Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!

[pfreivald]

Tristan, I apologize for the lengthy response. I appreciate the ability to engage in civil dialogue with someone who disagrees fundamentally with me on important issues. I tried to give each of your comments the time it deserves; I hope you receive my responses in the genuine, honest, non-confrontational spirit in which I intend them to be.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In this case, I think FIRST's leaders are trying to leverage a perceived moral standard that unnecessarily limits a team's choice to play competitively.

I believe that the moral standard set by FIRSTs leaders do indeed limit a team's options when considering choices in competitive play. Removing the value judgements of "perceived" and "unnecessarily" from your statement, I think we're in agreement on the facts, if not opinion of those facts. The moral strictures make FIRST what it is, in all of it's awesome thank-God-it's-not-basketball glory.

Not that either of our opinions really matter, mind -- when it comes down to it, it isn't either of our call.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I also think that the practical impacts of choosing a controversial strategy (e.g. other teams might hate you) are often enough disincentive for me to avoid that strategy. But that's quite different from those strategies being inherently wrong.

I think we might be in agreement on pragmatic disincentive -- indeed, I think several people interpreted my earlier comments regarding long-term team impact to be judgmental as opposed to pragmatic in nature. (A reputation of dishonest jerkism -- thank you Woodie for the alternative to 'cretin' -- is hard to shed, and has the potential to negatively impact teams and team members for the rest of their existence. This makes it a decision bigger than "do I care what this does to our reputation", because it can tarnish the brand in its entirety.)

Pragmatic consequence of certain strategies *is* different from those strategies being inherently wrong -- but that doesn't mean those strategies are thus not inherently wrong. Don't fall for the false dichotomy: they can be both pragmatically unwise as well as inherently wrong.

I would posit that all inherently wrong strategies are pragmatically unwise, though pragmatically unwise strategies are not necessarily inherently wrong... that said, I'm not interested in the thought experiment involved with teasing out the wrongness matrix of any given action in Rebound Rumble.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In this instance, I don't think the GDC's moral standard is universal

I'm certain it isn't, as evidenced by your disagreement -- but it's their call, not yours. I approve 100% of the moral standards of gracious professionalism and coopertition in their full spirit; you clearly do not. It's critically important to note that both of our opinions are quite irrelevant when it comes to communicating with and interpreting the pronouncements of the GDC; they mean what they mean, and it's up to us to determine what that is as opposed to what we want it to be.

In other words, the truth doesn't care what you think. If you want to be an effective communicator (listener) in this case, then you must try to ascertain what it is the GDC actually meant, and that means using the moral standard under which they are operating to interpret their pronouncements even if you don't agree with those standards. To do otherwise is to apply willful ignorance as a shield against effective communication of intent.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

and it seems that by proclaiming it in this way, they inadvertently suppress dissenting points of view.

I highly doubt it's inadvertent. Year after year after year, the message from the GDC has been "do the right thing, even if it's to your competitive disadvantage". Not all teams live up to this ideal, and not all team members live up to this ideal -- but it is indeed this ideal that makes FIRST fundamentally better than most (if not all) sports. (Yes, that's a judgmental statement on my part. Yes, I'm comfortable making it. Yes, I wish everyone in FIRST would just either buy into it, suck it up, or find a program they can stomach. No, I don't expect them all to do so.)

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Changing the culture in a positive way doesn't have to be about homogeneity of opinion when faced with a moral choice.

Yes, it absolutely must. Changing the culture in a positive way is a fundamentally moral venture. If you think otherwise, I don't think you understand much of anything*** about the interrelationships between morals and culture.

FIRST is inherently judgmental. Dean Kamen looked out at the glorification of sports and entertainers and cutthroat business and he said, "this is wrong". He set out to right that wrong, and to transform the culture into one that celebrates not only science and engineering, but also gracious professionalism and coopertition -- and he did so because these things are "right" and should be encouraged and celebrated. You're of course free to disagree, but when it comes to what FIRST is all about, it's not your call, it's theirs.

You're free to disagree, and you're free to express that disagreement, but you do not have the prerogative to impose your views of what FIRST should be upon FIRST (and neither do I. For the record, there are a variety of things I would change were I in charge... But I'm not, and I don't want to be, even if that means that the things I disagree with continue in perpetuity. It is sufficient for me to see that FIRST does a whole lot of good for a whole lot of people, and as far as I can see does no harm).

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Actually, I find it interesting that we seem to take somewhat opposite positions.

Honest, civil disagreement is a rare find. I wonder how much of ours lies in foundational assumptions, and how much in syllogism.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I think a clear regulatory standard helps us to be permissive about varying moral positions.

I would agree in principle that a clear regulatory standard allows permissivity in varying moral positions -- although we've already established that your vision of a clear regulatory standard has no basis in the real world vis-a-vis either game design or engineering specifications. (I suppose you can scoff or disagree if you desire, but my impression from our earlier exchange in the other thread is that when it comes to game design you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Without further evidence to the contrary, that's the impression I'm working with going forward).

