"Fixing" matches

[matrixman271]

GAME FIXING ---------

IS THIS HOW DEAN KAMEN GOT HIS PATENTS???????

[Andy Grady]

After browsing this forum, and actually having been approached by a team at our regional wanting to maximize a score, I have concluded that people in FIRST are starting to care a little too much about winning, and not enough about inspiration, fun, and fair play. The idea of FIRST is to teach young people about the ways of science of technology, not how to find loopholes in a system to get ahead. Good, fair competition is fun. Win or lose, if you go out knowing that you tried your hardest in a fair setting, there is no way you should walk away from the competition without some sort of valuable lesson learned. Fixing matches only promotes the idea of taking the easy way out instead of fighting through the good and bad, and learning from it. Lets not make this game anything more than it is, good, healthy, fun competition.

Good Luck,
Andy Grady

[George]

Well said Andy!

Geo.

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally posted by SWBaum
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.

*chuckle* I like that!

[Gabriel]

SWBaum,

I noticed the parallels to iterative prisoners dilemna too, and I agree, "collusion" is a VERY sound strategy. If this was nuclear war, or baseball, or NASCAR, where the objective is simply to win then I would use the "collusion" strategy without remorse. FIRST isn't like that. The biggest trophy doesn't go to the winners, it goes to the teams that best embody the ideals of FIRST and gracious professionalism. The objective of FIRST is to promote scientists and engineers and to inspire kids to want to be engineers. Its a little corny, but its very effective. If this was little-league baseball or high-school basketball teams would be tripping all over each other trying to sabotage each other. In FIRST teams go out of their way to help each other. I remember last year a team announced that they needed a PBasic expert and no less than 30 people showed up! Once you experience how FIRST teams interact, its intoxicating, you won't want to trade it for anything in the world. FIRST is like a cult...

The "collusion" strategy creates all sorts of trust problems. Teams are afraid of being betrayed. (If I was the #1 seed by 50 points, wouldn't it be a great strategy to sabotage a climbing alliance by betraying them at the last second?). It's not fun to watch. (Who wants to watch a game where we know the outcome ahead of time?) Regardless of whether its true or not, everyone will question whether a winning team that uses "collusion" "deserves" to be where it is, and that team will be hated.

I will gladly trade my teams success for the success of the mission of FIRST.

~Gabriel

[sevisehda]

I have yet to see any matches where it appears teams have fixed a match. FIRST has been about coopertition for the past 4 years. 3 yeras ago you had to cooperate. I don't see it fixing a match for everyone to agree not to knock over stacks, or to let everyone on top of the ramp. Its a strategic move in order to increase your score. It may be a little "cheap" but there have been other teams with strategys that some would deam cheap and others think are beautiful.


Personnaly I'd love to see 4 teams go out there with human player human player 4 stacks knock down the wall, only fight over the fallen boxes, then all 4 take the ramp. A score in the high 400 would be great. It doesn't hurt anyone it doesn't break any rules. Dean and the Judges would love it and teh crowd would go nuts over the score. It may not be as exciting as bots tipping but it would great when they posted the scores. Then maybe the stackers would have something to do.

[Mr. Van]

Hello All-

So here is my take on the situation:

I honestly do not believe that very many FIRST teams participated in "agreements" with the intention of "cheating", "making up for their robot's shortcomings" or "knocking teams down in the seeding ranks".

I believe that most teams who participated in "agreements" felt that they were executing a strategy that was within the rules and perhaps even encouraged by the rules. Perhaps even being an example of adversaries working together as is often supported by FIRST.

The problem is that not all teams have interpreted the rules in this way. The solution is to clarify the rules. Since "official" FIRST responses have been somewhat vague, I suggest the following:

At each regional to come, announce a meeting of ADULT COACHES on THURSDAY (perhaps at lunch, or after the last practice round) to discus (briefly) and ultimately agree on the "opposing alliance agreement issue". Take a vote if necessary, but I feel confident that if we consider what we are doing and WHY we are doing it, people at each regional can come to an agreement before the next match is played.

Level the playing field again, help each other, celebrate what we've learned and get back to what FIRST is all about.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Team 599
RoboDox

[Koko Ed]

Ever since I have been here I have seen poster who list what accomplishments their teams have done in what competitions, arguments about student built vs. engineerer built robots and constant constant complaints of rookie spoiling it for everyone when the veteran team act just as bad.
Now all of the sudden this and everyone say "All they care about is winning." And these other people didn't? If winning never matter then why list how your team did in every regional, the nationals and ever off-season comp they attend. Don't go blacklisting these teams for taking the next step from what they see from everybody else here. This has been a policy of alot of team for a long time!

[DougHogg]

Originally posted by sevisehda
I have yet to see any matches where it appears teams have fixed a match. FIRST has been about coopertition for the past 4 years. 3 yeras ago you had to cooperate. I don't see it fixing a match for everyone to agree not to knock over stacks, or to let everyone on top of the ramp. Its a strategic move in order to increase your score. It may be a little "cheap" but there have been other teams with strategys that some would deam cheap and others think are beautiful.


