Go to Post If your logo is your team number in a font 4" tall in 1/2" stroke, colored/outlined in white, then yes. Otherwise, no. - cadandcookies [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2007, 22:32
jgannon's Avatar
jgannon jgannon is offline
I ᐸ3 Robots
AKA: Joey Gannon
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,467
jgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Making pre-match deals

Quote:
Originally Posted by George1902 View Post
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.
This post deserves some more attention while this thread is open. I oppose collusion, but what ARE we supposed to do to "support your opponents and win by helping each ALLIANCE score as many points as possible"? This is the first game I'm familiar with where scoring for your opponents has been penalized.
__________________
Team 1743 - The Short Circuits
2010 Pittsburgh Excellence in Design & Team Spirit Awards
2009 Pittsburgh Regional Champions (thanks to 222 and 1218)
2007 Pittsburgh Website Award
2006 Pittsburgh Regional Champions (thanks to 395 and 1038)
2006 Pittsburgh Rookie Inspiration & Highest Rookie Seed

Team 1388 - Eagle Robotics
2005 Sacramento Engineering Inspiration
2004 Curie Division Champions (thanks to 1038 and 175)
2004 Sacramento Rookie All-Star

_
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2007, 22:57
Scott358 Scott358 is offline
Engineer/Mentor
AKA: Scott5736
FRC #5736 (Kingsmen)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Kings Park, Long Island, NY
Posts: 152
Scott358 is just really niceScott358 is just really niceScott358 is just really niceScott358 is just really niceScott358 is just really nice
Re: Making pre-match deals

I doubt the "help" FIRST is referring to has anything to do with collusion.

The only way I see to "help" the opposing alliance score, since you cannot score for them, is to not play defense. This, along with the yellow/red flag, perhaps is FIRST's way to promote a more offensively minded game (without "behind the scenes" agreements being made).
__________________
Scott5736 (formerly Scott3137(formerly Scott358))
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2007, 23:04
ChuckDickerson's Avatar
ChuckDickerson ChuckDickerson is online now
Mentor / Bayou & CMP Division LRI
FRC #0456 (Siege Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Vicksburg, MS
Posts: 877
ChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Making pre-match deals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott358 View Post
The only way I see to "help" the opposing alliance score, since you cannot score for them, is to not play defense.
That's the way I see it as well and thus as I stated above, I can forsee "gentleman's agreements" being made to simply stay on each others respective side of the field and just see who can get the most rings on in the time allowed.
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-01-2007, 23:35
Meredith Rice's Avatar
Meredith Rice Meredith Rice is offline
Registered User
None #0433 (Firebirds)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Glenside, PA
Posts: 151
Meredith Rice has a spectacular aura aboutMeredith Rice has a spectacular aura aboutMeredith Rice has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via AIM to Meredith Rice
Re: Making pre-match deals

I see no ambiguity in this issue at all. My interpretation is that it is very clear through everything we do in FIRST that an agreement to fix the outcome of the match is not honorable at all. Collusion is not just sketchy, it is wrong. Think of the consequences for your fellow FIRSTers at the competition if just one match is fixed such that both teams can each claim a row without any interference. All of their hard work and honorable competition strategies would be demeaned since two teams decided to cheat in their match (yes, it is cheating because it alters the goal of the challenge).

The idea of "supporting your opponents" and helping them to earn as many points as possible as stated in our rules is designed to discourage competition strategies with the main focus of preventing your opponents from scoring anything so that you can win by a small margin. With this strategy, elegant design and creative engineering are not really praised, but at least this type of play is not dishonorable. It still presents a challenge for both teams, and the win is fair and square.

I really hope that no FIRST teams would agree to fix a match with their opponents. While it is probably impossible for referees to penalize this type of strategy, I would hope that such behavior would not go unnoticed by the other teams and judges and that the match is made an example of what NOT to do in FIRST.
__________________
I'm proud to be a....

~*Looks like I've got FIRST fever again*~
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2007, 07:51
Scott358 Scott358 is offline
Engineer/Mentor
AKA: Scott5736
FRC #5736 (Kingsmen)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Kings Park, Long Island, NY
Posts: 152
Scott358 is just really niceScott358 is just really niceScott358 is just really niceScott358 is just really niceScott358 is just really nice
Re: Making pre-match deals

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepWater View Post
That's the way I see it as well and thus as I stated above, I can forsee "gentleman's agreements" being made to simply stay on each others respective side of the field and just see who can get the most rings on in the time allowed.
I can also foresee "gentlemen's agreements" happening, but any discussion of altering the games outcome is collusion (regardless of what it's called), and therefore not in the spirit of GP.