The problem with your statement is that it seems to be entirely ignorant of the fact that in FIRST the competition is entirely subservient to the moral goals. (Don't take my word for it. Listen to 20 years of "it's not about the robots"). So your statement is correct, but entirely moot.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I believe you're advocating a strong moral position as a way of overcoming gaps in the rules.

In that you are flat wrong, and it leads me to believe that you haven't made an effort to understand a single thing I've said on this subject. I happen to approve of both the moral stance and the game design of FIRST leadership -- but the two are orthogonal.

On moral stance: I am advocating a strong moral position because moral relativism is a bankrupt philosophy espoused only by those too lazy to contemplate the ramifications of the fact that "there are no moral absolutes" is a moral absolute.

On game design: I support the "reasonably astute observer" and "intent of the GDC" rulings because positivist game design, despite your expressed desires to the contrary earlier in the 118 thread, is not actually possible. Unpleasant truths are always preferable to pleasant fictions.

...and of course neither of those matter one whit, because I'm neither part of the GDC nor of FIRST leadership. That means that even if I agreed with you about everything, that wouldn't make our interpretations or our arguments hold even the slightest bit more water -- all it would do is make us both wrong when interpreting what the GDC means.

***Please note that accusations of ignorance are not pejorative. I know way less about most things than I know about the things I know about -- I'm a fundamentally ignorant person; I comfort myself in the fact that so is everyone else. People tend to defer to me on matters of quantum physics because that's where my background lies -- this makes some sense, even if it is an appeal to authority logical fallacy, because most people are happy to admit that they know little to nothing about quantum mechanics. So why is it that everyone seems to assume that they're experts on religion, philosophy, and politics? These subjects are at least as difficult to master as science and math, but people humble on science and math are crippled by hubris on religion, philosophy, and politics. I used to find this interesting... now I just find it frustrating, and have to keep in the front of my mind that this used to be me.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Tristan, I apologize for the lengthy response. I appreciate the ability to engage in civil dialogue with someone who disagrees fundamentally with me on important issues. I tried to give each of your comments the time it deserves; I hope you receive my responses in the genuine, honest, non-confrontational spirit in which I intend them to be.

I'll note that for the most part, I was able to receive your comments as intended, though as you'll see, there was one in particular that I think was probably beyond the pale. Either way, there's certainly something fundamentally different about the ways in which we approach this issue.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I approve 100% of the moral standards of gracious professionalism and coopertition in their full spirit; you clearly do not.

You say that like it's a terrible thing. Am I insufficiently zealous for daring to approve only 90%?

(I can't really challenge your assertion in detail if I don't know to which definition of those terms you're referring. Gracious professionalism has been articulated many ways by many people, some of whom are senior enough at FIRST to be credible authorities on the matter. Co-opertition is typically defined as a combination of competition and co-operation, but it's clear that as embodied in this year's game, it is distinct from the oft-stated ideal of competing as hard as you can on the field, and co-operating as hard as you can off it.)

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Yes, it absolutely must. Changing the culture in a positive way is a fundamentally moral venture. If you think otherwise, I don't think you understand much of anything*** about the interrelationships between morals and culture.

You'll have to enlighten me why the trajectory of positive culture change must absolutely culminate in homogeneity of opinion.

Though Dean's vision for cultural change might be grand and sweeping, I think it's fair to represent the actual process as incremental. And not every increment of change is going to lead in exactly the same moral direction. Surely there are many solutions to the problem of increasing the recognition of science and technology in our culture. Why should every one be expected to eventually converge?

And as for the interrelationships between morals and culture, you're going to have to back that assertion up with something a little more concrete. Is there a relevant relationship that supports your assertion, and denies mine? (Or were you merely highlighting the uninteresting fact that to call something "positive" requires drawing a conclusion about the morality of the process that caused it?)

Originally Posted by pfreivald

In that you are flat wrong, and it leads me to believe that you haven't made an effort to understand a single thing I've said on this subject. I happen to approve of both the moral stance and the game design of FIRST leadership -- but the two are orthogonal.

While I sometimes talk about alleged flaws in the rules, this sentence wasn't an instance of that. I was merely stating the obvious: that there are important issues that the rules do not speak to. My assertion was that a strong moral position could be used to provide guidance where the rules do not—I don't think this is controversial. Furthermore, I think you're relying upon that process—and I said as much, without implying a value judgment.

Given that sentence in its proper context, I don't think you should draw the conclusion that I have not attempted to understand you. (Actually, I'm baffled by what led you to that conclusion, even in the absence of context.)

Originally Posted by pfreivald

On moral stance: I am advocating a strong moral position because moral relativism is a bankrupt philosophy espoused only by those too lazy to contemplate the ramifications of the fact that "there are no moral absolutes" is a moral absolute.

