The Update, it fixes nothing! (AKA: why is everyone so excited about Update #16?)

[Mrs.Drake343]

Look at it this way, if you are playing 469 and they are killing you (like they seemed to do a lot), why on Earth would you try to score against them?!! 30 seconds into the match they are up 10 points. Every point you score will give them 2! If they win 25-0 you will get 25 and they will get 30 seeding points. If they win 25-5 then you still get 25 points and they will get 40!!! If you are losing, your points mean nothing to you...but they sure mean a lot to the winning alliance!

We did terrible in the seeding points. It wasn't until our last match when we got 20 seeding points (the highest all weekend) that we were in the top 8! We lost 3 straight matches and didn't drop in the rankings (we actually went up after 2 of them).

Mr. Drake and I fussed at each other all weekend. If you are getting your butts kicked STOP SCORING!!! As the losing alliance you are better off feeding balls to the other alliance to help your own seeding score.

[Bharat Nain]

Unfortunately, this year's seeding system allows for teams to lose and yet "win in the long run". If an alliance makes the decision to lose because they will clearly and completely lose that match, I do not blame them. This is because a loss is not a completely loss under this system and you can win more by losing. Makes sense, good.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Mrs.Drake343

Look at it this way, if you are playing 469 and they are killing you (like they seemed to do a lot), why on Earth would you try to score against them?!! 30 seconds into the match they are up 10 points. Every point you score will give them 2! If they win 25-0 you will get 25 and they will get 30 seeding points. If they win 25-5 then you still get 25 points and they will get 40!!! If you are losing, your points mean nothing to you...but they sure mean a lot to the winning alliance!

We did terrible in the seeding points. It wasn't until our last match when we got 20 seeding points (the highest all weekend) that we were in the top 8! We lost 3 straight matches and didn't drop in the rankings (we actually went up after 2 of them).

Mr. Drake and I fussed at each other all weekend. If you are getting your butts kicked STOP SCORING!!! As the losing alliance you are better off feeding balls to the other alliance to help your own seeding score.

It really doesn't matter how smart it is, if I don't think its right...I'm not doing it. End of story. I really don't think anyone is arguing that it might be the smart move in some situations. We are simply saying that we won't do it. This is a personal decision based on one's values. I would rather come in last place then give in the slightest bit on my ethics.

[Mrs.Drake343]

Originally Posted by Molten

This is a personal decision based on one's values. I would rather come in last place then give in the slightest bit on my ethics.

Why do you think that it's unethical to take advantage of the scoring system? This game seems to be more strategy than just playing to win...until you get to eliminations.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Mrs.Drake343

Why do you think that it's unethical to take advantage of the scoring system? This game seems to be more strategy than just playing to win...until you get to eliminations.

Could it be possible that some people have difficulty thinking in different ways?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Molten

It really doesn't matter how smart it is, if I don't think its right...I'm not doing it. End of story. I really don't think anyone is arguing that it might be the smart move in some situations. We are simply saying that we won't do it. This is a personal decision based on one's values. I would rather come in last place then give in the slightest bit on my ethics.

Likewise. The rulebook says that the goal is to win, so we will try to win, every time, even if it "hurts us" in qualifying points.

That attitude served us extremely well at the Finger Lakes Regional, and while there aren't 15 OMGHOWDOWEBEAT1551!???!!!eleven!?!?? threads like there are for 469, we did come in 1st seed and regional champs. (Thanks, 217 and 174, for the awesome alliance!)

We're a bit of a 'NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER!' Heinleinian group, for a town full of artists, farmers, and wine makers.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Could it be possible that some people have difficulty thinking in different ways?

Definite maybe.

Originally Posted by Molten

I guess I'm just not smart enough to overcome this one.

I guess the best I could give you is that 6vs0 is a "strategical retreat" but in the end that is still running away. Some of us are taught to not run away and not give up. I'm a bit bull-headed on this one.(and perhaps short-sighted) I'll be the first to admit that.

[JaneYoung]

I think there is more to this than just simply coming up with one idea and then passing judgment on it. Thinking is a form of exercise and the more we think, the more we understand. There's a lot to be said for staying agile and flexible when forming strategies during qualifications, depending on how the alliances are formed - then eliminations require more thinking. Strategy is a big part of this game and understanding why it is important, and the different options available, provides the exercise. This may be a game that continues to reveal options and strategies as we move through more competitions. It took a while for folks to absorb the idea that playing a close game was beneficial - now we've moved on to other thoughts that have been introduced during week 2. Thinking can be uncomfortable, but I always think that it is beneficial. When the game is played, having been explored and tested, it becomes a better game, making the players and the robots better along the way.

.02
Jane

[TubaMorg]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Could it be possible that some people have difficulty thinking in different ways?

I apologize Jane, but I need to respond to this. The reason why is that you are implying that taking a stand on an issue implies that the stance wasn't thought about. Some people have examined the 6v0 controversy thoroughly and landed on different sides of the issue. I would suggest that "thinking in different ways" is a statement that inherently implies more than one point of view. Implying that a dissenting opinion is a sign thoughtlessness seems a bit far fetched in this case. Especially since there is no evidence to support your hypothesis.

