Making pre-match deals

[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.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Basically if that happens folks will prob probably react like this.
What's a FIRST season without contreversy anyways?

Ed pointed to the right thread. IMHO collusion of this kind cheats the other teams and the viewing public of an honest, honorable competitive experience.

[BillP]

Here we go again. When this happened in 2003 (as previously mentioned in this post), there was a flurry of discussion here, and at the various events that I attended. There were a lot of interesting points made on both sides.

Nonetheless, I (and our team) took a very strong stand in 2003 which I would like to reiterate here.

Point 1: Collusion is not "technically" against the rules. That is to say it is not against the letter of the rules. FIRST was quite clear on this when the official response to queries about the legality of collusion were effectively not answered.

Point 2: Collusion is (in my opinion) contrary to the spirit of gracious professionalism and contrary to the spirit of FIRST.

Point 3: In the "real world", collusion is illegal. Corporate executives and sports stars have been fined and sent to prison for participating in collusion.

FIRST attempts to prepare students to enter the world of technology through these competitions. Technology, without the business of technology does not accomplish much. Businesses that participate in collusion typically get themselves into trouble (think of Enron). I doubt seriously that FIRST would condone the practice of pre-match deal making, but I also understand their reluctance to make an official ruling on the subject (each of us has to decide if we are going the break the law or not).

Sorry this got a little long winded, but I feel very strongly about this subject. Collusion should be rejected by all teams. For all of you who have the courage and confidence to reject collusion, I applaud you. For those of you who don't, remind be not to buy stock in whatever company you end up working for.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Cyberguy34000

What were to happen if a team made an agreement with the opposing alliance like so... "We'll let you have the middle row for 256 points, we'll take the top row for 256 points, no spoiling those rows, though you can try to block us from scoring. All competition will be on that lower row."

If both teams honored the agreement, they'd have considerably higher QP than other teams.

If both teams made this agreement, then at least one of the teams is populated by fools.

Whether it is within the spirit of FIRST or not, making an agreement like this would be a massively stupid thing to do strategically. For the team that agrees to take the top row, they have effectively given away the game before it even starts. Assume Redabot takes the top row, and Blueabot takes the middle row. After that, every Ringer that Redabot places on the bottom row will be worth 2 points for a Singleton, 4 points if there is a red Ringer adjacent, etc. But for Blueabot, every Ringer they place is worth 4 points, as it makes a vertical row of two, plus 4 points if there is a blue Ringer adjacent, etc. Effectively, each blue Ringer on the bottom row is worth twice as much as each red Ringer. Unless Blueabot is incredibly incompetent, they will win the match every time. And a check mark in Blueabot's "Win" column is worth a lot more than the increased ranking points.

What you should be talking about is what happens if two teams make the agreement "you take the top row, we will take the bottom row, and we will fight it out over the middle row." (and on that topic, I will refer you to the immediately preceeding post by BillP).

-dave

[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.

[petek]

Was anyone listening to Woodie's Kickoff address about fame and fortune vs. self-worth and accomplishment? In my mind a win by collusion of this type clearly falls into the un-earned F&F category, because teams which "won" through the use of this strategy certainly wouldn't have earned their rank through their own accomplishment and their actions should diminish their self-worth.

As for the rules, wouldn't collusion be a violation of <G50> Respect and professional demeanor?

[ChuckDickerson]

Forget about top row, middle row, and bottom row for a moment and think sides. What if teams simply agree to only score on their respective sides of the rack? I have a feeling it is going to come down to this a lot of the time anyway simply because of visibility issues. If FIRST wants us to compete graciously what would be more gracious than simply saying “You guys stay over there and we will stay over here and lets just see who can get the most rings on in the shortest amount of time?” No penalties for contact, etc., let’s just have a race.

[George1902]

9.3.8 Ranking Score
The total number of ranking points earned by a team throughout their qualification matches, divided by the number of matches played (excluding any SURROGATE matches), then truncated to two decimal places, will be their ranking score. Note: because your ranking score is derived directly from the match scores of the losing ALLIANCES in the matches you play, it is in your best interest to support your opponents and win by helping each ALLIANCE score as many points as possible.

"Collusion," or "Coopertition" as I prefer to call it, is the best way to "help each alliance score as many points as possible." How would you help your alliance score as many points as possible? You would (and probably do) meet each partner before the match a talk out a strategy. How would you help your opponent's alliance score as many points as possible? You would (and you can bet I will) meet with each opponent before the match, offer replacement parts or tools to fix anything broken, and offer a non-defensive match where you allow each other a row and free access to the ringers.

[Ericgehrken]

Your match ranking score is derived from the unpenalized score of the losing alliance when you win and from your actual score with penalties when you lose. So high scoring and close matches will be key if you want to be high in the standings.

[Cyberguy34000]

I'd like to say... I'm sorry.

I had not realized that this topic had already been discussed, and beaten to death before. I just finished reading the the flame-warish (not quite, but close enough), outcome of the last time this thing was brought up and I'd like to appologize if I've accidentally revived an old flame-war. I don't think there is anything to gain from further discussion, and I would like to echo Matt Krass' suggestion that this thread be closed.


Please forgive me.


-Chris

[Bharat Nain]

Before you close the thread, I would like to get a thought process across. While the focus of FIRST Robotics is not on the game itself, but rather on inspiration, there is still a very significant GAME aspect involved.

It's a GAME.

Fixing a match takes out the GAME in a GAME.

Learn to think like a gamer.

P.S: This wasn't directed to any one specific person.