Are you counting me among them? Because that's not even remotely what I said or implied.

But digressing for a moment—because this is interesting—are you saying that it would be fine to say "I have insufficient evidence of the existence of moral absolutes"? It would seem to pass your stated test, but without repudiating moral relativism.

And incidentally, if you are advocating an absolutist position, how do you reconcile that with uncertainty or disagreement about what those absolutes are? (And if you're not advocating for absolutism, why bother lashing out against relativism?)

Originally Posted by pfreivald

On game design: I support the "reasonably astute observer" and "intent of the GDC" rulings because positivist game design, despite your expressed desires to the contrary earlier in the 118 thread, is not actually possible. Unpleasant truths are always preferable to pleasant fictions.

You're half right, in that I do not like the "reasonably astute observer" standard as applied this year (for reasons I explained in that thread).

But as for the other half, you seem to be recalling your own expressed opposition to positivist game design. I did not advocate for a completely positivist rule book, because I realize the inherent futility of expecting to write a truly universal set of definitions. (That means that at the extreme, while not a realistic situation, I agree with you, and never indicated otherwise.) To quote myself:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I concur and am at peace with the fact that every word can be dissected...but that's not to imply that every such dissection is the same. When interpreting a rule, some ambiguities are more ambiguous than others. The aim is hopefully to provide a document that replaces big ambiguities with small ones, whenever possible—and does so in a way that's also reasonable to understand, follow and enforce.

In other words, I was advocating for more specificity in certain areas. The lack of a positivist solution to the rulebook in no way precludes the possibility of improvement of the document as it stands. It is entirely possible, and arguably desirable, to achieve greater specificity without running afoul of philosophical impossibilities.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

...and of course neither of those matter one whit, because I'm neither part of the GDC nor of FIRST leadership. That means that even if I agreed with you about everything, that wouldn't make our interpretations or our arguments hold even the slightest bit more water -- all it would do is make us both wrong when interpreting what the GDC means.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Not that either of our opinions really matter, mind -- when it comes down to it, it isn't either of our call.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

It's critically important to note that both of our opinions are quite irrelevant when it comes to communicating with and interpreting the pronouncements of the GDC; they mean what they mean, and it's up to us to determine what that is as opposed to what we want it to be.

In other words, the truth doesn't care what you think. If you want to be an effective communicator (listener) in this case, then you must try to ascertain what it is the GDC actually meant, and that means using the moral standard under which they are operating to interpret their pronouncements even if you don't agree with those standards. To do otherwise is to apply willful ignorance as a shield against effective communication of intent.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

You're free to disagree, and you're free to express that disagreement, but you do not have the prerogative to impose your views of what FIRST should be upon FIRST (and neither do I. For the record, there are a variety of things I would change were I in charge... But I'm not, and I don't want to be, even if that means that the things I disagree with continue in perpetuity. It is sufficient for me to see that FIRST does a whole lot of good for a whole lot of people, and as far as I can see does no harm).

FRC is not a cult or a religion, where the doctrinal interpretation is the only valid interpretation. Instead, it is a community, with a competition at its centre. It is absolutely my call, to a very limited extent. Indeed, to an extent, it's every participant's call. FRC is about what we collectively make of it. The FIRST leadership and FRC GDC clearly drive the community's standards, but they do so in a manner akin to the leader of a political party: through manifestos, exhortations and examples. If the party disagrees with the leader's position, it pushes back, and change tends to occur. (We saw this with the request for transparency in FIRST's operations a couple years ago. It also happens behind the scenes, when FRC volunteers and staff lobby headquarters for improvements.)

So, no, I don't single-handedly set policy for FIRST—and obviously, I wasn't under that illusion. But discussions here, like conflicts and controversies at events, help advance the conversation, which in turn affects FIRST's policies.

As for your suggestion that one must interpret the rules by applying the GDC's moral standards, I find that highly suspect. Given that the GDC members' positions are not homogeneous (or even necessarily self-consistent), and only a few collective pronouncements of moral fibre are provided, one can hardly ever expect to be right (in the sense of understanding the rules in the manner intended). But more importantly, I don't see any indication that FIRST actually expects this of its participants. Sure, they make statements telling us what type of reasoning to employ when interpreting the rules—but that's not a moral standard, it's merely a vague suggestion about reading comprehension, and frankly, an eminently practical attempt at avoiding argumentation.

Also, adoption of FIRST's moral outlook is simply not the standard that many (perhaps most) officials apply in practice. First of all, most officials don't address the problem with anything approaching that level of philosophical depth. They just read the rulebook, and enforce their understanding of it. They're not actively considering whether their moral compass is aligned with that of the GDC.

