fixing of matches in Seattle

[Ian Mathew]

Originally posted by Jrmc
this has gone from a finese competition to who can build the biggest bulldozer.....and for that i fault the idealism of FIRST leaders...but that is for another thread alltogether

Note: this is coming from a member of a team with a good size bulldozer

I completely disagree with that assessment of the game. At the beginning, the idea was to build what would work to win the game, which is obvious. We decided very early on that it would take a lot of time to build, set, and defend stacks, and that it would be much easier to win with a good drive train, and the ability to get more boxes on your side, instead of worrying about getting boxes higher. Human players are used to stack. A team can win with other strategies. Obviously, from this thread, some strategies have become frowned upon for whatever reason, but are still legitimate ways to win the game. I love the game this year because it goes for a simple design, and not for an extremely complex robot with arms going everywhere.

[Ash]

I for one agree Sean_330. This has devolved into no more than a finger pointing exercise. I think we should just let this thread rest in peace.

Also, we build our robot with stacking in mind, but after the first few matches at UCF, we realised stacking is not that practical. And now we know human player stacks are more important (also, I wish our bulldoser had a bit more B.H.P., if you know what I mean ).

Finally, you can be assured that there will be no such "collusions" going on at Nationals, only our team trying to educate other teams of the many layers this game has (i.e., stacks are better than no stacks).

-Ash

P.S. Jrmc may be a member of our team, but he does not represent the views and opinions of our team. So if he says something silly, it's his fault (sorry Matt )

[Bob Steele]

I feel I have to just make a short statement.
I come from the midwest...was at Seattle...viewed most of the matches there...

I make no comment about collusion...
whatever that means...

I want to congratulate team 233 and their alliance partners.
Their robot performed admirably...
I spoke with members of their team in their pit and they
were helpful and honest and proud of . their robot.and their team....
they had a right to be...

They had the best robot and the best strategies at the event..
They were on the winning alliance

Sitting in the stands I saw many robots make poor decisions during the quals and in the finals...

In fact, I believe a poor decision about going to the top of the ramp cost one alliance a shot at the finals...they forgot that +25 points costs them -50 for the other alliance...

Team 233 should be commended for a good regional...a great presence...and a fine robot


Thanks for a great show 233...

Good luck at Nationals

[Mark Garver]

Originally posted by Jrmc
Plz allow me to clarify something for all of you, collsion implies that there is an "agreement". there were no actual deals initiated by our team, after a conversation with our drivers, they simply told the other side that knocking down the stacks was stupid.....and they weren't going to do it unless there was a reason to....which i agree with. Instead of everyone winning everyone loses. Other then that, there were no other arrangements. If you feel that you must knock down our stack to win...then by all means try...our drivers are very protective of said stacks. The problem here is that the game was designed for stacking and knocking down of stacks, but most people read the rules and decided not to build something that could stack...this has gone from a finese competition to who can build the biggest bulldozer.....and for that i fault the idealism of FIRST leaders...but that is for another thread alltogether

Then if you see a need to educate teams on the best way to score high, why don't you do it for all the teams at the competition? Not just the ones you are up against. In my opinion this isn't very gracious professionalism, by only selecting a few teams on how to score high. By one alliance telling another alliance how to play, it makes scouting that make hard for finals. I know that we look for teams that play the game "smart" not ones that always win.

[DougHogg]

Originally posted by Sean_330
As a referee at the Silicon Valley Regional in San Jose, Jason made it clear in the driver's meeting that FIRST was neither for nor against it and it was up to the teams themselves to do what is right. We saw neither collusion nor any hard feelings, because the teams put their differences behind them and got on with the competition. Everyone had fun, and it was an awesome event.

Very well done to everyone in San Jose.

After seeing "opponent stack agreements" in Arizona, and reading comments on this forum about some of the "boring" matches in Florida and other regionals involving such agreements, I was very happy to hear they didn't occur in San Jose. What occurred in San Jose (and other regionals with no "stack agreements") is the FIRST that I love and am trying to protect. Maybe this was helped along by the posts on chief delphi and the survey results showing that the majority of people are against such agreements. Anyway, the tide has turned, and I for one intend to help keep it that way. Why? I don't want boring matches. That is not good for FIRST. In fact Dean himself said that we need to make the game more audience friendly, and "boring" games won't help that cause.

Quite honestly, I couldn't ask a team of mentors and students to work their hearts out on a robot if the competition continued in the direction of "opponent agreements". For example, why work for days to make a robot that can stack if teams may just agree to make your stacker worthless?

