Go to Post I wouldn’t trade this for anything in this world ;-). - Ken Leung [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
  #121   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 18:08
DougHogg DougHogg is offline
Robot-A-Holic
FRC #0980 (The ThunderBots)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: S. California
Posts: 324
DougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud of
Re: Cooperation is in the "Spirit of FIRST"

Quote:
Originally posted by Don Knight
I don't know what the fuss is all about, some teams have found that there is a strategy within the game that others have failed to recognize. The problem or flaw isn't with the team who has been wise enough to discover it, it's a flaw within the game and/or the rules. Don't blame teams that found it.

Four teams working "Together" to gain high qualifying points, I believe is fair more "gracious" than four teams smashing and beating containers and each others robots to bits.

Don't be upset with the teams who have exposed this opportunity to score, you should be singing there praises for sharing the strategy with you.

Doesn't anyone remember the "Coopertition" Game a few years ago?

I don't think anyone of these teams prearranged who would win only that they would "leave your stacks alone" if "you leave our stacks alone" nothing wrong with that.....
Hi Don,

Thank you for a great event. Your committee did a wonderful job.

On this subject, I would like to request, if you haven't done so, that you read the other posts on this subject.

I have talked to other people who, at first look, thought that this "cooperation" of teams was a good thing. However, the game this year is not a 4 team cooperative game. The expectation is that teams are competing 2-on-2. When they start to make agreements with their opponents, they are violating the basic agreements per the Kickoff on how the game is to be run. Taken to it's extreme, we would have all 4 teams choregraphing exactly what each robot will do to achieve the highest possible points. Picture the human players making 8 high stacks and the robots taking exactly their share of the bins, and then heading up to the top with everyone making room for each other. Well the 45th bin would have to be pushed out. Now we have a maximum score for each team. Well everyone else will get the same score if they do that. Why did we go through days of lack of sleep if we are all going to get the same score? That is not a 2-on-2 competition.

In other situations of FIRST, we applaud teams cooperating and helping each other, and rightly so. However when we are supposed to be competing, it is not okay to then start working with your opponents and thus change the game to a version of 2001. We need to be operating on the same page.

Example:
In a doubles match of tennis, the partners cooperate against their opponents. They do not cooperate with their opponents, but they could. They could say, guys, we are tired so let's make this an easy match. We will let you win the first set by 6 games to 0 and you let us win the second one. That way we will only have to play 12 games. Then we will really play hard in the third set. No harm to anyone, right? Wrong. It harms the other teams because they are competing as expected and will be more tired. They expect a level playing field. That is all we are asking for here.

If we are going to make the game like 2001, well let's design it that way. But FIRST abandoned that format last year, for good reason. Watch the 2002 kickoff where Dean discusses this.

Cooperation is wonderful, except when the basic concept of a game is competition. Then cooperation between opponents is wrong because it is not what was agreed upon. It is a fundamental violation of the agreements of the game, whether it is stated in the rules or not. Are there rules forbidding tennis opponents from making agreements? I don't know, but I do know that anyone doing that would not be competing long, and there would soon be rules against it if it were done, because it just isn't fair. See the FIRST forum for their response to the question as to whether it is okay or not for teams to make agreements with their opponents.

We were called together for a 2-on-2 competition and put unbelievable effort into creating our robots so we could get points in the match. To have teams then decide to leave up huge stacks on both sides with no effort to knock them down and no one protecting them, is to create a phony competition. They are really working together to beat all the other teams. Well then everyone would have to do that and that is the real problem. That would look really stupid on NASA channel, and as Dean said this year, we want to make the game more audience friendly. Are we going to have baseball games where the teams have agreed to pitch softly? No because no one would come, and no one will come to fake FIRST games either. I have parents who flew in from Los Angeles to watch the match who were upset by the pretense of the teams, who had obviously made agreements between them. That is dishonest if you are supposed to be opponents.

It is absolutely necessary for us to separate the wonderful cooperation in the pits and on this forum as examples, from when teams are opponents in a game. If there are no opponents, there isn't a game and that is what we have to avoid.