Furthermore—at least according to my own moral outlook—officials aren't supposed to have the luxury of choosing the interpretation that is most comfortable for them or for the GDC. Instead, they're burdened with the entire set of interpretations that satisfy the written rules in the book. When it comes to enforcing the rules, simple equity dictates that (subject to other important considerations), a solution that satisfies the letter of the rulebook is right enough, whether or not it strictly follows from the GDC's intent. (The GDC doesn't always like this—but as a matter of principle, equity is usually more important than keeping them 100% happy.)

That must be kind of infuriating, because it suggests that multiple contradictory opinions can be simultaneously right, despite the existence of what's supposed to be an objective standard. But there's no objective way to enforce unstated intent, and trying to give it the veneer of objectivity by claiming that the GDC's intent trumps all only serves to make teams mad at the officials and the competition.

Worse, it implies that it might be acceptable to allow a team's innocent misunderstanding of an ambiguous rule to ruin their experience—that would be unconscionable. (Note that if the rule is not sufficiently ambiguous in the eyes of the official, then unfortunately, the team's experience will have to suffer. But that's a last resort, not an automatic response to a team's failure to understand the GDC's intent. Officials mustn't—and don't usually—make things up or overstate the ambiguity to placate teams.) In other words, for an official, the morally superior choice is to give less (but rarely zero) weight to the GDC's own moral stance, and instead to ascertain whether the team's interpretation of the rules reasonably follows from the book, and strictly judge their compliance with the actual specifications.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I believe that the moral standard set by FIRSTs leaders do indeed limit a team's options when considering choices in competitive play. Removing the value judgements of "perceived" and "unnecessarily" from your statement, I think we're in agreement on the facts, if not opinion of those facts. The moral strictures make FIRST what it is, in all of it's awesome thank-God-it's-not-basketball glory.

I think that's a statement of fact, but not an axiom.

FIRST is what it is, in large part because people choose to consider moral strictures that go above and beyond the rules. But it is illogical to imply that because many (or most) obey that moral code, that everyone should or must comply. We can't be penalizing teams for following the rules, but not the spirit. Feel free to castigate them after the fact for their moral weakness, but in terms of the game itself, they've acted acceptably.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think we might be in agreement on pragmatic disincentive -- indeed, I think several people interpreted my earlier comments regarding long-term team impact to be judgmental as opposed to pragmatic in nature. (A reputation of dishonest jerkism -- thank you Woodie for the alternative to 'cretin' -- is hard to shed, and has the potential to negatively impact teams and team members for the rest of their existence. This makes it a decision bigger than "do I care what this does to our reputation", because it can tarnish the brand in its entirety.)

Pragmatic consequence of certain strategies *is* different from those strategies being inherently wrong -- but that doesn't mean those strategies are thus not inherently wrong. Don't fall for the false dichotomy: they can be both pragmatically unwise as well as inherently wrong.

I would posit that all inherently wrong strategies are pragmatically unwise, though pragmatically unwise strategies are not necessarily inherently wrong... that said, I'm not interested in the thought experiment involved with teasing out the wrongness matrix of any given action in Rebound Rumble.

We agree that the pragmatic disincentive is real. Perhaps we disagree on the details of how much and for how long it will tarnish the brand under a particular set of circumstances. I can live with that state of affairs.

(And incidentally, I don't think I was in any danger of falling for the false dichotomy. My statement was intended to distinguish between those properties, not claim that they cannot simultaneously be true.)

Originally Posted by pfreivald

FIRST is inherently judgmental. Dean Kamen looked out at the glorification of sports and entertainers and cutthroat business and he said, "this is wrong". He set out to right that wrong, and to transform the culture into one that celebrates not only science and engineering, but also gracious professionalism and coopertition -- and he did so because these things are "right" and should be encouraged and celebrated. You're of course free to disagree, but when it comes to what FIRST is all about, it's not your call, it's theirs.

I find it amusing the degree to which Dean has backtracked on this outlook (at least publicly), to secure the participation of one particular popular entertainer. I offer that observation as evidence that perhaps it's not so simple as a bright line between right and wrong.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The problem with your statement is that it seems to be entirely ignorant of the fact that in FIRST the competition is entirely subservient to the moral goals. (Don't take my word for it. Listen to 20 years of "it's not about the robots"). So your statement is correct, but entirely moot.

Complementary, not subservient. Without the competition, the moral goals lack currency—why would the average FRC student care about what Dean Kamen had to say, if it weren't for the cool robots? For that matter, many sponsors wouldn't care about Dean's morals, if it weren't for the robots. It's inescapably about the robots, because without the robots, nobody would listen to the valuable moral lessons.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I highly doubt it's inadvertent. Year after year after year, the message from the GDC has been "do the right thing, even if it's to your competitive disadvantage". Not all teams live up to this ideal, and not all team members live up to this ideal -- but it is indeed this ideal that makes FIRST fundamentally better than most (if not all) sports. (Yes, that's a judgmental statement on my part. Yes, I'm comfortable making it. Yes, I wish everyone in FIRST would just either buy into it, suck it up, or find a program they can stomach. No, I don't expect them all to do so.)

