Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang
Parity does not imply knocking the elite teams down.
|
I'm not looking at implications, I'm looking at specific implementation ideas from you on how you would achieve parity without "knocking elite teams down"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang
And the point of FIRST is so that students can gain knowledge.
|
Please re-read their mission statement. Student knowledge is an inevitable byproduct of inspiration about science and technology, but...
Seriously, which gives you more knowledge: reinventing the wheel from scratch, or working with specialists in a particular field?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang
Most people here agree that robots built entirely by mentors give their team a strong advantage (though they dispute whether or not FIRST should be fair).
|
Which people are you presuming to speak for? Also, which teams have robots built entirely by mentors? (Especially given the "have student fingerprints on it" metric you created above.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang
Fairness is arbitrary, but not irrelevant.
|
Of course it's irrelevant. Anything unachievable by its very nature is irrelevant to any discussion of reality. Equality in funding, geography, mentorship, experience, and work ethic cannot be achieved, and thus discussion thereof is in fact irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang
To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce
|
I'm sorry, but that's not true. "Enforce" and a vague announcement do not logically mesh to any reasonable degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang
the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.
|
Elite teams are normal teams -- they're just normal teams that do or have done more to get where they are. Inherent advantages play a part, sure, but that doesn't mean they play a part in which any of us should concern ourselves in the slightest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang
Plenty of non-elite teams do similar things as elite teams, yet aren't elite teams.
|
Which, and what things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor
tl;dr [the entire thread]: We love 1771, 1311, 234, 1114, 2056, et. al. We also are jealous of them. Whaddya gonna do.
|
Jealousy and envy should be purged from your mind and soul, and replaced with admiration and pride -- drive yourself and your team to be like those teams, and count yourself lucky to be in an organization with such incredible role models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bongle
Idea 2: An official "most from the least" award, given to highlight teams that persevere through money/mentor/support shortages and still create excellent robots.
|
We've thrice won judges's awards of the "wow, they're tiny and rural but look what they've done!" variety. They're never enough -- not because we don't appreciate them, but because we want to play with the big boys and turn peoples's heads in a "wow, where did they come from?!?" manner. We're not there yet, but we strive to get there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdcantrell56
"Viable" yes but seldom the best choice. For your particular strategy this year it seems to fit but you would have a hard time convincing me that mechanum is ever the optimum drivetrain.
|
We love our octocanum for Rebound Rumble... Just love it!