If the FIRST GDC wanted 2 teams to work together and discuss outcomes prior to the match, they would have made a game like 2001. As they have designed the game since then, there are 2 separate teams, and therefore the game should be played as such.
__________________
Scott5736 (formerly Scott3137(formerly Scott358))
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2007, 10:36
ChrisH's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
ChrisH ChrisH is offline
Generally Useless
FRC #0330 (Beach 'Bots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 1,230
ChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Please Forgive Me

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberguy34000 View Post
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
No problem. That is a very old thread in terms of the "life" of most CDers. Probably three quarters of the students here were not around for the 2003 game. So while us old-timers remember vivdly the controversy, it is not expected that the new people would even think to search for it.

So far from condeming you for bringing up an old contentious subject, I thank you for prompting our memories. This is something that needs to be discussed in the present.

ChrisH
__________________
Christopher H Husmann, PE

"Who is John Galt?"
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2007, 11:23
Dan Richardson's Avatar
Dan Richardson Dan Richardson is offline
iR3 Creative
AKA: Dan Richardson
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale FL
Posts: 1,121
Dan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Making pre-match deals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott358 View Post
I can also foresee "gentlemen's agreements" happening, but any discussion of altering the games outcome is collusion (regardless of what it's called), and therefore not in the spirit of GP.

If the FIRST GDC wanted 2 teams to work together and discuss outcomes prior to the match, they would have made a game like 2001. As they have designed the game since then, there are 2 separate teams, and therefore the game should be played as such.
Whats the difference? "Gentlemans Agreement" or "Collusion" its playing tit for tat. Your still agreeing to help each other out in a course that would inevitably alter the outcome of the game.

FIRST has specifically defined that it is in your best interest for your opponent to score as many points as possible. If its in your best interest to allow them to do the best they can why not talk with them before a match?

Now, as far as ethically speaking, in general competition this kind of cooperation is typically frowned upon, yes, But if it is the rule are stated as such then what is the argument about? Until the rule is changed or modified, then this approach is not only ethical its just out right good strategy.

When people scored balls in the opponents goals last year this could have easily been perceived as collusion, however there was nearly no negative response, and no response from FIRST. This strategy was solid and allowed dominant teams to remain in the position they deserved. Since you are not allowed to score opponents tubes the only option left for people to boost their qualifying points is to come to a predetermined agreement. Whether its because of a " Gentlemans Agreement " or a outright "Collusion" its the same thing.

The point that is missed here, is generally no team agrees to lose a match, just to compete in a realm that maximizes points for both teams. Regardless of whether its frowned upon or not, if the rules remain as posted, it will happen, and it won't break the rules. If you find it unethical, the same way most of FIRST participants found collaberation between teams during build unethical, then don't participate. However it is within the realm of this years rules, and infact as per the rules is " In your best interest. "

I personally want the rule to be modified as to specifically by honor, state no such prematch agreements should ever take place, whether it be "Cooperation" or a "Gentlemans Agreement" but until the rules are changed then such agreements will take place.
__________________
CO-Founder of Robot in 3 Days and the Robot in 3 Day Challenge.


