A Uniquely Stronghold Moral Quandry

[Kevin Leonard]

This is an entirely hypothetical situation that has not occurred and it may not occur, but I was wondering about it with a friend earlier today.

Let's say Team 8111 has one match left in the day, and it's against Team 9999, the super-powerhouse team in their division. Team 8111 is in no place to potentially seed top 8, and neither are any of 8111's partners, but 8111's friend, 7222, is in a position to seed just below team 9999. 8111 and 7222 have a discussion where 7222 notes that if 9999 doesn't get the capture in their final match, 7222 could potentially seed above 9999.

What are the moral boundaries here for 8111?

If 8111 plays the match normally, trying to win despite being totally outgunned, and trying to get the capture and breach on their own, despite it not helping them or any of their partners, they likely lose and their friends on 7222 are in a poor position to play in eliminations.

Whereas if 8111 plays defense on 9999, they could cause 9999 to lose the capture and seed below 7222, their friends, who they have a previous relationship and therefore may be more likely to pick 8111 from a better position?

Again, these are all hypothetical and this scenario has not taken place, but it eschews the usual ranking points moral stuff in that no one is throwing a match, they're just choosing whether or not to play defense.

[XaulZan11]

Every year teams pursue strategies in qualifications that do not maximize their wins or seeding, but give themselves the best chance to win an event.

Is team 8111 playing defense because it will help out their friends or will it help them get picked by a better alliance?

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Every year teams pursue strategies in qualifications that do not maximize their wins or seeding, but give themselves the best chance to win an event.

Is team 8111 playing defense because it will help out their friends or will it help them get picked by a better alliance?

Maybe both? Maybe one or the other?
Is one more moral to do than the other? Is one unfair to 148 somehow, while the other is not?

It reminds me of the coop bridge in 2012 and teams who would deliberately not coop with powerhouse teams to prevent them from seeding, although obviously significantly less severe in this case.

[asid61]

In what sort of a situation would a capture be the cause of seeding above? If they can play defense well enough to prevent a capture, that is a loss of a ranking point and a possible win for 8111's alliance, so from that perspective I wouldn't see a problem.
This particular reasoning I think is bad, if it's only to help 7222 seed above 9999, and not for ranking points or other benefits. I wouldn't participate in it, and I think it would fall under the sandbagging clauses in the manual (although you could argue it doesn't by making the point I made above).

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by asid61

In what sort of a situation would a capture be the cause of seeding above? If they can play defense well enough to prevent a capture, that is a loss of a ranking point and a possible win for 8111's alliance, so from that perspective I wouldn't see a problem.
This particular reasoning I think is bad, if it's only to help 7222 seed above 9999, and not for ranking points or other benefits. I wouldn't participate in it, and I think it would fall under the sandbagging clauses in the manual (although you could argue it doesn't by making the point I made above).

If the difference between 7222 and 9999 is 1 ranking point or less, it would definitely make the difference.

And in this situation, let's say 9999's alliance scores exactly 10 boulders on average, so a defender lowering that by even one boulder is the difference between a capture and not. 8111's alliance doesn't care about getting the capture because they are in no position to seed, but even if they tried to, it's not likely that they'd get the capture.

8111's friendship with 7222 is the cause for 8111 to believe helping 7222 would cause them to be more likely to win.

Another question- what if 7222 asked 8111 to pursue this strategy, because it's their only hope of seeding first. Is 7222 in the wrong for doing so?

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

Another question- what if 7222 asked 8111 to pursue this strategy, because it's their only hope of seeding first. Is 7222 in the wrong for doing so?

Have you read T7 and T8?

[Rangel]

In my mind it is absolutely okay. Especially if the intent is to still win the match. It would be different if the team was telling others to do it for them but this is not the case. They are doing it and for strategic reasons. I can see it similar to whether a team plays defense to win the match vs securing the capture. The decision is for each team and/or alliance to make.

[Basel A]

I would propose starting from the outside and working our way in.

8111, trying to win the match, plays defense and this stops the capture: totally okay

7222 promises 8111 that they'll pick them if they stop the capture: totally not okay

8111 knows they're not going to win, already has the breach, and has no chance at the capture. They play defense - having nothing better to do - and this stops 9999's capture: totally okay

7222 asks 8111 to give up a chance to win by trying to stop the capture: totally not okay

8111 has a chance to win, but they want to get picked as a defense bot, so they play defense and stop the capture (even if it gives up winning the match): okay

8111 does the above without agreeing on it with their partners: not okay

7222 suggests to 8111 that trying to stop boulder scoring could help win the match: borderline. I feel weird about a team getting involved in a match they're not a part of. I would not do this.

I believe asking a team to do anything in a match that's not your own is inherently bad. However, morally, I think 8111 can do whatever they want, as long as they agree on it with their alliance partners (whether or not it was requested by 7222).

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Have you read T7 and T8?

I don't think T7 or T8 apply, unless you're willing to define "all offense, no defense" as the highest and best goal a team can pursue. The GDC hasn't outlawed defense by fiat, yet, so you can't say that playing defense instead of offense is playing beneath your abilities. Mostly, I think T7/T8 are intended to prevent teams from throwing matches and making it easier for opponents to increase their ranking.

