Go to Post You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Our job is to make the horse thirsty. - Andrew Schreiber [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 06:19
Unsung FIRST Hero
Jason Morrella Jason Morrella is offline
Robotics Education and Competition
AKA: J-Mo
no team (RECF)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 154
Jason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond repute
a little clarification....

having been very involved in discussing this situation with MANY coaches on many teams, and ALSO having been quoted a few times in this thread, let me clarify a couple of things....

1. I found one earlier post to be quite important, at least in terms of helping to define the discussion. What everyone is discussing on this thread falls under the definition of "collusion" - not "fixing" or "cheating". I completely understand the views of all the people who are really against agreements - but it seems the emotion involved is causing people to use words which may imply that those who disagree with them are bad people, which is just ridiculous. These agreements are helping teams seed higher, there is no doubt about that, and I very much understand the debate. But "fixing" a match would be fixing who wins or loses and "cheating" would be breaking a rule. Just my opinion - but I think the discussion should be about what teams feel about "collusion" or "agreements", not "fixing or cheating".

2. One of the absolute best parts of being involved with FIRST is getting to meet and know so many impressive people on so many teams. I try to go out of my way at events I help organize to listen to and discuss any issue, suggestion, compliment, or complaint. In this debate, I think all those who wanted to discuss their point with me will readily admit that I went out of my way to present both points of view and try to remain objective. I feel it's important that I clarify a few things attributed to me or FIRST which may have been taken out of context:
(sorry Mike Soukup - I've tried to keep long posts to a minimum this year, but don't think I can do so here)


clarifications:

- I went out of my way to say to each mentor I spoke to that I could not and would not make an "official" judgement on behalf of FIRST about "agreements", that I was giving my opinion since they were asking for it

- I DID tell a number of mentors that this was a decision for teams to make, not FIRST. Some disagreed, most agreed - regardless, that was my opinion.

- I NEVER said I found these agreements "acceptable", I said there was no actual rule against it.

- I DID say that teams should calmly and respectfully share the same concerns and views they were telling me with the teams they were complaining about. I did say that speaking as a "teacher", not FIRST - I thought it was a great opportunity for students and teams to solve an issue without FIRST - that they could solve it with discussion, diplomacy, and consensus instead of anger and resentment. This has been an issue at some events while not even coming up at some others. The teams in Arizona decided to address it a certain way, and on Saturday it didn't seem to be an issue.

- I NEVER said I or FIRST "condoned" the practice of agreements. I said we would not make a judgement either way. I did point out that FIRST could not police this even if we wanted to, so it really was a decision totally up to the teams.

- I DID say that the practice of making these agreements is mainly a qualifying round issue, and would not ever come into play in the playoffs.
One other observation I made, is that the teams at Sacramento and Phoenix who seeded high partly by making these agreements, and thus were the focus of most of the debate, won most of their matches and also won the majority of the matches in which no agreements were made/stacks were all knocked down. Granted, that has nothing to do with the debate over "is it right or wrong", but those teams would have made the playoffs either way (IMHO).

- I DID say that if I was still coaching a team, I personally wouldn't make one of these agreements. I also said that it's up to each team and I thought some people were getting a little too angry and emotional about these agreements. I DID say that while I would not do it, I wouldn't consider those who did to be "bad" teams or people - I thought those statements were clearly based on emotion and going a bit far. I also said that this is not, in my opinion, as black and white as most are making it out to be on both sides.

- I DID say that while I myself see valid arguments on boths sides of the "agreement" issue, that I would be MUCH more troubled by petty and ungracious behavior such as: teams purposely trying to damage another teams robot, teams agreeing who would win or lose a match, teams "tricking or deceiving" other teams, teams saying they'll get revenge on teams who make decisions they don't agree with or hold a grudge/not help teams for years to come because they seeded ahead of them, teams cheating and breaking rules, and so on.

