I just wanted to see what others think about team using the strategy of “fixing” matches so that they leave one another’s stacks alone to get high QP points. I personally don’t like. I think it is against the spirit of the competition and gracious professionalism. Yes it does happen in the real world (Enron comes to mind) but I think we are trying to make a better real world. I think it is more interesting and fun to let the two alliances fight it out and have to adapt and think on the fly and that it detracts from the robots on the field.
I am wondering what you think. Please explain why you do or do not like it. I am very interested hearing both sides.
We had an opponent try to do that to us last year. They said they would help us get 50 points if we agreed to let them win. We declined, and smoked them 50-20. Fixing matches is ridiculous. Let it play as it will. If you tie, you tie, but don’t agree to it beforehand.
Do you mean that the alliances will meet and decide not to touch each-other’s stacks or something else? I think its wrong if they decide to score lots of points just so the winning team will have an insane amount of Q-points. However if a team is winning a match and decides to help their opponent score more points by moving or stacking bins then this is perfectly all right. I only think it is wrong if both teams decide ahead of time to “fix” the match.
This was a big problem in the AZ Regional. We were approached several times to do it-- The #1 seed team, I won’t say who but you can look it up, was more than 50 points ahead of my team, who was seeded SECOND! The majority of the teams there were disgusted with the obvious “gentleman’s aggreements” made throughout the competition. We even started a petition going to try and come to a regional consensus that this is against the meaning and intentions of FIRST-- Suprisingly enough, the #1 seed refused to sign it. I think FIRST needs to crack down on this although there is no way to regulate it. Any ideas? It’s disappointing to see that there are teams and MENTORS who don’t feel that fixing matching is immoral-- I thought FIRST was about GRACIOUS PROFESSIONALISM-- am I mistaken?
I think this is exactly what FIRST dosen’t want to happen. It dosen’t make the competition fair, and can make some matches very boring. I saw alot of this happening in St.Louis, and it boiled me. But as far as I know there is no specific rule against such a thing, maybe someone can mention it to Dean?
Our team TOTALLY agrees and proceeded to discretely alert the officials to this at a recent regional. As a high seeded team we were offered a deal by our opponent that they would leave our stacks alone if we later picked them. We declined and the stacks for both teams went down as played. The offending team did not get anywhere by doing this and now sits on our blacklist.
Get with it people- its only a game!! If stacking bins is more important than your self respect I suggest you go elsewhere.
i think fixing matches is wrong and shouldnt happen it does take away from the fun i mean we didnt sitt ther for 6 weeks busting are buts to build a robot and then going to competiton to get out of this the easy way i want to see the robots at its full potentail but you know what first isnt all just buildign if you thinkg aobu tit its alot of poltics some for the good some for the bad
I considered the idea of cooperating between 4 teams to get higher points because I thought it was plain stupid for teams to keep knocking them down and with by points of 20-10. However, I realized, wait a second, this isn’t going to work. No one is going to let someone win huge and keep true to their agreement. It’s a good idea and would show one of FIRST’s ideas of cooperation, but it’s never going to happen and pointless to try.
*Originally posted by Wetzel *
**I want a trophy!!
Wetzel **
Gee Wetzel- I have a tiki trophy left over from Brunswick Eruption if you seriously need one that bad. You just need to prove your machine can follow an obstacle course…
*Originally posted by CHSRobotics03 *
**…We even started a petition going to try and come to a regional consensus that this is against the meaning and intentions of FIRST…
Alexis **
Alexis,
We had a bad regional as you could tell. We only managed to play in four matches. I saw a lot of the matches from the stands and a few were very confusing to me. It was with pleasure that I signed Team 68’s petition. I hope we do not again encounter this problem in Los Angeles and Houston.
I don’t know any circumstance where having an agreement with the opposing team would be ethical. It might not be against the rules but what about the rules of “life”.
I suspect that if FIRST had an inkling that match fixing was going on they would find a way to make it a point of disqualification.