I am sorry but I couldn't ask my volunteer engineers to come day after day, sometimes sleeping on floor when they got tired, to then put on a theatrical performance of choregraphed robots, unless that was the agreed upon format as in 2001.

What the fuss is about is that I care very much about FIRST and feel that this behavior threatens it. When I heard a mentor on Friday at the Arizona Regional say that their team was voting on whether to withdraw from the competition, I think that is serious. Let's just agree on what game we are playing, 2-on-2, or a cooperative 4 team game, and then stick to it.

As for the petition that we are asking people to sign, it is really just an effort to come to an agreement on the format: 2-on-2 or cooperative 4. See

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

I think the sooner that it is made clear what the format is, the sooner we can all get on with other matters. I was told by Jason Morella of FIRST that FIRST does watch this forum. I am requesting that all teams who are in favor of keeping the 2-on-2 format post a message on the above thread that pre-match agreements between opponents should not occur. If people really want to change to a 4 team cooperative format, they can start a thread for that. We just have to settle it one way or the other.

Best regards,
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)

Last edited by DougHogg : 17-03-2003 at 18:54.
  #122   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 19:48
Gabriel Gabriel is offline
Registered User
#1409 (Fightin' Llamas)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Barrington MA
Posts: 150
Gabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to Gabriel
The "collusion" strategy will not necessarilly result in weak robots winning top seeds if most teams use the strategy.

Lets say I'm the United States, and you are the Soviet Union and we each have thousands of ICBM's pointed at each other. I won't launch my nukes because I know that you will retaliate by utterly destroying me with mine and that is an unacceptable outcome. But, if I know that all of your ICBM's are defective than it becomes a little easier for me to push the button. (This is of course a thought experiment)

Lets say I'm a strong alliance in FIRST and I decide to use the "collusion" strategy with another strong alliance. Since neither alliance is sure they can win if they decide to betray their opponent, the "gentlemens agreement" will go off as planned. Now lets say your a weak alliance and I'm a strong alliance, I will feel a little bit better about betraying you at the last minute because my chances of winning will be higher. In this way weaker alliances will be weeded out.

If we were only playing to win, then this strategy would be fine. Here's the problem though: all of a sudden I don't know whether my opponent will betray me or not. Any trust between teams is shattered, and because betrayals will inevitably occur, rivalry and strife will spread from the arena to the pits. We have enough trouble not being bitter towards teams that beat us fairly, I doubt many FIRST people would take outright betrayal in stride. The best part of FIRST is the friendliness and cooperation between teams. Unless it is universally accepted "collusion" will shatter any trust teams have in each other. Thats why my team (782) will not use this strategy.
  #123   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 20:11
George George is offline
Registered User
#0060 (Bulldogs)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kingman AZ
Posts: 144
George is a splendid one to beholdGeorge is a splendid one to beholdGeorge is a splendid one to beholdGeorge is a splendid one to beholdGeorge is a splendid one to beholdGeorge is a splendid one to beholdGeorge is a splendid one to behold
Re: Ok, Ok, enough already

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Van
After reading page after page of this stuff I must say I have been quite shocked at the uproar this has caused. As a coach on a FIRST team, I feel I must point out some things:

Gracious Professionalism & "the spirit of FIRST"-
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of "agreements", I believe that we could all agree that the following do not express a sense of GP or the spirit of FIRST:

Threats of physical violence,
Suggestions that some teams may deserve help while others do not ,
Forming "blacklists" (or speaking of revenge),
Suggesting that teams who have not broken any rules be removed from the competition,
Comparing students at a robotics competition to current or former international military/political events,
Suggestions that teams who have not broken any rules are not worthy of playing with in the elimination rounds.

PLEASE. If FIRST is not entirely about winning (or maxing QPs, or trophies, etc.) then lets act like it.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Team 599
RoboDox
[/QUOTE

Mr. Van,
I was not comparing "students at a robotics" competition to
military/political events.

I was using well-known examples of Agreements (Bad agreements) or inaction which affected other groups of people adversely.

