A comment about alliance selection in off season events

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I can't disagree with you more. Again, you're missing my point. This is not a decision that should be left to individual teams. It is a decision that should be made at an organizational level, either the event organizer or at the Regional or FIRST HQ level. Individual teams cannot effectively make an individual "disarmament" decision to avoid making certain alliance decisions. It must be a mutual agreement. At the international level, that's why we have treaties--actions by individual nations trying to influence world events are rarely effective unless there is a treaty.

As you well know, it is almost pointless to email individual event organizers--they'll simply blow me off. And I can't physically go to discuss this issue with each and every event organizer. CD is where issues can be aired publicly and where a larger

I'm actually not trying to call out individual teams, because teams usually will respond to the rules and intent of the event organizer. I'm a bit unhappy that certain teams chose to select their own B bot, but the event organizers had not stepped in to prohibit that. So they did what they thought was in their own best interest. This is an issue at other events--I just chose a salient recent example. Unfortunately what was in an individual team's best interest was not in the best interest of the region as a whole in my opinion. (See T^2's comment above for confirmation--and I know him personally and know how extremely dedicated he is.) As a professional economist I frequently must address the divergence between individual self interest and societal best interest. This is just such a case.

I do see your point but at the same time I think that oversteps the autonomy that event organizers have in running their events. If you (and teams who attended the event but were not in the elimination rounds) have not contacted the organizing committee there is little to no point in referencing a specific event and hoping for change.

If the issue is addressing "the divergence between individual and self interest and societal best interest" what is your opinion on teams at official events only picking the best teams for elimination partners when in the interest of FIRST as a whole the argument can be made to instead pick teams who aren't the best or don't have a history of participating in eliminations?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

This is not a decision that should be left to individual teams. It is a decision that should be made at an organizational level, either the event organizer or at the Regional or FIRST HQ level.

Are you saying that the choice of what robots to invite to form an alliance shouldn't be a team decision? That's what it sounds like. I don't think it's what you mean, so I'm obviously not understanding you properly.

Individual teams cannot effectively make an individual "disarmament" decision to avoid making certain alliance decisions. It must be a mutual agreement.

Are you saying that an individual team is unable to decide not to ally with another team? That's not true in general. I thought your principal complaint was with the teams who chose to invite their "B" team, and such choices are most definitely under the individual control of the alliance captain.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I can't disagree with you more. Again, you're missing my point. This is not a decision that should be left to individual teams. It is a decision that should be made at an organizational level, either the event organizer or at the Regional or FIRST HQ level. Individual teams cannot effectively make an individual "disarmament" decision to avoid making certain alliance decisions. It must be a mutual agreement. At the international level, that's why we have treaties--actions by individual nations trying to influence world events are rarely effective unless there is a treaty.

Alright humor me since my response to you previously was skipped over lets talk hypothetically here: In your mind what would solve this issue? How will taking away a teams free will to pick who they want to ally with solve any issues? In my mind taking away my teams free will can only end badly for those who try.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

As you well know, it is almost pointless to email individual event organizers--they'll simply blow me off. And I can't physically go to discuss this issue with each and every event organizer. CD is where issues can be aired publicly and where a larger

Have you tried? Honestly tried? I have never been ignored by event organizers when I have emailed them, heck I heard from Panther Prowl before I could email them my concerns. We are not your typical group of individuals in FIRST if you want to talk to people in charge their is not a chain of endless bureaucracy to crawl through, their emails go right to them and you here back promptly.

[cadandcookies]

On the whole, I tend to believe that it is the team's responsibility to follow the rules as written, and the event organizer's responsibility to make sure the rules as written match the rules they intend for the event. FIRST has plenty of other stuff to do that doesn't involve regulating offseason events. Namely, designing a new game and improving the part of the program they are directly involved in. I don't see the benefit for the cost of imposing restrictions on what offseasons can or can't be.

There's also the fact that my opinion differs from your opinion which probably differs from the rest of the 30000+ other people involved in FRC. What you see as a priority might not be my priority, and vice versa. You might hold equal opportunity as your main goal for an offseason event, while I might prefer to train in new drivers and students. I trust that you are trying to act in the way you see best to grow your team and spread STEM education in your community, and I expect you to trust me. Even if you don't, it's frankly incredibly patronizing and insulting to tell my (hypothetical) team and event that we're somehow doing it wrong by playing inside the rules as written. I am more aware of the needs of my team and community than you are. You might have an interesting, valuable perspective, but it isn't you who lives and works in my community.

I think everyone in this thread has the right thing in mind-- spread our enthusiasm for robotics and STEM in our communities. Change the culture. All that stuff that gets repeated every year and, at least for me, doesn't lose an ounce of meaning. I understand the desire to bring the system to it's "optimal" state-- we all want teams to succeed and the program to grow. But if forcing the system into what you see as "optimal" means removing the ability of teams and individuals to make and learn from their mistakes, we're losing something very core to and human about the program. I don't want an algorithm deciding who my match partners are. I want the kids I work with to do their scouting, interact with other teams, exercise their decision making faculties, and yes, sometimes screw up. It's a lot better for them to misjudge here rather than in industry.

You are free to run your events as you see fit, just as you are free to run your team as you see fit. I won't hold it against you even if you choose to run an event style that I disagree with. I might not attend, but that's my domain, not yours. I expect the same courtesy. We're all passionate people about the program, and even if we occasionally make mistakes we have the greater good of the situation at heart.

On a side note, I'm really getting tired of the roundabout going on in this thread. I have read all the posts in this thread. Specifically Mr. McCann, I believe that I and the majority in this thread have read your posts and understand what you are arguing for. I (and others), just happen to disagree with it. Repeating your point and a slightly altered argument will not change my opinion. I've read your post and disagree with it. I don't think that means you're entirely wrong, and I don't presume to make any judgement on your character based on that. However, repeating yourself in the manner expressed in this thread doesn't (in my opinion) represent well a professional economist. Let it go.