- I DID say that I totally understood why many teams have a problem with "agreements", but that I wouldn't go so far as to brand it as "fixing" or "cheating" unless those teams were agreeing on who would win or were directly breaking a rule.

- I DID say that if any of the teams who were making these agreements to seed high actually won an event (which I don't think they have yet), that they would have still had to demonstrate that their robot and alliance outplayed the other playoff robots without any agreements being made. My "point" was that while this practice may help some teams seed higher, it would not help them IN the playoffs. (yes, I know one could argue it may/may not have helped them get "into" the playoffs - I'm saying they still have to outplay the playoff teams to advance further)

- I NEVER said I was "enjoying" what was going on, those in Sacramento and Phoenix know I was not (kind of felt like the character in the Airplane movies who had all the people with hammers, bats, boxing gloves, and other weapons lined up in the aisle waiting to "speak" to them. ).
I said that it is an issue which is up to teams to analyze and decide how they want to play the game. I said that the debate at hand is a real life decision making process which is a great excercise for students to experience and work through now - since they will face many such decisions after high school. I said that I knew some in FIRST felt this was a unique opportunity for teams and that this discussion in and of itself (albeit hard and/or awkward) was great for students & teams to work out for themselves. One coach told me "while he disagreed with teams who were making the agreements, the only way he'd actually lose respect for a team is if they made an agreement/promise and broke it - that those teams should question their values" (it had happened to his team in Phoenix, which probably helped sour them on the concept). His point was that making the agreement was "one heck of a life lesson for his team, and that making the agreement had actually hurt them" the interesting point was that on Saturday he told me he "was glad FIRST left this decision about agreements up to the teams", that "watching his students discuss both sides of the debate amongst themselves and other teams, and then decide how they wanted to play" would be one of his proudest memories of the last couple years he had been in FIRST.

- I did say that "if EVERY team and EVERY match had these agreements, it would be bad for the competition in my opinion". This was slightly taken out of context in an earlier post.

- None of this was a total shock to FIRST. Those who wrote the rules went over any and every aspect to the game they could think of - and they did discuss this exact scenario. FIRST was and is aware of this debate. As always, FIRST provides a game and rules, and the teams ultimately determine how they will end up playing the game. As many have pointed out, FIRST is about WAY more than just robots and winning.

- I know some of the mentors were frustrated because they really wanted me (in Arizona or Sacramento) or FIRST to take a side. Instead, I tried to present each side the other point of view and encourage the teams to work together to at least discuss the issue. I hope each of those mentors know that I really appreciated their coming forward with their concerns and thank them for their dedication to not only their students but the overall quality of the FIRST community.

Sorry about the length - but since this issue is clearly very important to a number of people, I felt obligated to clarify my position/thoughts expressed at two of the events which experienced this debate.

Good luck to everyone in week 3.

Jason
  #77   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 06:42
Unsung FIRST Hero
Jason Morrella Jason Morrella is offline
Robotics Education and Competition
AKA: J-Mo
no team (RECF)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 154
Jason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond reputeJason Morrella has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
This happened at the Arizona regionals.The team that requested such a proposal also happened to make it to finals
ummm - facts are wrong. They lost in the first round of the playoffs. Also, more than 10 teams made such agreements, not just one. If your intent is to put down/insult another team (which your comment below seems to imply) - at least have your facts correct.
Quote:
That team also included the son of Microchip's President...
I can't quite figure out what your point is - but the person you speak of did more for every team at that event, including yours, than for his own son's team. Please discuss such comments with your team mentors before posting them - as they may be able to provide you with accurate information to form your thoughts and also may prevent you from making irresponsible posts.


