Ethics of Telling a Team "No"

[markmcgary]

I think that I have figured out a strategy that can earn you a blue banner. You need to be able to understand the game well enough to design and build a robot that is so dominant at 'the game' that you do not need to depend on randomly selected alliance members to win during qualifiers. Do whatever it takes during qualifiers to ensure that you will be the first seed. Then, you can hand-pick an elimination alliance that can really play 'the game' so amazingly well that there is no way your alliance fails to win the finals. Bingo. Blue Banner. Am I close?

[safiq10]

I disagree with those who say this is a bad game.
I feel as if this game you must be much more strategic in your own team and others. Also Diplomacy is a big thing this year. I tend to think that higher ranking teams will have an upper hand on lower ranking teams. (if 148 asked me us to do something I pretty sure our team would go with that strategy... just sayin) but it will really all go to your dipolomacy skills. Also has any team gone the entire competition with a penalty? Thats our goal.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by safiq10

... but it will really all go to your dipolomacy skills. Also has any team gone the entire competition with a penalty? Thats our goal.

without a penalty?

Also, is it undiplomatic of me to correct misspellings? I think I'm grateful that Dean and Woodie have not engineered an extra-syllabic phrase meaning diplomacy among alliances. How can I be professionally graceful about it?

[Cam877]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

I think that I have figured out a strategy that can earn you a blue banner. You need to be able to understand the game well enough to design and build a robot that is so dominant at 'the game' that you do not need to depend on randomly selected alliance members to win during qualifiers. Do whatever it takes during qualifiers to ensure that you will be the first seed. Then, you can hand-pick an elimination alliance that can really play 'the game' so amazingly well that there is no way your alliance fails to win the finals. Bingo. Blue Banner. Am I close?

And while you're at it, you can learn how to fly and open the first unicorn petting zoo.

[mathking]

There is another important aspect to consider before you ask a team to "do nothing" or try to tell another team they must do something in qualification. Sometimes it doesn't make you look very good. And that reputation can be hard to shake if it takes hold. At the Championships in 2011 we played a match with a team whose mentor coach was incredibly bossy and condescending. Some toward us but even more toward our third alliance partner. We actually had very complimentary robots and easily won the match in which we partnered. A couple years earlier we had a similar experience with the same team (and same mentor) in qualifying. And the team members who were around in both years absolutely remembered. In 2011, based purely on a "pick the best robot to partner with" strategy we should clearly have picked them to be our allies in eliminations. We opted not to because of the ill will they had engendered because of their behavior toward alliance partners.

It wasn't even that what they were asking for was bad strategy or completely unreasonable. But they were demanding it and belittling or dismissing the suggestions of others. The really sad thing is that it was really just the behavior of their mentor and one of their drivers. The rest of their team had some great positive interaction with our team. Please be clear, I am not calling anyone in this thread out for bad behavior. This is a caution to think about what you are asking for and how you are asking it. Because ditching the reputation of being a jerk is a lot harder than winning a match.

[JamesCH95]

There is nothing un-ethical about asking a team to not do a specific task, but there are gracious and ungracious ways to discuss any concerns. I have found that if you calmly and objectively explain your concerns that your alliance partner(s) will be responsive to that input. We have been on both sides of this coin.

Remaining calm and objective during this discussion without becoming accusatory, defensive, or negative is critical. This is at the core of gracious professionalism IMO: being able to give and receive constructive criticism and work towards solving any issues that might be present. Deviation from GP with any interaction of this sort will get a team cross off my pick list in a heartbeat.

No one wants to lose matches, no one wants to incur fouls, but everyone has to be realistic about how they happen. Sometimes its a bad call from a ref, sometimes its a bad driving habit, and those on both sides of the situation have to recognize these causes. Above all: be realistic.

Did your team do something intentional or unintentional to draw a foul? If so, stop it! Find a way to avoid it in the future! Don't complain about bad ref calls.

Does your alliance partner own their prior mistake(s), explain why it(they) happened, and explain how they're going to avoid them in the future? If so, they got the message and no further discussion is needed.

Is your '100% reliable mechanism' not being 100% reliable? Call for help! Call a dead ball! Just don't sit there for 2+minutes trying, and failing, to complete a task when your alliance partner(s) can get it done.

[ItalianMan]

I think there is always some use, even if it isn't the most fun option.

Last year at VCU, my old coach helped another team win against 1st and 2nd seed. In order to do this, we had to make the other two robots sit in the way and block traffic. While this is similar to what you said, I think static defense is always an option for toaster robots.

