301 points! and could have done more

[tcjinaz]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Winning or becoming a regional finalist get you medals (of differing colors) and high-fives from the judges and refs. What more do you want?

I'm in a class so I can elaborate on your question later, 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.

Ms Kamen, you have pushed me over the edge. Despite your heritage, you don't "Get It" yet. You need some time in the real world.

It is about the money. In FIRST, it is about the fund raising, the scholarships, the equipment, the practice areas, the trips to less than local events and to St. Louis. The Falcons and the Coconuts, above all else, are superb marketing organizations. "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers." They sell themselves and their product with energy and enthusiasm, which gets the funding that enables them to exert extraordinary engineering and competitive efforts. There are teams around with deeper pockets, but they don't sell themselves to themselves at the level that these teams do.

Steve Sanghi did not bribe anyone. He threw down challenges to all of the teams at the Arizona Regional, with meaningful rewards attached. It works, it's the real world, he does it at Microchip all the time (personal bias admission; I've worked for Microchip for 12 years). I will also note that "Steve & Maria Sanghi" are personal sponsors of Arizona FIRST, and I suspect also contribute significantly to the United Way charity known as "The Employees of Microchip", both sources of significant funding to many Arizona FIRST teams. (and much to my surprise, the Midnight Mechanics from San Diego, and probably others I know not of

We're trying to emulate the real world; the sports aspect is convenient way of engaging young people with something that's physical, immediate and exciting on levels other than the intellectual (see spelling bees). But, this pure, on-field competition aspect cannot and must not dominate our analysis of the game. Even the Olympics have given up on the "Noble Amateur Athlete" concept; the last dinosaur is the NCAA (how do those college student afford those elaborate tattoos...).

The teams in the Arizona Regional Finals acted perfectly in line with the real world. They endeavored to act in their own best interests. Those interests lined up such that a "6/0" strategy in the second final match was the best to maximize everyone's return on investment. It very nearly worked out best for all; one more just OK cycle by 60/1726/3785 and they all profited by a total of $3000.

Regards,
Tim Jordan

PS: Plasma, don't take my lack of mentioning you personally. You were a perfect fit in that alliance, and earned your trip to St. Louis. We still owe you from 2011. PURPLE!

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by tcjinaz

Ms Kamen, you have pushed me over the edge. Despite your heritage, you don't "Get It" yet. You need some time in the real world.

Was this really necessary? Whether you had a valid point or not in the rest of your post, anything you said was completely invalidated from your needless personal attack against Libby.

[Yipyapper]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Thought experiment time. In 2011, how would you have felt if all 6 teams in a match on Einstein agreed to not use their minibots, and to let the match be decided entirely on tube scoring alone?

Might've helped if we actually moved.

#bittermemories

[Woolly]

Originally Posted by ejSabathia

Seriously? Karthik, your experiment failed. My faith in people to draw logical and sane conclusions is gone.

Experiments don't fail.

In fact I think that quote just reminded everyone of an inherent conflict of interest during Qualification matches.
It seems like every year someone gets accused of sandbagging in qualifications. Why? Because it's beneficial to your team in alliance selection, especially if your team has a reputation to fall back on.

Why don't we all sandbag? Because we as a community have labeled it as non-GP. It's an unwritten rule that no one can enforce or punish others for violating. Similarly, in baseball, it's against custom to bunt when you're way ahead of the other team. However, in baseball you're liable to be beaned the next time you're up to bat if you violate that unwritten rule.

Do people still bunt occasionally when they've got a big lead? Yes, but it's really rare.
Do FRC teams still sandbag, or otherwise seek to improve their situation for Alliance selection at the expense of the rest of their alliance? Again yes, but it's also really rare. (once or twice a year is a small amount compared to it being a problem at EVERY regional or just about everyone being accused of doing it.)

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

Or in 2012, when many of us didn't give priority to actually winning matches, but were "bribed" with the QP awarded for balancing on the co-op bridge instead.

Shouldn't we all have only tried to balance our alliance bridges instead? That logically was the only way to demonstrate a 100% commitment to trying to win the match...

In hindsight, were all those teams who gave up on winning the match, and co-op balanced instead just as culpable? All they did was end up artificially boosting everyones' QP, at the cost of not trying your hardest to actually WIN the match anymore...

