Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!

[Jim Meyer]

Originally Posted by jawebste

Our team was actually the recipient of "being left" at the bridge (being stood up for the prom?) twice. In one of the two matches the two bots on our alliance that had said they could do our bridge couldn't balance, so our alliance received no balance points while the team on the opposing alliance that had agreed to cooperate never came near the coopertition bridge and went and made a two bot balance for their own alliance.

This was the thing that I feared the most about this game. Whether it happened in actuality or was merely percieved that way, decieving your opponents can benefit you in this game. This aspect has the real potential to damage relationships between teams.

Lets not confuse deciding not to balance with your opponents with the 6v0 matches. Deciding not to balance alway hurts all of the teams on the field. They only time it helps a team on the field is if they have some outside interest in seeing a team not in that match seed higher than one that is in that match. The 6v0 scenario actually helped some of the teams on the field seed higher. It was weird that the rules the GDC laid out worked that way, but they did not make that mistake this year.

Teams have always (since 2000) had the option of pulling other teams down with them by intentionally losing matches they were in. To me, choosing not to participate in cooperitition this year is the same as "throwing" a match.

[johnr]

I really want to see how this bridge thing plays out at michigan state champs and to a lesser degree at michigan troy district. It is possible at these events that the number one seed will look across the field, half way thru the comp, and see the 2nd,3rd and 4th seeded teams playing against them. Now does the 2-3-4 alliance co-op too maintain standings or just go for the win to catch up to the number one seeded team. They all lose some ground but maybe they can catch up later.

[Mr. Lim]

To me, choosing not to participate in cooperitition this year is the same as "throwing" a match.

In most cases I would agree with this.

However, in at least one situation, I would vehemently disagree:

A match that is going to be difficult to win where you need 2 robots on the alliance bridge, and 1 robot scoring baskets the entire match. If you do this, you can eke out a win, earning 2 CP for your alliance, and 0 for the opponents. A +2 differential.

If you send a robot to the coopertition bridge, you're losing valuable alliance points, and can't play for a win anymore. Although this results in your alliance still getting 2 CP, you're handing your opponents 4 CP. A -2 differential.

I certainly won't roll over and let my opponents jump ahead of me in the rankings, just because I'm guaranteed 2 CP either way.

It seems trying to win is still good for something in this game...

[Mr. Lim]

Originally Posted by johnr

I really want to see how this bridge thing plays out at michigan state champs and to a lesser degree at michigan troy district. It is possible at these events that the number one seed will look across the field, half way thru the comp, and see the 2nd,3rd and 4th seeded teams playing against them. Now does the 2-3-4 alliance co-op too maintain standings or just go for the win to catch up to the number one seeded team. They all lose some ground but maybe they can catch up later.

Johnr,

The difficulty here is not #1 facing all three of #2, #3 and #4 all at once, in a single match.

It is if #1 faces #2 in a match...

then #3 in the next...

then #4 in the next...

If #2, #3, and #4 all say "no" to coopertation, they each take a SMALL 2 CP hit.

By the end of these matches however, #1 has taken a MASSIVE 6 CP hit, and likely #2, #3, and #4 all overtake #1.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by IKE

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.

That last point raises an interesting philosophical point. Do you favour Pareto optimality (striving for net societal improvement, with nobody any worse off) over something a little more Rawlsian (striving for net societal improvement, with nobody unduly harmed), or even Benthamite (striving for net societal improvement, period)?

Personally, I tend toward Rawls most of the time, and I suspect that's part of the reason why we differ. (I'd avoid Pareto except in circumstances where there's not enough information to guess at what undue harm is. And Bentham is for cases where the impact on any individual is trivial enough to be neglected rather than analyzed.) I'm resigned to the idea that the most positive choice for society can sometimes involve negatives for some people, and yet may be justified if the negatives are modest.

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

I'm very happy that the GDC has given us more clarification on the coopertition bridge.

It think it goes a long way to avoiding any further incidents of robots trying to unbalance an already balanced coopertition bridge, or interfering with a balance in progress.

After reading the questions, I realized it would be near impossible to add specific rules to address the issues.

I would like to try and use this update to answer some of the specific questions raised.

Here are some questions that I think this update could address. I've removed the ones that I think are very clearly answered. I've simplified some others to make directly relevant to the new information from the update.

I would love it if everyone took a shot at answering these.

Explanations to your answers would be nice, but not necessary!

Firstly, there are two kinds of acceptability that need to be distinguished: acceptability due to legality (irrespective of whether legality is clear, or subject to disputable interpretation), and acceptability due to moral standards (which come in personal and societal flavours, as well as other permutations).

If we're talking legality, then I'd say this is pretty straightfoward:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

No rules prohibit these strategies.

