Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by gblake

Should we call it a day and move on?

Sure.

I'd be shocked if everyone agreed with me on how I'd run FIRST were I in charge. No, scratch that. I'd be shocked if ANYONE agreed with me completely on how I'd run FIRST were I in charge.

I think we can all agree that we're all happier that I'm not in charge!

[Grim Tuesday]

Am I the only who has made the observation that a good 90% of all arguments/discussions on Chief Delphi boil down to, once they reach 7-8 pages, a discussion of Gracious Proffesionalism.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Am I the only who has made the observation that a good 90% of all arguments/discussions on Chief Delphi boil down to, once they reach 7-8 pages, a discussion of Gracious Proffesionalism.

At least that's a better place to wind up than Hitler and Nazis.

Hey - OP (TheFish) - What are your thoughts at this point???? - Blake

[jspatz1]

If the competition were individual teams against individual teams for individual results, then I would say no problem, use whatever tactic is smart. But FRC is played with alliances, and for the 2 minutes of the match, your responsibility is to the alliance. If losing benefits the whole alliance (as we sometimes saw last year) then the alliance can do whatever they chose. But to put your own results before the alliance and sabatoge your partners, that would be unacceptable.

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

If the competition were individual teams against individual teams for individual results, then I would say no problem, use whatever tactic is smart. But FRC is played with alliances, and for the 2 minutes of the match, your responsibility is to the alliance. If losing benefits the whole alliance (as we sometimes saw last year) then the alliance can do whatever they chose. But to put your own results before the alliance and sabatoge your partners, that would be unacceptable.

But in this case winning does not benefit the whole alliance nor does losing benefit the whole alliance. You have conflicting goals within the alliance. How do you deal with it?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't see what the situation you've presented has to do with deliberately losing a match to manipulate standings. You're comparing apples to aardvarks.

G'night!

It has everything to do with your assertion that teams should be putting forth 100% to win each and every match.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

It has everything to do with your assertion that teams should be putting forth 100% to win each and every match.

I'm talking about deliberately throwing a match. Your example is not an example of deliberately throwing a match. The situations are discrete.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'm talking about deliberately throwing a match. Your example is not an example of deliberately throwing a match. The situations are discrete.

What about the team that deliberately "showcases a talent" and causes the alliance to loose that match? In essence isn't that the same as throwing the match for personal team gain?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by IKE

What about the team that deliberately "showcases a talent" and causes the alliance to loose that match? In essence isn't that the same as throwing the match for personal team gain?

There's a YMTC somewhere about one team wanting to showcase their robot's offense... even though their alliance might have best been served by them displaying their defense. It was a few years ago.

If the team showcases their talent, then presumably their alliance members agreed. They were willing to risk taking the loss for the team member to show off. That's not a problem.

It's only a problem if they agree to a strategy that has them not showcasing their talent, and then showcase the talent anyway. That's more like going back on your word. (Not agreeing to any strategy... well, that's another problem. That's on the alliance to have caught earlier.)

[pfreivald]

+1 to EricH's reply.

Your first duty while on the field is to your alliance, if matters of honor mean anything!

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'm talking about deliberately throwing a match. Your example is not an example of deliberately throwing a match. The situations are discrete.

The situation I outlined is an example that parallel's the scenario IKE mentioned. Your stance is that my "first duty while on the field is to your alliance," is not something I agree with. My first duty, anywhere in a FIRST competition, is to ensure that my students get the most of the competition. Only very rarely that does interfere with my alliance partners' ambitions and the desire to win each match. But my highest duty is to give every effort to my students to ensure they have the best experience possible.


And just so it's mentioned, 1712 did agree with our partners before that match on the strategy we chose. I'm not going to go through the entire strategy discussion, as I remember it, in this thread for many reasons, including the privacy of those teams' strategy processes.

[SamM]

I'd like to see opinions on a slight alteration of the original scenario:

Scenario:

Current Rankings:

1. Team A (Undefeated)
2. Team C (Undefeated)
...
20. Team B

Team A is the "best" robot in the division.
Team B is the 2nd best robot in the division.
Team C is the 3rd best robot in the division.

Match:
Team B & X & Y vs. A & U & V in the last match of the day.

X & Y are decent robots, but not in the top 12. U & V are the "worst" robots in the division.

If Team B wins that last match, then Team C gets the Top-Seed, will then pick team A and lead to a division victory for them.

If Team A wins the last match, they get Top-Seed, will then pick Team B, leading to a division victory for both of them.


The question:
Is it appropriate for Team B to not play at their full potential, knowing that it will greatly improve their chances of winning in the end? Assume that X & Y don't mind showcasing their ability to play 2 v 3.

[EricH]

If X and Y are both OK with it, then that's for B to decide if they're comfortable with it. If they are, then it's a viable strategic maneuver, and not totally unprecedented.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The situation I outlined is an example that parallel's the scenario IKE mentioned. Your stance is that my "first duty while on the field is to your alliance," is not something I agree with. My first duty, anywhere in a FIRST competition, is to ensure that my students get the most of the competition. Only very rarely that does interfere with my alliance partners' ambitions and the desire to win each match. But my highest duty is to give every effort to my students to ensure they have the best experience possible.

Methinks there might be a fundamental disagreement between us about what it means for students to get the most out of the competition.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Methinks there might be a fundamental disagreement between us about what it means for students to get the most out of the competition.

Would you have let Rudy play?