That's not the message I get at all. It's much more subtle than that. There are definitely undertones of "do the right thing" and "play nicely". But it's still clearly a competition, and you should feel free to do things that partners/opponents may not agree with, as long as you're willing to accept that there may be consequences to those decisions.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I would agree in principle that a clear regulatory standard allows permissivity in varying moral positions -- although we've already established that your vision of a clear regulatory standard has no basis in the real world vis-a-vis either game design or engineering specifications. (I suppose you can scoff or disagree if you desire, but my impression from our earlier exchange in the other thread is that when it comes to game design you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Without further evidence to the contrary, that's the impression I'm working with going forward).

Though I probably shouldn't dignify your repetition of baseless attacks with a response, I'll simply point out that I'm pretty sure I have an adequate academic background to make reasonably strong statements about engineering, law and policy. What's more, I suspect I have as much FRC experience as you do—as a team member, mentor and lead official. There's a traceable lineage between rules I co-developed and the past and present FVC, FTC and VRC competitions. I've built a big flying robot, consulted on a solar car, and worked in enough actual engineering positions to know my way around a production line or design shop in a few different industries—and there's stuff I directly developed in thousands of vehicles and several factories. Moreover, I've worked for governments on actual technical codes and policies—and am reputedly quite good at it, at least according to real-world experts. While I'm impressed by the fact that games you designed are played on tabletops all over Western New York, I didn't dismiss your expertise as a substitute for a cogent argument.

So let's not make this about us as individuals, and agree to avoid the personal attacks in future.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You say that like it's a terrible thing.

No, I didn't -- that was an observation, not a judgment.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You'll have to enlighten me why the trajectory of positive culture change must absolutely culminate in homogeneity of opinion.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(Or were you merely highlighting the uninteresting fact that to call something "positive" requires drawing a conclusion about the morality of the process that caused it?)

...and its effects. It's a fundamentally moral process, and so agreement (or at least compliance) at least on those positives being worked toward is necessary. I meant nothing more profound than that.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

My assertion was that a strong moral position could be used to provide guidance where the rules do not—I don't think this is controversial. Furthermore, I think you're relying upon that process—and I said as much, without implying a value judgment.

Very good. That's not what I took away from your earlier comment.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Given that sentence in its proper context, I don't think you should draw the conclusion that I have not attempted to understand you. (Actually, I'm baffled by what led you to that conclusion, even in the absence of context.)

I was equally baffled that you believe that I am advocating a strong moral position as a way of overcoming gaps in the rules, when I have not at any point said anything even remotely like that.

After sifting through why you might believe this given our various conversations on the topic, that was my best guess -- that you were sufficiently busy defending your position by picking at mine that you lost the forest for the trees and ended up believing I said something I didn't.

I could of course be wrong; that was my best guess. It wasn't my intent to offend, but it's still my best guess.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Are you counting me among them?

No, I'm not.

I'm also not interested in having the moral relativism vs. moral absolutism argument on Chief Delphi. It strikes far too close to peoples' hearts (and foundational belief structures), and the flat affect of e-mail or forum almost always results in somebody getting offended at something somebody didn't say.

So while it's critical to my views on this issue, please forget I brought it up.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

But as for the other half, you seem to be recalling your own expressed opposition to positivist game design. I did not advocate for a completely positivist rule book, because I realize the inherent futility of expecting to write a truly universal set of definitions.

You were advocating for a move *toward* a positivist rules set, wherein the GDC should define grab/grasp/grapple beyond the very general "reasonably astute observer" test they have decided to use. Maybe that's an argument about where the line is drawn -- if so, that's cool -- but what I take away from your argument is, "I want the rules to be perfectly clear and not subject to interpretations that could be overturned"... which is just a statement of another impossibility in game design.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

FRC is not a cult or a religion, where the doctrinal interpretation is the only valid interpretation.

That misses my point entirely. It's not that it isn't your call because of some cultish devotion; it's not your call because you're the listener/reader in that conversation, and the GDC is the speaker/author. While it's their burden to be clear, it's your burden to parse out what they actually meant.

Again, this was a statement of pragmatics and the nature of communication, not a statement of who has (or should have) what power and why.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

As for your suggestion that one must interpret the rules by applying the GDC's moral standards, I find that highly suspect. Given that the GDC members' positions are not homogeneous (or even necessarily self-consistent), and only a few collective pronouncements of moral fibre are provided, one can hardly ever expect to be right (in the sense of understanding the rules in the manner intended).

...and yet they agree on what they're going to publish to the community before they say it -- and thus it's our job to determine what they collectively mean when they do so. You don't have to agree with or accept their moral standards, but you must take them into account if your goal is understanding what they've said/written. Again, this is a strictly pragmatic issue.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

They just read the rulebook, and enforce their understanding of it. They're not actively considering whether their moral compass is aligned with that of the GDC.