As for moral standards, I disagree with many above that the "spirit of FIRST", "Gracious Professionalism" or any other similar concepts establish a sufficiently homogeneous moral standard for us to impose on the entire competition with the specificity needed to conclude that a particular on-field action is always immoral. Opinion is inherently diverse, and even if you see broad agreement about end goals, it hardly follows that you should expect agreement about the reasoning used to arrive at those opinions. We all want competitors to have fun (an uncontroversial end goal), but I think that there is no agreement on how that fun should be apportioned (in parallel to the Pareto/Rawls/Bentham example above). Consequently, it's not enough to say that because a certain strategic direction is the least offensive to the majority, that it is the only acceptable one.

Similarly, we can't ignore other examples from sports, politics and everyday life, because those also affect our assessment of fairness in different contexts. In short, my moral compass can be self-consistent and rational, and yet still conflict with someone else's.

So with that in mind, I find myself wondering whether these actions are truly so outrageous, and so offensive to the morals of enough people, that it's safe to pass judgment on the entire strategy. I don't think I can do that. There are enough ways to employ these strategies that (to me, at least) exemplify a command of the meta-game, and an effort to trade some short-term reprobation for an overall strategic victory. You can complain that the Yankees have too much money—but when it comes down to it, that's not unfair, it's just part of the game of baseball at the major league level. So too with these strategies. They're an example of playing to win the tournament, rather than necessarily maximize the match score. That offends a widespread expectation, but not a fundamental one.

Therefore, my answers don't really change:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

I recognize the influence of unwritten rules, but I think one of the great virtues of FRC is that it is to a large degree a fresh start every year. The GDC has the freedom to tailor the rules specifically to their vision every year, and this consequently removes a big reason to lean on tradition and precedent as additional ways of regulating our behaviour. As a result, I read the GDC's recent message as reinforcement of principles that are already clearly articulated in the rules, but not a clear statement that teams must change any particular strategic behaviour. It's a statement of what the GDC would like, rather than a statement of what we must do. And while it would be very nice to please them, I don't think the recent update should be read as a new moral imperative.

Despite the fact that I'm unwilling to condemn those strategic choices, no examination of the topic would be complete without asking 'what will other teams think of us?' In this case, perhaps perception trumps reality, and even in the presence of well-reasoned justifications about morality, the price your reputation will pay is simply too great. That's a decision for teams to make on their own, rather than something that should be taken out of their hands by dicta from the GDC or the FRC community.

Originally Posted by Shankar M

I think we as a community are all in agreement (even before this update) that egregious attempts to unbalance the Coopetition Bridge are wrong and should be unquestionably frowned upon.

I don't think I'm even willing to go that far. If you try to smash another robot off the bridge, that's one thing (and you'll be rightly penalized)...but inserting your robot in a way that removes the balancing points is perhaps rude, but not that much more so than blocking a series of shots, or pinning an opponent's robot to the wall. The fundamental difference is merely that one has a direct and disproportionate effect on the rankings, while the others are perceived as simple gameplay interactions.

Originally Posted by Shankar M

I worry a little about teams using this update as a basis to "bully" or "coerce" teams on an alliance that chooses, as they are perfectly entitled to do, not to balance the Coopetition Bridge. I certainly hope this is not the case, but I know that if a situation arises in the future where my alliance chooses not to balance the bridge, I will be at least a little bit on edge about how things will play out.

Good insight into the perils of reverse coercion. I don't want a situation where teams are unable to convince opponents/partners that acting primarily in self-interest is not inherently a bad thing. Managing other teams expectations and perceptions is very much part of the game, and I think this whole situation draws the meta-game to the forefront nicely, even if it does complicate the process somewhat.

[pfreivald]

Tristan, you might want to consider that your views seem to be diametrically opposed to those of the GDC and to the founders of FIRST.

[jawebste]

Originally Posted by Jim Meyer

This was the thing that I feared the most about this game. ..... your opponents with the 6v0 matches ....

We are pretty naive I guess, because we don't even know what 6v0 means from 2010. And as a coach, I hate the fact that I will not encourage my team or my alliance to cooperate in the future.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Tristan, you might want to consider that your views seem to be diametrically opposed to those of the GDC and to the founders of FIRST.

In what way? I don't think it's that clear.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Tristan, you might want to consider that your views seem to be diametrically opposed to those of the GDC and to the founders of FIRST.

I'm rarely entirely opposed, though I frequently disagree on numerous specific points. But there's more than one way to achieve good results.

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 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.

In this instance, I don't think the GDC's moral standard is universal, and it seems that by proclaiming it in this way, they inadvertently suppress dissenting points of view. Changing the culture in a positive way doesn't have to be about homogeneity of opinion when faced with a moral choice.

Actually, I find it interesting that we seem to take somewhat opposite positions. I think a clear regulatory standard helps us to be permissive about varying moral positions. I believe you're advocating a strong moral position as a way of overcoming gaps in the rules.

[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?

[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