fixing of matches in Seattle

[Don Knight]

Originally posted by Bob92
I went to Seattle as a spectator and I had viewed that team 233 from Florida had continually gotten high scores. At the end of every match stacks had been left up in both zones giving the winner a high score. But after talking to teams about why they thought this always happened I found that they talked to the opposing alliance before every match. The only problem I have is that since they did this all of the time they became #1 seed not by being the best robot out there but by fixing their matches by high scores.

I just wanted to know if this happened at any other regionals.

-Bobby

Using this logic all the NBA games must be "Fixed" because they continually achieve higher scores than High School or College teams playing the same game.

In my opinion "fixing" would be setting the outcome of the match prior to playing it, who wins and who loses, and by how much. Teams that have figured out that you get more Qp's by not knocking over stacks are no more fixing the matches than the NBA basketball players are, they have just began to understand the levels of the game and how to play it better.

So many people are trying to apply the simple logic or solution to the FIRST game should be the same as baseball, basketball or any other sporting event. FIRST has been called the "Olympics of the Mind" many teams have realized the simply strategy of win/loss don't necessarily always work in this game. Strategies can be more than one layer deep.

Have any of you seen the movie "Shrek"?
Most everyone in the village were single minded in their perception of the "Ogre" Shrek. But like an onion, Shrek had layers. Even the Donkey understood that after it was explained to him.

This game has layers

Once you figure them out, and decide what is needed to advance in the game, the better off you'll be. The simply solution is not alway the best.

Think of who designed this game, Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, Dave Lavery, Bob Hammond, these are not simple minds and they have relished in confounding all of us with these games for years, if they had wanted it to be simply there wouldn't be Qp's just raw scores.

[Wayne C.]

It seems to me that the "fixers" are setting themselves up for a big fall when they come up against teams that won't play that game. What goes around will inevitably come around. The vets should know better and be the ones setting the good example.

Frankly I personally despise the practice and take it as an underhanded attempt to subvert the rules. There is nothing clever about this. All of the CD posts of "new highest score in the Nation" and all the pride they seem to emanate is tainted by the question on everybody's mind- "was it fixed?"

Likewise the attitude of "it's not against the rules so it is OK" is equally disturbing, especially from certain posters that regularly brag of their gracious professionalism and take a holier than thou attitude about it. It is disappointing to see FIRST ignore the problem. I expected more from them.

This is an ethical issue, not a legal one. How your team plays the game is a measure of your character and a matter of honor. If winning means that much to you, as stated before, I will find you a trophy. Lets play the game as it was meant to be played. Grandma is watching.....

Back to packing.....put the soap box away...

WC

[Mark Pettit]

Team #991 will have color signs suitable for displaying in your pit if, like us, you are against collusion as a part of the game. Stop by Team #991's pit at Houston to pick one up.
If you want to see what the sign looks like, then check it out at our home page at http://www.brophyrobotics.com.

[Matthew936]

I was at Seattle this year. Half way through the first day our team (1158) was ranked first. That is when 233 started to make huge scores. The first time I supected it but didn't want to make a comment. The second time I overheard them talking with 833? and found out that this is what they were doing for certain. When we were scheduled to compete against them, one of thier coaches told me "I don't think we need to knock down your stacks if you don't knock down ours." I refused and we suffered one of our few losses during the competiton.

Technically this is not cheating. Moraly I think that it was wrong unless every team at the competition agreed to do it. Some teams that did not do well enough to advance like they did should not have been ahead of teams like 492 which earned it the whole way. I still think that 233 was the best robot at the competition and when combined with 368? Kiko Manga (sorry if i got number wrong but I am very tired) they were unstoppable so it didn't affect the competition in the end it shouldn't happen.

When it was time to choose alliance partners for the finals I chose 492 and 955. The main reason for 955 was that they were big enough to defend a stack if needed. So if you want that big multiplier then maybe you need to commit a robot instead of making under hand deals.

[walesjd]

Originally posted by Matthew936

When it was time to choose alliance partners for the finals I chose 492 and 955. The main reason for 955 was that they were big enough to defend a stack if needed. So if you want that big multiplier then maybe you need to commit a robot instead of making under hand deals.

