"Fixing" matches

[Madison]

It seems to me that this practice of entering into agreements about how the game should be played is not indicative of the disruption of gracious professionalism. I don't like that it's something teams have considered, and if I held any weight with my team, it's something I would encourage them to avoid doing, however.

I think it's something much worse than disrespect for the tenets of gracious professionalism that is making this such a hot issue. It's outright laziness that leads to these agreements.

Teams that purport to be supporting the spirit of FIRST by 'cooperating' before a match are desperately clawing for a life raft of dignity. It's been my experience that people with true conviction and belief that they're doing the good, right, just thing don't need to clamor for explanation, yet many, many teams seem are bastardizing the message of FIRST so that it can serve their own interests.

These agreements are nothing more than thinly veiled attempts at overcoming a team's inadequacies. They did not effectively use their build time to develop a consistant, reliable strategy for controlling and maintaining the score throughout a match, and by their failure to do so, they've jeopardized their ability to successfully play the game. By trumpeting the spirit of 'cooperation,' they hope to salvage any chance they may have of winning and they undermine the real effort put forth by other teams to build elegant, well-rounded, effective machines. It's insulting and degrading, and it emasculates the innovative spirit that used to be so pervasive throughout FIRST.

FIRST is about incentive. There's incentive to build a good stacking machine. There's incentive to help other teams have working machines, and there's incentive to develop a strategy that doesn't utterly decimate the opposing alliance. These types of agreements destroy that incentive by making the benefits and disadvantages of the system irrelevant. No longer is there any real reason to develop a clever mechanism or strategy because the lack thereof can be easily overcome by 'cooperating' before a match. It circumvents all efforts to make sure FIRST isn't about winning by bastardizing and perverting the notion of cooperation and using it to make winning paramount. That, above all else, upsets me most.

To see teams trying to augment their inadequacy and supplement their ability by entering into certain truces or agreements rather than effectively use their time to develop innovative, exciting ways of doing so on their own is disheartening. To see teams attempt to manipulate the ideals and spirit of FIRST as justification of their lazy, weak, tired methods is completely disgusting. I think they should all be ashamed of themselves.

[Joe Matt]

Here's a question, what about 'Coopertition FIRST' game? Could Stack Attack at heart be this game? Instead of having an alliance on 4, there are 2 and the teams must work to get points, but only one will win. Could this be what Stack Attack really is? No Zone Zeal, but a true meaning of a coopertition?

[Gabriel]

I doubt I was the first person to suggest this idea of "collusion" but I'm beginning to feel responsible for the debate and anxiety that suggestion has caused. I would like to justify my position on this issue as well as the position of my team.

The original idea was for teams to agree to tie, but that was clearly almost impossible to do, so the concept became something like this: Each alliance builds a stack of four, each alliance takes half of the stacks on the ramp, each alliance gets 2 robots on the ramp. At the very least the loser would get 200 points, a VERY high score even for a winner, and the winner would get 600+ points, which is downright insane. All four teams would benefit.

The best analogy here is not to a boxer "taking a dive" but to the practice of "drafting" in NASCAR See this link.

Clearly it would be bad for the competition and for the teams to use this in every match. Competition inspires innovation, and competition is a hell of a lot more fun to watch than "cooperation"

I was surprised at the overwhelmingly negative reaction to this idea. I had even (brielfy) entertained the fantasy that FIRST intended to teach us a lesson about cooperation by making cooperation an essential point of this years game. I hadn't really thought that cooperating would be such a bad thing, so I asked FIRST, their answer was quick and brutal, yes, "collusion" violates the principle of Gracious Professionalism and the "spirit of FIRST"

That decision having been made I abandoned the idea of "collusion" in FIRST as anything more than an interesting thought experiment. In FIRST, if not always in life, the result is not as important as how you played the game. Nobody on my team (782) was willing to sacrifice our reputation, much less our pride in the way we played, for points.

We didn't use this strategy once in the New England regional and we came our the #1 seed, with two absolutely amazing alliance partners (236 & 157) we ended up winning the regional and it was a hell of a lot of fun. If we had decided to use the "collusion" strategy we may well have had to sacrifice everything sweet about that outcome.

I'm sorry to hear what happened in AZ, if either myself, or my team is responsible I am deeply sorry.

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally posted by Joe Ross
A lot of people have been referring directly and indirectly to team 698, the #1 seed at Arizona. Every single one of those posts has been negative. However, looking through the thread recapping the Arizona regional I find that the same team that is being derided in this thread won team 294's gracious professionalism award, as voted by other teams.

They also won a special judge's award for what I remember as everything they did for the regional helping people out, like helping set up the field.

Love Jason Morrella and Chris from Beach Bots take on all this.

As always, FIRST reflects life. I've certainly been in a position like 698, being slammed for something while having accomplished a lot of good things that are ignored - whether at work or other accomplishments in years past.

Often what happened when I was being slammed unfairly for many many months, I weathered the storm, and my behavior during the storm helped the people who were nearly swayed by the "sky is falling people", and the sky is falling people went away or lost their credibility, and my accomplishments didn't.

