Collaboration with Oppnents: Gracious or just shrewd?

[punarhero]

Hi everyone,
This question was a big one at many regionals last year, and I think it'll be much better if we, the FIRST community, agree upon something before going into the competition. IS IT OK TO COLLABORATE (some people call it making deals) WITH YOU OPPONENTS DURING MATCHES, AND IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT?
Consider this scenario:
A team comes up to you, who is your opponent in the next match, and asks you if you will be willing to not take their mobile goal and they won't take yours, and you decide the battle in the middle platform at the end. Or furthermore, if they ask you not to interfere with their balls and they won't interfere with yours, how about that? Would you agree?
Everyone is entitle to their opinion, and I think that this doesn't violate FIRST ideals; if anything, it promotes them. If you can play a match in collaboration with four teams, that's great. The competition aspect still remains to be decided on the middle platform, so the match is not rigged, as many would call it.
What do you guys think?

[JVN]

Ohh my freaking merciful God... not again.... not already!



Plain and simple:
229 will refuse ANY attempts at cutting a deal.

Yes the match is rigged (even partially).
No it's not against the rules.
Most teams don't like it.
Most teams don't respect it.

No I won't do it, and will look less favorably upon those who do.

It's a matter of opinion. That is mine.

JVN

[JVN]

And another thing...
Let's say as a coach I am approached by an opponent who wants to "cut a deal"...

Why would I EVER accept? What is in it for me?

I'm just limiting my strategic options for later on in the match. This year is all about Wins and Losses, no QPs... no inflation of scores.

Think about it.
Collaboration is just a foolish strategy in this year's game.

JVN

[punarhero]

All I wanted to do was not have to worry about it at the competition and decide it here before the competition. It'll be better if everyone agrees here not to do it or otherwise in a simple poll. Then it won't come up again at the regionals. I know some of you out there have strong opinion about this, and that's perfectly fine. I think voting at the poll will solve a lot of problems we have later on. I don't know about others, but I'll go with whatever is decided at the poll here.

[punarhero]

Wait...how is collaboration STUPID???
It's all about wins and losses, but there will be others, and you can count on this, in your tier with the same number of wins as you, and then, those QPs matter. FIRST always tries to keep the game so that the losing alliance's score matters, and it DOES matter in this game too.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by punarhero

Wait...how is collaboration STUPID???
It's all about wins and losses, but there will be others, and you can count on this, in your tier with the same number of wins as you, and then, those QPs matter. FIRST always tries to keep the game so that the losing alliance's score matters, and it DOES matter in this game too.

Because if you lose a match, you aren't still getting a decently high number of QP points (like everyone did last year). Instead, you are getting a big whooping ZERO points on the seeding score, but yeah, I guess you're right... you do get a nice pile of "loser points" for your troubles.

Why collaborate and get a large pile of "loser points" when you can play the game like it was intended to be played, and quite possibly get a nice shiny 2-point win!

This is all my opinion.
Feel free to disagree...

[Aidan F. Browne]

I'll make this one really easy for everyone....

"[FIRST] uses words to mean what words mean." -- Dean Kamen

So, from section 4.1 of the manual: "Two alliances comprised of two teams compete in each match."

And from Webster's:
compete \Com*pete"\, v. i. To contend emulously; to seek or strive for the same thing, position, or reward for which another is striving; to contend in rivalry, as for a prize or in business; as, tradesmen compete with one another.

So -- there is really nothing to discuss here.