Edit: If anyone would like to discuss this subject with me, I'm not going to add any more fuel to this thread. PM me.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

And I saw that 5100, a rookie team that was 4-3, was left out of the elim rounds so that second robots could ally with their teammates. Doesn't sound like 5100 is too encouraged to go back...

This is incorrect. 5100 was the #3 pick of the #3 alliance. Whether or not the last sentence is in fact correct because of any other items is an open question, however.

I'm simply putting this out to correct misinformation.

[T^2]

Originally Posted by EricH

This is incorrect. 5100 was the #3 pick of the #3 alliance. Whether or not the last sentence is in fact correct because of any other items is an open question, however.

I'm simply putting this out to correct misinformation.

This is incorrect. We were the #3 robot, and therefore the #2 pick.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by T^2

This is incorrect. We were the #3 robot, and therefore the #2 pick.

Yeah, I realized that a couple hours ago but wasn't at my computer. The irony just hit me.

[themccannman]

I think that it's pretty well established that people simply don't agree on the priorities of off season competitions.

That's that

/thread

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Are you saying that the choice of what robots to invite to form an alliance shouldn't be a team decision? That's what it sounds like. I don't think it's what you mean, so I'm obviously not understanding you properly.



Are you saying that an individual team is unable to decide not to ally with another team? That's not true in general. I thought your principal complaint was with the teams who chose to invite their "B" team, and such choices are most definitely under the individual control of the alliance captain.

I'm making a point about offseason events vs official Regionals and Districts. Off season events are often less competitive and more "friendly" and I'm arguing for a different set of rules in that case.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by themccannman

I think that it's pretty well established that people simply don't agree on the priorities of off season competitions.

That's that

/thread

Which is too bad to the detriment of achieving the goals of FIRST. I'm sorry that so many of you can't reexamine your own assessments and ask real questions about how you think you'll get to where you want to head. As Yogi Berra said: If you don't know where you're going, you might not get there.

[MARS_James]

This thread has made me rethink trolling on the internet, maybe just maybe the people honestly believe what they are saying.....

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I'm making a point about offseason events vs official Regionals and Districts. Off season events are often less competitive and more "friendly" and I'm arguing for a different set of rules in that case.

But what is that point? When presented with specific questions about it, you seem to be unwilling to answer directly. It sounds like you want to add restrictions in order to increase competitiveness and reduce "friendliness". I have to assume that you're putting the word in quotes because you have a specific meaning in mind, and I will guess that you are referring to teams picking their friends as alliance partners.

My basic problem is that I can't follow your argument to a conclusion that makes sense to me. It would help me if you could clearly state what your ultimate goal is, so that I can appropriately fill in the blanks in what you're saying in order to align what I'm reading with that goal. Then if I agree with the goal, I can better form my questions about how you are trying to reach it. Of course, it's possible -- or even likely -- that I disagree with the goal, in which case I will simply say so.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

As Yogi Berra said: If you don't know where you're going, you might not get there.

I think "It's like deja-vu, all over again." might be a more appropriate Yogi Berra quote for this thread.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I'm making a point about offseason events vs official Regionals and Districts. Off season events are often less competitive and more "friendly" and I'm arguing for a different set of rules in that case.

But you're arguing about a specific offseason and not offseasons as a whole. You can't define each offseason's intent because you're not on the planning committee for every offseason in the world. That's the difference between FIRST official events and offseasons - FIRST defines the standard for districts/regionals/CMP and the event organizers have to stick to them. Offseason event organizers have the option to choose their priority in what type of event they'd like to do. Most times, that is pretty clearly stated.

For example: I'll tell you about something we did at MKM this year, because we had EXACTLY the number of teams for 4-team alliances. We wanted everyone to have a full alliance, so basically asked, "Hey, if you're outside of the top 8, and you're not busted, please don't decline." That way, no alliance was screwed out of a 4th robot unless there was a serious issue.

If we allowed declines but still encouraged 4-team alliances, a team could decline #1 to 'force' their way as the 4th robot on the #8 alliance. It was our intent to get everyone onto an alliance for elims, but it just wouldn't work if people declined to try and make their way onto their chosen alliance as a 4th. Cutting the 4th robots entirely would have put 8 teams out of play, which we really didn't want to do. We wanted everyone to play, but we didn't want shady backwards declining taking advantage of that.

Did someone come up to me and tell me 'your declining rule is bull$#!t'? Absolutely.
(To be fair, it was a friend, and they were half-kidding).

But we stated the intent and we went with it, because it's our offseason. Quite honestly other than that one comment, we didn't hear anything negative about it. We wanted everyone to get a chance to play. If we'd had 30 teams it wouldn't have been an issue, but it was a special case we had to adapt for. We decided what our priority was, stated it, and went with it.

Another offseason might have made a different choice and that's entirely their right to.
Each event determines its own way.

If you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm happy to take feedback, as that was a day-of-decision that we made through several discussions as a planning committee. But unless you're planning your own offseason, you're not going to be able to decide the 'point' of the event, event-specific rule changes, or the intent of them.

I think it seems like what you're asking, is a disclaimer describing an offseason event's priority/purpose so you can decide where you want to go/what events to skip. Is that not effectively communicated by offseasons in your area? It seems pretty well-stated around us, at least.

[The_ShamWOW88]

I'm confused to why it's not ok to inspire and educate students while still treating a competition as such....a competition?

Maybe it's a good thing to teach and show our students how to both win and lose graciously?