Disregarding the above post and back to the topic of this thread, I should point out that 95% of the mentors who discussed this issue with me had very well thought out arguments, and while most of them were quite worked up/fervent, they remained respectful and rational during the discussion
(I can use percentages here, because I have now had over 20 mentors approach me about this - I will be setting up a "discuss stack agreements" booth at all future events, much like Lucy's "therapy" booth in Peanuts/Charlie Brown comic strips)

Since some of the debate seems to focus on particular teams doing something wrong - there seems to be one VERY important fact I think has been conveniently overlooked: It takes FOUR teams to make an agreement. And if it happened in 5 or 10 matches at an event, then anywhere from 20-30 teams (assuming there are a number of repeat teams) made such agreements. As many teams have acknowledged, they are very much against agreements, but they themselves actually made such an agreement at least once. I watched at least 10 teams in Arizona make these agreements, and many have posted VERY adament messages in this thread about how "clearly" wrong and unfair this is. This is a decision for ALL teams to make, not just a couple. And since so many teams struggled with it, I think it's clear that there are at least some valid points on both sides.

Last....What was most important to me, while some may or may not agree, I DID say the following to each mentor I spoke with about this the past 2 weeks:

1. Their teams should make whatever decision they feel is right for them.
2. While they might be disappointed in decisions other teams make, and while both sides might have very valid points, I thought emotions were creating a little more of a "the sky is falling" panic than may be warranted.
3. I felt the teams might be surprised that they could handle this issue in person at events and on forums such as Chief Delphi.
4. Having spoke to teams on both extremes of this debate, I can say with absolute certainty that EVERY team involved is a quality team and all the people on those teams are good, dedicated, quality people.
5. If all the teams at any given event agree not to agree, fabulous. If not, so be it - there are bigger things in the world to be really upset about. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree, and each team should consider their participation a success as long as they leave each competition proud of their effort, their decisions, and how they represented their team.
  #78   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 06:46
JHodge JHodge is offline
Registered User
#0175 (BuzzRobotics)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Enfield, CT
Posts: 2
JHodge is an unknown quantity at this point
In both the New Hampshire and Hartford Regionals, you could count on one hand the number of stacks that remained at the end of a match over the full three days. It was never even considered an option, and now I know why some of the Regional matches posted such high points. Teams may be trying to inflate their teams potential for Nationals, and it will probably backfire. What you do on and off the field will be apparent to all the good teams that scout your performance. Let us not lose sight of why we participate in FIRST. The larger we get, the easier it is for some not to get the true message.
.

Hodge, Teacher - Mentor
Team 175 - BUZZ
  #79   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 07:12
Danimal Danimal is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: CT
Posts: 10
Danimal is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Danimal
We have already had someone reference the page in the rules that outlines that alliances of this nature, while not clearly a violation of the rulse, are in violation of the "spirit" of FIRST.

I have read time and again how hard it is to have a stack survive a match and I have observed this to be true.

It is kind of sad because at the Hartford Regional there was one 6-stack all weekend long that survived a match and now I am wondering if it was legit.

I did not see the match and none of my friends complained. Did anyone see that match? Does anyone know if it looked like an alliance was in the works?

Best,

Danimal
Pit Boss
Hartford, '01, '03
  #80   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 07:17
Rook's Avatar
Rook Rook is offline
Registered User
#0267 (The Demolition Squad)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 64
Rook is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: a little clarification....

Quote:
Originally posted by Jason Morrella


1. I found one earlier post to be quite important, at least in terms of helping to define the discussion. What everyone is discussing on this thread falls under the definition of "collusion" - not "fixing" or "cheating". I completely understand the views of all the people who are really against agreements - but it seems the emotion involved is causing people to use words which may imply that those who disagree with them are bad people, which is just ridiculous. These agreements are helping teams seed higher, there is no doubt about that, and I very much understand the debate. But "fixing" a match would be fixing who wins or loses and "cheating" would be breaking a rule. Just my opinion - but I think the discussion should be about what teams feel about "collusion" or "agreements", not "fixing or cheating".
True, "Fixing a match" would be deciding a winner before the match is played. A better way to describe it is artificial bloating of Qualifying Points. The problem isn't the individual matches themselves. The problem is in seeding. Some teams will not go into finals if they don't seed in the top 8. If a team bloats it's QP's enough, it can possibly make it to the finals, when it shouldn't have.

