn't get on. Just to make sure that everyone knew it was intentional, they did it again. Apparently, some people just don't get it.

[Mr B]

I would never ever condone intentionally unbalancing a coopertition bridge. Truth be told, trying to work the system like that may help you once in a while, but more often than not it backfires. But how do you judge intent? How do you know if a robot is trying to help balance or just really good at looking incompetent while sabotaging the maneuver? You can't. The part that I love most about FRC is the cooperation that happens in the pit, and in the community. We are a family and we help each other. Shoot, they had to outlaw teams taking time-outs in the finals to help their opponents. But it seems to me then whenever they introduce coopertition to the event, there are unintended consequences that detract from the game. I guess what I am wondering (and I mean no disrespect by this) is why isn't a pure competition enough to inspire young people to pursue careers in science and engineering?

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

However, it seems that some teams haven't gotten the memo: I just watched at LA, a team push a team on their own alliance that was trying to get onto the bridge off course, so they couldn't get on. Just to make sure that everyone knew it was intentional, they did it again. Apparently, some people just don't get it.

Which match was this?

I wonder if the alliance was trying to go for the win and wanted two robots on their own alliance bridge for 20 points. One team could've "gone rogue," broke from strategy and decided to go for the coop bridge instead because they wanted 2 safe CP points, and had no interest in actually trying for the win.

Their alliance members could've disagreed with this choice, and felt they were trying to sabotage a chance at winning.

This is a situation that can very easily happen.

And exactly who is being ungracious becomes less clear.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

Which match was this?

I wonder if the alliance was trying to go for the win and wanted two robots on their own alliance bridge for 20 points. One team could've "gone rogue," broke from strategy and decided to go for the coop bridge instead because they wanted 2 safe CP points, and had no interest in actually trying for the win.

Their alliance members could've disagreed with this choice, and felt they were trying to sabotage a chance at winning.

This is a situation that can very easily happen.

And exactly who is being ungracious becomes less clear.

So you're saying that if red1 says they will go for the alliance bridge and then goes for the co-op bridge, leaving red2 behind at the alliance bridge, it's then considered sportsmanlike for red2 to go attempt to shove red1 off of/away from the coop bridge?

You can't be serious?

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by Cory

So you're saying that if red1 says they will go for the alliance bridge and then goes for the co-op bridge, leaving red2 behind at the alliance bridge, it's then considered sportsmanlike for red2 to go attempt to shove red1 off of/away from the coop bridge?

You can't be serious?

No, I'm definitely not.

But it does provide is a reasonable explanation as to how things got ugly in the first place. And might add some perspective to this game that many still aren't quite seeing.

It's okay though, you wouldn't be the first (or last) to put words into my mouth this season.