Our team was also approached at AZ. At first, I was for the idea since other teams were advancing in the standings due to this practice, but some members of my team who were thinking more clearly than me convinced me that it was not in the spirit of GP. We did the equivalent of signing the above mentioned “petition” by displaying a copy of it in our pit area and we never fixed a match…
I approached the FIRST Regional Director and asked him what FIRST’s position is. He said that FIRST is enjoying seeing the moral dilemna that the scenario has created. He also reminded me that it is not doing the teams that fix matches any good because fixing will not work in the finals where QPs don’t matter. Those teams who are highly ranked through fixing will be the first teams to be eliminated in the finals.
I say that it’s not cheating because there’s no rule against it, but it’s not right either. I hope that there are enough teams out there that understand the true meaning of GP and gamesmanship that the practice does not continue at other regionals or at the championships.
Originally posted by Gope I saw alot of this happening in St.Louis, and it boiled me. But as far as I know there is no specific rule against such a thing…
After a personal experience with this in St. Lou, all I can really advise is to not judge a team based on a member’s bad calls. i.e. just because a driver might want to fix the match, that doesn’t mean the team decided to go with that strategy, or that the team even knows about it. Just hold your head up high, and do what you consider to be the right thing. Keep the spirit of FIRST in your heart and conscience at all times, and you’ll go places without having to ‘fix’ your way there.
*Originally posted by Gope *
**maybe someone can mention it to Dean? **
Believe me, I am first in line! Someone, please, give him my number!
Match fixing, where the two alliances have decided who is going to win to the match beforehand, is clearly unfair and unethical. Asking an alliance to lose a match but get a reasonably high score by cooperating is uncompetitive behavior.
That said, I wish to differentiate match fixing from the possibility of an agreement between matches that goes like this:
“We’ll both have the human players make stacks of six (seven?). You don’t knock over our stack, and we won’t knock yours. You knock ours, and we’ll knock yours. May the best alliance win.”
This way, the outcome of the match is NOT determined beforehand, and both alliances have the advantage of a possibly very high score. Also, one always runs the risk of the other alliance breaking the pact, in which case one must knock over the opposing stack ASAP.
We have scored 292 with this arrangement (I was coaching). No one in the match was a stacker, so that’s not a bad score.(though technically our robot can make a stack of 2 if needed) I hope no one thinks of such matches as “fixed”. When no robot can stack, this is an excellent way for both alliances to take a shot at a good score, and the outcome is indeterminate every match.
<edit>
You know, we discussed the above arrangement with Jason Morrella at Sacramento, and though he wouldn’t branded it as the most gracious and professional thing to do, he wouldn’t brand it as non-gracious and professional, either. He was kinda neutral… But he certainly found it acceptable. (not illegal)
Our team leader tried something like this at Cleveland… although the flavor was somewhat different:
As i understood it… i wasn’t actually involved in the conversations…
His suggestion was that each team play the match to the best of their abilities, but at the same time tried to maximize the score for everyone…
Now, some people got very pissed off at him because they see this as ‘fixing’ a match.
The way i took it, and i believe the way he intended was something long the lines of what first tried to accomplish last season w/ the scoring. That in order to help yourself, you must help your opponent.
For example, in one match, i believe the X-cats successfully defended the top of the ramp from an opponent bot, when both them and their team mate were on top and they clearly had a win. The smart move would have been to let the opponent on top, thereby increasing both scores, the winning team by 50pts.
I believe this is what my team leader was suggesting. That everyone play the game and try to win ( we do our thing, you do yours, and may the best team win ), but that it is advantageous to everyone to have a good scoring match.
In my opinion this is certainly not fixing a match. To me, fixing a match implies an agreement on a definate outcome, as in, someone takes a dive… the agreement here is merely to allow each other to excel as much as possible.
Call me crazy, but isn’t cooperation amongst opponents and allies one of the ideals of first?
Hmm… I knew I remembered it being there somewhere. It only took cycling through the first twenty-six pages to find it!
Anyway, this might be of interest to you:
Subject – “rigging” the game
[Gabriel] If the two alliances decide before the beginning of a match how they will play the game and execute a strategy where the two alliances cooperate with each other to acheive a tie, are the two alliances violating the spirit of FIRST or the maxim of “gracious professionalism”?
Any ideas? It’s disappointing to see that there are teams and MENTORS who don’t feel that fixing matching is immoral-- I thought FIRST was about GRACIOUS PROFESSIONALISM-- am I mistaken?