I did want to repeat that in almost every match we ended up watching the other teams carefully, often having robots distract other teams and in most matches defending our stacks. If you want to read my other post I said a few more things, it's on the other seattle regional thread.

[ngreen]

My team score the two highest scores during qualifying play with matches of 280 and 230. We achieved this by HP stacks of 5, 3 robots on top and not clearing the opponents area. We discover that blocking a team from a stack and getting to the top is a good strategy. No agreements were made. A handshake, telling a team good luck, asking an opponent about their robot(considering they are willing to tell), and showing your robot to the opponent are acceptable actions while waiting, not planning collusion strategies. We barely made alliance strategy before going on the field tell HP stacks with hand signals and yelling loudly in the drivers stations. Our team chose not to sign and put up the petition at LSR deciding to allow teams whatever choice they wished. I am glad that our choice to not display the petition did not limit us from becoming allianced with great teams from Huntsville, Alabama, and from Killeen, Texas.

[shaddoe]

I hadn't even thought of collusion as a possiblity until I read some of the threads here on Chiefdelphi. At the Lone Star Regional I don't think there were any matches that involved agreements like this. Not only does it not sound like its fair when teams collude, but it sounds like it takes all the fun out of the matches.

An agreement between teams to leave stacks would make it boring. Knocking down opponents stacks is one of te key objectives of the game.

[DanLevin247]

I'm sick of this. Some teams are turing robotics into wrestling. Robotics is no hic sport extrodinaire, it's supposed to inspire us, not lead us to cheating, or following a script. Collusion is a bad thing, when it's obvious that your'e team fixed a match, any respect for your team that others had is as good as gone. I suggest that teams who are approached with offers to fix a match should post the numbers of those teams for all to see. A team who fixes a match does NOT deserve to win anything. It's all about gracious professionalism here, winners never cheat. If your team won something at a regional, and you had gotten there by fixing matches, wouldn't you feel just a little bad inside. Cheaters never win. A good team doesn't need to fix matches to win. My team won plenty of matches at our regionals, without fixing a single match, and it felt darn good. No offence, but I have taken note to those teams who have admitted to fixing matches in the past, and I have lost any and all respect for those teams, and I for one, will be looking past those teams when we're in Houston.

[Ash]

Hello everyone. I'm just waking up from the jet lag caused by the return trip back here (Florida). Boy is it a killer.

Well, it seems that everyone is getting all upset about some high scores or something or other. I would like to clarify a few points that walesjd might have left out when he posted. Seeing as how I'm the base driver, I am also a bit better suited to say what was going on with the robot anyway.

First of all, I admit that at the UCF Regional, our drive team wanted to work with the opposing team to get a high score. We succeeded, but only for a short while, until our score was surpassed by others. However, to the best of my knowledge, we tried that only once, and nothing of the sort was commited when we successfully defended an 8 stack (if you want proof, go to Soap108 and download the match).

Second of all, it was early in the competition in Seattle that I realized how to score big, without "colluding" with the opposing alliance. Anyone who would have watched from the stands would have thought I was working with the other alliance, since it was so different from what all the other teams were doing. I knew that our robot could get to the wall before almost all the other robots at Seattle, so since I would be on our side of the field when the robot control period began, I would protect the higher of our two stacks. And that was it. Granted, I would occasionally stop other robots from descoring boxes, when I felt the stack was safe enough. But I never knocked down the opposing alliance's stack if my stack was still standing.

In fact, to other teams it may have even seemed like we were working together. That is because out of all the other matches I saw (excluding the last few in the finals) no one ever cared about the human player stacks. They were all concerned about making sure the opponent didnt get any points. I even saw a match where the two red robots were disabled, and the blue robots not only knocked down the red stacks, but proceeded to clear every single box out of the red scoring zone.

Dean Kamen does not think of games that are as easy as "get to the top of the ramp" or "knock over the stack". The games always have depth; they always have different ways of playing. The game can even change for the finals. But that is what makes the FIRST games great. They don't have only one method of play.

Now I don't know how I'm going to end this post, so I'm just going to to say this: I am proud of my high UNAJUSTED score of 233, and I am proud of my win at the Seattle regional. If you want to know why, ask someone who was there.

[David Brinza]

Originally posted by Lindy
Not to be overly picky, Mr. Brinza, but I believe that was team 968 there, not 986.