  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2007, 11:55
DjAlamose's Avatar
DjAlamose DjAlamose is offline
Registered User
AKA: Teh Albie
FRC #0279 (Tech Fusion)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 343
DjAlamose is a splendid one to beholdDjAlamose is a splendid one to beholdDjAlamose is a splendid one to beholdDjAlamose is a splendid one to beholdDjAlamose is a splendid one to beholdDjAlamose is a splendid one to beholdDjAlamose is a splendid one to beholdDjAlamose is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via AIM to DjAlamose
Re: Making pre-match deals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stud Man Dan View Post
FIRST has specifically defined that it is in your best interest for your opponent to score as many points as possible. If its in your best interest to allow them to do the best they can why not talk with them before a match?
It should not have to come down to a team talking with another and making a pre-match agreement. It should be done during build season so they build a good robot. I'm not saying collaborate during the build season with other teams to formulate a master plan, this really wouldn't work because chances of two teams being in the same match are relatively low. But I am saying that teams should be seeking help. It is in the veteran’s best interests to help them during this more important time so they have a better chance! Not everything has to pertain to competitions and please do tell me everyone here remembers what FIRST is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stud Man Dan View Post
Now, as far as ethically speaking, in general competition this kind of cooperation is typically frowned upon, yes, But if it is the rule are stated as such then what is the argument about? Until the rule is changed or modified, then this approach is not only ethical its just out right good strategy.
I do agree that there is no rule set in place and that there is currently nothing stopping this action. People are in argument with this action because it does not follow within the spirit of FIRST. I will not agree though that it is ethical. Comparing this to a business environment (which is what teams are basing their structures off of) then it would be against the law and very unethical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stud Man Dan View Post
When people scored balls in the opponents goals last year this could have easily been perceived as collusion, however there was nearly no negative response, and no response from FIRST. This strategy was solid and allowed dominant teams to remain in the position they deserved. Since you are not allowed to score opponents tubes the only option left for people to boost their qualifying points is to come to a predetermined agreement. Whether its because of a " Gentleman’s Agreement " or a outright "Collusion" its the same thing.
There is a slight difference between these two actions. A team who physically scores points for the opponent is doing so on their own will. They do not need the approval of the other alliance to do so. Making a deal with another team requires that that team agree. This is NOT the only option. Like I said above, help the rookies during build to help them make a better robot. Show them what they can do and help bring out their potential.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stud Man Dan View Post
The point that is missed here, is generally no team agrees to lose a match, just to compete in a realm that maximizes points for both teams. Regardless of whether its frowned upon or not, if the rules remain as posted, it will happen, and it won't break the rules. If you find it unethical, the same way most of FIRST participants found collaboration between teams during build unethical, then don't participate. However it is within the realm of this years rules, and in fact as per the rules is " In your best interest. "
Please don't compare this with teams who are collaborating to build robots. They do this because they don't have the resources to do so. Also lets end that topic right now, we don't need more wildfire to spread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stud Man Dan View Post
I personally want the rule to be modified as to specifically by honor, state no such prematch agreements should ever take place, whether it be "Cooperation" or a "Gentleman’s Agreement" but until the rules are changed then such agreements will take place.
This is the only statement that I almost 100% agree with. I do not think however that this sort of thing will happen because it requires 6 teams to agree. And from most responses it is a mixed bunch.
__________________
WHAT TIME IS IT????? 279!!


2006 GLR Safety Award (2nd year in a row)
2005 National Xerox Creativity Award
2005 National Curie Quarter Finalist w/ 1126 and 180
2005 Buckeye Regional Champs w/ 67 and 274
2005 Buckeye Regional GM Industrial Design Award
2005 Buckeye Regional Safety Award
2005 GLR Quarter Finalist
2005 GLR Xerox Creativity Award
2005 GLR Safety Award
2004 Nationals Curie Division Finalist
2004 GLR Champs
2004 Buckeye Delphi Driving Tomorrow Award
2004 Buckeye Quarter Finalist w/ 1001 and 869
2003 GM Industrial Design Award GLR
2001 National Champs
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2007, 11:55
65_Xero_Huskie's Avatar
65_Xero_Huskie 65_Xero_Huskie is offline
One T
AKA: Mat
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 697
65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute65_Xero_Huskie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Making pre-match deals

Quote:
Originally Posted by akshar View Post
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.
__________________
Min-Max to the Max!
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2007, 23:23
gblake's Avatar
gblake gblake is offline
6th Gear Developer; Mentor
AKA: Blake Ross
no team (6th Gear)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,940
gblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond reputegblake has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Making pre-match deals

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.
__________________
Blake Ross, For emailing me, in the verizon.net domain, I am blake
VRC Team Mentor, FTC volunteer, 5th Gear Developer, Husband, Father, Triangle Fraternity Alumnus (ky 76), U Ky BSEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Kentucky Colonel
Words/phrases I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Making Friends! :-) redragon226 Chit-Chat 17 23-12-2005 11:55
Black Friday Deals sanddrag Chit-Chat 33 27-11-2005 14:40
Outrageous Deals sanddrag Chit-Chat 18 30-11-2004 12:41
Button Making PureMachine4 Rumor Mill 58 16-04-2004 16:00
Pre-Match/Post- Match Pit Routine Mark_lyons General Forum 14 31-03-2002 15:19


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:55.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi