|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#91
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
How very sad.
|
|
#92
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
|
|
#93
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
In the context of the seeding system in place this year and the scenario described in the original post, I maintain, as I stated in my initial post that for me personally the choice is clear - I play to win every match.
When the seeding criteria create the motivation to score for your opponent in certain situations; then, I also have no problem. Aim High was a good example of that scenario. When the seeding criteria create the motivation to cooperate with opponents to control the outcome of the match and it is in everyone's best interest to play, for example 6v0, well I would not criticize teams for pursuing that strategy. It never came up for me that year; if approached by all five other teams, I probably would have cooperated and still slept well that night I could imagine a scenario where losing their last match would put a team in a better position for alliance selection without impacting the ranking of alliance partners or opponents. If I were clever enough to recognize it in the first place, I want to believe that I would not support such strategy by our team. I hope that we would play to win. That would be a personal choice based on my value system. I also would not criticize another who made a different choice. While I would strongly lobby against it, if that was the consensus of my team, I could support it. Under no circumstances would I accept a "bribe" as it were to throw a match. |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
This is all further complicated by the onset of the district systems and point values for the placings at district events. In the later Quals, some teams will be looking at possibly their last chances to get points for DCMPs. If a single team's performance were so significant as to be able to control the outcome of one match, they would risk additional loss of reputation by their sub-par performance. I don't recall why it's called sand-bagging, but I think the NHRA has rules about dragster running times that deal with too large a variation.
|
|
#95
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
The best way to ensure that each team plays to win every match is to ensure that the seeding system rewards that behavior. Qualifying points based on wins and ties with tie breaker points based on a team's own alliance performance (not the opposing one's) should do that.
This is the system in place for this year. The remaining incentive which may influence behavior is the draft process. In my opinion, drafting 1 to 8 in both rounds would remove any incentive for a team to "throw" a match. Under these circumstances, I cannot think of an ethical (or even gray area) which would justify a team "throwing" a match. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
|
|
#97
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
|
|
#98
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
The manipulation of matches to influence the ranking of a specific team crosses the ethical line for me. |
|
#99
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
The big one you can never get rid of is when you're playing the #1 seed, you're the second best robot at the event, and you have a better alliance. There's no way to prevent that kind of match throwing, since there will always be an incentive to keep a better team #1 seed if you are the guaranteed first pick.
|
|
#100
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
|
|
#101
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
![]() |
|
#102
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
I'm not sure if you read my first post on this thread or not, but essentially our motivation for loosing the match would be to keep a very inconsistent robot very high in the seedlings in order to break up and to weaken elimination alliances. |
|
#103
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
I appreciate your transparency in sharing your situation and thought process. I also commend you for making the correct choice, in my opinion. As I stated in my earlier post, I would strongly argue against ever throwing a match, regardless of the situation, based on my personal value system. While I would support a team consensus (large majority) decision; i.e., I was unable to persuade them otherwise, I would be looking for a new team. I think that the example of the Olympic competition sited in an earlier post correctly illustrates the accepted view that such behavior is unethical and to be discouraged. |
|
#104
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
|
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|