"if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it"

if you can not see the parallels, I am Sorry.

is this any different from using tennis, boxing, nascar or ENRON as example?

I do not see how citing precedents is not in the "spirit of FIRST"
or is not "GP" (maybe not PC, but what is?)

I agree Blacklists, Blackballing and Physical violence has NO place in FIRST!

With all seriousness I am not "flipping out" And I disagree that this thread is "out of control"

This is an ethics issue that can only be solved by Group Debate.

To not debate this would be a crime.

All along I have ask what are we TEACHING??

Geo.
__________________
watch the oz, the lbs take care of themselfs
  #124   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 20:25
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
I'm extremely curious of what Dave Lavery is thinking about this whole situation right now...
__________________
  #125   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 21:39
Gabriel Gabriel is offline
Registered User
#1409 (Fightin' Llamas)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Barrington MA
Posts: 150
Gabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to Gabriel
The team at FIRST that develops the game is very smart. I think I read that they had discussed this "collusion" issue and I bet there were several differing opinions. I think it would be fascinating and helpful to hear about the discussions they had.
  #126   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 21:41
Gabriel Gabriel is offline
Registered User
#1409 (Fightin' Llamas)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Barrington MA
Posts: 150
Gabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to Gabriel
Quote:
I was not comparing "students at a robotics" competition to
military/political events.

I was using well-known examples of Agreements (Bad agreements) or inaction which affected other groups of people adversely.
George,

I misinterpreted your post, sorry.

~Gabriel
  #127   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 21:45
Adam Y.'s Avatar
Adam Y. Adam Y. is offline
Adam Y.
no team (?????)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,979
Adam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via AIM to Adam Y.
Quote:
Obviously, all companies compete, however many work together not to undercut each other unfairly
See above quote example.
Someone compared the rigging the matches to corporations that agree not to undercut each other unfairly. This is known as pools. Corporations would agree not to raise prices so they would not have to compete. Unfournatly they would drive the little companies out of bussiness because they couldn't compete with those prices. Which means that this is an unfair practice. To have people agree to have high scores means that other teams can not compete with the ones that actually compete.
__________________
If either a public officer or any one else saw a person attempting to cross a bridge which had been ascertained to be unsafe, and there were no time to warn him of his danger, they might seize him and turn him back without any real infringement of his liberty; for liberty consists in doing what one desires, and he does not desire to fall into the river. -Mill
  #128   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 21:56
Amanda Morrison's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Amanda Morrison Amanda Morrison is offline
16 awesome years of FRC!
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,861
Amanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond reputeAmanda Morrison has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by Danimal
Amanda,

Your post highlights the need for people to avoid conduct that FIRST itself has stated is not Gracious Professionalism.

When a team takes an action that other teams consider outside of what is appropriate a degenerative cycle is created that leads to even more negative actions.

This, in turn, leads us farther and farther away from the ideals that FIRST is fostering.
Thanks.

Indeed, I would like to hear what Dave Lavery would have to say about all of this, but moreover, if I could just have 10 teensy-weensy minutes with Dean Kamen to talk to him about this, I wonder what he would say? I'd live for the chance to just sit in the stands at a regional with Dean, and just ask him about his opinions.

All of the teams that are all for collusions... would you tell Dean about your arrangement? What about Woodie? Would you put it on your Chairman's Award submission? Or for the Woodie Flowers Award?

If you can go through this with a clear conscience and a grasp on gracious professionalism, that that is your decision, and no team is going to change your mind. This is what it comes down to.

You can argue yourself in circles about who is right and who is wrong. It's not who is right and who is wrong that matters. It's come down to, are you doing the right thing for these students and teaching them gracious professionalism, or showing them an easy way out?

Said it before and I'll say it again - There's nothing wrong with losing, especially if you lost fair and square. If you know you did a good job, have pride in yourself.

'Winning' and 'Losing' are just two words FIRST threw in this competition to make it interesting. The world doesn't end if you lose, you just go back to your pits, fix what needs fixing, and try it again.

