Picker Or Pickee

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/17/2000 3:49 AM MST


In Reply to: hey dan, i don't agree... and i'm looking for some feedback posted by Erin on 1/16/2000 10:41 AM MST:



I think we may be closer to agreement than you think. My team (GRT #192) had a very defensive strategy last year. We were seeded in the mid thirties. Our strategy was to play hard and win some matches solidly. We managed to win all of our 6 seeding matches. However as we were primarily defensive, our seed was low.

Also, I was always an advocate of rejections because I felt a 33rd seed team didn't necessarily not deserve the right to have some choice in partners just because it's 33rd, as it may be there for strategic reasons (i.e. defensive robot).

For the same reason, I see no problem with the 33rd seed taking the gold. However, a system that prematurely eliminates the possibility for some robots to be on the winning alliance is innately unfair. A system that doesn't allow the #1 seed to pair with the #2 is not a good system, as it could very well be forcing the second best robot to get a lower place than even the second pick of seed #1.

Does this make any sense? Maybe??
-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/17/2000 4:12 AM MST


In Reply to: you agree more than you know. posted by Daniel on 1/17/2000 3:49 AM MST:



:However, a system that prematurely eliminates the possibility for some robots to be on the winning alliance is innately unfair. A system that doesn't allow the #1 seed to pair with the #2 is not a good system, as it could very well be forcing the second best robot to get a lower place than even the second pick of seed #1.

oes this make any sense? Maybe??

Since you ask...

What part of the existing rules are you objecting to? You made some very abstract statements without explaining how you feel they relate to specific aspects of the competition.

The bottom line is that fairness is a very subjective -- there is no way to design a contest like this such that everyone will consider it fair under all circumstances.

Jerry

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/17/2000 5:37 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: you agree more than you know. posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/17/2000 4:12 AM MST:



I think my message was mostly in reference to last year's game. This year I'm pretty happy with most things. ;-)

-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/11/2000 1:21 AM MST


In Reply to: Ranking The Worms posted by Bill Beatty on 1/10/2000 11:29 PM MST:



: I have a real problem with a system that forces a high seeded team to forfeiture it's right to select a partner! I am also against rejections and all the possible problems associated with it. Thats why I stated that I don't believe that FIRST thought this one all the way through. It appears that they tried to fix a part of the selection process that wasn't really broke.

Under what circumstances does a high seeded team lose forfeit their 'right' to select a partner? Even if rejections are allowed, they can select any partner they desire; however, the potential partner also has a 'right' to reject the association. If they are rejected they then choose another partner.

The 'rejection' scenerio is much closer to the way alliances and mergers work in the business world. Can you provide examples of real life situations which mirror the 'no reject' scenerio?

Jerry

[archiver]

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/11/2000 6:48 AM MST


In Reply to: No Rejects + a proposal for picking process posted by Joe Johnson on 1/10/2000 6:34 PM MST:



I'll put it as simply as possible:
Those seeded at the top should have a choice to reject.
Those seeded lower than 8 or 16 do not have a choice.

For the same reasons of variability, there is a large probability the #1 seed will not be the best robot. The best robot may be seeded # 5 or something. If they are one of the best robots, Should they not have a choice?

Also, is it not true that the team who does the picking typically gets to run the team? Shouldn't the #5 seed get a chance to form their own alliance and get 'top billing' on the team and run it the way they want.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/11/2000 10:38 AM MST


In Reply to: You're missing the point - just picking on Joe posted by Raul on 1/11/2000 6:48 AM MST:



I'm starting to wonder what all this talk is about in the first place. Now that I think about it, and I invite all of you to try this angle out for this particular issue, there's no reason why there should be anything 'special' about the top 16 seeds. FIRST has decided to give the biggest reward to the #1 seed (which is no easy possition to get), and only give the same privalege to the next robot down the line who hasn't had the honor of already being picked. We're all getting stuck thinking about how it was last year and 'oh wait! we don't get that same privalege that we got last year!!'. Maybe we just never stopped to think that it may just happen to be the way it's supposed to be. It seems like a fair system, as long as we're all not spoiled from being able to pick our alliances last year.