Not at all analogous. Earning QPs with the coop balance was part of the game. The competition was for the most QPs, and whether to earn them with wins or coops was a strategic part of the competition. There was no cash prize for scoring the most coops.

[cglrcng]

I have attempted to stay as far away from responding to this thread as possible as I am long winded, and there isn't anyone here that does not already know that I think.

1. I was not present at the event (I was at home while my family participated because I made a personal decision to opt out of going). Search previous posts as to why if you care. Hint...It was game and game tinkering related.

2. I watched the event intently in videos posted (throughout the event), and the stream while watching and digesting all the other streams available. Just as I have all the other Week 1-Week 3 Events.

3. I am directly related to a drive team member (Ball P.U. & Shooting...a 4th year driver), on Team 60 (The Blue Alliance 6th seeded Team Captain - He is My H.S. Senior Son, who I am very proud of, and who initially was hesitant toward using the hatched "Full Field Game Strategy" when initially presented w/ the strategy according to both my son's version of events -he will post his version later, and Jim's version of events already posted previously).

4. I watched the entire event...And, the strategies employed all weekend that evolved from recent rules changes....They received word (Wednesday was a travel & load in day), of changes made Wednesday in the Driver's Meeting Thursday morning. The game has changed once again...Surprise!

5. I, as a viewer and spectator (long distance), enjoyed every match, but, I enjoyed that final match as much, if not more than all the rest of the matches (and so it appeared did all the spectators and teams present, because they employed a 6 Team Alliance Full Field Game Strategy, that was not only fair to all, it was an attempt to accomplish the game goals (nobody gave up on anything....None of the 6 teams would ever give up, or ever give in, a match EVER!) They just tossed out the sticks, stayed away from the rails (and each other), and went after every bunch of carrots they could gather and munched them all down in an outright battle of pure artful offense in the final match of the tournament. That was their choice to make. And theirs alone.

6. They turned this game on its head...and I thouroghly enjoyed watching that happen. They innovated, they strategized in full co-opertition w/ self agreed limits imposed (if anyone stepped outside of the agreement, the defensive game immediately resumes, and there was a point that after reviewing the video, my own team 60 thought they had stepped over the line accidentally also in making contact). They actually thought "outside of the box", and they did so by adding in the element of the added incentive. Though the bar was set so high, it was not acheived in that 1 shot deal.

7. As the only 6 teams left in the competition, they could not in any way affect any other team beyond the 6 adherents and voluntary teams who were all in agreement after Final match 1 was completed. Get angry about this if it had been instituted in Q- rounds yes, not though in Final Eliminations sitting 1-0. As other than those 6 teams, the results affect no one else...PERIOD!

8. You cannot compare teams or alliances in this game this year, on a full season basis, a week to week basis, or even a same week basis (you'd play hard to get comparing on a match-to-match basis even at the same Regional or District Event), as the number of, scope of, and type of purely subjective rules, calls, and ref's calling those subjective penalties is no where near as consistant as it would have to be to be "truthful" and "honest" in publishing any results you would hope to state. And the Rules Tinkering has grown exponentially since Week Zero, and the game has changed too many times.

OK, I agree...You could personally choose to put an asterisk next to the 301 score, or even the combined alliance scores of 481 total (and add the note; *INNOVATIVE GamePlay/No defense used by choice...But, you need to do that after every score so far through Week 4, in this game w/ all the rules tinkering too. Sry Falcon Robotics, CoCoNuts, and Plasma. (But some attempting to diminish your accomplishments is / are totally wrong...You are an alliance to be reckoned with most years, and this year and always very formidable opponents and alliance members too, and our team would do well to play with, or against, any of you, at any time...ever!) With is better!

9. It wasn't attempted as has been suggested, or in a specific manner that was also suggested further, that I would consider really anti-GP, to attempt to cheat to receive the incentive voluntary contribution (the Challenge), that was made in just trying to get "all to give their all", by the event sponsor "out of his own pocket" (they actually threw away any chance of acheiving that added goal - not replacing goal, by throwing out the sticks, and staying away from the rails, and taking the ref's mainly out of the game by only going after the carrots...The goals w/ assists, and trusses).

