The "noodle agreement" is back! Now the defense agreement.

[alopex_rex]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

How about if both alliances agree to score 8 boulders, each to its own tower. Much easier, 1 ranking point guaranteed for both sides.

Putting aside the question of whether this makes any sense as a strategy, I'm not sure shooting boulders in your own tower reduces its strength. Section 3.1.4 says

Each BOULDER scored in a GOAL decreases the TOWER’S STRENGTH by one (1).

Since you don't get points for shooting boulders in your goal, it might not count as "scoring," and therefore not reduce its strength.

EDIT: Actually, upon looking over the rules I think what I say here may be incorrect. I'm now inclined to think that scoring in your own goal gives the opposing alliance points, and damages your tower as well.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by bduddy

T8 does exactly what you're talking about: it prohibits you from sandbagging based on influence by outside sources. You're reading it incorrectly.

I would agree with this based on how the rules are written, but I feel the rules are written incorrectly based on the intent in the blue box, which indicates FIRST disagrees with telling other teams to sandbag. Based on how it is written, I can go around telling every team to sandbag and be perfectly legal. But, if any team listens to me, they get a yellow/red card. (I don't think this will ever be called so I'm not sure it really matters).

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

How about if both alliances agree to score 8 boulders, each to its own tower. Much easier, 1 ranking point guaranteed for both sides.

You'd have to make full-court shots. You can't launch a BOULDER unless you are in the opponent's COURTYARD. Since the violation is a TECH FOUL, the TOWER STRENGTH would remain the same if you are scoring from anywhere else.

[alopex_rex]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

You'd have to make full-court shots. You can't launch a BOULDER unless you are in the opponent's COURTYARD. Since the violation is a TECH FOUL, the TOWER STRENGTH would remain the same if you are scoring from anywhere else.

Presumably you wouldn't launch the boulders, just gently push them into the low goal.

[Kartoffee]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Sorry every team at an event we decide what team to gang up on. That team is decided by every alliance going "this team is objectively better and we need to deflate the score" again we all agree that a team is objectively better. After that you all agree to pick easy defenses (which by the way sorry to you students for making you do 6 weeks of building and designing for every instance we are just going to agree on a new set of instances that are easier). That isn't going to happen.
Even if you deflate the scores enough to get a tie isn't the next determining factor auto, so then do we need an auto agreement too? How will this even effect the final alliance, you all got to the end with ranking points now that you can't rely on the crutch you used to make it to the end you now still have to outplay the other side.
All you have done is create extra work.

My opinion is that, unless you are directly competing with those teams for the top seed for playoffs, you won't do this. In which case, you would also be depriving yourself of the possible breach points.

[Kartoffee]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Ignoring how contrived a bit of this is (the visitors wouldn't understand why you're not trying to win your current match...), the agreement, if large-scale, is TERRIBLE for scouting. If the agreement is widespread, no one would have a clue for what a robot is actually capable or incapable of.

It isn't that you are trying to not win, just that you will be able to gain RP. I think that it is perfectly okay and legal, and wouldn't confuse spectators because they don't see the strategies behind choosing defenses.

[EricH]

I posted this in the Boulder Agreement thread, but it bears repeating here:

If you engage in either agreement, Do NOT backstab your fellow agreeing teams! If you don't want to agree, say so. If you agree, then do your part as long as you can do so, and if there's a problem inform the other alliance as quickly as possible so that both sides can adapt.


My opinion on both of these strategies is this: If the alliances both agree to attempt the use of these, I would count that as the "not intended to prevent" portion of the relevant rules--the alliance agrees--but it's on shaky ground due to the "outside of the alliance" part of the rules. Some test cases might be needed, and I'm glad I'm not a head ref.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by alopex_rex

Presumably you wouldn't launch the boulders, just gently push them into the low goal.

The only semi-definition we have of launching is in the blue box following G39:

“launching” (shooting BOULDERS into the air or throwing in a forceful way)

Are you going to rely on the ref's definition of forceful (vs. your "gently") to make this thing work?

[alopex_rex]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Are you going to rely on the ref's definition of forceful (vs. your "gently") to make this thing work?

Well, no, I don't actually think any of this is a good idea, legal or not.

[KrazyCarl92]

The fact remains that even if you take advantage of either the "defense agreement" or "boulder agreement" strategies, your alliance has to be quite effective at scoring boulders or crossing defenses to reap the benefits. And honestly, I would question that at a regional I would often play against an opponent that is capable of scoring 8 balls in the low goal of their own tower. Only 1 robot can be in their own courtyard after all.

It wasn't like 6 v 0 matches in 2010 always saw 8 goals scored (not an apples to apples comparison, but just sayin...).

[Jack Gillespie]

Could choosing defenses your opponents can cross be considered coopertition?

[Caleb McCune]

I like the idea of meeting up with the opposing alliance and try to reach an agreement on what defenses they'll use! I will definitely relay this to my team!

Have a Happy Build Season!

