Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
Tristan, you might want to consider that your views seem to be diametrically opposed to those of the GDC and to the founders of FIRST.
|
I'm rarely entirely opposed, though I
frequently disagree on numerous specific points. But there's more than one way to achieve good results.
In this case, I think FIRST's leaders are trying to leverage a perceived moral standard that unnecessarily limits a team's choice to play competitively. I also think that the practical impacts of choosing a controversial strategy (e.g. other teams might hate you) are often enough disincentive for me to avoid that strategy. But that's quite different from those strategies being inherently wrong.
In this instance, I don't think the GDC's moral standard is universal, and it seems that by proclaiming it in this way, they inadvertently suppress dissenting points of view. Changing the culture in a positive way doesn't have to be about homogeneity of opinion when faced with a moral choice.
Actually, I find it interesting that we seem to take somewhat opposite positions. I think a clear regulatory standard helps us to be permissive about varying moral positions. I believe you're advocating a strong moral position as a way of overcoming gaps in the rules.