Also, playing defense on an opponent alliance instead of playing offense to outscore them is a perfectly valid strategy. If you're fairly certain your alliance can't get a win against against your opponents no matter what, but you can reduce their ranking points while maintaining your own, that would be a rational strategy using legal robot actions to pursue a valid tournament goal. It would make perfect sense to do it early in the tournament, so I don't think you can rule it out or call it unethical at the end of the tournament. It'd be weird to declare that low-ranked teams may only play in certain ways against high-ranked teams at the end of quals.

The fact that a completely separate team suggested this strategy does complicate things slightly, so you'd have to make the call for yourself if you're doing this primarily to benefit the other team. I think the one ethical rule is that during a match, you should be playing to maximize the ranking of yourself and allies, and minimize the ranking of your current opponents. You start to ethically stray when you start doing things to benefit your opponents at cost to yourself and allies, or when you start doing things to your own detriment to benefit teams not in the match. The trick in this particular example is that I don't think you're necessarily doing yourself a disservice with this strategy.

[dubiousSwain]

Another thing to think about that is probably less debatable:

8111 is PARTNERS with 9999. Would it be wrong for them to "focus on scoring" to deny 9999 ranking points?

[Kartoffee]

Originally Posted by Basel A

I would propose starting from the outside and working our way in.

8111, trying to win the match, plays defense and this stops the capture: totally okay

7222 promises 8111 that they'll pick them if they stop the capture: totally not okay

8111 knows they're not going to win, already has the breach, and has no chance at the capture. They play defense - having nothing better to do - and this stops 9999's capture: totally okay

7222 asks 8111 to give up a chance to win by trying to stop the capture: totally not okay

8111 has a chance to win, but they want to get picked as a defense bot, so they play defense and stop the capture (even if it gives up winning the match): okay

8111 does the above without agreeing on it with their partners: not okay

7222 suggests to 8111 that trying to stop boulder scoring could help win the match: borderline. I feel weird about a team getting involved in a match they're not a part of. I would not do this.

I believe asking a team to do anything in a match that's not your own is inherently bad. However, morally, I think 8111 can do whatever they want, as long as they agree on it with their alliance partners (whether or not it was requested by 7222).

Previously, our team has used our scouting data to help teams in matches we aren't part of. It isn't done strategically, just a service we offer for teams that need help. Is that "borderline"?

Also, T7/T8 don't apply to this. I think of it as CCWM + RP. If you aren't trying to increase one of them, then it would apply. Also, trying to get picked by an alliance is perfectly fine. Playing defense isn't throwing a match.

Question: If we knew that the number one seed was going to pick us, but we wanted the second team to pick us, is it wrong to help them strategize for their last match?
(Assume we already talked to #2)

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by Basel A

7222 suggests to 8111 that trying to stop boulder scoring could help win the match: borderline. I feel weird about a team getting involved in a match they're not a part of. I would not do this.
.

See I don't see this as being borderline, to me this is entirely ok. I have been approached by, and approached teams who I am not in a match with and asked/been asked to do something not being done previously to see if we/they could.

What I mean is would it be wrong for 7222 to ask 8111 to try shooting from the protected outer-works instead of their more reliable batter shot? or to run a category B auto instead of a proven reliable category D? To me ultimately it is the decision of the drive teams as representatives of their teams to run the strategy they think is best, yes they should tell their alliance partners what they want to do but in no way do they have to explain why they are doing it, beyond a "I think it is the best way to win/showcase our robot".

[FrankJ]

Preventing the opposing alliance from capturing your tower is one of the goals of the game. Also playing to win to keep the opposing alliance from gaining two ranking points is a goal of the game. The fact that it might benefit another team is immaterial. Much different scenario than keeping your alliance for capture/winning.

Team 7222 encouraging another team to less than its best is against the rules & spirit of first regardless of what the other team chooses to do. Team 7222 discussing, with another team, rather or not playing aggressive defense rather than scoring is in the other teams best interest is neither against the rules or the spirit of First. Where the line gets crossed is a healthy debate.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Kartoffee

Previously, our team has used our scouting data to help teams in matches we aren't part of. It isn't done strategically, just a service we offer for teams that need help. Is that "borderline"?

Also, T7/T8 don't apply to this. I think of it as CCWM + RP. If you aren't trying to increase one of them, then it would apply. Also, trying to get picked by an alliance is perfectly fine. Playing defense isn't throwing a match.

Question: If we knew that the number one seed was going to pick us, but we wanted the second team to pick us, is it wrong to help them strategize for their last match?
(Assume we already talked to #2)

It's great that you've done that. I think the the situation I called borderline and your question here are pretty similar. There are two points that I find morally questionable: (a) if helping them strategise helps you and (b) you wouldn't normally do this. When both are combined, I find that to be borderline. If it's the sort of thing you do regardless of (a), then even when (a) is true, I would have no problem with it.

[mathking]

What if you alliance is totally outmatched and has a non-functional robot, so you can't capture the tower. You are too far down to be an alliance captain. So you choose to focus on showing that you can score boulders in the hopes that someone picks you rather than on breaching the outerworks? I don't think anyone would say this was immoral, even if the breaching were more likely to garner a ranking point. Doing something valuable in the game to the best of your abilities to highlight why teams should consider you as a partner is part of the larger game that is the who tournament.

Caveat: Were my team in that position and our allies needed the ranking point from a breach for them to be able to be a captain (or at least have a chance to be) we would be playing for the breach first.