TNA Blacklist

[excel2474]

I propose that somebody contributes to thebluealliance.com or creates an independent website that allows teams to create a blacklist of other teams that violated their part of The Noodle Agreement (TNA). That way, teams know whether or not another team can be trusted in TNA. What are your thoughts?

[nighterfighter]

This sounds like a great way to make other teams very upset, especially if there is no way to verify that the teams are violating the TNA.

Also, you would have to know which team had a human player at which Human Player station, to be feeding noodles through.

Finally, it may sometimes be strategic to NOT do TNA with higher ranked teams. (I'm sure I'll get flamed at for saying that, but in previous years where coopertition affected rankings, teams would refuse to cooperate with higher ranked alliances. See 2012, bridge balancing.)

[alicen]

this doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of FIRST to me...

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by nighterfighter

This sounds like a great way to make other teams very upset, especially if there is no way to verify that the teams are violating the TNA.

Are you saying teams would be upset if they were blacklisted or are you saying teams would be upset if another team violated their agreement? It would take into account the number of times they were listed, so just because one teams says you violated it, doesn't say much. If a lot of teams say you violated it, then that team wouldn't be trusted.

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by alicen

this doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of FIRST to me...

I'd have to agree. Seems like a bad idea which could only be sloppily executed. Not very GP.

[pfreivald]

(a) I very much doubt TNA will survive the first couple of Team Updates.

(b) But assuming it does, I imagine that teams will participate in the Prisoner's Dilemma at whatever risk threshold they're comfortable with. The one-by-one "trust, but verify" method is, after all, open to every alliance.

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by alicen

this doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of FIRST to me...

How so?

[nighterfighter]

Originally Posted by excel2474

Are you saying teams would be upset if they were blacklisted or are you saying teams would be upset if another team violated their agreement? It would take into account the number of times they were listed, so just because one teams says you violated it, doesn't say much. If a lot of teams say you violated it, then that team wouldn't be trusted.

Being blacklisted, mainly because there are a LOT of variables in play with TNA, and those can change based on the current rankings.

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

(b) But assuming it does, I imagine that teams will participate in the Prisoner's Dilemma at whatever risk threshold they're comfortable with. The one-by-one "trust, but verify" method is, after all, open to every alliance.

I agree with the one-by-one, but that doesn't mean a team won't move the noodles in the last 20 sec.

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by excel2474

How so?

Well you are specifically creating a list of teams that "cannot be trusted" this would be public defiling of those teams' names and numbers. Doesn't sound very kind.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

(a) I very much doubt TNA will survive the first couple of Team Updates.

(b) But assuming it does, I imagine that teams will participate in the Prisoner's Dilemma at whatever risk threshold they're comfortable with. The one-by-one "trust, but verify" method is, after all, open to every alliance.

So here's the thing: right now, with the rules as written, the pool noodles have the possibility to be another Co-op opportunity. In my mind, instead of 40 Co-Op points per match maximum, we could have 80!

The rules as currently written encourage The Noodle Agreement in most cases.

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

Well you are specifically creating a list of teams that "cannot be trusted" this would be public defiling of those teams' names and numbers. Doesn't sound very kind.

But violating an agreement isn't kind either?

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

So here's the thing: right now, with the rules as written, the pool noodles have the possibility to be another Co-op opportunity. In my mind, instead of 40 Co-Op points per match maximum, we could have 80!

The rules as currently written encourage The Noodle Agreement in most cases.

That's a good way of looking at it.

[AndyBare]

So you are saying that for every unkind thing somebody does, they should be paired with another? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi
What happened to turning the other cheek? I'm not saying violating an agreement is okay. I'm saying any alliance that does could have a number of reasons for doing it that they do not have to disclose for you. It's strategy.

[excel2474]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

So you are saying that for every unkind thing somebody does, they should be paired with another? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi
What happened to turning the other cheek? I'm not saying violating an agreement is okay. I'm saying any alliance that does could have a number of reasons for doing it that they do not have to disclose for you. It's strategy.

I'm just not sure how you can justify violating an agreement without being able to justify publicly listing the violation.