Originally posted by Sean_330

Furthermore, speaking as a referee, I have no idea how it would be physically possible to enforce the "no collusion" rule should there exist one in the future.

I agree. The referees really can't be expected to make such a ruling. However referees can't tell if someone designed and made new parts after the shipping date either. That is left to the gracious professionalism of the teams, as should this matter. We still tell the teams that they are expected not to continue building after the ship date. We can do the same with regards to "stack agreements". For the Nationals, FIRST can just ask the teams not to discuss their matches with their opponents. Then next year, we can change the scoring system so it doesn't celebrate (reward) such agreements. That will save us all a lot of time and energy trying to keep things on track.

"Stack agreements aren't bad because they are against the rules. People who made stack agreements aren't bad people. Stack agreements are bad because they are bad for the game and thus bad for FIRST. Why? Because if it became the norm, it would cause a deterioration of the game. The game would become a play with bunch of robot actors, as in professional wrestling. Personally I don't want anyone comparing FIRST to professional wrestling. You might say that the game didn't deteriorate to that point, so why all the worry. I say it didn't happen because people who care made sure it didn't. My hat is off to everyone who has helped (talking to people, by posting, by writing letters, flyers, posters, etc.) to keep this competition on track by which I mean a 2-on-2 competition where opponents are opponents and where we can ascertain which robot design and driver team is the best.

At the end of the season, I expect to learn which strategy worked the best. Because of that, I will be able to think better next year, and try to help come up with a better strategy for our team. And that gives me something to come back for next year. I just want to know that the best strategy really did win. Then we can celebrate that team with no reservations, no doubts about how they got there. It is awesome! Let's keep it that way.

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally posted by Sean_330
I am happy there was no ruling before because you can not referee people's motives. You can only referee that which you observe.

I like that!

[Jrmc]

FIRST is not a fragile organization, and simple things can divide us one year and unite us another year, the trend i am trying to avoid is one towards little simple robots being more useful than a finesse robot. The rules for the past two years games were geared more towards finesse, (for those of you who weren't here last years game involved goals and soccer balls), with the balls representing the larger amount of points. However, last year, as this year many teams read the rules and decided that building a stacker, (or a ball scooper as we were) was too hard. So they went for the goals and totally tanked on Qp's. However these same bulldozers came to dominate when winning was everything...the point i am trying to make is that BULLDOZERS are BAD. We built one this year because we also looked at the rules and decided that stacking was going to be too hard under pressure, because some team with nothing but a drive train attached to a box could come ruin our whole day. So here we are having no multiplier other than the one you can defend. This game is not being played the way Dean and Woody set it up...the scoring favors stacks...but everyone went to smash and destroy...scorched earth if you will. So all i am saying is KNOCKING OVER STACKS IS STUPID, it makes everyone lose. FIRST is about winning by giving everyone more, with one a little ahead....not by two alliances trying to take points away from each other. So let the stacks stand...in the end we will all win for it.

[walesjd]

Thank you all for the compliments we've received about Seattle. To give a few brief parting comments(going to bed and leaveing for houston) I would say that I had more fun as a driver when the stacks were attacked and that as chris aka "Ash" said, we don't plan on making agreements with other teams just reminding them that it's smart to leave the stacks up. As for buldozers vs finess I think the game needs balance of both, and I think this year is a bit unbalanced because stacks are so so fragile when they aren't extreamly short. However, I do see that buldozers also allow the game to be more accessable and so there is a trade off. Either way, we're all going to have an amazing time in Houston and those who will be here next year will have a great time also.
I've been to a lot of competitions by this point(3 times KSC, 3 times nationals, UCF, connecticuit, philadephia, toronto, and Seattle) and though It's grown, the spirit is still there. Where else inbetween the matches of the finals(just before the last match of the entire regional) can you go up to your opponent and ask them for a master link and have them check for you?? The game changes, the focus can change, but the people are here. There's always been dissagreements and hard feelings, but there's no way you can put this much effort into something and not have a few people be touchy. We are fine, FIRST is fine, and we're going to have a fantastic time Hope you all didn't mind my ramble,
thanks,
Josh

[Triple B]

hmmm

[galewind]

I'm very glad that this didn't *seem* to happen at the J&J regional. I think it's great that Brophy decided to make a "just say no" sign. Seeing the teams communicate like this -- positive stuff!

Isn't FIRST grand?

[Katy]

I know this has been debated before but here is my two cents.

