[pfreivald]

Tristan, I apologize for the lengthy response. I appreciate the ability to engage in civil dialogue with someone who disagrees fundamentally with me on important issues. I tried to give each of your comments the time it deserves; I hope you receive my responses in the genuine, honest, non-confrontational spirit in which I intend them to be.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

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 believe that the moral standard set by FIRSTs leaders do indeed limit a team's options when considering choices in competitive play. Removing the value judgements of "perceived" and "unnecessarily" from your statement, I think we're in agreement on the facts, if not opinion of those facts. The moral strictures make FIRST what it is, in all of it's awesome thank-God-it's-not-basketball glory.

Not that either of our opinions really matter, mind -- when it comes down to it, it isn't either of our call.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

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.

I think we might be in agreement on pragmatic disincentive -- indeed, I think several people interpreted my earlier comments regarding long-term team impact to be judgmental as opposed to pragmatic in nature. (A reputation of dishonest jerkism -- thank you Woodie for the alternative to 'cretin' -- is hard to shed, and has the potential to negatively impact teams and team members for the rest of their existence. This makes it a decision bigger than "do I care what this does to our reputation", because it can tarnish the brand in its entirety.)

Pragmatic consequence of certain strategies *is* different from those strategies being inherently wrong -- but that doesn't mean those strategies are thus not inherently wrong. Don't fall for the false dichotomy: they can be both pragmatically unwise as well as inherently wrong.

I would posit that all inherently wrong strategies are pragmatically unwise, though pragmatically unwise strategies are not necessarily inherently wrong... that said, I'm not interested in the thought experiment involved with teasing out the wrongness matrix of any given action in Rebound Rumble.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In this instance, I don't think the GDC's moral standard is universal

I'm certain it isn't, as evidenced by your disagreement -- but it's their call, not yours. I approve 100% of the moral standards of gracious professionalism and coopertition in their full spirit; you clearly do not. It's critically important to note that both of our opinions are quite irrelevant when it comes to communicating with and interpreting the pronouncements of the GDC; they mean what they mean, and it's up to us to determine what that is as opposed to what we want it to be.

In other words, the truth doesn't care what you think. If you want to be an effective communicator (listener) in this case, then you must try to ascertain what it is the GDC actually meant, and that means using the moral standard under which they are operating to interpret their pronouncements even if you don't agree with those standards. To do otherwise is to apply willful ignorance as a shield against effective communication of intent.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

and it seems that by proclaiming it in this way, they inadvertently suppress dissenting points of view.

I highly doubt it's inadvertent. Year after year after year, the message from the GDC has been "do the right thing, even if it's to your competitive disadvantage". Not all teams live up to this ideal, and not all team members live up to this ideal -- but it is indeed this ideal that makes FIRST fundamentally better than most (if not all) sports. (Yes, that's a judgmental statement on my part. Yes, I'm comfortable making it. Yes, I wish everyone in FIRST would just either buy into it, suck it up, or find a program they can stomach. No, I don't expect them all to do so.)

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Changing the culture in a positive way doesn't have to be about homogeneity of opinion when faced with a moral choice.

Yes, it absolutely must. Changing the culture in a positive way is a fundamentally moral venture. If you think otherwise, I don't think you understand much of anything*** about the interrelationships between morals and culture.

FIRST is inherently judgmental. Dean Kamen looked out at the glorification of sports and entertainers and cutthroat business and he said, "this is wrong". He set out to right that wrong, and to transform the culture into one that celebrates not only science and engineering, but also gracious professionalism and coopertition -- and he did so because these things are "right" and should be encouraged and celebrated. You're of course free to disagree, but when it comes to what FIRST is all about, it's not your call, it's theirs.

You're free to disagree, and you're free to express that disagreement, but you do not have the prerogative to impose your views of what FIRST should be upon FIRST (and neither do I. For the record, there are a variety of things I would change were I in charge... But I'm not, and I don't want to be, even if that means that the things I disagree with continue in perpetuity. It is sufficient for me to see that FIRST does a whole lot of good for a whole lot of people, and as far as I can see does no harm).

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Actually, I find it interesting that we seem to take somewhat opposite positions.

Honest, civil disagreement is a rare find. I wonder how much of ours lies in foundational assumptions, and how much in syllogism.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I think a clear regulatory standard helps us to be permissive about varying moral positions.

I would agree in principle that a clear regulatory standard allows permissivity in varying moral positions -- although we've already established that your vision of a clear regulatory standard has no basis in the real world vis-a-vis either game design or engineering specifications. (I suppose you can scoff or disagree if you desire, but my impression from our earlier exchange in the other thread is that when it comes to game design you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Without further evidence to the contrary, that's the impression I'm working with going forward).

The problem with your statement is that it seems to be entirely ignorant of the fact that in FIRST the competition is entirely subservient to the moral goals. (Don't take my word for it. Listen to 20 years of "it's not about the robots"). So your statement is correct, but entirely moot.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I believe you're advocating a strong moral position as a way of overcoming gaps in the rules.

In that you are flat wrong, and it leads me to believe that you haven't made an effort to understand a single thing I've said on this subject. I happen to approve of both the moral stance and the game design of FIRST leadership -- but the two are orthogonal.

On moral stance: I am advocating a strong moral position because moral relativism is a bankrupt philosophy espoused only by those too lazy to contemplate the ramifications of the fact that "there are no moral absolutes" is a moral absolute.

On game design: I support the "reasonably astute observer" and "intent of the GDC" rulings because positivist game design, despite your expressed desires to the contrary earlier in the 118 thread, is not actually possible. Unpleasant truths are always preferable to pleasant fictions.

...and of course neither of those matter one whit, because I'm neither part of the GDC nor of FIRST leadership. That means that even if I agreed with you about everything, that wouldn't make our interpretations or our arguments hold even the slightest bit more water -- all it would do is make us both wrong when interpreting what the GDC means.

***Please note that accusations of ignorance are not pejorative. I know way less about most things than I know about the things I know about -- I'm a fundamentally ignorant person; I comfort myself in the fact that so is everyone else. People tend to defer to me on matters of quantum physics because that's where my background lies -- this makes some sense, even if it is an appeal to authority logical fallacy, because most people are happy to admit that they know little to nothing about quantum mechanics. So why is it that everyone seems to assume that they're experts on religion, philosophy, and politics? These subjects are at least as difficult to master as science and math, but people humble on science and math are crippled by hubris on religion, philosophy, and politics. I used to find this interesting... now I just find it frustrating, and have to keep in the front of my mind that this used to be me.