<G24> Empty Cell Ruling from DC

[EricH]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

So, are you equating GP to personal integrity or morality?

Am I? Sort of. It sort of is, sort of isn't. But what one person thinks is not GP, another person thinks is GP, and both can be right. It depends how you look at it.

It's more like ethics.

[The Lucas]

I wouldnt expect this to continue being interpreted this way so not worth arguing about.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

So, are you equating GP to personal integrity or morality?
I think it's much easier to peg down. Act as if you out of school and at your first real job. Before you do anything, ask yourself this: Would my boss/colleague/grandmother look at me and say that was professional behavior? Would those same folks define that as 'gracious'? Knowingly breaking the rules to get an advantage in a silly game is neither. This is my personal opinion and I am not making a call on the rules of the game.

My interpretation is that my Grandmother would approve if my team took the 10 point penalty like adults and didn't complain. If I take spare points by little work (like prestacking bots in 2007) than it would be unfair.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

I wouldnt expect this to continue being interpreted this way so not worth arguing about.

who's arguing? I think we all agree that this ruling will be "patched" in the next update. What I think we are discussing is the idea that a team would continue using the same tactic knowing that it was against the rules.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

What I think we are discussing is the idea that a team would continue using the same tactic knowing that it was against the rules.

True. However, there is a hole/miscommunication in the interpretation of how the rule is applied. Where it is, I don't know. I pointed out what the hole was earlier. The question is, if you can actually get an advantage by breaking the rule, should you exploit that? That's a call each team must make for themselves, with their alliance assisting.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

My interpretation is that my Grandmother would approve if my team took the 10 point penalty like adults and didn't complain. If I take spare points by little work (like prestacking bots in 2007) than it would be unfair.

What would your Grandmother think about it if you continued to take those 10 points for the hopes of getting 40? 30 free points that takes a major portion of the game away. That seems to me like "little work" and "unfair."
If you do it once, I can see that as an accident. If you do it twice, it's a strategy.

Now to what Eric said. If a team were to do this little scheme more than once, I would guarantee that my team would never give an alliance slot to that team or accept a selection from that team for eliminations.
I can hear the question now: what if that means you don't play in the eliminations? Easy answer: Oh well. There is always next year.

[ATannahill]

Than we would have, for the most part, played within the rules, and for the rules we broke we took the punishment. What you are saying is the same as Eric's view. The rule is not clear enough and needs clarification.

I am not saying my team would do it, but I think my grandmother would approve.

[BPetry234]

The fact that anyone would want to break the rules just to get an edge is a little upsetting. What message does that send to rookie teams, new members, the community... The list goes on and on. Play the game fair and to the best of your ability and even if you do lose, you can walk off the field knowing that you and your partners gave it your all but lost to a better alliance. Don't take advantage of a poorly written rule. Put yourselves in the other teams shoes and what it would be like to lose that way.

[XD_bring_it]

You are only considering to take advantage of that loophole because you aren't on the receiving end of that decision. Consider if your opponents found another loophole and by exploiting that knocked you down in the rankings. In other words don't do something if you don't want other to do the same. However, lets say that you don't care. "So what if they use loopholes?" Are you then saying that "fairness" has no meaning; that rule have no purpose?

Is winning really that important to you? Do you crave that trophy/medal so much that you are willing to use whatever small methods you can find? Are you that afraid of losing?

"Find me a person who is afraid of losing, and I will so you a person who is easy to beat" - (I'll come back with the author)

Its understandable that nobody likes to lose, but does that mean that being the winner justifies any action taken?

[Wetzel]

Many contracts require certain things, and many have penalties built in if you don't meet them. Sometimes, it is cheaper to pay the penalty than to pay to rush to get the requirement. Do this, or this negative action occurs. I don't think that it is necessarily wrong to do something like this.

That said, <G12> makes this an illegal starting position for the empty cells.

Originally Posted by <G12>

EMPTY CELL Starting Positions – Prior to the MATCH, four (4) EMPTY CELLS (as modified, if necessary, by Rule <G14>) will be located on the CELL RACK in each OUTPOST.

Wetzel

[Molten]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

If a team were to do this little scheme more than once, I would guarantee that my team would never give an alliance slot to that team or accept a selection from that team for eliminations.
I can hear the question now: what if that means you don't play in the eliminations? Easy answer: Oh well. There is always next year.

You sound like a guy I could get along with. Such hard headed understanding of morals is an admirable trait. Hopefully all your students learn it well and carry it on. Too many people waver about whether or not something is right. I honestly don't care if people agree with me on an issue, but I do get annoyed if they don't take a stance.

Sorry for the ramble. Just felt like it should be said. Not really sure why though. Let's not turn this into a debate though.

[Don Wright]

I'm sorry...GP or not, this is the kind of thing I love about FIRST. Like stacking "dead" robots two years ago... It's the simple ingenious things that are so completely out of the box that really make me say to myself "wow...why didn't I think of that".

Unfortunately, all the the rules in the last few years really seem to limit the amount of crazy out of the box winning strategies that escape 99% of the FIRST participants so when moments like this come up (granted, this was by accident...but Raul's move in 2007 wasn't), it really inspires me to try and take a different look at the game to try and find a different way to play. It's almost to me like there is a secret puzzle in there somewhere and if you solve it, you can use it to your advantage...

It's going to be updated to be a penalty for each empty cell carried over one... But if not...it will be just another trick in the bag for autonomous...

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

That said, <G12> makes this an illegal starting position for the empty cells.

Wetzel, they started in the outpost. The PS there loaded all four very quickly.

I don't advocate using this strategy, especially since it's borderline at best. Once the GDC figures out what will happen (probably within hours of the use), they will issue a clarification, possibly to the teams via an update/Q&A, and almost certainly to the refs via other channels.

I can appreciate the Robonauts' honesty in telling the head ref that if the rule is being enforced the way it is, they will likely do it often. This will call out the effect of this ruling, which will help the GDC in clarifying.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'm currently too lazy to quote the arguments against taking advantage of this ruling by loading up with 4 empty cells, but I have this to say:

This is not breaking the rules. This taking an action that can be penalized, and it's a somewhat minor penalty at best. It is exactly akin to fouling someone on a breakaway or in the last 30 seconds to force them to make free throws. It's an action you know will be penalized, but you do it because you're hoping to make up for the penalty in the long run. If the game is designed properly, then it should be unlikely to give you a benefit, provided the opposing team knows what they're doing. If I'm playing against a team that does this, then the obvious correct move is for all my robots to stay away from the loaded up PS for the last 30 seconds of the match. If all your robots are across the field from the super cells, then it's highly likely that this strategy is going to fail miserably.

So I think that either ruling would likely work well, and I don't think I'd mind playing against a team willing to shoot themselves in the foot for me.

[Wetzel]

The correct ruling is one penalty for every ball over 1, so 4 empty cells at once was supposed to be 3 penalties. This was clarified at DC today.

Wetzel