And yes, I didn?t see anything that could be construed as ?collusion? during the SoCal regional. We posted that red flier in our pit as well. I actually found it fairly amusing that it actually existed and a team was passing it around? but it was also an almost sad commentary on the state of things when that sort of thing would be warranted, I believe.

Let?s hope that Nationals would be smooth and fair ride, as well, for all teams that participate (which won?t include us, unfortunately).

I'm sorry that I transposed the numbers for your Team 968. I spoke with your coach in AZ, and I know your team was wholly against anything that could be construed as less than a pure competition.

You've got an absolutely outstanding team and it's FIRST's loss that your team won't be in the Nationals. As champions of the AZ regional and winners of the GM Industrial Design award, there couldn't be a more deserving team to compete in Houston. Several of our students were surprised, then dismayed, that RAWC's won't be found on the fields of Houston. Fundraising is an under-appreciated aspect of FIRST, particularly for teams that have major big-$$ sponsors. Perhaps FIRST needs to consider a "financing plan" to help fund the teams who qualify late in the regionals for the nationals.

I'm sure Team 968 will continue to be a first-class FIRST team. You've got excellent ammunition to get a major sponsor. I hope you can attract a sponsor and even help field new FIRST teams in future years.

[ngreen]

Funding can be a major problem but it can be overcome. We won the Lone Star Regional saturday with several other awards. We determined we needed approximately eight thousand dollars to go back on Wednesday. With hard work Sunday night and all of Monday we have covered that cost with more donations still coming in. We have decided to continue the fundraising until we leave to begin to acquire funds for next year. I do attribute this partly to my town of 5,000 and the connection they have with our school. But I believe the only way to get money is to go ask. They may say no but then again they may say how much and get their checkbook out. I can't wait to get back to Houston, it to cold in Kansas.

[DougHogg]

Our team was saddened by the "collusion" that occurred at Arizona, and certainly hoped for a statement from FIRST, for which we are still waiting.

There has been a lot of confusion generated because there hasn't been a ruling on this matter, which is very basic to the game: are we playing 2-on-2 or team of 4. Per the surveys on chief delphi, the vast majority of people want this to be a 2-on-2 game.

Furthermore, the animation at the kickoff refers to using on board sensors "to detect opponent alliance stacks" and "to defend their own stacks from attacks by the opposing alliances." That seems pretty clear to me. In my opinion, by not making its intentions clear in this matter, FIRST has made it necessary for a lot of people to try to do FIRST's job, by posting messages, circulating petitions, writing letters or putting up flyers. Personally, I would like to thank all the teams for their efforts in that regard. We circulated a letter at the S. Calif. Regional referring to the chief delphi survey results and requesting that teams do not make "opponent agreements" for reasons given here and others. Team 330, the Beach Bots, circulated flyers that teams could post saying that they wouldn't accept "stack agreements", and we displayed one at our pits. Although I heard there was some collusion at the S. Calif. Regional, I personally didn't witness any. We will circulate the same letter at nationals. And we will get another flyer to post.

Here we have a case of the tail trying to wag the dog. As team members, we didn't create this game but we are trying to fix a loophole in it. We should be able to appeal to FIRST and have them handle it with a simple ruling.

Perhaps there is some idea on FIRST's part that it is educational for us to debate this matter. Well some debate is fine, but we have better things to do than spin our wheels for weeks over what the basic rules are.

At this point, I feel collusion has been a stain on the reputation of the FIRST Robotics Competition and has generated some hard feelings amongst teams, reducing the comradery. And that is not beneficial and in this case, it is totally unnecessary.

I feel for teams that put their heart into creating a robot that can stack really well who then find these "stack agreements" occurring. Why bother, if teams can just "make agreements" to have an 8 stack. (Our own robot, while not the best stacker, has stacking ability, so our stacker team certainly doesn't like it.)

I am unhappy about FIRST's unwillingness to take responsibility for clarifying this matter, and I do intend to make that known at the forums and in any other way possible.

If when a team discovers that some of their more exuberant members have made an "opponent agreement", they then take steps to stamp out collusion, to me, those teams are showing integrity.

