Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Adams
The GDC ruling still leaves some questions remaining. If You have 2 teams on an alliance agree the bridge should not be balanced but the third disagrees, must the alliance allow the third team to balance the bridge? If a team is breaking strategy or refusing to cooperate with their alliance, is the alliance not playing fair by unbalancing the bridge?
The idea that the alliance takes precedence over the team seems to be floating around, hence the attitude that unbalancing the bridge is selfish and should not be condoned. But does this apply when the alliance decides not to balance? You could even have 4 robots on the field who all don't want the bridge balanced, but it only takes 2 to balance.
Thoughts?
|
I would go so far as to say that even agreeing with your alliance to not balance the bridge (in order to influence the seed of the other alliance) is not a celebration of excellence, and thus not in the spirit of FIRST. It's not a collectivist "alliance > team" quandary, it's a simple "robots showing off > robots not showing off".
I'm comfortable interpreting the GDC's statement on the matter as this: Refusing to engage in an aspect of the game in order to deliberately hurt the seeding of your opponents is not acceptable.