10. I'll go even one further...They actually did acheive the 200+-200+ score if you truly disect the video (and call every penalty that should be called in the game "if you remove all of the subjective elements"), as the one element you cannot as teams, actually remove the ref's. from, in choosing the "no defensive play game strategy," a fully legal game strategy BTW, that many I think, wished here, that you had actually thought of first,.....The inbounded ball element)...The Ref corps just, I will assume after the video disection, after seeing & possibly recognizing the plan of action, in action, just refused to get involved in a game that all the participants agreed in advance, to use an advanced game strategy, they developed on their own, and agreed together to institute.

I am only guessing above as to what the Ref's. actually thought and when. (To be a fly on the end of the truss during that officiant conference at the end of match, would have been just golden to me).

I would certainly love to hear that angle from a few of them here. The officials conference after the match ended, was just like during other matches preceeding, lenghty and complete (head ref. also conferring w/ the scoring table befrore posting the scores .....If they did not like the match, a replay could have been ordered...It was not ordered, and the match was declared clean w/ no penalties incurred AND FINAL. Is that what actually upsets many others posting in the thread?

The game was declared w/ NO PENALTIES called or scored.

11. Not 1 person from any team, participant, spectator, officiant, or anyone else in attendance lodged any complaint (and anyone watching it had to fully recognize that a specific onfield game strategy was employed, that was quite different than any match preceeding it)....But, they were all way too busy cheering what they had just witnessed. The Aerial Assist game in raw form without all those Sticks & Rails added (and the much hated Battle Bots element removed willingly), and that so many have cried & whined angrily & incessantly for over at least 3+ weeks here on CD about this specific game.

12. I can tell you, I have spoken at length w/ my son about the issues, have disected his version of the events (and they have perfectly matched Jim's previously published version, w/ a few honorable GP actions he did on his own that Jim may or may not have even known about,....like he personally apologized to members of the Red Alliance before Finals Match 1, because he and his team (60), felt they could not accept the agreement, and then after match 1 was completed (and things were brought to light, minds sort of changed and developed), he apologized again to them, because he stated he felt bad that they should have accepted the agreement to begin with, then when all had finally agreed in the end, to institute the new "full field game strategy" TOGETHER).

He also assured me, at no time did anyone in his 6th Seeded Alliance ever give up, from the start of eliminations, right through to the final shot of Final - Match 2. It wasn't, finally agreed to, solely for the money aspect whatsoever, but as a strategy, he and others thought after Finals match 1, could have been effective, via a full on all offensive battle carried out to perfection (it wasn't on one end only, the 3 blue robots were not as complementary in design to each other, as the other alliance was. And, that is the difference always between 1st seeding choice and 6th seeding choices, and that some shots and P.U. were missed (mostly on their behalf if you disect the video also), theRed Alliance had the full package including the truss to Human down pat), if w/ the added element of completing the additional challenge of possibly acheiving the 200-200 or higher scores. He is proud of his Alliance, he is proud of his team, feels he and his Alliance and team fully deserved to play in those final 2 matches...and all before them. And is very happy w/ the results. He loved working with 1726 & 3785 & competing against the #1 Seeded Alliance (competing against, the best of the best, is what Team 60 strives for always....It is an ingrained taught aspect to each member of our quite historic team). Battling hard & fair is what he loves. He favors (his words), this set of eliminations over all past that he has yet been a part of. And some of the preceeding ones ended in REGIONAL WINNER on the banner....Though it has been a couple of years.

13. Each member of the 6 Alliances that forged and accepted an agreement to employ this now seen to some, as a "highly controversial" "Full Field Game Strategy", probably had their own, individual to a person, reasons for forging and agreeing to employ it...But, each held up their end of the agreement, and that alone is a very hard thing to accomplish (given that defense was played in every match by every party thereto for 2 days preceeding).

They did so, without cheating the Sponsor out of his incentive, which as has been pointed out could have been easily done at the last moment of the game...Just incur an easy penalty (that alone not being done or even attempted...just watch the courtesy shown 842 at 1:29-1:36 a total of 8 seconds burned, should be rewarded, not frowned upon), and 200-200 would have been reached...No, they chose the honorable Offensive Cycle Shootout Angle Together...AGAIN...No rules prohibit it, and if there were any, then it was the officiants call, to instantly simply call for a replay. I do not recall any replays in the AZ Regional...Not a one that I saw!

14. It is no one elses business what field strategy is employed by the participants, unless it actually violates the rules. I have read that here many times on CD. Do it w/ GP....They personally turned the game Aerial Assist, on its head, and they did it w/ GP in an INNOVATIVE way. And for 2.50 seconds, they made it really exciting for those involved and those watching. Though you personally do not have to like it.