You might want to investigate how complicated the process of reading for information actually is. If they seek to actually understand what the rules say, they must, in fact, actively consider the relevant attributes of the authors. Given just how much emphasis FIRST puts on GP and Coopertition, they must be near the forefront when parsing the meaning of the GDC's words.

You might find Stephen Pinker's writings on neurolinguistics englightening -- his books are very cool.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Instead, they're burdened with the entire set of interpretations that satisfy the written rules in the book.

I don't think a superposition of meaning-states is at all how anybody reads rules (or anything else for that matter). Reading for intent requires evaluation of likely meanings.

It's statements like these, by the way, that give me the very strong impression that you have no idea how games are written. That's not the personal attack you took it as, by the way. I know nothing about biology and little enough about women -- if someone tells me so, I'll happily agree. I'm certain we can come up with an enormous list of things about which I'm ignorant; I try not to speak authoritatively about those subjects.

I encourage you to consider stepping back and trying to (a) educate yourself on the technical aspects of game design and (b) be less authoritative in your criticism and/or demands of the GDC until you have done so. You're welcome to take or ignore my advice, of course.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

trying to give it the veneer of objectivity by claiming that the GDC's intent trumps all only serves to make teams mad at the officials and the competition.

It could, but it doesn't have to. That's up to how the teams choose to respond to it. I would advocate that instead of getting mad these teams suck it up, lick their wounds, and take it as the learning experience that it is -- including perhaps especially ways to engineer things so that if the rules end up not being interpreted in their favor they aren't put out much (like 118's brilliant bridge balancing is a low-risk innovation as compared to the high-risk trollbot. There are more and less smart ways to take risks with the rules).

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

We can't be penalizing teams for following the rules, but not the spirit.

Sure we can, because FIRST has made it clear that the spirit and the letter are inseparable. (They make this clear by telling us outright not to lawyer the rules, and instead to read them with an intent to understand what they mean.)

Again, because they make the rules, they have the prerogative to tell us how to properly parse their intent. It won't be perfect -- language never is -- but it will be much closer to correct if we interpret things the way they tell us to.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I find it amusing the degree to which Dean has backtracked on this outlook (at least publicly), to secure the participation of one particular popular entertainer. I offer that observation as evidence that perhaps it's not so simple as a bright line between right and wrong.

I haven't seen any backtracking on Dean's part -- quite the contrary, as recently as kickoff he was making moral judgements about where society is versus where it should be. Can you give some examples of his backtracking?

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

That's not the message I get at all.

I'm not using a superposition of meaning-states to interpret their words, so go figure our interpretations will differ. That seems to be the root of several of our disagreements.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

So let's not make this about us as individuals, and agree to avoid the personal attacks in future.

I would like to reiterate that I didn't make a personal attack. I pointed out that you appear to be quite ignorant in particular areas relevant to this conversation. I can't prevent you from taking that personally, but there's absolutely no reason why you should.

[Travis Hoffman]

So, uh, how bout that great weather, eh?

[Tom Ore]

What's the CD record for total lines in 3 consecutive posts?

[Chris86]

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

What's the CD record for total lines in 3 consecutive posts?

I don't know, but I think you've found the CD-appropriate way to say tl;dr. Though from what I skimmed, both seemed to make good points that lead to the conclusion: there's no way we can all have the same "moral" views of the game! But I'll say something about this: chill out! It's a game!

[Taylor]

Chief Delphi - where a conversation about meta-coopertition evolves into a discussion about metaphysics. I love this place.

[Mr. Lim]

Although I petitioned the mods to have Patrick and Tristan's posts moved to another thread, I thoroughly enjoyed reading all the posts.

In reference to "chill out, it's just a robotics competition," I'd have to say that I again disagree!

FRC is about so much more than just the robots.

I couldn't tell you how bored I was during our mandatory "philosophy for engineers" course during my undergrad. The significance of relativistic moralism never really rang through to me, until now.

Although at times painful, it was really neat to see a tangible example of these concepts intelligently dissected, debated, and applied right before my eyes... using robots.

Crazy.

For a topic I despised so much in undergrad, I still can't believe I got roped in to reading every.. single... word... intently.

Seriously though, having a good handle on Tristan's and Patrick's points WILL ACTUALLY HELP YOU AT COMPETITION THIS YEAR.

You could just say "yes" to every opportunity to coopertate, take the "moral high ground," and throw every team who doesn't want to coopertate under the bus for being "cretins."

At the end of the day, you might just be encouraging teams to take coopertition bridge defense underground.

It is far more effective, and less damaging to a team's "moral reputation" to promise the opponent they will coopertate, meet them at the bridge, and then have an "intentional accident" which causes the balance to fail.

Intent is impossible to judge. And no one would dare make any accusations, nor should they.

You could never "catch" anyone doing this, and they would come off smelling like roses. At least they TRIED to balance the coop bridge, right?