Respectfully,
Dan

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Molten

It really doesn't matter how smart it is, if I don't think its right...I'm not doing it. End of story. I really don't think anyone is arguing that it might be the smart move in some situations. We are simply saying that we won't do it. This is a personal decision based on one's values. I would rather come in last place then give in the slightest bit on my ethics.

How are values involved at all? Isn't the whole point of science to make educated, analytical decisions rather than just trusting your gut? Isn't the word 'science' a part of the FIRST acronym?

The seeding method is different. Yes it would be nice to have another tick in the win column, but there comes a point where trying to "win" the qualification match is the equivalent of eating at Taco Bell. Yeah, it seems great at the time, but you will really regret it the next morning (when you are seeded 40th).

Also, you are just hurting your alliance partners.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by TubaMorg

I apologize Jane, but I need to respond to this. The reason why is that you are implying that taking a stand on an issue implies that the stance wasn't thought about. Some people have examined the 6v0 controversy thoroughly and landed on different sides of the issue. I would suggest that "thinking in different ways" is a statement that inherently implies more than one point of view. Implying that a dissenting opinion is a sign thoughtlessness seems a bit far fetched in this case. Especially since there is no evidence to support your hypothesis.

Respectfully,
Dan

I can see that and I understand what you are saying, Dan.
But, I was actually asking the question, not implying anything.

If people have examined the 6v0 controversy thoroughly and landed on different sides of the issue, then they have been thinking. If people just make a choice without thinking - that is where my question is. What makes the seeding points so hard for us understand?

Thank you, Dan, for your response.
Jane

[gblake]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

... The rulebook says that the goal is to win, ...

pf - You aren't the only one who leaned on this broken crutch, you are simply the most recent.

The rule book says two almost diametrically opposed things. In an introductory section it says you should attempt to outscore your opponents in each match. In what I think (my opinion) is a more important section it says:

The purpose of the qualifying matches is to allow each team to earn a seeding position that may qualify them for participation in the elimination matches. The purpose of the elimination matches is to determine the Event Champions.

In related section the rules describe how to earn these seeding points.

Maximizing your wins will certainly help you comply with the introduction. Maximizing your seeding points will help earn a trophy from the folks who run the event. One of these seems more important to me. Your mileage may vary (obviously - just read the comments in this thread).

One group of folks wrote the rules - all of the rules. I find it odd that some readers will embrace the introduction; but will reject the connection between the seeding points and the title of event Champion. Maybe those sections use different fonts (one for the good rules and another for the bad rules)and my PDF reader is unable to show me the difference?

Weren't both sections of the rules produced by the same committee?

Blake
PS: Is this a case of evolve or die?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

How are values involved at all? Isn't the whole point of science to make educated, analytical decisions rather than just trusting your gut? Isn't the word 'science' a part of the FIRST acronym?

FIRST is more about values than it is about science. This isn't about trusting your gut, this is about doing things the "right way".

It would be an educated, analytical decision for my team to never loan another team a tool, a part, a raw material, or a helping hand -- indeed, it would definitely increase our chances of winning. But it ain't what FIRST is about.

The proudest moment I have had thus far as a FIRST mentor is absolutely **NOT** the regional win we had this year (after never even making the top eight before). The proudest moment I had was when another team needed a banebots 12:1 transmission and announced it over the PIT speaker, and one of my students didn't even ask me, they just passed the part over the pit wall -- knowing full well that we were playing against them next, and that the transmission might very well make a difference in who won the match. (It did, and we lost, and it didn't matter.)

That has *nothing* to do with winning the match, nor in getting the highest seed, nor in getting a trophy or a medal or a pat on the back. But it has everything to do with FIRST.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

FIRST is more about values than it is about science. This isn't about trusting your gut, this is about doing things the "right way".

But how is this the "right way"? Lending a helping hand to a team in need is something I think we can all agree on... But, making stupid strategic moves on the field is not only hurting yourself, but hurting your other partners as well.

I believe there is a quote from Dr. Flowers that is something along the lines of "Gracious professionals learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness in the process." (Emphasis mine)

I have no idea how scoring for the other team when you are facing a certain loss is going against that. Really, I don't.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

But how is this the "right way"? Lending a helping hand to a team in need is something I think we can all agree on... But, making stupid strategic moves on the field is not only hurting yourself, but hurting your other partners as well.

I believe there is a quote from Dr. Flowers that is something along the lines of "Gracious professionals learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness in the process." (Emphasis mine)

I have no idea how scoring for the other team when you are facing a certain loss is going against that. Really, I don't.

That same GDC -- of which Dr. Flowers is a member -- has explicitly stated that playing each match to win is part of the game. "The expectation is that winning will be a priority, but still values the high, close-scoring, matches." (From Update #16).

I'm sorry, but a recent quote that directly addresses the issue in question is rather more relevant than a vague quote from long ago about the generalities of FIRST.