Quote:
Originally Posted by martin417
I have done no "in depth analysis", no trade studies. I haven't spent hours thinking about the issues, the ethics, and the morals. I won't make a passionate statement about how it should be done, because I don't know.
What I have noticed since the start of RI3D and others, is that instead of a dizzying array of different ideas at each regional, some awesome, some not so much, some that work others that fail, we now have a lot more "vanilla pudding". Most of the robots end up being a clone or a derivative of one of the robots built in the videos. Yes, more of the robots work better than in the past, but there are fewer "wow, that is cool! I never would have thought of that!" moments.
I don't think RI3D is evil, but I do think it has reduced the level of creativity, and given teams an easy way out that too many are taking. It's like using a cheat code in video game, yeah you get past the boss, but it's not as satisfying, and the game is not as exciting. (this is an analogy only, I am not saying that RI3D is "cheating")
|
Martin, do you feel that with this loss of creativity there has also been a loss of inspiration? Specifically for teams in the lower quartile of performance, do you think the students on those teams are more inspired by a creative solution that may score a grand total of 1 point all season or by a less creative solution that may reliably score even if it isn't going to win many events?
Basically, does "raising the floor" help increase inspiration? Are there other methods we could go about doing this without impacting creativity?
Not attacking your view, just curious. The crux of the anti Ri3D/BB arguments seems to think that Creativity is correlated with Inspiration and Performance is not correlated with Inspiration.