However some of the teams that have used collusion feel it is necessary to justify their actions, thus further "cementing" their opinion on the matter. So then we have a rift forming, and that is never helpful to a group.

It is very clear that if collusion became rampant, the game would be a total bore with everyone going through choregraphed routines. I wouldn't invite anyone to see that, let alone my grandmother. So those of us who care about the game and FIRST in general, refuse to let it get ruined. (And yes it did get ruined in some matches. All that anyone has to do is go through the posts on this forum about the matches where collusion occurred. There is a certain sadness about many of those posts, a sadness I think brought about by a sense of impending loss of the FIRST we love.)

There is some idea that the game is not important. Well true, the spirit of FIRST, the teams helping each other, the personal growth we experience are more important than winning, but the game is the vehicle by which we are achieving these other things, so it is important to preserve its integrity. Otherwise, when we start to lose the integrity of the game, we start to lose the rest. In other words, the integrity of the game is an essential part of FIRST.

To FIRST officials, this is a 2-on-2 game as per the kickoff, so let's just say it out loud for the record. Please.

(Hey, well done to the referees in Canada who, per one post I read, just told the teams that the referees were watching for collusion.)

[Eric Bareiss]

There are a few things that need to be cleared up.

First off, some of you might not even know what collusion means, so here it is.

Collusion - A secret agreement for illegal or fraudulent purposes.

Are these agreements illegal or fraudulent?

Too many fingers are being pointed in this thread. Has anyone heard the saying "It takes two to tango"? Well in this case it takes four.

If team 233 colluded in seattle well then shame on them, but why just shame on them why not shame on the two teams that agreed with them in every match and their ally who also sat back and watched? This seems very unfair to point one finger when you should point four.

Next, after some thought I have concluded that Don Knight is completely right. This should not be seen as cheating or a loophole, but as a strategy. As we can see it is a good strategy too. Why should a team have to stop doing something completely legal just because you don't like it? Seems selfish.

This strategy is nothing new. Last year I was approached before many matches and told that we would be given one goal and they would take one goal and we would fight over the middle goal. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Why wasn't this adressed last year? Simply because the value of these agreements are much higher this year.

As for my stance on these agreements: If you ask me to leave your stacks alone I will gladly agree and shake your hand, then I will instruct my drivers to knock down your stacks just to the look on your face, because I think its funny. So be warned.

[Jrmc]

Plz allow me to clarify something for all of you, collsion implies that there is an "agreement". there were no actual deals initiated by our team, after a conversation with our drivers, they simply told the other side that knocking down the stacks was stupid.....and they weren't going to do it unless there was a reason to....which i agree with. Instead of everyone winning everyone loses. Other then that, there were no other arrangements. If you feel that you must knock down our stack to win...then by all means try...our drivers are very protective of said stacks. The problem here is that the game was designed for stacking and knocking down of stacks, but most people read the rules and decided not to build something that could stack...this has gone from a finese competition to who can build the biggest bulldozer.....and for that i fault the idealism of FIRST leaders...but that is for another thread alltogether

[Sean_330]

All this thread has become just like all other "collusion" threads is a bunch of fighting and finger pointing. With all these dire predictions of this being terrible and possibly the downfall of FIRST, I wonder if this is really the hill people want to die on. Is FIRST so fragile, that we will let a small issue devide such a wonderful organization? As far as the agreements are concerned, it is the team's job to police themselves. As a referee at the Silicon Valley Regional in San Jose, Jason made it clear in the driver's meeting that FIRST was neither for nor against it and it was up to the teams themselves to do what is right. We saw neither collusion nor any hard feelings, because the teams put their differences behind them and got on with the competition. Everyone had fun, and it was an awesome event.

Furthermore, speaking as a referee, I have no idea how it would be physically possible to enforce the "no collusion" rule should there exist one in the future. The referees add up the score and look for any tangible rule violations such as pinning and entanglement. It is impossible to make a call on collusion as a referee because it is not a black and white area, but it was rather the 4 teams collective intentions which are impossible to regulate. There are times, when it is advantageous to leave the opponent's stacks standing, yet there was no collusion involved. This is a legitimate strategy if you are winning due to the scoring system this year. Therefore, as a referee, I am happy there was no ruling before because you can not referee people's motives. You can only referee that which you observe.

Anyway, thats my opinion