FIRST is a great thing, we can all see that right here. It's why we come back every year, why we raise the money to enter and why we spend six weeks living off fast food in the oddest places with power tools. Most of all it is why we care enough about the game to argue this hard and long over what would look to an outsider like such a small thing. It is perhaps the best robot game out there today. That doesn't make it perfect, much as we all may wish it would. No one can see every loophole that might come up, not in FIRST not in law not anywhere. So the question is officially left unaddressed, just like it was in the beginning of when the game started.

Maybe it was suppose to be run this way. Maybe it was some puzzle for some bright student or mentor to come up with. However if it was I don't understand why the stacks were ever used at all in that case because if both sides are multiplied in every match then the advantage disappears to having stacks at all. Is the human player stacking suppose to be considered a skill that decides the match? I very much doubt it, FIRST is meant to be gracious professionalism demonstrated in a robotics competition. Athletics already recognize fairly thoroughly the talents of coordination speed and accuracy.

As for the stacks being left discourages bulldozers? I also don't agree to that. I'm sure most of you will agree it is much easier to destroy, or even guard, than it is to create. A working stacking robot is very difficult to make, we've seen that in the regionals already from the number of stacking robots that came compared to the number of stacking robots that worked. A stack of three was more than most teams could handle, but when stacks of eight are already set out on the field and left there who needs stacking robots at all? I have not heard of a robot that could make a stack of more than eight so stacking robots have literally no point with the stacks they would have made already there. I think it unfair to those teams who went the extra mile to try to do something a little harder and accomplished it, it takes them out of the running with their positions filled by humans. What does that leave? The bulldozers so many people want to avoid. The pushing shoving box herding robots that ram each other off the bridge and plow across the field shoving boxes back and forth are what are left to be competitive. They're great robots and it takes a good drive train to make one but honestly as for making the game exciting, the loudest cheers I heard whether over a webcast or right there in the stands or on the sidelines was when a robot successfully stacked even one box on another.

It is legal. You may get away with it in some places. Nothing in the rules will stop you, but does it make the game more interesting, more complex or adds another layer? No, I think in reality it takes layers off. It was smart for the team, no doubt about it but at the cost the game. Maybe whoever thought of it hadn't considered that possibility at the time they thought of it and neither did the people who decided to use it in the regionals. No matter how it was done though yelling at each other for what was done will not change anything. FIRST will not be reawarding the regional winner's titles. What's done is done. We can't change it and pointing fingers, no matter how many, will not help. We see it does not help the game. Just learn from it. Isn't that what engineering is really about anyway?

Best of luck everybody tomorrow at the championships.
Katy

[Tyler 178]

Originally posted by Jrmc
Plz allow me to clarify something for all of you, collsion implies that there is an "agreement". there were no actual deals initiated by our team.....Other then that, there were no other arrangements.

I was at the Seattle regional, and your team mentor (on team 233) or coach came up to our team and specifically said that "If you leave our stacks standing we will leave yours up. And Also, it would be good to get all 4 robots on the ramp at the end because it hasn't happened yet and the audience would like it". He also said that his alliance could go to the outside of the ramp and leave room for us.
-I'm not saying he made us sign a contract, or even pressured us into doing that, that's just what he told our driver and I before we competed.

Now I don't know if he spoke for your team or not, so I am not saying that your whole team 233 is at fault.

Just talking to opponents about what the outcome of the match is going to be before it happens doesn't seem right. With agreements to not knock down stacks, and to all get on the ramp at the end...
There doesn't seem much left to do in the actual match that isn't agreed to before hand. It is kind of hard to earn a win and not have it scripted before hand with those guidelines. Especially when 233 has a great automous mode.

Well, that's just my take on things, and I don't represent all of team 949 either. So yeah, I don't think that there should be agreements. But I do see that advantageous strategy of leaving stacks up if you are going to win. But to go to the other team ahead of time seems wrong.

[viper]

368's beliefs


team 368 believes that there should be no collusions (sp???)

but we can accept that people and teams do this

in the real world there are agreements and such..first is a reflection of the real world


it is up to the team and or drivers own beliefs of what they think is within the rules if team 233 and some other teams believe it is alrite, it is up to them. it is not against any rule that first has

but, 233 is not the only team that did this. they just did it well, mostly thanks to a awesome robot.

we were lucky to team up with them in the finals at seattle, and i was very proud to be part of their alliance.

they can protect stacks better then any other robot i have seen.....if my memory is correct, when we were teamed up wtih them for the finals no stacks they were protecting came down.

they would have done almost if not as well as they did even without the collusions

their robot was VERy nice and was recognized in the awards....