Personnaly I'd love to see 4 teams go out there with human player human player 4 stacks knock down the wall, only fight over the fallen boxes, then all 4 take the ramp. A score in the high 400 would be great. It doesn't hurt anyone it doesn't break any rules. Dean and the Judges would love it and teh crowd would go nuts over the score. It may not be as exciting as bots tipping but it would great when they posted the scores. Then maybe the stackers would have something to do.

But would you want to see every match with human player 8 stacks at each end untouched, the bins split between the teams (with 1 pushed out) and then all 4 teams on top of the ramp, match after match for 2 days?. Every match would have scores over 400, and all the same (unless someone dropped a bin). At that point, it becomes a farce and boring beyond belief. That is where the "agreement with your opponents" leads. If 1 agreement with your opponents is okay, then any such agreement is okay, and then we don't have a game. In Arizona, one team was ready to vote on withdrawing and going home because of the "opponent agreements".

(I don't think any stacker robot is going to be doing much stacking with 8 high human stacks just sitting there.)

Originally posted by Jason Morrella, FIRST

- I DID say that if I was still coaching a team, I personally wouldn't make one of these agreements.
...
- I did say that "if EVERY team and EVERY match had these agreements, it would be bad for the competition in my opinion".

From the FIRST Forum

http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...=360&trange=15
Gabriel
Posts: 1
Registered: Jan, 2003

"rigging" the game Posted: Jan 12, 2003 3:47 PM _
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"?

first
Posts: 1,519
Registered: Dec, 2002

Re: "rigging" the game Posted: Jan 12, 2003 9:28 PM _
Yes
36F

At the Arizona Regional, Team 68, 624 and 980 and others went around to ask teams to sign an agreement not to make pre-match agreements with their opponents to leave up each others stacks. That was effective in getting teams to stop making such agreements. However, Jason Morella told me that if enough teams petitioned in this forum that they do not want to have pre-match agreements between opponents, then FIRST would take notice.

Therefore if you would like to have competitions with no "opponents agreements", please sign our petition at
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=19301

[Rook]

Pro-Agreement people say... Teams who have adopted this strategy should be congradulated for using their minds to maximize their scores.

I say... Not every good idea is morally sound. A bank robber may come up with the perfect plan to rob a bank. Society does not pat him on the back for his great idea and let him keep the money. I am not placing teams that use this strategy on the same level as bank robbers, but you get the point.



Pro-Agreement people say... FIRST is about cooperation. Teams making agreements are cooperating.

I say... So where do we draw the line? What if I can get the other alliance to throw the match completely? Say we have something they need. We agee to give them what they need for the win. I haven't looked in the rules, but I bet there is nothing that states a team can not throw a match if they want to. So does that make it OK? No, of course it doesn't. The same goes for agreements to maximize scores. The reason is it is unfair to the other teams who have not made any agreements.



Pro-Agreement people say... The simple fix is that all teams should adopt this strategy. Then we will all be playing on the same level.

I say... That is easier said than done. It won't happen because many people see these kinds of agreements as morally wrong. So, if one team doesn't partake in this strategy, then no teams should. Even if all teams did agree, it would remove a basic part of the game out of play. Stacking robots are no longer useful since human player made stacks are now the only stacks needed.



Pro-Agreement people say... The agreements have no affect on the outcome of the competition. The best teams will still win.

I say... Then why do it? But, anyway, it has already been pointed out many times how making these agreements could alter the outcome.


I do not agree with blacklisting or other hardball tactics to stop these agreemements from being made. Teams using this strategy are NOT bad teams or bad people. They just see things differently. I'm hoping that by vocalizing why this practice is not to the mutual liking of all FIRST teams, that all teams will agree to no longer make these deals, even if they do not agree with the morality issue. In that way, we can keep the competition friendly and fair. I hope that FIRST will in the future consider this issue when designing games. The coop game of 2001 wasn't a bad idea. I liked it. But, in the least, teams can be kept in the dark on who they are playing against, or find a different scoring system altogether.

[sevisehda]

Making agreements to throw a match for a spare part would kill a team. They wouldn't get any kind of award for years if the judges ever heard about it. More than likely they would be asked to leave for just suggesting it.

Since I haven't seen any 8 stacks and few 4 stacks survive I don't even know why this topic is being debated. Its a waste of time. There is no problem with teams making this kind of agreement. I said that making such agreements not to knock over stacks or to allow everyone on the ramp would would be legal and actually encouraged by FIRST. Alot of people posted arguements against me earlier in the season because I thought rampdoms would be a effective bot. Many of you argued rampdoms killed scores and stackers were better because they only increased scores. So if an agreement not to knock down stacks also increased both teams scores then why is it wrong?

I hadn't posted until today because I didn't see any indication teams were making unscrupulous agreements and thought this whole thread was a waste. But after 4 threads and hundreds of replies I had to throw in my 2 cents.

[CHSRobotics03]

Just because you have not witnessed an event does not mean it hasn't happened. In both Sacramento and Arizona, these agreements had HUGE effects on the competition. Out of curiosity, just how many matches and competitions have you witnessed? Maybe you should realize that there are quite a few more that you haven't where there was a possibility of it happening and where it did happen. I saw at least 4 matches where there were two human player stacks of 7 left over at the end. And to reply to your comment about allowing everyone on the ramp and keeping the boxes-- how would it be a competition anymore? You've explained yourself why it doesn't work. It will lead to everyone being on the ramp in the end, and everyone having ties each match and each team in a tie at the end-- how will anyone show their robots strengths or do ANYTHING except a pre-planned routine that is the same for each match. If that's what you want you should join the WWF.

Alexis

[Ben Mitchell]

Stop this childish bickering.

When stacks are left standing on both sides of the field, everyone benefits, the losers, the winners. There is no sense in knocking stacks down, since it translates into a lower score for everyone.

This discussion is better suited for a FIRST forum, with FIRST officials. This is just becoming a flame war.

[Jason Morrella]

I would respectfully request that people try to promote/support their views with their arguments and not use conversations with other people. Let people speak for themselves.

In Phoenix as in other events, I tried very hard to hear out every team member who wanted to speak about any issue.

Again, I told each team member who requested to speak to me that the issue of "agreements" is not one which I can speak for FIRST.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jason Morrella, FIRST

- I DID say that if I was still coaching a team, I personally wouldn't make one of these agreements.
...
- I did say that "if EVERY team and EVERY match had these agreements, it would be bad for the competition in my opinion".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did I say these things - yes. But each of these statements and many others are taken out of the context of the full conversations. I never said or implied anything other than if EVERY team and EVERY match was the same, it would be bad for the competition. THIS IS NOT THE CASE THIS YEAR and WILL NOT BECOME THE CASE, regardless of what "hypothetical scenarios" people can logically come up with. Just like if EVERY team built the same stacking robot, or every team built a king of the hill robot which couldn't go under that bar, the game would not be as good.


But I also said:
"there is no rule against it - so FIRST will not make any announcement or judgment on this issue, it is up to each team to decide"
"it is not fixing or cheating in my view. It may be score manipulating or maybe even collusion, but not cheating"
"While I wouldn't choose to do it, I also wouldn't get too worked up about other teams doing it. I'm not going to judge them either harshly or negatively. In my opinion teams still have to outplay other alliances and win the majority of their matches to seed in the top 8, plus 24 teams make the playoffs. FIRST teams scout, and they are smart - top performing teams typically make the playoffs regardless of where they seed"
Also, yes I said some FIRST staff monitor forums like these. I said FIRST tries hard to follow the views of the teams during the season and at the Team Forums. If that implied that any point of view would get "official" approval by FIRST just because it was supported by many teams on an Internet forum thread, then I miscommunicated and apologize. These forums are good for discussion - and these threads have shown that teams have different views on the subject.

I am flattered that some posts seem to think that referencing my opinion holds any value (there are many who would like to sit these people down and set them straight ) - but to take things out of context, or to imply I said things which I didn't, or to imply that I am speaking for FIRST on this issue is not fair to myself, FIRST, this forum, or the people exchanging their own views. My opinion about stack agreements is no more important or valuable than that of anyone else. I was asked by many to discuss it, and I did. Team leaders from Sacramento or Arizona should not refer to conversations to support their views, when I specifically said I am not the voice of FIRST on this issue other than to say "it is not against the rules and it is an issue for each team to decide" . If you want someone to give their opinion in a post, just ask them to post it - but please don't speak for people or take their thoughts out of context.

While there have been a number of reckless, irresponsible, and unproductive posts in these threads - MANY people have expressed very valid points and are having a very valid discussion. There is so much gracious professionalism in FIRST, and I was nothing but impressed by the quality of teams and people I have met at the events so far this year. Being able to speak with and get the views of very impressive people including the leaders from teams such as 60, 64, 68, 599, 624, 698, 980 and others was and is a great part of working with FIRST. I left the events with a TREMENDOUS amount of respect for each of the people I spoke with, and very much look forward to working with them and speaking with them at future events this year and for years to come. I learn a great deal from hearing the different views of different teams, and normally I learn that things are not as black & white as I may have first felt, that there is normally a middle ground with well intentioned thoughts on both sides.
"My" take in this FIRST discussion is that things will work themselves out as they usually do. Again - I don't speak for FIRST or anyone else, it's all my opinion.

Heck, even countries in the United Nations can't agree if War should be a last resort or is justified if you haven't been attacked first. Many opinions on both sides, and both sides seem convinced they are right and the other side is crazy. (sound familiar?). So if the United Nations can't come to a consensus about going to war, maybe working out little tiny issues like these "agreements" in qualifying matches can help us create future generations of better qualified and skilled leaders who understand the importance of working things out.

Good luck to everyone in week three and the rest of the season - have a great time and celebrate the great things your teams have done!!!

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally posted by Ben Mitchell
Stop this childish bickering.
This discussion is better suited for a FIRST forum, with FIRST officials. This is just becoming a flame war.

*confused* I don't experience it all as childish bickering, and FIRST has addressed the issue.

definitions

FIRST