Coopertition - Not As Easy As It Looks!

[Joe Johnson]

First of all, I really respect that everyone has kept this at a very high level. There are specific teams and specific behaviors involved and yet, to my mind at least, it appears that people have kept things from degrading into name calling and personal attacks. Thanks.

Second, even though I am a rookie, I am also an old dog in this game. This conversation is one that with a few details here or there changed could have been about many of the FIRST games throughout the years.

The question is almost part of FIRST's (Dean's?) DNA. FIRST has competing motivations. They want to tap into the excitement and passion of sports... ...but they don't want to import all the negative aspects that come with those passions. So FIRST continually tries to motivate FIRST participants to cooperate with each other (even naming a game Coopertition FIRST*).

BUT FIRST knows in its heart of hearts that it is the competition aspect of FIRST that is the workhorse pulling the wagon. SO...

In the end, FIRST is going to want us to PLAY TO WIN. Not win at any cost but trying to win the game is important to the integrity of the whole system. In my view, throwing games or playing 6V0 or keeping an alliance member from trying to do their best** is not in "the best interest of the game" regardless of how the ranking system is set up and therefore I think that this is not appropriate behavior for a FIRST team that "gets it."

That is how I am going to advise my team at least.

Joe J.

P.S. Do the folks in Canada REALLY believe that 1113+2056+ANY OTHER TEAM = CERTAIN VICTORY? I can't believe this.

Step up to the plate and take your swings man. Up your game in the off season if you have to but really?

As much as I love teams 67 & 469 (they're awesome) I have been competing with and against them for years. It never enters my mind that in any given year, I could build a robot that, when partnered with one or two of my fellow non 67 and 469 teams could give them a run for their money on any given Saturday afternoon.


*which imho was perhaps FIRST worst games ever. In fact, I use it as an argument for the robustness of FIRST FRC, if we can survive that game, we can survive pretty darn near anything.

**"best" is broadly defined. I don't think that a team that is out of the running for an alliance capt on Saturday morning has to try to maximize their score if showing that they can add to the winning effort by playing defense or balancing a bridge or doing some other special skill that is within the bounds of their grandma's being able to understand that they were trying to help their team win (perhaps in a futile effort but grandma's seem pretty tolerate of such things).

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

The question is almost part of FIRST's (Dean's?) DNA. FIRST has competing motivations. They want to tap into the excitement and passion of sports... ...but they don't want to import all the negative aspects that come with those passions. So FIRST continually tries to motivate FIRST participants to cooperate with each other (even naming a game Coopertition FIRST*).

*which imho was perhaps FIRST worst games ever. In fact, I use it as an argument for the robustness of FIRST FRC, if we can survive that game, we can survive pretty darn near anything.

You mean 2000? One of the best FRC games ever, with the two troughs and a ramp? Because I think you're really thinking of 2001's "Diabolical Dynamics", the one and only 4v0 game. (I think a lot of people get those two confused...)

P.S. Do the folks in Canada REALLY believe that 1114+2056+ANY OTHER TEAM = CERTAIN VICTORY? I can't believe this.

It's pretty close, Dr. Joe. "2056" and "losing regionals" don't work in the same sentence--because 2056 has not lost a single regional event they've attended (started in 2007). 1114 is no slouch either--they've not lost any events since 2005, when competing within Canada.

Though, there's finally a guarantee that those 4 teams will not be in the finals of a Canadian event--none of them is registered for Montreal.

[Bill_B]

It's beginning to look like the double competition going on at tournaments is to "blame" for all the thoughts of "misbehavior." As long as there are two prizes, there will be turmoil in the strategies to attain them - both. Perhaps it is time to re-work the "minor" prize of alliance captains for eliminations. How would it be if the top 8 qualifiers still got to be captains, BUT the sequence of alliance selection were random? That is, you play to be a captain, but you don't know which seed you'll be until it happens. I don't know if this has been proposed before, but I'm sure there could be fairness tweaks to this that could iron out the wrinkles.

Wouldn't this at least deal with the kind of scheming and collusion we've been considering so far? It's hard to believe that teams are going to get so worked up about knocking a "powerhouse" from 8th to 9th. They're going to get picked even if they're not a captain.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

It's beginning to look like the double competition going on at tournaments is to "blame" for all the thoughts of "misbehavior." As long as there are two prizes, there will be turmoil in the strategies to attain them - both. Perhaps it is time to re-work the "minor" prize of alliance captains for eliminations. How would it be if the top 8 qualifiers still got to be captains, BUT the sequence of alliance selection were random? That is, you play to be a captain, but you don't know which seed you'll be until it happens. I don't know if this has been proposed before, but I'm sure there could be fairness tweaks to this that could iron out the wrinkles.

No. No. No. A thousand times no.
Why are people taking measures to discourage excellence? Why are people attempting to encourage artificial parity? Is winning because of the dumb luck that you somehow managed to win the random selection order and pick a powerhouse really better than losing to that powerhouse? Would you be more proud of your effort/robot/team just because you lucked your way into a gold medal? Is it fair to the team who really did have a better performance in qualifications that they then lose the chance at gold?