That's the difference between other clubs and communities and FIRST - you still leave the regional shaking hands, admiring everyone else's work, and respecting them for both what they have built and how they have carried themselves during competition. Whereas a football team might badmouth their opponents at a game (no matter what strategy they use), FIRST kids think, "Wow, [insert team here] was really good last year. I really liked their [robot, handouts, attitude, friendliness]. I can't wait to play against them again."
__________________
Director of Operations, VEX Robotics, Inc.
Alumna - Teams 71, 1020, 1720, 148
2002 World Champions (Team 71) | 2008 World Champions (Team 148)

Last edited by Amanda Morrison : 17-03-2003 at 22:00.
  #129   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 21:57
RogerR's Avatar
RogerR RogerR is offline
its spelled *ya'll*, not *y'all*
AKA: Roger Riquelme
FRC #3844 (Wildbots)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Somerset, KY
Posts: 913
RogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond reputeRogerR has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to RogerR Send a message via MSN to RogerR
There is a very simple solution to this problem. We don't need blacklists, bullying, sabotage, etc.

All that you need to do is not go along with the "cheating" teams.

This stategy requires the co-operation of all 4 teams competing in the match to work (duh). If even one team doesn't agree, then the match will proceed as a normal match would, with everyone getting as many points for their alliance as possible (the traditional way, mind you).

And lets assume that a team does get its opponents to go along, and ends up in seeded first. They will enter the finals and slam headfirst into the brickwall that is reality. If they must depend on their opponents to score highly, then they will be S.O.L., as I don't know of any teams that will be happy to settle for anything but first.

I know that there is a pretty high likely hood that this has already been posted, and that I missed it (123 posts is alotta posts to read at one time), but I figured I'd say it just in case.

good night, and good ridance
Roger Riquelme
__________________
"But to say that the race is a metaphor for life is to miss the point. The race is everything. It obliterates whatever isn't racing. Life is a metaphor for the race." -- Donald Antrim
  #130   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 21:59
Adam Y.'s Avatar
Adam Y. Adam Y. is offline
Adam Y.
no team (?????)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,979
Adam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via AIM to Adam Y.
Quote:
There is a very simple solution to this problem. We don't need blacklists, bullying, sabotage, etc.
Nah an easier solution would be to change the rules. It just subtracts from the confusion that is First. It would also make it easier to explain who got what points.
__________________
If either a public officer or any one else saw a person attempting to cross a bridge which had been ascertained to be unsafe, and there were no time to warn him of his danger, they might seize him and turn him back without any real infringement of his liberty; for liberty consists in doing what one desires, and he does not desire to fall into the river. -Mill
  #131   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 22:01
Redhead Jokes's Avatar
Redhead Jokes Redhead Jokes is offline
Door Opener Mint Mentor
AKA: Cheryl Miller
#0294 (Beach Cities Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Redondo Beach, CA, USA
Posts: 1,282
Redhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of lightRedhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of lightRedhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of lightRedhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of lightRedhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of light
Quote:
Originally posted by amandabean
You can argue yourself in circles about who is right and who is wrong. It's not who is right and who is wrong that matters, it's come down to, are you doing the right thing, or not?
I think it's also about arguing what is right, and that can be a personal opinion.

You may choose to do something others think is wrong, you think is clever and not against the rules, and leave the regional feeling fine about your integrity despite what others think.
__________________
Cheryl Miller, SCRRF Southern California Regional Robotics Forum cheryl@scrrf.org SCRRF Calendar So Cal FIRST Lego League
Beach Cities Robotics Team 294 Team Mom cheryl@bcrobotics.org
2004 Robot name: Orange Tide
motto: Two Rival Schools, One Team...ride the Tide.
2004 So Cal Chairman's Award, Phoenix Regional DaimlerChrysler Team Spirit Award
2003 So Cal Regional Finalist and Sportsmanship Award, Phoenix Regional Engineering Inspiration Award
2001 So Cal Regional and National Champions, Regional Image Award
Gracious Professionalism Poster
Mint: To invent; to forge; to fabricate; to fashion. Mentor: a wise and trusted guide and advisor.
  #132   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2003, 22:04
Redhead Jokes's Avatar
Redhead Jokes Redhead Jokes is offline
Door Opener Mint Mentor
AKA: Cheryl Miller
#0294 (Beach Cities Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Redondo Beach, CA, USA
Posts: 1,282
Redhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of lightRedhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of lightRedhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of lightRedhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of lightRedhead Jokes is a glorious beacon of light
Quote:
Originally posted by RogerR
There is a very simple solution to this problem. We don't need blacklists, bullying, sabotage, etc.