Is that what all this fuss is really about? I would say personally, do not diminsh or underestimate any of these particular 6 teams this season (or measuring them by that 1 match, where they thought "outside the box together in true Co-Opertition Mode")....You do, and you take a chance on missing the boat....Measuring once and cutting twice. The season is not over.

AZ is "Not traditionally a place known to produce powerhouse teams", eh? Now,....who is everyone talking about today? Imagine that....We show that we work together......Sour grapes/ Make some wine please and bottle it up. Want some cheese to go w/ that?

The word is INNOVATION, the act was Co-Opertittion, both on the field, and off. The thing was carried off w/ GP. And it was just a strategy that some don't like. And it was NECESSARY to balance out this much loved and very hated and totally tinkered with game of unbearably unbelievable design.

Throw away the STICKS. Stay away from the RAILS....Go gather all the CARROTS you can, and MUNCH THOSE TASTY CARROTS UP!

Now....Show of hands....How many teams collaborate w/ other teams off the field at ANY TIME during the season? You are very welcome.....Team 60 started that years ago, I'm told...And it was "very controversial" in those days too, I'm told. We were all told if you watch the team introduced at the beginning of the quarter finals. Guess some things just will never change....Some are just destined for historical success I guess.

I thank Teams 842, 2486, 2403 The Red Alliance (AZ Regional 2014 WINNERS), and Teams 1726 and 3785 along w/ my own Team 60 The Blue Alliance (AZ Regional 2014 Finalists), for helping make my sons eyes sparkle by simply INNOVATING w/ each other (no matter how controversial it may seem at the moment). He's still smiling. You will not diminish that feeling.

You naysayers here, will not diminish that, you will only further spark that fire within. And make it burn ever deeper as the season has only just begun.

And those attempting to diminish the accomplishments of EITHER ALLIANCE, especially the Winning Alliance. Should be totally ashamed of yourselves. The game does not need to be played "as you have determined it be played", or "as YOU PERSONALLY have envisioned it."

It merely must be played within the published RULE SET. Or, penalties will be incurred and sufferred. Show me a rule they actually violated or be silenced on the issue.
_______________________________________
BTW...Jim, TY for hatching the now "controversial plan" and turning both the Aerial Assist Game and a few here on CD and the entire community on their heads! This game needed another controversy to take a bit of the heat off of the GDC and those poor worn out VOLUNTEER Officiants.

At least they now know Arizona is also in the house! Maybe we have more surprises in store in the future...... I will attend the next event...I wouldn't miss it now for the world.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by tcjinaz

Ms Kamen, you have pushed me over the edge. Despite your heritage, you don't "Get It" yet. You need some time in the real world.

It is about the money. In FIRST, it is about the fund raising, the scholarships, the equipment, the practice areas, the trips to less than local events and to St. Louis. The Falcons and the Coconuts, above all else, are superb marketing organizations. "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers." They sell themselves and their product with energy and enthusiasm, which gets the funding that enables them to exert extraordinary engineering and competitive efforts. There are teams around with deeper pockets, but they don't sell themselves to themselves at the level that these teams do.

Steve Sanghi did not bribe anyone. He threw down challenges to all of the teams at the Arizona Regional, with meaningful rewards attached. It works, it's the real world, he does it at Microchip all the time (personal bias admission; I've worked for Microchip for 12 years). I will also note that "Steve & Maria Sanghi" are personal sponsors of Arizona FIRST, and I suspect also contribute significantly to the United Way charity known as "The Employees of Microchip", both sources of significant funding to many Arizona FIRST teams. (and much to my surprise, the Midnight Mechanics from San Diego, and probably others I know not of

We're trying to emulate the real world; the sports aspect is convenient way of engaging young people with something that's physical, immediate and exciting on levels other than the intellectual (see spelling bees). But, this pure, on-field competition aspect cannot and must not dominate our analysis of the game. Even the Olympics have given up on the "Noble Amateur Athlete" concept; the last dinosaur is the NCAA (how do those college student afford those elaborate tattoos...).

The teams in the Arizona Regional Finals acted perfectly in line with the real world. They endeavored to act in their own best interests. Those interests lined up such that a "6/0" strategy in the second final match was the best to maximize everyone's return on investment. It very nearly worked out best for all; one more just OK cycle by 60/1726/3785 and they all profited by a total of $3000.