Hang in there 698. When we knew on Friday that your team won cuz it was the only team nominated 3 times for a variety of gracious professionalism incidents, I was casually getting to know members of your team. I was always very impressed. Our team is so looking forward to spending more time with you in LA. Rock on!

[Solace]

Originally posted by Danimal
We have already had someone reference the page in the rules that outlines that alliances of this nature, while not clearly a violation of the rulse, are in violation of the "spirit" of FIRST.

I have read time and again how hard it is to have a stack survive a match and I have observed this to be true.

It is kind of sad because at the Hartford Regional there was one 6-stack all weekend long that survived a match and now I am wondering if it was legit.

I did not see the match and none of my friends complained. Did anyone see that match? Does anyone know if it looked like an alliance was in the works?

Best,

Danimal
Pit Boss
Hartford, '01, '03

I was the driver for team 571 in that round, and I will say that the stack was completely legitamate.

We usually didn't stack during the matches because it was extremely easy for them to be knocked down. However, during that match one of our opponents broke down, and the other was being held up by our partner. The decision was made during the middle of the match that the opposition would most likely be unable to outrun our alliance partner (who were quite adept at blocking), so we booted up our stacker.

It might be important to point out that we made that stack of six by putting two premade human player stacks on top of each other, so that it took a great deal less time then if we had attempted to do it the old fashion way. Also, our robot was a able of protecting the stack internally (well, actually the stack is external but it is still protected by small latching mechanisms), so even if they were able to try to knock it down making a stack might still have been a viable strategy.

If anyone asks a member of teams 905 or 178 (our opponents), they will verify that no agreement was made.

[Scott Ritchie]

I think we need to step back and relax. Yea someone got the better of us especially us veteran teams. I have to say we got snookered in to one of these deals and paid the price. I was furious with my drive crew and totally lit my pit up when I came out of the stands and that was when one of my students told me that they had been asked to strike a deal in the match. Even our engineer that was in the driving station was unaware of the what was going on and was telling our driver to get the stack out of there. I am sure the students thought if this worked that it would be for the best but they came out on the short side and it was't pretty.

After calming down I am not near as sore and I think we have to play the game to expect this stuff. I even went as far to think what a real life lesson this has been. I mean come on this is something that happens everyday in the real world and don';t we always tell our grant people and sponsors how we are participating in this real world event and preparing engineers for the future. What happened, we got backed doored or we got a trick play used on us by a 2nd year team, lets get past it. I can say that our team knows that we will not be participating in these deals and a few students learned the hard way in the end I am glad it happened and we are making plans to deal with it in the future.

I would also say it is time to quit dragging 698 through the mud. Nice team and nice people. I have to say when we were told they were going to draft us with the first pick we were going to turn it down due to all of this but we decided as a team that we would accept the honor and play with them, forget the differences and play the game the way it should be.

[George]

1930"s
Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy agree to "NEW" world boundaries
Look what that "agreement" got us!

In the "big picture" Is this the type of agreements we are teaching?

Is the Enron model the type of FIRST Scoring we want?

Ask The hard Questions.... and Answer them!

Always REMEMBER this is the next generation we are Teaching!!

I for one do not want to define "is" for the rest of my life,

Wrong is Wrong........ No defining needed.

Geo.

[Joel J]

Originally posted by Gary Stearns
But our Bot can stack pretty quickley and in the semi finals our bot and our alliance partner tipped over (thefirst time we ever tipped) in the second round we still won because our drivers made a three high stack in the final 20 seconds, the other alliance HAD to knock it over but couldn't get to the top in time. WIN!!

Couldn't get to the top in time? That's funny...

Anyway. No matter what choice of words you choose for the actions being talked about in this thread, if you come to any sort of agreement with opponents before a match has begun, you are rigging the match.. even if it is something as simple as agreeing to allow 4 robots on the ramp.

[BTW: If you agree to let 4 robots on the ramp, no matter what, and your opponent will lose if they allow you on the ramp, they will not let you on..]

Lets just all go away from this with the mindset of playing each match as its dealt, and taking the result as something determined by fate. Try to run away from fate, and you'll find yourself on a treadmill: alot of wasted enery for an unchanged result.

There are way too many words in this thread.. and I am not speaking of the length of posts, but the "nothing" some of them contain. But oh well, life.

Oh, reaching a simple agreement for one match renders you just as guilty as someone who does it for every match. So ensure, before you post in this thread, that your words are not hypocritical.

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally posted by Dima
Consider yourselves WARNED!

However for teams that have used this collusion method and are going to a second regional consider this:

Say you robot breaks and you need a spare drill motor and the only team with a replacement motor is VERY much against your strategy. How are you going to feel asking them for help after practically backstabbing them in the back? Are they going to give you this help?

By all means, they should.

Stabbed in the back or not, Gracious Professionalism is what would make that team give their extra drill motor - willingly, not begrudgingly - to even the most vicious and bitter teams.

Holding grudges and getting revenge are going to get you nowhere. Some of these teams change from year to year anyway, thereby defeating the purpose entirely.

Please rethink your 'revenge' tactics, and instead maybe pull a mentor or driver over and explain your opinions.