Originally Posted by Bill_B

Wouldn't this at least deal with the kind of scheming and collusion we've been considering so far? It's hard to believe that teams are going to get so worked up about knocking a "powerhouse" from 8th to 9th. They're going to get picked even if they're not a captain.

Knocking the powerhouse from 8th to 9th isn't the big deal. It's removing them from the #1 seed. In the Canadian example that's dominating this thread, if another team ranks #1, they have the ability to separate 1114 and 2056. Instead of one superpower alliance, there are then two power alliances.

Additionally, knocking a team from 8th to, say, 11th or 12th does create a big difference. It puts their ability to decline an invitation in serious question, as they're no longer sure that they could move back up into the top 8 and become a captain. At 9th place, they're likely still confident that another top 8 seed will be picked and they can move up. At 10th, it begins to get hairy depending on how the field stacks up (see Galileo last season).

[pyroslev]

I'm gonna take a balance at this from the perspective of the game and then within/context FIRST.

Game
In the context of it on the field, it is a major game changer. It completely altered the way a team is ranked and way alliances work together/against each other. It's the wild card element to it all.

When it comes to teams interfering with balancing, a foul/penalty is needed. However, the question is against who, what extent, etc. Any points that would come from a balanced coop bridge could be withheld from the team that attempted to interfere with balancing as well as a foul for each instance of contact. Even a possible disablement for belligerency in their attempts.

With the third week of play getting underway in less than 48 hours, this all just a discussion as applying penalties or such rules at this point would stir the pool up.

So yes, there should be a penalty.

As it applies to FIRST

The bridge is in short the spirit of FIRST competition. One of the biggest stigmas/mindsets we all have to break when we explain what we do is we are not battle bots. The coop bridge is an easy way to point to someone who's watching a match and say watch. If two robots balance on it and the crowd cheers, they're gonna ask what happened. The bridge and coopertition shows that even though these teams are against each other, you can still work together towards a goal.

The goal bridge, in a physical manifestation, could be considered Gracious Professionalism in a simple form that anyone can see and serve as the seed to a conversation about who we are and why we do this.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Taylor

The problem with this is the wrong team may be cretin-ized.

I think you missed my most important point entirely. A team cannot be "cretinized" by anything other than their own actions. Again, you are what you do.

If a team tries to (a) win the game and (b) balance the coopertition bridge, every time, then at worst they might be considered starry-eyed and naive in the best of ways, but never dishonorable cretins.

Figuring out the right thing to do is rarely harder than pausing to think, "if I were the other parties involved, how would I want me to behave?" Nowhere in there lies throwing matches or refusing to cooperate on the bridge.

When it comes to honor and integrity, anything that must be justified invites further scrutiny. Err on the side of honorable non-cretinism.

[Lil' Lavery]

Anyone who doesn't think the way I do must be a cretin.

[TRWSHSHLX]

How far is your team willing to go to win?

That's the question.

Some believes class is more important and some thinks otherwise and most are in the middle of the spectrum. Everyone draws the line differently and that's just the way it is.

Is 1114 & 2056 unbeatable? No. Nothing is impossible.

Do 1114 & 2056 seem unbeatable? Definitely.

As much as people would like to say history is history and it's a brand new year, we all know past history has direct correlation to how successful a team projects to be. However, there are "cinderella" stories in real competitions (I've witnessed and been in a few).

It's the journey not the destination. Not everyone gets to be a winner in competition. FIRST's purpose is to inspire, and regardless of how you do in competition, that should be the priority, through whatever medium.

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by JABot67

I don't know what to think.
What goes on in Canada is so much different than what happens in Michigan.

Yes it is, and one of the reasons we created the District Competition structure was to specifically address this issue. We often don't like to openly talk about non-GP behavior, but it does exist and should be addressed.

The problem is not how good 1114/2056 are; the problem is that the traditional FRC regional model ONLY promotes the winners. Thus a team who perpetually finishes as a finalist or semifinalist never gets promoted to the next level, and this leads to eventual resentment of the top teams. Believe it or not, back in the 2005-2008 time frame, there were very clear cases of this going on here in MIchigan, targeted at some historically great teams such as 67, 217, and 469. These teams typically win the events they attend. They are also role models to all of us. Hatred toward them or anyone else has no place in FIRST. When we were given the opportunity to make some systemic changes back in the summer of 2008, fixing this was at the top of my list.

In a nutshell, one of the design objectives of our system is: "Teams who exhibit good performance at both of their district events should be promoted to the State Championship". Simple. If you are good and prove it, you move on. The exact threshold of "good performance" moves up a little bit each year as our league grows, but no where are you ever required to be the best in order to succeed.

A team who places as a Semifinalist at both districts will advance, and the State Semifinalist move to Worlds. This system basically distills any hatred that may have once existed. Now another team's success really does not affect your own team's fate very much. HOT winning Waterford last week does nothing to prevent 573 and 3098 from going to States, they all will go and all will have a great time.

Any system which only promotes the very best will naturally tend to generate negative sentiments from the group who almost won. This problem is solvable and it has been solved. Our best FRC teams should be role models to all, and anything which works against this should be obsoleted.

