[quote=AdamHeard;1360906]
Quote:
Originally Posted by shhrz
Just to recap what I said earlier - that the Red Alliance should own up to their claim that they could achieve a 60-point cycle in 8 seconds, since that is, to me - un-GP, in the sense that it is unrealistic and eventually led to the Blue Alliance losing instead of winning.
/QUOTE]
The red alliance has no burden on them to explain anything. It's completely ridiculous for you to call them out under the guise of being anti-GP.
399 won the Chairman's award two weeks ago, and I'd wager they probably did it based on merit.
They also hit two 60 point cycles WITH NO PRACTICE super quick at their last regional.
Think what you want, but they don't owe an explanation to anybody.
|
I think it is absolutely antiGP if that was the case. Sugarcoat all you want - for an alliance to do that is purely antiGP. Even if it was an alliance consisting of 3 CMP Chairman's winners.
HOWEVER, I went ahead and said, quite clearly by the way, that I am in fact NOT calling it out as such, and waiting for their own response.
I did also say, that by the version of events, as stated at the time of my post, the issue of going out and saying how the refs/FIRST HQ are to blame, while ignoring the other issue, is purely wrong - and the elephant, as unpleasant and unprobable as it is (also written), needs to be addressed.
I think I also don't owe anybody an explanation, you included. My post was NOT calling anyone out, but rather stating an obvious fact (at the time) that everyone perferred to ignore.
Now, however, that the Red Alliance have spoken (or at least a member of, in PM, to me - and not accusing at all (since I assume they saw my post just as they SHOULD have)), I placed another post with how they saw the events and my apologies if they interperted my earlier post as a bash against them.