I need to make it absolutely clear that I would find the above scenario absolutely disgusting...

...exponentially worse than anything we saw at GTR-E.

Instead of building a "universal morality" where teams feel pressure to resort to underhanded means, I would much rather have a balanced approach that said:

"Okay, there are some valid reasons NOT to balance that coopertition bridge. If you choose not to, I won't bully, coerce, convince or hold it against you. If you're going to do it, at least do it the right way. Get to the bridge first, tip it towards you, and stay on it so no one else can get on. Not everyone will agree with what you're doing, but they will understand why you did it, and not throw hatred at you. I would much rather you do this, and be transparent about it, as opposed to the underhanded alternatives."

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

Instead of building a "universal morality" where teams feel pressure to resort to underhanded means, I would much rather have a balanced approach that said:

"Okay, there are some valid reasons NOT to balance that coopertition bridge. If you choose not to, I won't bully, coerce, convince or hold it against you. If you're going to do it, at least do it the right way. Get to the bridge first, tip it towards you, and stay on it so no one else can get on. Not everyone will agree with what you're doing, but they will understand why you did it, and not throw hatred at you. I would much rather you do this, and be transparent about it, as opposed to the underhanded alternatives."

Or, you know, if you're against cooperation, just leave the bridge ALONE.

I'd consider intentionally blocking the bridge for someone who might want to go on it a form of coercion.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I'd consider intentionally blocking the bridge for someone who might want to go on it a form of coercion.

Indeed. Interfering with an alliance partner who wants to balance is, in the words of Woodie Flowers, being an "incompetent jerk".

[Tknee]

Let me start with the disclaimer that outside of being an avid spectator, I haven't participated in a FIRST event for years.

I'm an ardent supporter of unintuitive strategies that can benefit a team in the long run as long as they do not: a) sabotage an alliance member in a match; b) rely on lying to the opponents; c) rely on promises made between teams regarding being picked. I feel that sharing these strategies are akin to sharing tools.

With all that said, I don't think cooperation bridge defense, pre-determined results and meta-coopertition are all that useful in this years competition.

Cooperation bridge defense is essentially alliance sabotage (or preventative measures against alliance sabotage - which should be unnecessary). The need to defend the cooperation bridge disappears if your entire alliance is in agreement whether to balance the bridge or not. I would hope that members within an alliance can communicate with one another their needs and graciously set aside some of their desires to come up with a compromise strategy.

Before continuing let's consider reasons why you would not want the cooperation bridge balanced. The reasons I can think of are: i) you think your alliance can win the match if your robots are engaged in other endeavors ii) you do not wish your opponents to receive the 2CP that come with a balanced bridge. (there's also iii) you do not wish your alliance member to receive the 2CP - but that's alliance sabotage).

I find the 6v0 situation described in the original post as extremely unlikely. If Red1 is such a powerhouse, they probably do not require the full 2 minutes to balance the bridge; if blue alliance is such an overwhelming underdog who is trying to score minimal points, it is difficult to imagine them up 10 points near the end of the match; lastly if the alliance bridge is balanced Blue1 has already showcased their balancing - driving off doesn't negate having done it. Nevertheless the gist of the scenario is that underdog alliance blue is attempting to avoid reason i as to why the bridge isn't balanced and is willing to lose the match to avoid it (with the understanding that they will probably lose the match regardless) while showcasing some of the robots abilities.

I do endorse communication between opponents but want to point out that agreements between opponents regarding bridge balancing don't have to be a binary yes or no, but can be conditional e.g "We will attempt to balance if we are winning by 10 or losing by 20 with forty seconds left in the match". Now in the example, if red alliance gives blue alliance a conditional statement, the blue alliance can develop a strategy to score minimal points to ensure that there is a balancing attempt, but without a set agreement to lose the match. Thus if they find themselves winning, they can do so in good conscious and receive the 2QP for winning instead of from CP as they had expected. I suppose things could still go wrong if blue is inside the margin in which a balance attempt is offered and end up losing, but the point is that teams can accomplish the goals described in the 6v0 scenario without having to agree which team will win or lose.

As for meta-coopertition, my thoughts are more jumbled and less clear. With the assumption that you usually want the cooperation bridge balanced, let us focus on reason ii as to why you wouldn't want the cooperation bridge balanced. Supposedly you are playing against a dominant robot (DR) and don't wish DR to seed 1st in order to prevent DR from picking dominant robot 2 (DR2). If there are more than 2 dominant robots, one must wonder how much preventing DR from seeding high going to help. So under that scenario consider:

1) How much are you hurting the DR vs How much are you hurting yourselves - To be truly helpful to you in the long run, other teams (meta-coopertition) must have the same thought process.
2) Can you predict that the other alliances in subsequent matches will join in refusing to cooperate with said dominant robots - Even if the DR plays subsequent matches against teams that may also be interested in preventing the DR from seeding 1st, those teams have to convince their alliance.
3) The benefit of splitting DR1 and DR2 goes primarily to the teams that get to pick (are picked by) DR1 & DR2. True all the alliances benefit from not having to play a DR1-DR2 alliance, but if DR1 and DR2 are that dominant, their two alliances will still be the favorites for the competition.

