Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
First, isn't saying "X ig GP, and Y isn't GP" really defeating the point of GP? That's a rule or a guideline. It's not a matter of ethics or morals anymore, it's a question of rules at that point. GP isn't about rules, it's not a metric to evaluate behavior. Creating a concrete rubric for "GPness" completely defeats the value in GP.
|
To quantify a thing is to destroy a thing?
Such an entertaining notion in an engineering competition.
Yeah, I understand that you can't make a comprehensive all-things-GP rubric, and I understand that dissecting a butterfly might teach you how it works, but it ruins the beauty...
But I don't buy the argument that GP is immune to definition or guidelines -- because if it is, it is completely subjective and thus meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
Secondly, as I'll elaborate on in a minute, your root principle is a fallacy. And it's openly accepted in both FRC and sports that there are cases where it's acceptable to give less than 100% in favor of a larger goal.
|
A. No it isn't.
B. No it isn't. It's openly accepted by some people =/= it's acceptable.