In a normal match, a team is lucky to get a multiplier above 4. With these agreements, the mulipliers can be huge because human players can stack high stacks and not worry about them falling. People are upset because we are all not playing the same game. If half of a 40 team regional bloats and the other half doesn't, then theres a good chance that the top 20 teams will be the bloated teams.

You say this doesn't affect the finals, but it does. Say Team X is the best team at the regional and chooses Team Y based on Team Y's High QP. Team X may now lose, because of their choice in partners. You can say it's Team X's responsibility to make the best choice, but the agreements now confuse the matter even more.

So then should we all just agree to follow suit? That wouldn't be fair to the bots who's main function is stacking. If all teams just left the other team's stacks alone. The human players can just simply make a big stack in the beginning, then let it stand. There's no need to make any more stacks.

These agreements remove the stacking element from the game. All teams will be doing is hitting the wall, pushing bins back and forth, and playing King of the Hill.

Thank you for your comments, but you seem to be playing this off as a non-issue or just a minor annoyance. No the sky ISNT falling, but this is a bigger problem than you or FIRST seems to think it is.
__________________
Aaahhhhh! The atmosphere! Aaaahhhh!


(Things you might hear a meteor say.)

Last edited by Rook : 17-03-2003 at 07:21.
  #81   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 08:14
Joe Matt's Avatar
Joe Matt Joe Matt is offline
Wake Up Get Up Get Out There
no team
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: CAK
Posts: 5,067
Joe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond repute
Our strategy has always been to not nock down stacks unless we are loosing, so this isn't a new idea, but the fixing of matches has been seen by us. We were approached by a team at VCU to tie a match 114-114. We didn't accept. At Annapolis we were approached by a team to do this again. This team was a top 8 seed team and wanted to do this strategy with us. So this is a big problem that needs to be fixed by FIRST.
__________________
  #82   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 08:21
Soukup's Avatar
Soukup Soukup is offline
Animation Guru
AKA: David Soukup
no team
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Grand Valley State
Posts: 303
Soukup is on a distinguished road
let me say this....agreements wouldn't be unfair to me....but they'll be unfair to anyone that makes one with us. ANY team that approaches me or my team and asks for an agreement...will pay. We will screw your score up so bad....the match will likely turn out to be close to 0-0. Agreements suck!

Look at any porfessional sport...teams don't agree to let other teams win...they go for the kill. Sooooooo....here's an idea....if someone approaches you on an agreement....agree to it. Then show them what gracious professionalism is all about, and do the oposite of what they agreed to .....after all, what can they complain about, the fact that they're trying to cheat?
__________________
soukupd_gv@hotmail.com

Team 74 Alumni

2003 Great Lakes, Midwest, and West Michigan Regional Animation Award Winner
  #83   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 08:30
volleygrrl234's Avatar
volleygrrl234 volleygrrl234 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Courtney
FRC #0234 (Cyber Blue)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN/Nashville, TN
Posts: 75
volleygrrl234 is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to volleygrrl234
Quote:
Originally posted by Dima




however as it so happens the number 1 seeded alliance got taken out by the number 8 alliance (whose picking team was seeded number 11 and moved up) at the AZ regional.

The teams that practice this strategy will loose in the long run because they have to play in the ELimination matches and they are not prepared to knock over stacks or do other things in order to win. [/b]


yea, we happen to be the team that was picked by the number one alliance and ended up losing in the first round due to a human error... we were also approached during a match, but we were confident enough in our capabilities that we did fairly well without our partner's help... it just makes one wonder about the whole elimination points versus actually winning and losing... like we won one and lost one in the finals, yet still got "beat." i do not agree with this practice, becuase it's not truly winning. You just had a good match.
__________________
Vanderbilt University c/o 2007 --- Biomedical Engineering / Medicine, Health, and Society
"I may have taken the long way here, but I still made it!"

