Petition against "fixing" matches

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally posted by Matt Leese
So far, the actual act of "fixing" a match has hurt exactly no one.
Matt

I guess that depends on your definition of hurt... I believe that the fixing of matches hurt the team I'm on for various reasons.

The point is, FIRST stated already that it's not a part of its Gracious Professionalism ideals, and should stop.

[Mark Pettit]

Once again, please argue your opposition to this petition at http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=19272.
You were asked politely enough by the creator of this thread to only post here if you are pledging not to fix your matches.
Those of us who wish to compete fairly are already being denied that opportunity. Please do not deny us this one as well.

[Dan Gold]

I would go for the soccer version of scoring. 3 points for a match win, one for a tie, nil for a loss. That would eliminate any of the pre-arranged lack of stack attack. At the Sacramento regional, there were about 20% of the matches where multiplying stacks were not attacked

[Matt Leese]

Originally posted by AnimeRaul234
I guess that depends on your definition of hurt... I believe that the fixing of matches hurt the team I'm on for various reasons.

The point is, FIRST stated already that it's not a part of its Gracious Professionalism ideals, and should stop.

"Fixing" of matches has only hurt someone if you consider winning the object of the FIRST competition. I don't.

That's why I find this whole discussion silly. What's the FIRST competition about? So does it really matter if some teams act stupidly?

Matt

Originally posted by Matt Leese
So does it really matter if some teams act stupidly?

For me no, but others, probably. I remember one time I went to a hockey game when I was 12 years old, and the only memory of that game I have is some guy getting escorted out of the arena for being a jerk by being overly loud and just plain obnoxious. You remember the bad experiences more than the good ones. FIRST doesnt want you to look back 30 years from now and one of the only memories you have is that some team wanted you to help them win by cheating or hurting yourself. Fixing is cheating and I will not be apart of an alliance that does it. Also petitioning is not going to do anything. As DougHogg said, the petition halted the practice matches in Arizona. If my practice match was cut because of that I would be fuming out the ears. Fixing matches is wrong, trying to petition this is wrong. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally posted by Matt Leese
"Fixing" of matches has only hurt someone if you consider winning the object of the FIRST competition. I don't.

*chuckle* Like that too!

[Alexander McGee]

Originally posted by D.J. Fluck
As DougHogg said, the petition halted the practice matches in Arizona. If my practice match was cut because of that I would be fuming out the ears. Fixing matches is wrong, trying to petition this is wrong. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

You might want to re-read that.

The petition halted the "practice" of fixing matches, not practice matches. I know this for sure, because my team passed out the petition, on saturday.

The petition in Arizona WORKED! And, it didnt "cut" any practice matches.

We arn't doing a wrong here, we are trying to help.

And for the last time, please debate this in some other thread, i wish to keep the original puropse of this thread intact.

Thank you.

Originally posted by magnasmific
You might want to re-read that.

The petition halted the "practice" of fixing matches, not practice matches. I know this for sure, because my team passed out the petition, on saturday.

Originally posted by DougHogg
Actually the petition at the Arizona Regional put a halt to the practice.

I see what you mean now, but there were a few details left out in DougHogg's statement. I wasn't the only one who read it that way..., try to be more specific next time.

[Iain]

If I see anyone fixing matches at Peachtree, I will see to it that the judges are informed. That's all I have to say.

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally posted by Iain
If I see anyone fixing matches at Peachtree, I will see to it that the judges are informed. That's all I have to say.

And that will accomplish what?

Are you speaking about collusion or fixing?

Where has it come up that the judges are going to monitor "fixing" or "collusion"?

"What everyone is discussing on this thread falls under the definition of 'collusion' - not 'fixing' or 'cheating'."
"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. "
"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."
Jason Morrella West Coast FIRST
link

FIRST said FIXING the game to achieve a tie is against Gracious Professionalism
link

[Sean_330]

Guys, is this discussion really going anywhere at all? I think people need to agree to disagree. All we are doing here is fighting, and going back and forth arguing with each other.

