Quote:
Originally Posted by BethMo
Deja vu...
Not many of us have been around long enough to remember, but 2003's Stack Attack had very close to the same kind of qualification scoring and the same argument. That year, instead of "don't pick up litter", it was "don't knock down stacks". The result was so much argument and ill will between teams that we thought they'd never do anything like that again.
|
Yes. I remember hearing about this. It was the year before I joined, but I was told the story of, and well remembered what I believe was kind of the the very first cooperation in FIRST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alopex_rex
To be realistic, nothing involving a large scale agreement between teams is going to happen. This includes any proposals for "compromise" or "treaties". The idea of all 40+ teams at a competition getting together and agreeing on a treaty, or anything, is ridiculous. If TNA stays legal, decisions about it will be made team by team, match by match. (Probably for the better...the idea that teams could get together and conspire to force teams to follow their rules, and punish those that break them, is chilling.)
|
Most certainly. TNA, if not amended, will be match by match. If an alliance feels they can do better without TNA that with, that is clearly their decision, and as long as the other alliance is aware, no harm is done for that particular match.
I would suspect that for the playoffs, those top teams will be very careful in their noodle agreements, and not do anything which might be consider anti-gp... just as I have never seen those top teams not use their time out to help the other guys and win by default.