"Don't hate the player, Hate the game"

[Mullen]

Perhaps Michigan is weird in this aspect, but it seemed to me that at the Waterford district getting on the Coopertition Bridge was a given for most teams. When working on strategy it wasn't really a question of "Do we get on the Coopertition Bridge with someone this match?" Rather, it was "Who is their best bridge bot? Let's get on the bridge with them."

Teams realized the value of the points, and to miss out on the Coop Bridge was a pretty big loss and could drop you quite a few spots in the ranking. In only one match were we approached about not getting on the bridge by someone in the other alliance. Three of the teams playing were all seeded high, losing out on the extra two points would have risked us all slipping down in the rankings. A reminder of this changed the game plan right there.

The Coopertition points are meant to get opposing teams to work together. Hearing that alliance partners are actually out sabotaging their own alliance partners attempts at the bridge just seems so...wrong...

If you want to keep up with the top teams you still have to win. They aren't getting up their by simply relying on the bridge (though the bridge doesn't hurt). If you have a problem with the bridge impacting rankings, then get on it every time. If every match ended with two bots on the Coop Bridge, the extra 2 points are a non issue. I think Michigan is on its way to seeing that real soon.

[Koko Ed]

P.S. Do the folks in Canada REALLY believe that 1114+2056+ANY OTHER TEAM = CERTAIN VICTORY? I can't believe this.

I attended GTR often the past few years and many of the teams are funded through a grant similar to what JC Pennys does in the states. These team are lucky if they build something functional much less competitive. There's not much depth there and with American teams not going to Canada much anymore is it really any surprise that 1114 and 2056 dominate so easily? There's only a handful of teams that can even hope to challenge them.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Anyone who doesn't think the way I do must be a cretin.

I would hope that no one in FIRST would be the slightest bit concerned about whether or not I consider them a dishonest cretin. I would hope beyond hope that they would be tremendously concerned about whether or not they, in retrospect especially, would consider themselves a dishonest cretin*.

*Edit: it has been pointed out to me that the word "cretin" has many meanings, and the technical definition involves a medical condition -- I didn't know that, and certainly don't mean it that way. I picked up the word from Bugs Bunny; I apologize if I offended anyone with what was meant with mild levity.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I attended GTR often the past few years and many of the teams are funded through a grant similar to what JC Pennys does in the states. These team are lucky if they build something functional much less competitive. There's not much depth there and with American teams not going to Canada much anymore is it really any surprise that 1114 and 2056 dominate so easily? There's only a handful of teams that can even hope to challenge them.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the depth in Canada, especially at the non-mississauga events:
188, 610, 781, 1241, 1503, 2852, and 907 are all excellent teams that consistently put up very competitive robots, and those are just the ones that competed this week. GTR-east was the 2nd-highest scoring regional this week. The thing with Canada is that we are blessed with exactly two 99.9th percentile teams in our midst, which consistently and rationally wallop the many 95th percentile teams that have grown here. We had a ton of teams in CMP divisional eliminations last year, and 1503 and 781 made it to einstein. Interesting theory I just thought of, that would be hard to test: if there were one elite team or three elite teams, I don't think things would be so predictable year after year.

Here's a chart that should give you an idea for a small Canadian regional vs a small American regional. Notice that GTR actually has a larger 2nd tier of teams in the 15-25 area of OPR (which are, in order, 610, 2852, 907, 188, 4334, and 1241). This chart appears to somewhat contradict my assertions of 1114/2056's unbeatability as compared to the folks that lead Waterford in OPR (the 2 'best' robots at Waterford were more better than their competition than 1114/2056 were at GTR), but la la la I can't hear me.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I would hope that no one in FIRST would be the slightest bit concerned about whether or not I consider them a dishonest cretin. I would hope beyond hope that they would be tremendously concerned about whether or not they, in retrospect especially, would consider themselves a dishonest cretin*.

*Edit: it has been pointed out to me that the word "cretin" has many meanings, and the technical definition involves a medical condition -- I didn't know that, and certainly don't mean it that way. I picked up the word from Bugs Bunny; I apologize if I offended anyone with what was meant with mild levity.

My point was that you were approaching this is a more hostile manner than is necessary. Mr. Lim clearly set out to make a level-headed and open-minded discussion. Any merit in your responses was quickly overshadowed by the name calling.

The point that you should act in a manner that you would be proud of is valid. The fashion in which you are presenting said point is ruffling feathers. Also, the closed-minded fashion in which you seemingly refuse to accept differing value systems isn't productive to the discussion. Different teams will draw their limits in different places, as should be readily apparent. Simply passing your mental limit of behavior shouldn't make them "cretins." There should be a distinction between violating your moral compass and egregiously violating your moral compass. It's not a binary system. There has to be a point where you go "I do not agree, but I can understand why they did it."

[bduddy]

So today's Team Update contains absolutely nothing pertaining to this sort of behavior. Perhaps FIRST hasn't noticed it, of course, but I'm increasingly beginning to wonder if the GDC considers this kind of behavior within the spirit of the rules of the game. Has anything on this topic been asked on the Q&A?