You can always say yes to someone, even when you know it's wrong. It's saying no and sticking with it that gets a bit tricky.

[Karthik]

I have yet to see a regional in person this season, still I have a few thoughts on the topic fixing matches and collusion.

- Many people are making it seem as though agreements such as this have never occurred in FIRST before. Just thinking back to last year I remember at least three matches which were fixed. I'm not talking about collusion, the winners of these matches was clearly predetermined. Gadget referred an occurrence of this earlier in the thread. I was surprised that there wasn't more of an outcry when this happened.

- For those who say that collusion is not that big of a deal, consider this. A team who colludes their way into the first seed may not have the best robot, but now they have the opportunity to select the best robot with their first draft pick. As we have all seen in the past there are certain robots which can carry an alliance all the way to the top. So even if the number one seed is weak, they now have an excellent chance at winning.

- It is clear that the only way that colluding can be stopped is by the teams themselves. There is no practical setup by which FIRST can stop this behavior.

- That being said, I don't think it will stop completely. Just from monitoring the opinions given on this board, it seems that there are still many teams that are willing to engage in this type of behavior. At nationals, it would only take 10 of 80 teams in one division to partake in collusion for it to have a large effect.

- Please don't rush to judgment in the upcoming weeks. Just because you see large stacks survive, it doesn't mean that collusion occurred. There are many situations when not attacking the stacks is in an alliance's best interests. (Aside: I think way to many teams attack the stacks to early. Wait about a minute and see how the match plays out, it may turn out that you don't need to take them down. By waiting, you can drastically increase your score)

- Lastly, it's very important to remember that teams how do choose to collude are not bad teams or bad people. They have made a strategic call. Many may not agree with it (myself included), but they have not violated any written rules. By plotting revenge or blacklisting them you to are not acting very GP. IMHO, part of gracious professionalism is teaching rather punishing. By setting a good example, you may encourage these teams to follow you.

[Danimal]

Amanda,

Your post highlights the need for people to avoid conduct that FIRST itself has stated is not Gracious Professionalism.

When a team takes an action that other teams consider outside of what is appropriate a degenerative cycle is created that leads to even more negative actions.

This, in turn, leads us farther and farther away from the ideals that FIRST is fostering.

Therefore the need for all combatants to hold a higher mark becomes even more important.

Right now I am hearing the voice of Yoda in my head, "Avoide the dark side of the force, you should. Hmm?"

Best,

Danimal

[DKolberg]

Any agreements about not knocking down stacks changes the game and makes it unfair for all the stacking bots. This makes all the time spent building a stacking bot a wasted effort. You can not change the basic strategie in the middle of the game and say it is fair for anyone. If you wanted to keep stacks, you should have built your robot to protect the stack. This agreement would be easier to take if no one had built stacking bots. But to build a non stacking bot and then achieve the equivalent by an agreement for the match is not fair and changes the challenge presented by FIRST. So, I strongly disagree that this should be between the teams and not have FIRST take a stand on this. Stacks are important for higher scores and I am sorry that those teams that are agreeing to this did not understand that and build a bot to stack or block. Now that the game is underway is not the time to change the rules because you did not understand them to begin with. You have made your choice on the type of robot to build. If you do not like your choice change it, but do not change the game to suit your robot. It is too late for that, the game is afoot.

[Joe Matt]

From what I've seen, many people complaining about this strategy are mostly vet teams who lost to rookie teams with this strategy.

Just an observation.

[matrixman271]

I am a sponsor and mentor for team 271. some members of my team started to be involved in a match fix in Annapolis for whatever reasons they considered justifiable and i stopped it. I do not know how the "mentors" on the other teams qualify their decisions, however i consider this nothing more than cheating. i have never seen anything from usfirst which suggested or implied that coming up with strategies to increase scores by taking a dump on the motives for scoring was something that usfirst would consider intelligent, resourceful engineering and planning.

My team is in the regional on Long Island this week. I have posted a letter to usfirst asking for a posted statement as to whether they accept or reject rigged game agreements. I have also asked that it be a specific stated ruling at the coming regional game when the team players gather for the game regulations. I am sure it will be addressed, but if it is not, i will ask the question in a very loud voice.

I understand to some degree that the students go through an understanding/learning process as they grow up. I do not understand the decisions of the mentors and/or teachers involved. The decisions are nothing more than the philosophy of ENRON. The results are the destruction of the dream for intellectual and analytical growth that USFIRST has created.

[Gabriel]

1930"s
Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy agree to "NEW" world boundaries
Look what that "agreement" got us!

Now thats not fair.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is but I hope that it isn't "cooperation and agreements are always bad." That means its okay for the United States to go to war with Iraq rather than use diplomatic channels and its okay for Iraq to evade the UN weapons inspectors. A world without cooperation and compromise is a world where everyone pursues their own self-interest no matter what the moral or human cost and I think thats EXACTLY what FIRST is trying to avoid.

Our team avoid is avoiding these "agreements" because we want to keep a much bigger and more important "agreement" the spirit of FIRST.

Besides, FIRST teams practicing "collusion" are hardly Nazi's.