Regards,
Tim Jordan

PS: Plasma, don't take my lack of mentioning you personally. You were a perfect fit in that alliance, and earned your trip to St. Louis. We still owe you from 2011. PURPLE!

If you read my first post, I question the logic of offering cash as a match reward. Not anyone's integrity or history with FIRST. Just 'what were they thinking when they offered this?'. As I have said in other posts in this thread, if Mr. Sanghi is on the board he's gotta be doing something right. The decision to offer money for scores, though, I'm not understanding.

If anyone would like to raise the level of competition, they can do that by sponsoring teams. Before the matches start. With money, resources, and mentorship, as you said. The teams should earn it before the season, as they do from every other sponsor in the community.

If I really 'don't get it', then please explain to me. What is a cash reward doing to promote the mission and vision of FIRST? The beginning of this thread is full of comments that this particular match's gameplay was astonishingly different from the rest of the season across the country.

"It's not about the money" can be said all you like, but the money changed the dynamic of the game. I'm allowed to not like it and ask why, just like you're allowed to think that I don't understand the program my family and I have committed our entire lives to.

[paul_v]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

What was there to lose? for either side?

The side that lost in the finals would have had a better chance of winning if they also played defense. Defending the other team from scoring would help prevent them from winning. Therefore, the losing alliance would have had a better chance of winning the event.

^I wrote everything above simply and obviously stated on purpose, because I felt the question asked had a simple and obvious answer.

Imagine being a student, or sponsor, or parent of a student on the losing alliance. Try explaining to them that is was in their best interest to let the other team score unabated. Does that make them look like they were acting in their teams and team's sponsors best interests?

Furthermore, I assume most of the people in the discussions were drive coaches and drive teams. I highly doubt even a majority of the team members were asked if they really felt that was the best thing to do in the finals of a regional they were trying to win.

I would be embarrassed to be on a team that lost the event because some members decided it would be fun to spend some time of the match not playing defense and instead sitting still. If I was on the winning side? I would feel like I didn't achieve a true and satisfying win.

I am sorry for all involved, mainly the quiet students and families/sponsors who were not part of the discussions, or don't want to voice their differing opinions and feel alienated by their team mentors and leaders. You will never hear from those people on CD, only the loud ones.

-Paul Ventimiglia

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by tcjinaz

Ms Kamen, ..... you don't "Get It" yet. You need some time in the real world. It is about the money. In FIRST, it is about the fund raising, the scholarships, the equipment, the practice areas, the trips ....... "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers." ...... this pure, on-field competition aspect cannot and must not dominate our analysis of the game. Even the Olympics have given up on the "Noble Amateur Athlete" concept; the last dinosaur is the NCAA ....... They endeavored to act in their own best interests.....that a "6/0" strategy in the second final match was the best to maximize everyone's return on investment...... one more just OK cycle by 60/1726/3785 and they all profited by a total of $3000.

Regards,
Tim Jordan

Hmmm. Which one of these people doesn't "get it."

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

The 500 lb. gorilla in this story is not these teams, or if or why they decided to play a certain way, or whether it was right or wrong. The much bigger issue is whether it can be acceptable at a FIRST event for a sponsor, or anyone else, to offer money rewards to teams for running up a high match score, or a low score, or any other goal that could be manipulated or affect outcomes. Where would this stop if permitted? I do not fault the teams for taking the temptation of the cash reward (nicknamed the "challenge".) I fault the sponsor who made the proposal, and any FIRST official who knew of it and allowed it to go on. It is a dangerous phenomenon that FIRST would be wise to nip in the bud.

Originally Posted by Libby K

This is what upsets me.
The challenge was issued, apparently everyone agreed to it, we've beaten that horse to death already.

But why does someone who supposedly 'in line' with the mission and vision of FIRST, and represents FIRST at such a high level, think it is IN ANY WAY okay to offer money to teams in a way that alters match play and event outcomes?

What was he thinking?!

That's my big problem with this as well. As a member of the public, he's got all sorts of latitude to make offers large or small, in public or even in secret—that practice may not be ideal, but it's hardly practical for FIRST to regulate this in general.¹ But as a member of the board of directors, he should be conscious of anything that could give the appearance of impropriety or undermine the efforts of other parts of the FIRST organization, and conduct himself accordingly. I think it's fair to say he erred on that count.

