[EricH]

Originally Posted by themccannman

Hence why we're not replying to commentary in your second paragraph. I believe everything we've addressed has been in response to your first paragraph.

My first paragraph should probably be taken as "We didn't have enough teams. You apparently didn't even look at the other set of data from the same event. Are you guys going to sit at home and say 'you guys are doing it wrong' and NOT come down here next year to show us how you think it should be done?" Meanwhile it seems like most of the commentary has been "It seems like these teams/this event did it wrong" vs "It's how they want to play, let 'em play that way!"


I don't necessarily agree that it's not beneficial to ally with your own team's B robot. It can be quite beneficial, in terms of winning the event (and all the effects of winning an offseason event), assuming that that actually happens, due to having not one but two of the X robots on the alliance being controlled by good friends. I see it as little different than two collaborating teams with the same robot running on the same alliance. You could (at 4-team-alliance events) sit one of the two and end up with one perfectly good robot and one spare robot that can equal it if necessary. There are some other decent reasons, most likely, and I'm sure there are some negatives too, but each team at the offseason that has a twin robot has to make that decision. (In this case, including the team that ran two robots as well as supplying most of the volunteers!)


As far as the GP/non-GP: Usually, if someone comes out and says "That's un-GP", they're complaining about a legal strategy that they just happen not to like, or something similar, and often have adjusted it to fit their own definition. 9/10 times, there is no real way to call "un-GP" on a situation without showing up as being the opposite of GP yourself. But very rarely, there is that one time. This might be that time, it might not be.