With all that in mind, I don't see meta-coopertition being all that helpful.

[Steve W]

This thread has degraded and gone off topic therefore I am closing it. If any Mods feel that I am wrong, please feel free to reopen.

[MisterG]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

So, uh, how bout that great weather, eh?

So you Delphi guys are coming to 'sconsin next week, ainna hey?

-alg

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Though I probably shouldn't dignify your repetition of baseless attacks with a response, I'll simply point out that I'm pretty sure I have an adequate academic background to make reasonably strong statements about engineering, law and policy. What's more, I suspect I have as much FRC experience as you do—as a team member, mentor and lead official. There's a traceable lineage between rules I co-developed and the past and present FVC, FTC and VRC competitions. I've built a big flying robot, consulted on a solar car, and worked in enough actual engineering positions to know my way around a production line or design shop in a few different industries—and there's stuff I directly developed in thousands of vehicles and several factories. Moreover, I've worked for governments on actual technical codes and policies—and am reputedly quite good at it, at least according to real-world experts. While I'm impressed by the fact that games you designed are played on tabletops all over Western New York, I didn't dismiss your expertise as a substitute for a cogent argument.

So let's not make this about us as individuals, and agree to avoid the personal attacks in future.

Your post is otherwise cogent and well developed, but these last two paragraphs seriously taint your credibility as someone whose moral beliefs should be agreed with. Your mistake is one that I see made all too often, and it's really frustrating for me when it occurs.

Essentially, you're making ad hominem attacks just as much as he was--perhaps more so, in that you actually call your shot by declaring you are aware the nature of such arguments before proceeding to make one. Listing your own accomplishments in a way like this is generally intended not just as a defensive response but also as a way of defamation, as in "you aren't as good as me": see the passive-agressive comment about tabletop games.

Then you turn around and say that the argument should not be personal. Right after making the argument personal. Essentially, all that a paragraph like this says to a reader like me is "I'm better than you, and if you disagree then that's an ad hominem attack, so I get the last word. Ha."

In the future, a better response would be to dismiss his ad hominem claims by pointing them out for what they are without bothering to refute them. If his technique is already fallacious, the factual correctness of what he is saying about you is of no import.

My two cents.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo

Your post is otherwise cogent and well developed, but these last two paragraphs seriously taint your credibility as someone whose moral beliefs should be agreed with. Your mistake is one that I see made all too often, and it's really frustrating for me when it occurs.

Essentially, you're making ad hominem attacks just as much as he was--perhaps more so, in that you actually call your shot by declaring you are aware the nature of such arguments before proceeding to make one. Listing your own accomplishments in a way like this is generally intended not just as a defensive response but also as a way of defamation, as in "you aren't as good as me": see the passive-agressive comment about tabletop games.

Then you turn around and say that the argument should not be personal. Right after making the argument personal. Essentially, all that a paragraph like this says to a reader like me is "I'm better than you, and if you disagree then that's an ad hominem attack, so I get the last word. Ha."

In the future, a better response would be to dismiss his ad hominem claims by pointing them out for what they are without bothering to refute them. If his technique is already fallacious, the factual correctness of what he is saying about you is of no import.

My two cents.

I accept the criticism.

I also note that rhetorically, even his fallacious argument could be influential—hence my desire to foreclose that line of argumentation.

Patrick recently (in another thread) wrote of his professional accomplishments in the design of games¹ as being a pertinent qualification to discuss FRC issues. (He also listed several academic degrees he earned.) He then insinuated that to understand the issue, I should acquire a level of expertise akin to his own, without actually knowing whether I might have alternative qualifications that give weight to my opinions. I let that slide in the other thread, but felt I should put the matter to rest when he reiterated his uninformed criticism above, adding "we've already established that your vision of a clear regulatory standard has no basis in the real world vis-a-vis either game design or engineering specifications". I obviously disagree that anything of the sort has been established, and listed some reasons why he ought not jump to that conclusion (and why I think others ought not believe him so readily).

In other words, I presented a list of accomplishments to refute his statement, and not to assert superiority; when I said "I didn't dismiss your expertise as a substitute for a cogent argument", I meant that.

But yes, the tabletop gaming comment was perhaps too pointed, was certainly ad hominem and diluted the point I was trying to convey. Although I'm usually reasonably good at avoiding it, sometimes a full-bodied insult is too tempting to pass up, especially in response to repeated slights.<sup>2

1</sup> He mentioned tabletop games before, so I'm assuming that's the experience he was citing.

² As has already been noted, Patrick disagrees with me that those were slights. I think they were, and think they were probably intentional, despite his protestations.