Last edited by volleygrrl234 : 17-03-2003 at 08:36.
  #84   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 09:05
jzampier's Avatar
jzampier jzampier is offline
Finger Lakes Regional Staff
AKA: Jeffrey Zampieron
no team (-)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Rochester
Posts: 74
jzampier is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to jzampier
Spirit of First

Many folks posting here seem to use the phase:
'Violation of the Spirit of First.'

I ask? Do you really know what you are saying? or is it just for effect?

Before one can say something is a violation, its usually required to have reached an agreement on what the baseline is.

Therefore, since the 'spirit of FIRST' is open to interpetation, does it not also follow that anything which may or may not be a violation thereof is also open to interpetation?

I will stipulate that part of FIRSTs goal is to create discussion, as we see here... to offer consideration of ethical dilemas and other gray-area situations which will be seen later in life.

Therefore, I would feel it is vital to discuss this issue, without drawing the conclusions which people seem to be drawing here.

Oh, and in response to the 'revenge' post... if FIRST ever gets to the point where people are maliciously hold vendettas we certainly need to reassess what FIRST is trying to accomplish. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be seaching for another team/engineering project if things ended up in that direction.
__________________
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour.
Sit with a pretty girl for an hour,
and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." -Einstein

----
First Resume: (If I can remember)
2001 NJ Regional
2001 Championship
2002 NYC Regional
2003 OH Regional
2003 Championship
2004 OH Regional
2005 Finger Lakes Regional
2006 Finger Lakes Regional (yes!)
  #85   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 09:30
Danimal Danimal is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: CT
Posts: 10
Danimal is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Danimal
JZ,

On the USFIRST.ORG forum the question was asked...

Quote:
[Gabriel] If the two alliances decide before the beginning of a match how they will play the game and execute a strategy where the two alliances cooperate with each other to acheive a tie, are the two alliances violating the spirit of FIRST or the maxim of "gracious professionalism"?
The answer that first gave was simply...
Quote:
[first]Yes
.

I guess what I don't understand is how what you say and what FIRST says can be reconciled.

It seems to me that whatever a "Violation of the Spirit of First" actually means, FIRST considers "rigging" or "fixing" or "collusion" as discussed here to be in opposition to its "spirit.

We certainly could open another thread to discuss what the spirit of FIRST means but FIRST seems to have made it pretty clear that it does NOT mean two alliances cooperating with each other to produce an anticipated outcome.

Best,

Danimal
__________________
Pit Boss
Hartford Regional
2001, 2003

Last edited by Danimal : 17-03-2003 at 09:33.
  #86   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 09:36
Chubtoad's Avatar
Chubtoad Chubtoad is offline
I'm a weirdo.
#0271 (Mechanical Marauders)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bay Shore, New York!
Posts: 203
Chubtoad is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Chubtoad
My team was approached during the Annapolis regional to "cooperate" during a match. The deal was that we would leave each others stacks, and play strictly defensive strategy. We woudl get as many bins in scoring posistion as possible and everyone would try for the ramp. We all agreed with no-one objecting. My team was forced to pull-out before the match due to a mentor angrily disagreeing with us. The opposing alliance won the match and if we had kept the agreement it might not have been so. The risks for winning vs. losing are the same. The drive team on my team had looked at it at that time as working with other teams, and spreading the word of FIRST through cooperation.

We made sure that they other alliance knew that we weren't going to do it. I fully disagree with any team holding instances of agreement against other teams. I find it appaling that members of the FIRST community would think to "blacklist" other teams. I feel it is wrong for teams to hold this against other teams because they might be doing it for reasons that aren't as anti-first as some of you might think.

I am still torn on the subject of whether or not this should be done. At the time we did not think it had any malicious side-effects but as I have read this thread I realize that there are some. I think that determing who shall win a match is ENTIRELY wrong.