All that you need to do is not go along with the "cheating" teams.
Amen and hallelujah. Make your own PERSONAL decision. Leave others to make theirs. See how it all plays out.
__________________
Cheryl Miller, SCRRF Southern California Regional Robotics Forum cheryl@scrrf.org SCRRF Calendar So Cal FIRST Lego League
Beach Cities Robotics Team 294 Team Mom cheryl@bcrobotics.org
2004 Robot name: Orange Tide
motto: Two Rival Schools, One Team...ride the Tide.
2004 So Cal Chairman's Award, Phoenix Regional DaimlerChrysler Team Spirit Award
2003 So Cal Regional Finalist and Sportsmanship Award, Phoenix Regional Engineering Inspiration Award
2001 So Cal Regional and National Champions, Regional Image Award
Gracious Professionalism Poster
Mint: To invent; to forge; to fabricate; to fashion. Mentor: a wise and trusted guide and advisor.
  #133   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-03-2003, 01:40
pbarrett03 pbarrett03 is offline
Registered User
#0991 (The Dukes)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15
pbarrett03 is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to pbarrett03
Quote:
Originally posted by Twisted
This happened at the Arizona regionals.The team that requested such a proposal also happened to make it to finals

That team also included the son of Microchip's President...

-Justin
Team 1223
Driver, Programmer, source of humor
*******************************

Sure, I do not agree with any point collusion strategies.

However, I do not think your comments directed at teams were necessarily fair, or in the mindset of a gracious professional.

I would first like to commend this unnamed team you attacked on their long overdue success that finally played out in the final rounds of competition at the Arizona Regional event.

Singling out a team that did not frequently participate in such an act is wrong. To the best of my knowledge, it is true that this team did play in a match that had a point collusion strategy worked out ahead of time. However, the team’s alliance knocked over the other alliances stack. In return, their stack was knocked over. Coincidentally, the team that knocked the stack in revenge later went on to become a seemingly self-proclaimed martyr in the whole matter of point collusion.

Furthermore, as a previous member of this unmentioned team, I feel it my duty to defend this team that represents what I believe Dean Kamen designed FIRST to represent. The members and mentors have an extraordinary work ethic. This team reaching success is not any surprise to me. The combination of the extraordinary amount of talent that the team possesses, unbelievably dedicated faculty and mentor support has been due for success since its founding almost 5 years ago.

But more importantly, I find any attacks on their integrity to be downright wrong and offensive. From my experiences with mentors and members alike, I have found nothing but the embodiment of what FIRST really means. Truly gracious people working to help me not only learn about the principles of science and how fun it can be, but also about teamwork and gracious professionalism. Their efforts to expand the ideals of FIRST to as many people as possible, over the past years, has impressed me. I can only say that I am happy and proud for finally being able to reap the benefits of their efforts at the Arizona Regional.

As far as the participation of the student in question… this is a true act of gracious professionalism. The team offered for a student to participate in a program that was not offered at his school. The offer to allow participation to this student spread the ideals of FIRST to another person who would not have been able to otherwise participate. You should not criticize the team you attack for allowing the student to participate in a program that helps us grow as people in an environment that keeps sacred such high goals as teamwork and gracious professionalism.

All of this “insight” comes from the perspective of a veteran of three years. I stood behind you and watched the alliance in you speak poorly of edge my team, as well as yours Justin, out of the tournament. While this is upsetting, there is no question in my mind that the other alliance won by playing fairly.

Please do not try to bring down this team during a moment of celebration. Their success has been well earned and overdue.