Try that angle out for size and let me know if it fits.

-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/11/2000 11:20 AM MST


In Reply to: think DIFFERENT posted by Daniel on 1/11/2000 10:38 AM MST:



: I'm starting to wonder what all this talk is about in the first place. Now that I think about it, and I invite all of you to try this angle out for this particular issue, there's no reason why there should be anything 'special' about the top 16 seeds.

At least some of us disagree. Raul and I have both given specific reasons why we feel the top 8/16 seeds should be exempt from the 'no reject' rule. To clarify my position: I object to the 'no reject' rule in its entirety; if the rule does exist I feel the top 8/16 teams (and any other team which has been bumped up into a position of selecting their own alliance at the time they are selected) should be exempt. My reasons are very similar to Raul's.

:FIRST has decided to give the biggest reward to the #1 seed (which is no easy possition to get), and only give the same privalege to the next robot down the line who hasn't had the honor of already being picked.

Unless they have posted a clarification to the rules I am not aware of, this decision has NOT been made (or at least it hasn't been announced).

Rule GM26 states:

[i]f a team declines they are no longer eligible to be chosen as an alliance partner.

Specifically, it does not address whether a team is eligible *to choose* alliance partners after declining an alliance. I've already asked for clarification of this point and Eric responded that they have the matter under discussion.


:We're all getting stuck thinking about how it was last year and 'oh wait! we don't get that same privalege that we got last year!!'. Maybe we just never stopped to think that it may just happen to be the way it's supposed to be. It seems like a fair system, as long as we're all not spoiled from being able to pick our alliances last year.

My objection has nothing to do with last year, but rather with what I feel is fairness to teams which have earned by their own performance the privilege to select their own alliance.

Jerry

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/11/2000 11:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: think DIFFERENT posted by Jerry Eckert on 1/11/2000 11:20 AM MST:



First off, I agree with you about no rejections in general. I was always a fan of rejections because I felt any team has a right to a choice.

BUT...

If any team doesn't have this right, why should anyone be different? You said that you think 'teams which have earned by their own performance the privilege to select their own alliance' should be given that opportunity, but I don't see where they 'earned' that privilage. Nobody told seed #3 that they get to pick their alliance partiner.

I don't see why, if rejection is 'not within the spirit of the competition', that any team should be exempt from gracious professionalism. Think about WHY these rules were enstated, not as much what they state.

-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/12/2000 12:03 PM MST


In Reply to: but they haven't posted by Daniel on 1/11/2000 11:58 AM MST:



I think that the whole scenario is a little silly and I agree with Mr. Beatty. Everyone here has played back yard football before, right? You start by picking captains and the captains pick from the rest of the crowd. I've never seen a situation where the captain with the first pick chose the other captain. That would make for an unfair situation, regardless as to what kind of rights he/she has (debatably) earned. You simply aren't going to have a reasonable set of alliances if you have seed # 1 and seed # 2 on the same team (assuming they didn't get lucky). I think that it should be the same as last year (for the sake of fair play, not privelages) in that the top eight (or sixteen) seeds can't pick each other.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/12/2000 1:30 PM MST


In Reply to: It's rather silly anyways posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 12:03 PM MST:



It's always easy to think up a real life situation for any argument. The fact of the matter is:

-- This isn't back yard football! --

This is the game FIRST said it would be; and I personally don't see why the 'best' team shouldn't be allowed to pick the second best. Super-alliances assure that the trophy goes to the right teams. We're all yelling about what's fair and what's not but we never stop to think that the 17th team drafted is ending up with a good chance at the #1 prize because it's with the first draft and the #1 seed. Why shouldn't it be that the best two robots get the gold?

I just don't see how this is a problem.

-DL