[coachm]

In general, I think the idea of "agreeing" with the other alliance on easier defenses, scoring intentionally in your own tower, or any other agreement I'm seeing posted on these threads in an effort to boost teams' rankings and scores artificially is UNETHICAL at best and CHEATING at worst, even if the rules don't specifically prohibit it.

Seriously, why even bother building a robot to play the game if you are going to collude on ways to advance in the tournament without actually playing the game? It's dishonest, and I hope that referees catch anyone attempting it. As a coach, I would prohibit my team from engaging in any such agreements. The point of FIRST and FRC is to overcome the challenges and play the game, not weasel around the rules and try to advance to the next level.

[bstew]

Originally Posted by coachm

In general, I think the idea of "agreeing" with the other alliance on easier defenses, scoring intentionally in your own tower, or any other agreement I'm seeing posted on these threads in an effort to boost teams' rankings and scores artificially is UNETHICAL at best and CHEATING at worst, even if the rules don't specifically prohibit it.

Seriously, why even bother building a robot to play the game if you are going to collude on ways to advance in the tournament without actually playing the game? It's dishonest, and I hope that referees catch anyone attempting it. As a coach, I would prohibit my team from engaging in any such agreements. The point of FIRST and FRC is to overcome the challenges and play the game, not weasel around the rules and try to advance to the next level.

That's an interesting opinion. Why do you think advancing in the rankings is not a part of the game? FIRST created a game that is designed so that teams could help each other advance in the rankings. Was coopertating in 2012 or 2015 in order to boost both alliance's rankings collusion? The only difference I see here is that in 2012 and 2015 it was more explicitly stated in the rules.

Playing based on what you feel the intent of the rules is, according to the game manual, against the intent of the rules.

Originally Posted by 2016 Game Manual

The intent of this manual is that the text means exactly, and only, what it says. Please avoid interpreting the text based on assumptions about intent, implementation of past rules, or how a situation might be in “real life.” There are no hidden requirements or restrictions. If you’ve read everything, you know everything.

While you define these strategies as "trying to weasel around the rules," I view them as following the text based on exactly and only what it says. As there are no hidden requirements or restrictions, anyone who reads FIRST's manual for what it says could see that these strategies are not only legal, but also ethical because everyone has access to them unless they artificially restrict themselves. It seems that a team playing to the best of their ability would try to boost their rankings, not restrict themselves to their preconceived notions of the game's intent.

This is how I see these agreements, if you disagree, please let me know why.

[coachm]

Originally Posted by bstew

That's an interesting opinion. Why do you think advancing in the rankings is not a part of the game? FIRST created a game that is designed so that teams could help each other advance in the rankings. Was coopertating in 2012 or 2015 in order to boost both alliance's rankings collusion? The only difference I see here is that in 2012 and 2015 it was more explicitly stated in the rules.

Playing based on what you feel the intent of the rules is, according to the game manual, against the intent of the rules.



While you define these strategies as "trying to weasel around the rules," I view them as following the text based on exactly and only what it says. As there are no hidden requirements or restrictions, anyone who reads FIRST's manual for what it says could see that these strategies are not only legal, but also ethical because everyone has access to them unless they artificially restrict themselves. It seems that a team playing to the best of their ability would try to boost their rankings, not restrict themselves to their preconceived notions of the game's intent.

This is how I see these agreements, if you disagree, please let me know why.

I guess that I don't see advancing in the rankings necessarily as the objective. I see overcoming the challenges with engineering, quality of construction, and creative problem solving as the point of FRC. Working together with an alliance member to open a difficult obstacle is an example of creative problem solving. Finding ways to game the system and loopholes to pass through in order to get ahead is not. Suppose, and this may not be a likely scenario, but it is possible, that you advance by one of these agreements in the rankings past a team whose robot is objectively better than yours at scoring points without such machinations because they couldn't get someone to agree to something the same conditions. Is that a desirable outcome?

Maybe it's a philosophical difference about the point of FRC. I don't see the competition as the point, it's more like a fun bonus aspect. Perhaps that is partially because I am part of a team who is underprivileged... we have few resources, few students, and very little support from the school. We have to fight tooth and nail for a corner of space in which to meet. Generally speaking, we are not terribly competitive with our robots. It's easy to get blinded by the thrill of success and there is a strong social value placed on "winning", it's especially important in the US. But bottom line, I think you should advance in the rankings because your robot is objectively better at breaching obstacles, scoring goals, and challenging or scaling the tower than other robots. Those are the challenges set by the game design committee.

From a more objective point of view, I can see how T7 can be used to suggest that these agreements are within the rules. I still feel like they are underhanded in the overall scheme - but that's my opinion. Can you use an agreement with your alliance to get ahead of another team not in your alliance? Yes. But if you really wanted to get ahead, you should have built a better robot.

Further, I am a little disturbed by your concept of "ethical". The fact that everyone has access to the rules and is able to find ways around them does not make it "right" for someone to try to skirt the edges of the rules. Fair, maybe, but not ethically questionable. Win by completing the challenge or don't win. That's true in all aspects of life, even if it doesn't stop people from trying to get ahead any way they can.