Making pre-match deals

[Tetraman]

It will happen at least once this season. Therefore those teams that watch this thing happen will call shinadigans.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

call shinadigans

Shinadigans = shindig + shenanigans?
(Pardon me for interrupting an otherwise serious thread. I think I've discovered a new favorite word.)

[Cyberguy34000]

It would only need to happen once for an incredible difference in QP. I would guess it would happen towards the end of finals, when teams aren't so much as concerned with their WL record as their QP points. Really what would be interesting would be seeing if the other alliance honored the agreement. If they didn't, they'd probably gain enough of an advantage to win, but that "backstab" would not help them win any friends in later matches. But if an alliance honored every agreement that they made, even if it made them lose, would they gain respect for that?

It's a very interesting thing to think about.

=============================================
Edit: Who changed the Thread Title? Is this a normal thing?
=============================================

[Guy Davidson]

I agree with M.O.R.T. The way I see it, this just ain't kosher. The game is played to win. Winning is not only outscoring your opponent, but outscoring them by as much as possible. I think that such match fixing is definitely wrong. Not only you leave too big of a door for cheating and disrespecting each other, I personally would also lose all respect to a team that did this in order to improve their qualifying situation.

[nparikh]

Honestly, just the thought of it sounds very sketchy. Not only are there so many possibilities for things to go wrong, it seems just downright dirty to me. To make some kind of underhanded agreement in order to benefit yourselves and drive up your QP doesn't sound very GP like to me. This goes back to the whole idea of scoring for your opponent in order to boost your QP (which obviously cannot be done in this game, but has been done by teams on a number of occasions in previous years).

[akshar]

GP: acting in a way that would make your grandmother proud.
making an agreement such as the one described in the first post is practically cheating. it takes the fun out of the match. sure you might gain a lot of QP, but are you really that good? making a deal which increases your QP is the cheap, dirty way of making it into the elimination rounds, and should not be done. its not GP, and if its not GP its not the way of FIRST

[JamesBrown]

I can tell you that the majority of teams out there will just drop a spoiler onto your row with a couple of seconds left, losing you atleast 128 points and effectively garunteeing themselves a win. Any team that is sly enough to try to cut a deal is definitly capable of going back on it to get the win. 128 qp mean nothing compared to the 2 rp you get for the win.

[Matt Krass]

Alright I think this topic is just plain bad to bring up. FIRST will never condone it, it will never be looked up in a good way and it's already been viciously beat to death, and for once I think it'd be nice to go a season without controversy. (Load bearing surfaces anyone?). I say we lock this thread up and let it go, and let's focus on finding a way to improve things, not screw em up more.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

I can tell you that the majority of teams out there will just drop a spoiler onto your row with a couple of seconds left, losing you atleast 128 points and effectively garunteeing themselves a win. Any team that is sly enough to try to cut a deal is definitly capable of going back on it to get the win. 128 qp mean nothing compared to the 2 rp you get for the win.

On top of this, it's not like you'd be surprised by the spoiler. You'd probably be able to see their human team grabbing it, placing it in the slot, and waiting for the robot to come pick it up. Plenty of time to drop whatever you're doing and prep your own.

[DjAlamose]

Well, I think most of us are again missing the point of first. It is not about the robot or the game. It is about learning new things that you wouldn't be able to learn normally. I would prefer to see my robot win a match on its own merit than work with the opposing team to win. Winning is one thing, accomplishment is another. The competition is there for you to test what you have done in the environment you have designed it for. This sort of action is NOT what you should be designing for thus defeating the purpose.

I am strongly against this, but there is nothing that can be done to stop it. It does require that all 6 teams agree and looking at this thread, most people wouldn't agree to it. It only takes one ringer to screw it up, and that one ringer can also ruin possible friendships.

[Mr. Van]

I see that many are opposed to teams making an agreement during competition that is something like "you take the top row, we'll take the bottom row - no spoilers and we'll compete over the middle row."

Is this substantially different from teams making an agreement during the building season that says "You design and fabricate a drive system and we'll design and fabricate a scoring arm and we'll put 'em together then compete at events allowing the best team to win"?

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
The RoboDox

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

I see that many are opposed to teams making an agreement during competition that is something like "you take the top row, we'll take the bottom row - no spoilers and we'll compete over the middle row."

Is this substantially different from teams making an agreement during the building season that says "You design and fabricate a drive system and we'll design and fabricate a scoring arm and we'll put 'em together then compete at events allowing the best team to win"?

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
The RoboDox

I'm inclined to say yes, there is a difference. Things can be learned by collaborating with another team, particularly a team not near you as with Division by Chickens or the various 254 collaborations (which I never quite realized were spaced that far apart--when you're three thousand miles away, everything is close), or when you have to get three teams all to agree to a general direction or apply a tweak one's discovered to all three. I'd love to see what can be learned by these sorts of deals.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Originally Posted by akshar

GP: acting in a way that would make your grandmother proud.
making an agreement such as the one described in the first post is practically cheating. it takes the fun out of the match. sure you might gain a lot of QP, but are you really that good? making a deal which increases your QP is the cheap, dirty way of making it into the elimination rounds, and should not be done. its not GP, and if its not GP its not the way of FIRST

What if your grandmother is a downright dirty cheater?
------

But i would not want this to happen in a FIRST competition, the whole point of the game is to get the most points on your own(alliance), if you use anyother means of getting them then it is the same as cheating. Its like Baseball managers betting on/against their teams.

In the past games where you could score for your oppenent, it was deemed as a low blow on our team that we would not do it to avoid the feedback, its kind of mean to do it because they feel bad enough that they lost and your just putting alcohol on the wound.

[gblake]

Since when did so many people become authorities on matters pertaining to the "spirit" of FIRST; and yet... not quote a writtten credo, a rule, a code of ethics, a manifesto, or a something that lays out in authoritative words what that spirit is???

Until there is a rule that forbids agreeing to cooperate with "opponents" during a match and that assigns a punishment of on the order of a DQ, cooperation is a legal way for some teams to achieve their objectives.

And it is a legal way that requires skillful negotiation, adequate technology, and sound strategizing. All useful things to cultivate and inspire, I should think.

Maybe I'm wrong; but among all legal strategies, I think no legal strategy is more (or less) legal than another.

On the other hand, if you don't like alliances agreeing to race rather than agreeing to collide, or if you don't like alliances agreeing to trade their QP contributions in one match for something they consider equally valuable; then just cooperate with your "neighbors" to ensure that no team attempting that strategy is successful in the long run.

Hoist them with their own petard!

If on-field cooperation isn't a viable strategy then it will be infrequent, and when it does happen many of us will find it satisfying to see it fail to bear long-lasting fruit.

Alternatively, propose a new way to break QP ties.

You, I, each, and all of us have all the power needed to defeat any off-the-field strategy that needs to be defeated. There is no need to wave the spirit of FIRST flag. Just use one of the tools you were born with. Your wits.

Blake
PS: Please, please don't get me wrong, I think that "The spirit of FIRST" is an immensely useful and powerful thing. I just don't think it is the right tool (and it is certainly not the only tool) to use to get this job done.

[Zoheb N]

I think that making deals before a match is wrong. I know in previous years teams would score for the opposing alliance in order to raise their QP and I believe FIRST wanted to get rid of this because it took away from the fun and excitement and that is why you can not even be in possession of the opposing alliance's ringer.