301 points! and could have done more

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

I believe you! I just feel he's receiving a large amount of criticism for something I see as trivial to him. In all honesty, I think he just wanted us to have fun.



He wanted to raise the level of competition, which doesn't do much for the winners or finalists. The challenge was a little hard to attempt in qualifications, and a little hard to predict before seeing any matches. Like I said, it worked better last year (all 6 teams hanging, happened 3 times).

You bring up a good point. I really think there was no malice intended by this challenge. That's why I think it's sad this thread has gotten so vitriolic and nasty. The poor guy wasn't actively attempting to ruin the FRC game, I bet he just thought he would help out some teams with extra sponsorship and raise the level of competition at the same time.

[Nathan Rossi]

Originally Posted by Libby K

but bribing teams to play matches in a different way than normal competition at any other regional has played out, just seems shady to me.

One more time, watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEl2QoDSU

Does it sound like he's deliberating bribing teams to not play defense? No, he simply issued a challenge, (a difficult one) to try and raise the level of the competition. If you were able to complete that challenge, you got an award.
The teams are the ones who thought of the no defensive play, not Mr. Sanghi.

[dodar]

Easy question, if you had 200 points and your opponent had 190 but he had a ball worth 20 points if scored in the high goal, if he scored it it meant they won but you both achieved "the goal/challenge," would you let them score it?

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by dodar

Easy question, if you had 200 points and your opponent had 190 but he had a ball worth 20 points if scored in the high goal, if he scored it it meant they won but you both achieved "the goal/challenge," would you let them score it?

We actually had a similar discussion with our alliance before agreeing. See team 842 was having com problems in our 2 semifinal matches. It was a decidedly yes whether we were losing or a robot was disabled. Our alliance agreed to the terms of no defense and that's how we were going to play it.

[Gemmendorfer]

Originally Posted by dodar

Easy question, if you had 200 points and your opponent had 190 but he had a ball worth 20 points if scored in the high goal, if he scored it it meant they won but you both achieved "the goal/challenge," would you let them score it?

I understand your point, but that is not at all what happened, and that scenario was never going to be reached. (I think you are trying to argue that the team would go for the $500, rather than World's this year plus $1000)

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Gemmendorfer

I understand your point, but that is not at all what happened, and that scenario was never going to be reached. (I think you are trying to argue that the team would go for the $500, rather than World's this year plus $1000)

Then why such belief in the challenge at all?

[s_forbes]

This thread is much more eye opening than I expected. Much much more.

What seemed like a reasonable strategy alteration by six teams in the finals match to achieve a stretch goal is apparently seen as the most illegitimate, sad, and dishonest thing to happen in a competition all week (all season?). It sure didn't feel like that when it happened. Now my general impression from the rest of the FIRST community is "your match was bad and you should feel bad". Thanks for adding a sour taste to what was probably the highlight of the regional to me.

I want a robotics competition where people aren't obsessed with only playing a match with winning as the ultimate (and only acceptable) goal, and where teams don't complain incessantly about rules and game imperfections and interpretations. I like having fun with robots. Does anyone know of a competition like that? I want to go participate in that one instead.

[Gemmendorfer]

Originally Posted by dodar

Then why such belief in the challenge at all?

What I meant was that a match that close would not happen, definitely with defense played (as shown in the first match and any other match the first seed was in). The only way things were going to be that close was if one of the robots died...

(Sorry, I feel like I didn't answer your question very well if at all)

The challenge was (probably) just meant to be a challenge.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Nathan Rossi

One more time, watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEl2QoDSU

Does it sound like he's deliberating bribing teams to not play defense? No, he simply issued a challenge, (a difficult one) to try and raise the level of the competition. If you were able to complete that challenge, you got an award.
The teams are the ones who thought of the no defensive play, not Mr. Sanghi.

Why not raise the level of competition by using that money to sponsor teams before the build season, instead of pre-match?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

This thread is much more eye opening than I expected. Much much more.

What seemed like a reasonable strategy alteration by six teams in the finals match to achieve a stretch goal is apparently seen as the most illegitimate, sad, and dishonest thing to happen in a competition all week (all season?). It sure didn't feel like that when it happened. Now my general impression from the rest of the FIRST community is "your match was bad and you should feel bad". Thanks for adding a sour taste to what was probably the highlight of the regional to me.

I want a robotics competition where people aren't obsessed with only playing a match with winning as the ultimate (and only acceptable) goal, and where teams don't complain incessantly about rules and game imperfections and interpretations. I like having fun with robots. Does anyone know of a competition like that? I want to go participate in that one instead.

I almost applaud you for what exactly I want in a competition at FIRST. We don't need people telling us that there is only one acceptable way of playing a game, because in the end if it helps one alliance more or not doesn't matter. We did this because we wanted something more than just a alliance versus alliance match, we weren't looking just for the money, we did it because we wanted to and because we wanted an exciting game.

I don't see anything wrong with an agreement between our alliances, as it was there choice to do it, and they wanted to beat the goal just as much as we did.

[kuraikou]

Alright so I think every point has been made, and complaining isn't going to change anything so how about the few people left beating this dead horse just stop as there is no point and sooner or later many reputations are going to be ruined.

[BRAVESaj25bd8]

In the spirit of this thread's inspiration, I will issue a challenge. Before your next post, go explain this situation to someone who is unfamiliar. That's the easy part. The hard part is that I challenge you to explain it from a perspective that opposes your own.
If you hate that this happened: say why teams might have done it, talk about how awesome it must have been to have the whole arena cheer for EVERY score, talk about how tough fundraising is, talk about the reason they might have agreed to do this.
If you see no problem with it: say how people outside might feel FIRST got cheated by the situation, talk about talk about how it's likely that not everyone on each team got a vote, talk about how it might sound at face value.

There will be no conclusion to this topic. The debate could go on forever. Do your best to see it in another light, and you will have won this argument.

[N7UJJ]

Will anyone be brave enough to add to this thread, using gracious professionalism, of course, to increase the comment count above 301? No prize. No medal. No $10,000 scholarship. Just for FUN!

[TheOtherGuy]

Originally Posted by N7UJJ

Will anyone be brave enough to add to this thread, using gracious professionalism, of course, to increase the comment count above 301? No prize. No medal. No $10,000 scholarship. Just for FUN!

299!

[Andy A.]

Oh, fine, I'll do it. 300.