TNA Blacklist

[alicen]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

So you are saying that for every unkind thing somebody does, they should be paired with another? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi
What happened to turning the other cheek? I'm not saying violating an agreement is okay. I'm saying any alliance that does could have a number of reasons for doing it that they do not have to disclose for you. It's strategy.

This.


[side note; proud to see several Ptree/GA people in here!]

[AdamHeard]

How do you verify this?

Who's to stop me from saying 2474 violated the agreement?

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

So you are saying that for every unkind thing somebody does, they should be paired with another? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi
What happened to turning the other cheek? I'm not saying violating an agreement is okay. I'm saying any alliance that does could have a number of reasons for doing it that they do not have to disclose for you. It's strategy.

Although I don't agree with blacklisting teams publicly, I don't think there is any legitimate reason why a team wouldn't be able to uphold their agreement unless they intended all along to break the agreement. One thing I can see is if their alliance partners are scoring lots of stacks, they may want to put noodles in containers and stack them. If that's the case though, the team could just communicate a maybe to the other alliance.

[alephzer0]

I just love how the Noodle Agreement already has an acronym...

[artK]

It would be too easy to make false accusations, and would devolve into a contest of "Which FRC teams do people secretly dislike the most?", and wouldn't even be useful.

Yes, alliances who break TNA should be watched carefully, but that responsibility should be left to the scouting teams, who can then look at the circumstances.

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

How do you verify this?

Who's to stop me from saying 2474 violated the agreement?

That a good point. I could see a system on TBA that only allows you to list teams that you've played against, but I'm not sure how exactly. Also, it would be a ranking system that would count the number of people that has listed you. If you only had one team list you, it wouldn't be bad, but if you had 10 teams list you, no body would agree to TNA with you.

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by artK

It would be too easy to make false accusations, and would devolve into a contest of "Which FRC teams do people secretly dislike the most?", and wouldn't even be useful.

Yes, alliances who break TNA should be watched carefully, but that responsibility should be left to the scouting teams, who can then look at the circumstances.

Well, scouts could use the blacklist to see if they need to check up on a team. They could go back and watch videos from TBA or their own recordings to verify if the team did in fact violate TNA.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by excel2474

That a good point. I could see a system on TBA that only allows you to list teams that you've played against, but I'm not sure how exactly. Also, it would be a ranking system that would count the number of people that has listed you. If you only had one team list you, it wouldn't be bad, but if you had 10 teams list you, no body would agree to TNA with you.

If the TNA rules remain unchanged, it seems like a much more robust way to protect yourself is to noodle tit for tat. I put one out, you put one out... and so on for the rest of the match. If your HP stops matching, I'm down at most one noodle, and can start littering on your zone from a distance if need be.

[nighterfighter]

Originally Posted by excel2474

That a good point. I could see a system on TBA that only allows you to list teams that you've played against, but I'm not sure how exactly. Also, it would be a ranking system that would count the number of people that has listed you. If you only had one team list you, it wouldn't be bad, but if you had 10 teams list you, no body would agree to TNA with you.

This comes back to what I was originally saying, you have no way to really verify the agreement was broken.

And even if one TEAM on the alliance breaks the agreement, should the other 2/3rds of the alliance be punished for it?

Edit: Saw you posted this: "Well, scouts could use the blacklist to see if they need to check up on a team. They could go back and watch videos from TBA or their own recordings to verify if the team did in fact violate TNA."

How much time do you typically have between matches, or how many scouts do you have, that you have the time to find and watch previous recordings of a particular team, at a certain time? And the video would have to be focused on solely the human player for that one team.

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by nighterfighter

This comes back to what I was originally saying, you have no way to really verify the agreement was broken.

And even if one TEAM on the alliance breaks the agreement, should the other 2/3rds of the alliance be punished for it?

I would verify it with video footage that is often on the blue alliance or with the video my team recorded. The Blacklist would just be a nice tool to see if I needed to go back and check the video.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

So here's the thing: right now, with the rules as written, the pool noodles have the possibility to be another Co-op opportunity. In my mind, instead of 40 Co-Op points per match maximum, we could have 80!

The rules as currently written encourage The Noodle Agreement in most cases.

I agree 100%.

...I will be surprised if that doesn't change, but if it doesn't, methinks anyone who doesn't participate...should.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

So here's the thing: right now, with the rules as written, the pool noodles have the possibility to be another Co-op opportunity. In my mind, instead of 40 Co-Op points per match maximum, we could have 80!

The rules as currently written encourage The Noodle Agreement in most cases.

Paul,
on paper, you are absolutely right that in essence, its an 80 point coopertition max.
The drawback though, is the "poolitics" you folks mentioned on your buildblitz strategy talk. Personally, i dont like it. Its asking for possible shenanigans and hard feelings among teams, especially later during qualifications as the PNA strategy becomes more evident on how it can affect teams overall scores.

The suggestion that the "difference" of the Pool Noodles on the floor is a great suggestion and would eliminate what I think is an oversight by the GDC.

[artK]

Originally Posted by excel2474

They could go back and watch videos from TBA or their own recordings to verify if the team did in fact violate TNA.

Bingo. If they want to see who actually violates it, they should do watch the video and determine if there was a violation themselves.

Word of mouth about a team is often very unreliable in scouting. Have you ever had a pit scout ask a team "How many wheels do you have?" to be responded with some fake answer like "5 mecanum wheels". Or an unverifiable question such as "How many points do you score in auto?", "Oh we have a tote stacking auto".

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

I don't like the noodle agreement. It opens up too much potential for hurt feelings and betrayal. If I have anything to say about it, my team won't be participating in it.

That said, you can't (shouldn't) post something online discrediting another team's honesty unless you have undeniable proof that they indeed broke a pre-established agreement.

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by artK

Have you ever had a pit scout ask a team "How many wheels do you have?" to be responded with some fake answer like "5 mecanum wheels". Or an unverifiable question such as "How many points do you score in auto?", "Oh we have a tote stacking auto".

Oh yeah, all the time. I just think it would be easier to see if they were blacklisted 10 times after a few competitions, you would know that you need to check some videos.