[cadandcookies]

On the whole, I tend to believe that it is the team's responsibility to follow the rules as written, and the event organizer's responsibility to make sure the rules as written match the rules they intend for the event. FIRST has plenty of other stuff to do that doesn't involve regulating offseason events. Namely, designing a new game and improving the part of the program they are directly involved in. I don't see the benefit for the cost of imposing restrictions on what offseasons can or can't be.

There's also the fact that my opinion differs from your opinion which probably differs from the rest of the 30000+ other people involved in FRC. What you see as a priority might not be my priority, and vice versa. You might hold equal opportunity as your main goal for an offseason event, while I might prefer to train in new drivers and students. I trust that you are trying to act in the way you see best to grow your team and spread STEM education in your community, and I expect you to trust me. Even if you don't, it's frankly incredibly patronizing and insulting to tell my (hypothetical) team and event that we're somehow doing it wrong by playing inside the rules as written. I am more aware of the needs of my team and community than you are. You might have an interesting, valuable perspective, but it isn't you who lives and works in my community.

I think everyone in this thread has the right thing in mind-- spread our enthusiasm for robotics and STEM in our communities. Change the culture. All that stuff that gets repeated every year and, at least for me, doesn't lose an ounce of meaning. I understand the desire to bring the system to it's "optimal" state-- we all want teams to succeed and the program to grow. But if forcing the system into what you see as "optimal" means removing the ability of teams and individuals to make and learn from their mistakes, we're losing something very core to and human about the program. I don't want an algorithm deciding who my match partners are. I want the kids I work with to do their scouting, interact with other teams, exercise their decision making faculties, and yes, sometimes screw up. It's a lot better for them to misjudge here rather than in industry.

You are free to run your events as you see fit, just as you are free to run your team as you see fit. I won't hold it against you even if you choose to run an event style that I disagree with. I might not attend, but that's my domain, not yours. I expect the same courtesy. We're all passionate people about the program, and even if we occasionally make mistakes we have the greater good of the situation at heart.

On a side note, I'm really getting tired of the roundabout going on in this thread. I have read all the posts in this thread. Specifically Mr. McCann, I believe that I and the majority in this thread have read your posts and understand what you are arguing for. I (and others), just happen to disagree with it. Repeating your point and a slightly altered argument will not change my opinion. I've read your post and disagree with it. I don't think that means you're entirely wrong, and I don't presume to make any judgement on your character based on that. However, repeating yourself in the manner expressed in this thread doesn't (in my opinion) represent well a professional economist. Let it go.

Edit: If anyone would like to discuss this subject with me, I'm not going to add any more fuel to this thread. PM me.