Originally Posted by ejSabathia

When I hear of alliances agreeing to how a match will be played, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm a competitor through and through, a virtue I hope to share with my students/teammates. When I heard about the offers being made at the AZ regional and then read about those celebrating the results...the following definition is all that comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_fixing

As for the competitors themselves, there is also a responsibility to be judicious in accepting offers like this one. I don't have a problem with the idea of teams attempting strategies that subvert the intent of the rules, so long as they're demonstrably within the rules, and so long as the impact of those strategies outside of gameplay is not grossly negative.

Accepting the offer of something valuable in exchange for playing the match a certain way is definitely reminiscent of match fixing, but I think the fact that (so far as we know and have reason to believe) Sanghi did not stand to gain anything from the strategy mitigates the impact somewhat. Perhaps the willingness of a team to accept such an offer should be inversely proportional to their uncertainty about the motives and results of such a challenge.² Similarly, the teams should have realized that they'd be exposing themselves to scrutiny for the same reasons: was the expected value of what they stood to gain so large as to appear improper? $500 isn't trivial, but isn't exactly a windfall, particularly considering the difficulty of the challenge.

Another possible negative impact is the perceived legitimacy of the competition. If it devolves into a farce—even one which is squarely within the rules—FRC may be perceived as a pointless endeavour by participants, sponsors, schools and other important constituencies. Again, I don't think this happened here, because the agreement was to avoid defence, which didn't entirely ruin the match, even though it caused it to play out differently than many competitors would have expected.

Ultimately, I think the the teams involved were probably somewhat careless, but not malicious or negligent in their handling of the situation. And they'll definitely think harder the next time they're presented with a similar offer. In that respect, maybe they've taught everyone a useful lesson.

¹ There are laws and criminal offences intended for when this sort of conduct is drastically contrary to the public interest.
² Many leagues have severe restrictions on this sort of conduct, because of the impracticality if knowing who exactly benefits from the offer, or what the consequences will be. It's up to the FIRST community to determine its tolerance for the risk that someone will manipulate the competition, and up to FIRST to decide if they need to regulate it.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by Libby K

"It's not about the money" can be said all you like, but the money changed the dynamic of the game.

If [Person that everyone mutual respects] was talking to two alliances before a match and jokingly[or not] said to them 'I bet you can/or can't do X in a match' and then the two alliances went 'You know what, lets try to do X!' Which required them discussing a strategy together and altering their normal play of the game.

Would that be as ethically wrong? No money was offered or will be given, but a challenge or idea was put in these teams heads by [Person] and they decided to run with it.

[cglrcng]

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!

I think I just did accidentally...But, it took me a long time to type, and this thread rose by 4 pages while I did. (BTW, this is my shortest post ever.)

I'm Done.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

If [Person that everyone mutual respects] was talking to two alliances before a match and jokingly[or not] said to them 'I bet you can/or can't do X in a match' and then the two alliances went 'You know what, lets try to do X!' Which required them discussing a strategy together and altering their normal play of the game.

Would that be as ethically wrong? No money was offered or will be given, but a challenge or idea was put in these teams heads by [Person] and they decided to run with it.

I think that would be as well. I think conspiring between adversaries should be frowned upon, at least even more so in the eliminations; even though I would still hope it would be frowned upon in quals too.

But that is just my competitive side voicing his opinion.

[BHS_STopping]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

If [Person that everyone mutual respects] was talking to two alliances before a match and jokingly[or not] said to them 'I bet you can/or can't do X in a match' and then the two alliances went 'You know what, lets try to do X!' Which required them discussing a strategy together and altering their normal play of the game.

Would that be as ethically wrong? No money was offered or will be given, but a challenge or idea was put in these teams heads by [Person] and they decided to run with it.

This has been my main thought on the issue. If Sanghi offered the challenge without the monetary incentive, things would have likely transpired the same way. You'd be surprised at just how open and loose the alliances were in elims. 4183 and 1726 were shooting the breeze constantly between matches, almost as if the competition itself came second to the socialization and shared appreciation of what we've all devoted our lives to for the past 3 months. I don't think you'll find a friendlier set of teams at a regional.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

I think I just did accidentally...But, it took me a long time to type, and this thread rose by 4 pages while I did. (BTW, this is my shortest post ever.)

I'm Done.

I fail to see the innovation in not playing defense. Rather, I see a lack thereof.