[Georgiawho]

Originally Posted by Yipyapper

Should teams with experience and strong strategic influence tell teams on their alliance to simply not move at all or stick to a corner where they won't get in the way?

In qualification matches no "better" team has the right to tell another team not to play. Most robots will be able to do at least something (defense, push the ball, etc.) I personally do not think it shows any sportsmanship to "sit out" a lesser team for the sake of the better team's win. Every team that attends has a right to be there and a right to play. There's no inspection that a robot has to able to do a certain amount of things or perform to a certain extent to play the game, so we all have to work with what we get.

[lamk]

It's all about collaboration. Even a partially disabled bot can be a great asset. We got drafted by seed 1(4334) and seed 2(2013) in the canadian western regional final. Our shooter/ ball controller got disabled just before the elimination because one 3d printed part broke ( we've since replace all essential 3d printed part with cnc aluminum parts). Instead of telling us to sit in the corner, team 2013 did some modification to our bot with cardboard and duct tape to smoothen the assist. We become the best in bound player and defence. We score the second highest world score of 325 point in the quarter final and proceed to win the regionals.

[Marcia Roberts]

We had both sides of this happen to us during our regionals. In the end, you have a right to request that they not use something, but if you do you should explain why, and realize that they have the right to say no to your request. Also ALWAYS ask, don't tell. Give them a chance to prove you wrong. But you do have the right to ask them to demonstrate.

[Max Boord]

I think it comes down to specifics. I had to look at our match schedule and decide on a strategy to discuss with our alliance partners and sometimes a team needed to be put on full time defense/ put in a corner but to request so I went through a process:

1. Can this team be used for ANYTHING useful?
2. Can the other teams playing in that match improve the useless team to the point where they are no longer a detriment?
3. If 2 is a yes can we improve there mechanism, strategy, code and or driver skill in the ~ 1 hour time frame we generally had.
4. If the robot is still not competitive politely ask them to sit in a corner/ play defense. This should be done with scouting data and justification from both alliance partners showing that the match is more likely to be won with this strategy than by having them do an offensive task. I have truly never found a team who was mad about winning the match.

[Kevin Ray]

While competing in two regionals this season my opinion of the game constantly changed from horrible to okay, though never great. I did, however, solidify my belief that ANY team can contribute-especially in this game. A potato bot only has to push a ball a foot or so to get the assist. Even if they don't do another thing, each cycle they're contributing to the final 30 points in the assist portion of the cycle. In no other game has so simple an act contributed so many points!

What makes me go apoplectic, however, is when teams agree on a strategy--which is all so important in this year's game, then go out and do "what ever tickles their fancy" during the match. Because you are dependent upon your entire alliance for a "full" cycle, you need everyone's cooperation. It makes no difference whether you are veteran, rookie, elite team, under-funded or deep pocketed, you NEED to cooperate and stick to the strategy. We lost most of our matches this season because of this. In fact, some of the best matches we had were with poorly built bots driven by kids who still wanted to win so they stuck to the plan and we did win.

I'm hoping that the CMP is chock full of teams ready to "stick to the script".

[Tmeziere]

Before deciding on telling a team not to perform a specific task you should:
1. Have proof of them not performing the specific task well
2. Make sure the human players and drivers know rules
If they claim they have fixed the problem, and if time allows, going to a practice field is the best option. If they proove they are capable of a specific task, it would be rude to tell them not to perform a task for the alliance. After all if they can help why not let them?

[AnonymousMarvin]

I have been a strategist for my team in the past, and I know first hand that you can go into the match thinking your team has the best strategy, then you approach your alliance partners with your strategy and then they stubbornly refuse. During Qualification that is there prerogative; however, during eliminations the teams must bow to the alliance captain. if they decide that they don't want to give you a ball during auto, and your only job is to maybe play defense then you do your job and move on. I can also say that there is nothing more frustrating than deciding on a strategy before the match, and then having a team mid way through the match abandoning the strategy and going off on their own. This could not only hurt the alliance, but it could even cause them to lose the match. Like its been said, the only thing that you can do is move on and cross them off your pick lists.

[Citrus Dad]

I suggest looking at videos of our matches on Newton to see how not to say "no." We worked with teams that were weaker as soon as we got to St. Louis (and you can see how their match records improved over regionals.) They became very successful alliance partner to whom we are indebted.

On the other hand, we had at least one "top" team not play cooperatively, and they dropped significantly in our draft list as a result. Maybe we should have told them "no"...