What is your cooperition bridge plan?

[Paul Copioli]

Pauls post seemed a bit too ... absolute ... for my tastes. I meant no disrespect.

None taken.

My post was meant to spark a discussion. It was also directed at teams who purposely don't do the coopertition bridge to reduce the amount of QP available in that match, given there are no extenuating circumstances (like dead robots or robots who just can't do it).

This is something that will be pretty obvious to differentiate (in my mind) and teams that do this will have a special place on our list . . .

[Craig Roys]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I feel like stirring up the pot a bit this evening ....

If we are competing against an alliance and they say, "no thanks" to the coopertition bridge, or they make no attempt to do the coopertition bridge in a match with us, they will go on our blacklist for eliminations selection.

I am not saying it is not GP, as I believe saying, "no thanks" is a perfectly legitimate part of the game. However, putting someone on the blacklist for saying, "no thanks" is also a perfectly legitimate part of the game. The reason you would say no thanks is mainly due to strategic seeding to give you the best chance to make / win in the elimination rounds. Just know this: if you say, "no thanks" to us, then you won't be in the elimination rounds as our partner

Paul

I'm trying to decide if the "no thanks" is within GP...while I agree that declining a team during alliance selection is a perfectly legitimate part of the game, it seems to me that declining an opportunity to go on the coopertition bridge is on the same footing at purposely losing a match to affect the outcomes of the final rankings. To me, part of GP is going out in every match and doing your best to win and gain as many ranking points as possible, and let the final rankings fall where they may. Admittedly though, part of my reasoning is that I just hate to lose even if it may be in my best interest to do so.

[lemiant]

Here's a further complication, let's say you are in a match where you've decided it's in your best interests to not balance, it would also be beneficial to convince the other alliance that you will balance but their robot has to go first. This would cause them to waste precious time and increase your chances of winning the match. In my opinion this is pretty far into the black part of our gray area, but it is just as defensible from a "compete like crazy" standpoint.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by lemiant

Here's a further complication, let's say you are in a match where you've decided it's in your best interests to not balance, it would also be beneficial to convince the other alliance that you will balance but their robot has to go first. This would cause them to waste precious time and increase your chances of winning the match. In my opinion this is pretty far into the black part of our gray area, but it is just as defensible from a "compete like crazy" standpoint.

Blacklist for sure ...

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Blacklist for sure ...

I agree. There is a distinct difference between lying and strategy. Lying is one line I just don't cross in pick lists. A team intentionally withholding information is perhaps not ideal for me, but understood in a competitive setting. Deliberately spreading false information is blacklist material to me though. It's self serving and arrogant - two things you DON'T want in an alliance partner, ever.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Blacklist for sure ...

That would put them on my "permanent" blacklist. I wouldn't reconsider a team that would intentionally misrepresent themselves until every student and mentor on that team was no longer was associated with them. A culture like that poisons the whole organization.

[Tetraman]

Our plan is when we enter the place before beginning of the match before us, we ask each of our opponents who wants to cooperate with us on the bridge. Whichever team wants to join we will then discuss the times and places we will be at and how to get up there. We want to work with teams to earn this bonus whether we win the match or not.

We want to the THE team that cooperates, we want to be THE team that is on that bridge at the end of the match with an opposing alliance robot to show our FIRST coopertion and want to be the team that ends up in the top seed.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Just know this: if you say, "no thanks" to us, then you won't be in the elimination rounds as our partner

Aww man, please come back to FLR! We will never say no to you! haha

[aspiece]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I feel like stirring up the pot a bit this evening ....

If we are competing against an alliance and they say, "no thanks" to the coopertition bridge, or they make no attempt to do the coopertition bridge in a match with us, they will go on our blacklist for eliminations selection.

I am not saying it is not GP, as I believe saying, "no thanks" is a perfectly legitimate part of the game. However, putting someone on the blacklist for saying, "no thanks" is also a perfectly legitimate part of the game. The reason you would say no thanks is mainly due to strategic seeding to give you the best chance to make / win in the elimination rounds. Just know this: if you say, "no thanks" to us, then you won't be in the elimination rounds as our partner

Paul

Well said Paul...