Quote:
Originally Posted by Bongle
I disagree - since there is already animosity between student-run teams and teams that they perceive to be (but may not actually be) helped "too much" by their mentors, then actually having a rule or proclamation against mentor-run teams would make the animosity even worse, since these accusers would be able to claim the elite teams (who they know nothing more than hearsay about) are "too" mentor-run.
Having an ambiguous ruling would be like the post-Oshawa coopertition team update - it would officially change nothing and change nobody's opinion, but both sides of the issue would use it as ammo. Also, having the ruling enforced entirely by social pressure would be pretty brutal on the teams that get on the wrong side of the mentor witchhunt.
|
I doubt it. FIRST produces a pretty good atmosphere at the competition in general, and most people follow the rules to the letter. If teams are truly mentor-ran and the order to change came, they would change. With less to complain about, accusations would decrease, and the whole issue would disappear.
How else do you suggest to fix it? Changing people's deep-rooted beliefs on fairness taught since birth is very, very hard.
If there's one thing FIRST taught me, it's that all problems have elegant solutions.