FRC Blogged - Invite to Decline Follow Up, and Thanks

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Peter Johnson

Not sure of the situation at SVR, but shouldn't the top 8 teams have the choice not to play in the eliminations, just like the non-seeded teams? E.g. the team's robot broke in their last qual match and they have no hope of fixing it?

I have read(generally in passing on CD, so I don't remember specific instances...) of a team declining a spot in the top 8(I believe it happened once this year...somewhere in the central US I think)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

I have read(generally in passing on CD, so I don't remember specific instances...) of a team declining a spot in the top 8(I believe it happened once this year...somewhere in the central US I think)

I want to say I've heard of an MI team in the top 8 withdrawing from the tournament to get back home at a decent time--this was when their spot in alliance selection came up.


It's not common for teams to withdraw from events they're at in the first place; a top 8 team withdrawing means there is probably a pretty good reason.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by BenB

It's great that we found a way to deal with the problem should it occur, but I think it is more important to try and prevent the problem from happening in the first place; by playing more matches and maintaining a ranking system that rewards the best performing robots (ie no coopertition points or qualification score sorting). Maybe FIRST is already taking this into consideration, but it would have been reassuring to see Frank mention it.

I'm also concerned that the line 'Would you prefer to join or form your own alliance?’ is going to be over used, and this will be said to teams ranked outside the top 15 that have no chance at forming their own alliance (unless several teams robots are broken beyond repair and choose to withdraw from the competition). MCs are going to have to be on their toes when to use the line, especially as alliance selection progresses and teams ranked 9-15 start to loose their eligibility to form their own alliance as teams outside the top 15 get picked.

Perhaps the alliance selection screen could be updated to highlight teams that are currently eligible to form their own alliance with one color, and also highlight teams that may still become eligible depending how alliance selection progresses. This would also make it clear to these teams that they are taking a risk by choosing to form their own alliance, as they may not become an alliance captain. The different color highlights would help both the MC and the general public follow along. Adding an asterisk or something to that effect beside teams that have chosen to form their own alliance would also be helpful, to prevent another alliance captain from trying to pick that team again.

I agree with Ben, we need to play more matches. I think it would also be pretty cool if the FMS highlighted potential ACs (or maybe you could just list teams by seed?). In Frank's initial post he says that the new phrasing will be used when Alliance Captains ask other Alliance Captains which makes sense to me. Declining outside of the top 8 is rare, I would guess it happens at less than 10% of events (does someone know the true percentage?). If it happens, perhaps a stump speech can be given by the MC at that time to explain it. Not a bad idea to give that speech at the start of selection, but I would bet a significant portion of the crowd will forget in the intervening minutes.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

I agree with Ben, we need to play more matches. I think it would also be pretty cool if the FMS highlighted potential ACs (or maybe you could just list teams by seed?).

Matter of fact, if you can actually read the screen (thank you graphic design, it's tough to see the numbers from a distance), the teams are all listed in columns by seed in the "Available" list. The problem is that from a distance, say to the stands, it's pretty tough to read the numbers easily. Webcast is even worse.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Peter Johnson

Not sure of the situation at SVR, but shouldn't the top 8 teams have the choice not to play in the eliminations, just like the non-seeded teams? E.g. the team's robot broke in their last qual match and they have no hope of fixing it?

In VEX in 2008, Team 294 withdrew from eliminations as a seeded team, but for a completely different reason. We had already qualified for the VEX championships by winning our first regional. In our second regional we were dominating and ended up as the #1 seed. Because in VEX only the seeded team of an alliance qualifies for championships (picked alliance partners do not) we wanted to give another team the opportunity to win the competition and get a seat at championships... so we withdrew from the eliminations! It definitely caused some consternation behind the scoring table as they tried to figure out how to drop us (I think the next software update added an easy way to drop any team).

In an ironic twist, we ended up winning the Excellence Award at that regional (also a qualifying ticket to championships). Not exactly what we had in mind..

They wanted to decline being an alliance captain so they could then get picked by someone. Presumably they were hoping to get picked in the 2nd round and form a better alliance.

Once someone chased them down, brought them back, and explained that if they declined they wouldn't play at all, they decided to not decline.

[Littleboy]

I believe it was Niles in 2011 (someone correct me it I am wrong) a team moved up into alliance captain position. They declined their spot. Tom Nadar seemed surprised.

[sanddrag]

So now that we have Frank instructing people on specifically what to say and what not to say during alliance selections, can we get him to comment on the fact that you cannot graciously accept. Nearly every student I see these days (including my own) graciously accepts and I cringe every time I hear it, which is about 14 times per event.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Littleboy

I believe it was Niles in 2011 (someone correct me it I am wrong) a team moved up into alliance captain position. They declined their spot. Tom Nadar seemed surprised.

The team had already qualified for MSC, so they didn't have to play for points. They were seeded somewhere beyond 8th, but when there was interpicking in the top 8, they moved to an alliance captain position. While they weren't totally inoperative, they preferred to use the extra 3 hours pit time to correct some problems they had.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

So now that we have Frank instructing people on specifically what to say and what not to say during alliance selections, can we get him to comment on the fact that you cannot graciously accept. Nearly every student I see these days (including my own) graciously accepts and I cringe every time I hear it, which is about 14 times per event.

I disagree. Since one can accept arrogantly, one can conversely accept graciously. From a purely technical point of view, the language absolutely permits it. From a common use POV, though, one would be on more solid ground accepting gratefully.

That being said, if sanddrag starts a petition to outlaw graciously accepting, I will sign it. 1676 has outlawed it on the team.