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally posted by Sean_330
Guys, is this discussion really going anywhere at all? I think people need to agree to disagree. All we are doing here is fighting, and going back and forth arguing with each other.

I think some discussions are going somewhere. I don't think ALL that's happening is fighting, and going back and forth arguing.

I thought arguing was different than debate, and I, curious, looked up the definition.

To put forth reasons for or against; debate:
To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend:
To give evidence of; indicate:
To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons:

According to that definition, I don't believe arguing is a bad thing.


I think fighting however is useless...
def. A quarrel or conflict.
To engage in a quarrel; argue:

Idioms:
fight fire with fire
To combat one evil or one set of negative circumstances by reacting in kind.

And I believe debate is healthy...
To consider something; deliberate.
To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument.

[Stu Bloom]

Cheryl, you are too funny ...

[DougHogg]

Originally posted by Matt Leese
"Fixing" of matches has only hurt someone if you consider winning the object of the FIRST competition. I don't.

That's why I find this whole discussion silly. What's the FIRST competition about? So does it really matter if some teams act stupidly?

Matt

I get what you are saying. I do not believe that teams should start calling each other names or refusing to talk to each other over this issue. However there were teams that were upset by what happened. One team discussed voting on whether to withdraw and go home. Another team was upset when they found out near the end what had been going on. They felt cheated, even though technically there was no rule against collaborating with your opponents. It would be great if no one ever got upset, but many people do when they feel an agreement has been broken. The agreement in this case is that teams thought that we are competing 2-on-2 as per the kickoff.

What we are trying to do with this petition is re-establish agreement between teams on how to compete: a) 2-on-2, b)as a Team of 4 or c)as a combination of a) and b). Personally I think that we should stick to 2-on-2 because that was the way the game was designed.

In Arizona, we discussed the issue of teams making agreements with their opponents with Jason Morrella of FIRST. He advised us to talk to other teams at the regional and to take up the matter here in this forum.

That is what we are doing: communicating to try to restore the commaradarie of FIRST, which seemed to be slipping away at times in Arizona. (There was a certain amount of upset and anger over what was happening.)

If we are all operating on the same rules, agreement will be restored and we can throw ourselves into the competition with enthusiasm. If we lose, we will know that we were beaten fairly because everyone was operating under the same rules.

While FIRST is not just about the competition, the competition is a vehicle for achieving our goals. So if the basic format (2-on-2 or Team of 4) is in doubt, that causes upsets and disagreements.

Quite honestly, if the teams voted to turn this year's game into a Team of 4 competition, I wouldn't bother going to the Championships, because the game wasn't designed that way. How hard is it to make human player stacks, split the bins and roll all 4 robots up the ramp?

I really do want us to have the 2-on-2 competition I thought we were going to have. And I don't want to have to go through the whole process of convincing each team at the S. Calif. Regional to agree not to make agreements with their opponents. And I don't even want to think about trying to do that at the Championships.

See "Rigging the Game" in the FIRST Forum.

See the post by Jason Morrella, FIRST

So if your team thinks that we should agree not to make pre-match agreements with our opponents, please sign this petition.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally posted by Matt Leese
"Fixing" of matches has only hurt someone if you consider winning the object of the FIRST competition. I don't.
Matt

I don't consider the object of a FIRST competition as winning it, but I would like to go and compete in a place where people play fair... don't you?
Personally I was hurt for various reasons... since 698 already stated that they disagree with this thread... and well I pretty much I assumed it at the competition for various and obvious reasons. I feel as if we might have been short changed.... but that's just me, not necessarly the views from other members of 234.

I'm not trying to start or continue an argument... I'm just stating my opinions, and the opinions of others. If somehow you find that offensive, well I'm sorry.. but there's not much I can do about that now... except to try to talk about this issue.. maybe come up with a new outlook or something.