I would like to finish by saying congratulations to the winners of the 2003 Arizona Regional - I hope to see you in Houston!!!
__________________
Pat Barrett
pbarrett@brophyprep.org
Team #991 - The Dukes
Phoenix, AZ
  #134   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-03-2003, 02:09
DougHogg DougHogg is offline
Robot-A-Holic
FRC #0980 (The ThunderBots)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: S. California
Posts: 324
DougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud of
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally posted by pbarrett03
*******************************

Singling out a team that did not frequently participate in such an act is wrong.
Hello Justin and Pat,

You guys are talking about different teams. By "finals", Justin meant the elimination rounds.

In any case, it is time to get on with life. We need to focus on getting some agreement on the rules for upcoming competitions, and avoid any personal remarks about other teams.

Hopefully we will not have to continue discussing this issue of agreements with opponents for the next month.

I am hoping the FIRST will give us a hint of its original intentions for the game, without making any big rule change, since that has been unpopular in the past.
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)
  #135   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-03-2003, 04:55
SWBaum SWBaum is offline
Registered User
#0460
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1
SWBaum is an unknown quantity at this point
The "Fix" is Obvious

I'm a first-year mentor for Team 460. My views may not be the views of the team. But when I first heard about the "deal-making" at the Arizona regional last Friday, my reaction was, "Why does anyone need to talk about it? Isn't it obvious?" If our objective is to graciously and professionally have one of the 8 highest cumulative scores when qualifying is completed come Saturday afternoon, wouldn't we be advised to maximize our points in each and every match? And since stacks increase points, wouldn't it be appropriate to have one at the end? A tall one? On both sides of the ramp? Who needs to collude, cheat, fix, taint, violate the spirit of FIRST, _____________ [fill in the blank with your favorite derogatory characterization] to figure that out!?

What I suggested to our team before the start of the competition, and what I will continue to suggest, is that our strategy (as a general rule unless there are strong contrary indications) be cooperative (that is, let our opponents' stack stay up) until the other alliance shows us it doesn't understand the way the game we're playing is scored (and, I submit, played) by knocking ours down, in which event, we retaliate with all deliberate speed.

The qualifying rounds are not a boxing match, they're not a car race, they're not badminton, they're not a conflict between foreign countries. The game is what it is (which as has been pointed out above, bears a striking resemblance to the Prisoner's Dilemma in the qualifying rounds). (Check out http://www.brembs.net/ipd/ipd.html for more than you want to know.) The fact that an effective strategy to do well in this game (it's known as "tit for tat") is counterintuitive, that we find it necessary to scurry about making prearrangements with one another to have any chance to play it properly, and that some of us find such prearrangements "unsportsmanlike," only confirms that we're competitive human beings and not cooperative ants or bumblebees.

I assume we can all agree that winning the game is a legitimate objective. Let's further assume that in order to attain that objective, a team adopts a strategy that science has shown is appropriate, given the rules of the game (FIRST IS about science, isn't it?). We can't be too concerned if it's boring, and we can't get caught up in how it plays for TV, that's not our department. (And it should be noted, there still remains a lot of game to be played around the stacks and up the ramp; the game is still 2 on 2, with each alliance striving to beat the other by at least a point.) When all is said and done, the thing that some of us are finding compellingly offensive when prearranged is the very thing that should be done regardless, prearranged or not. If that be the case, prearrangement is entirely superfluous and innocuous. To reiterate the wise observation of a famous frequent contributor, "I don't know what the fuss is all about."

(Of course, a lot of good any of this did our team (which will come as no surprise to the Prisoner); at the end of qualifying, Team 460 was seeded 24th. Luckily, our esteemed alliance partner from West Covina, California, RAWC, had the extraordinary vision (where all others had missed their chance, our invitation and acceptance coming in the 24th slot) to appreciate our finer qualities, despite the standings. Proving once again, there's more to this game than meets the eye. The gloves come off in the elimination rounds, don't they?)

See you at Nationals. Be sure to stop by and say hi.
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 00:37.

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