Re: Re: Voices need to be heard
 

And yet, wysiswyg started another discussion about what he didn't want people to discuss ;)

ironic? yep
 

I understand your frustration about people posting the same stuff and stating new threads about essentially the same topic, but it sounded more like you telling rather than asking. We are trying to moderate these posts and threads and Brandon is doing a great job moving them to the best or most appropriate area. Many registered members are doing a great job linking threads when they see duplicates and we thank you all for that.
As a moderator - it is sometimes needed to remind everyone to just relax a bit and not get to worked up about what and how many times people post their opinions and ideas.
This time of the year - the boards go crazy and even with the new (and very nice features) that Brandon has added, people sometimes forget, or don't see that what they are posting really is the same as one that already is started.
My point was just to not try and censure opinions because someone didn't see that another very similar topic thread exists.
Ironic that I had to say that? I thought that was was moderators did. As my friend Andy Baker said, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", he just trying to moderate.
Hey, does a moderator have to be a moderate?

Re: Re: Re: Voices need to be heard
 

Heh. That's exactly what I was thinking.

- Katie

getting back to negative scores
 

read this post

they obviously want their to be negative points, the rule makes other parts of stack counting easier (like pyramid stacks)

my question is WHY WOULD YOU EVEN WANT TO GIVE SOMEONE A NEGATIVE SCORE???? think, your qualifing points, the points that advance you through the competition, the good happy points everyone wants, is your alliance score plus two times the opponent's score.... you get 45 points, and give the other team, lets say -20 points, you get 45 + (-40) to get a QP of 5

thats bad, no one wants 5 QPs, and you could give your self much worse if you give them a lower score... you want their score to be as close to yours as possible without them winning...

to quote dlavery, any team who gives their opponent's a negative score will get attacked with cheese so they never do it again...

there is NOTHING else to be said about this topic, go build a robot or something

Re: getting back to negative scores
 

Ditto.

Why not try to do something constructive. Do you honestly think sitting here and pleading with everyone to agree with you will get anything done? I personally have my own opinion on this, but it doesn't matter. Rules exist for a reason. Maybe they are complex, oh well. The Constitution of the United States is 3000 times more complicated than any FIRST rule. Are you going to go to Congress and tell them they should dumb it down so everyone is satisfied?

So the scoring at the competitions will be faster. If there were a pile of boxes, how would you determine thie number in the stack? Its easy with a stick marked for height. Put the stick next to the pile ( or stack ) determine the height in SHU's and wa-la... a number appears in a matter of seconds rather than trying to dissassemble the pile and try to determine how man boxes high it is.

Re: Re: getting back to negative scores
 

Now THAT might be a productive use of our time and energies! Or at least tell them to start with simplifying the tax code! :)

-dave

Re: Re: Re: getting back to negative scores
 

THANK YOU MR. LAVERY!

Three points to his excellency, the Lord High Chamberlain of Krispy Kreme!

[quote]Originally posted by DanLevin247
Everything started out great...nice and easy to understand, then these radical and pointless rules were introduced, making this game confusing, and potentially causing teams to have to change their strategy or even have to scrap the designs for their robots.[/QUOTE

The rules always alowed the virtual stack manuver, you just had to read, then think about. Unfortunatly, I couldn't convince my rookie team that giving the other team points was a GOOD thing. :rolleyes:

Dave and Dean and Woddie are crafty ones, and they WANT you to have to THINK about solving the problem, not just having a straght forward way to dominate. So what if the game is confusing, that just adds to the challenge. Remember the time multiplier from 2001? Or the zones from 2002? This can be just as hard or easy to explain to others depending on how much you THINK about how to explain it.

You are givin a set of rules for a game you decided to play. Work within them, don't complain that they are to hard to understand.

Think: It's what Dean would do.



Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~
Just think it.

SERIOUSLY what is this all about? this is the easiest game to understand in YEARS! of course it is hard to describe to spectators... it always has been.......... if the game were "too simple" all the robots would be too similiar

i still dont understand where this negative score thing came from either.... someone was describing it and there were a few obvious misunderstandings... there wont be negative scores

basically if you are brand new to FIRST... it is perfectly fine to post things but make sure you talk to a few senior members on your team first if you think there is a big problem with the rules... chances are you misunderstood something and you will confuse all the other new people and cause long chains of postings about something that isnt really a problem

What is this all about? The rule is still the same...there is no difference...all they did was reword it.

In Team Update #3, they state that:

"The height of the tallest stack located in the scoring zone is subtracted from the TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTAINERS to establish the base score."

MEANING that the TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTAINERS refers to ALL of the containers located in the scoring zone.

i.e. INCLUDING THE ONES IN THE TALLEST STACK.

Therefore, this rule is EXACTLY the same as it was before, the update was meant only to clarify the rule. Thus, NEGATIVE SCORES ARE NOT POSSIBLE.

If I'm wrong on this, than I apologize, but it seems to be quite clear that all this talk about negative scores was just a misinterpretation of the rules.

This is a good thing so don't everyone go complaining it's in the spirt of FIRST Which means everyone is a winner.