"Rigging" the game vs playing the game strategically - what's the difference?

[Andrew]

In FIRST's interpretation of the cooperation strategy, it is not "gracious professionalism" to work with both your partner and your opponents to raise all four teams.

I suspect this interpretation was made to improve the viewability of this year's game, rather than a well thought out application of the GP philosophy.

In my opinion, agreeing to cooperate is within the spirit of FIRST and gracious professionalism. It is also the only way that some of the weaker teams are going to be able to compete with the stronger teams.

I see GP as being something that applies primarily outside the playing field.

On the playing field, you should play within the rules. Even if the referees do not enforce the rules, you should still abide by them. Teams which push the referees to provide the limit for their behavior are acting more outside the spirit of GP than teams which are exploiting a feature of the game to increase their overall chances in competition.

GP within the game would be reflected in avoiding "unnecessary roughness." For instance, ramming into a robot that has broken down away from any possible "action" would not be graciously professional.

On the other hand, I can see why teams will be upset when other teams engage in the cooperative strategy. Teams which expect to be at the top of the rankings will have to make fewer mistakes and play a lot harder to earn their place at the top.

When eliminations come around, the cooperative strategy will not work. Teams which made it to the top by cooperating may not be effective in eliminations. This may make eliminations less interesting than they should be.


It might be useful to start a poll and see what the FIRST community (ie us) thinks about cooperating versus competing.

Andrew, Team 356