I think it is better to maximize points than to realize that your going to lose and knock over your own stack to bring down the opposition's points. It has been done before and I have not seen such huge discussion over it.

I think since reading this thread I would not participate in such agreements anymore since obviously a large portion of the teams competing do not think that this is acceptable strategy. But I would NOT sign a petition which woudl end up punishing teams that did not sign it. Such petitions and blacklisting has occured in history and is one of the BAD POINTS of our nations history.

To each his own.
__________________
2003 - GM Industrial Design Award @ SBPLI Regional
My Site!
  #87   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 09:55
Raul's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Raul Raul is offline
Somewhat Useful Person
no team (Formerly - Wildstang)
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Greenville, TX
Posts: 599
Raul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond repute
Smile

Wow, I have seen a lot of opinions that have made me think - which is a good thing.

I think I can speak for my team when I say that we will not accept any agreements.

Of course, we will leave the opponents stack standing if we feel it is the proper action to take while the match is in progress. Being the coach I want to have the option to decide whether it should remain standing or not. If we make an agreement, we remove that option or face the wrath of not holding to our agreement. Sorry, I do not want our team to be put in that predicament.

Those who say that it does not benefit us to knock down the opponents stack is not considering that in some cases one team is capable of defending a stack and does not need an agreement to keep it standing. And in the case where the opponent gets more bins on their side, maybe the only way to win is to have a stack that is higher than theirs.

So, in summary, we just want to keep our options open throughout a match and be allowed to decide. Otherwise, it will NOT feel like a competition.

Lastly, I have faith in the FIRST community to eventually do what is best for everyone. We will not hold grudges against anyone just because they do not agree with us. I hope you all feel the same way.
__________________
Warning: this reply is just an approximation of what I meant to convey - engineers cannot possibly use just written words to express what they are thinking.
  #88   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 09:56
Joe Matt's Avatar
Joe Matt Joe Matt is offline
Wake Up Get Up Get Out There
no team
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: CAK
Posts: 5,067
Joe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond repute
It's not the rigging that damages me, or the gained points or the pushing down of those who are really good and the rise of those who are rigging it, it's the slaughter of the FIRST spirit of Gracious Professionalism.
__________________
  #89   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 10:14
Alexander McGee's Avatar
Alexander McGee Alexander McGee is offline
Hoonigan
AKA: Alexander S. McGee
no team (no team)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Auburn Hills, Michigan
Posts: 392
Alexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond reputeAlexander McGee has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Alexander McGee Send a message via Yahoo to Alexander McGee
Petition.

Will all teams who disagree with this practice, please sign our petition?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=19301

My team believes that this is the only way to stop this practice. It will be impossible for F.I.R.S.T. to determine who is doing this, and who isnt, so a petition is the best answer.
__________________
-Alexander S. McGee
Intellectual Property Attorney, Mechanical Engineer, Gear-head
  #90   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 10:36
Joe Ross's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Joe Ross Joe Ross is offline
Registered User
FRC #0330 (Beachbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,574
Joe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond repute
First of all, I was not at any regional this weekend, so I won't comment on what happened, only one observation based on what other people have posted. I have many other thoughts on this issue that I would be happy to discuss in person or via PM or AIM, however, I don't want to add more fuel to the fire.

A lot of people have been referring directly and indirectly to team 698, the #1 seed at Arizona. Every single one of those posts has been negative. However, looking through the thread recapping the Arizona regional I find that the same team that is being derided in this thread won team 294's gracious professionalism award, as voted by other teams.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2003 matches played shyra1353 General Forum 5 12-11-2003 20:20
11 matches played... ...some thoughts... Joe Johnson Regional Competitions 16 08-03-2003 10:29
Re: Trying not to seed.... (same wish) archiver 2001 8 24-06-2002 02:36
Throwing matches archiver 1999 4 23-06-2002 22:17
What is the length of time between Qualification matches? Randy_Ai Rules/Strategy 2 21-01-2002 16:47


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:24.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi