[MrRoboSteve]

Generally, you'll want to avoid making logical fallacies in your argument. Good decisionmakers (Dean, Don, and the board fall into that category) are adept at sorting fallacies from facts.

Instead, you should say "when trading off goal A vs goal B, I think B is more important, and here are my reasons." That recognizes A as a valid option, and presents an argument on why B is better, all along admitting that the choice is based on your value judgment. That's the best route to persuading people to come to your point of view.

Rachel Lim's post is well though out, does a good job of examining the tradeoffs, and is persuasive. Others thinking about making a proposal should read hers carefully and emulate her style.

Please don't take my feedback below as "your proposal is bad," but more "here are questions or facts that you need to consider to make your proposal better, or observations about your persuasive arguments." Well-argued proposals based on facts will be the most effective way to adapt this decision to team needs.

Originally Posted by Siri

I'm not directly arguing for the proposal, but isn't 2017 also the deadline to roll out more Districts?

2017 is a goal, not a deadline. There are a bunch of conditions (e.g., volunteer base) that must be present to transition.

Originally Posted by Johnny

I believe the community as a whole DOES NOT want to have 2 World champs

You'll need some data, gathered from the complete base of teams (i.e., not those who participate in a poll on CD) to be persuasive on this point. Otherwise Frank and others will hear "I think everyone agrees with me," which won't go very far. This is the "anecdotal" or "bandwagon" logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by gblake

I'll bet a cold Mountain Dew that China jumps into FRC with both feet very soon

China is very suspicious of NGOs. It's probably more likely that China will create a new China Robotics Competition, patterned on FIRST but located domestically.

If you will switch to cold Dr. Pepper, I will take you up on the bet ;>)

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

Location:
Finding a location that can deal with 800+ teams is difficult, specifically:
- A building that has enough rooms for all the fields and pits
- A city that has enough hotels for all the teams (and restaurants, other activities, is easy to get to (i.e. a airport hub nearby), etc.)

You should also address the availability of volunteers, as it's often a bigger constraint that facilities. For larger events, normal volunteers, not key volunteers, are the constraint.

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

Splitting FLL+FTC and FRC:
Have FLL+FTC champs at one location and FRC champs at the other.

Pros:
- Deals with an expanded champs for the short term

You should provide some evidence that the Houston or Detroit locations could support FRC events with >400 teams.

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

- Doesn't require extra traveling / time away from school

You should address teams that run FLL, FTC, and FRC programs.

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

- FIRST can't have their 25% of teams at champs (counterpoint: see district champs / super regionals)

I would phrase this more that "fewer teams have the opportunity to participate." FIRST's goal is not about FIRST's growth, it is about growing the opportunity for teams to participate.

I have a thought exercise for you. Your team has attended champs based on merit in 9 of the last 10 years (congrats on Chairman's this year, BTW!), has a larger than normal membership, is from one of the wealthiest areas in the US with average family incomes well above the national average, and has a dream list of sponsors, so you're going to have an unusual perspective, compared the more common team profile. It can be hard, but please try to think about this from the perspective of a team without your resources and track record of success. Look at the record of this team (randomly picked as about halfway between 0 and the highest team number on TBA), and think about what your statement means to them. Imagine making a presentation to them, justifying your statement. That is what the leaders of FIRST will be thinking and doing.

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

Champs should be able to support 600 teams, or even possibly 700-800, which will probably work for quite a while more.

This statement is unsupported by facts. Posters that are proposing 600 or 800 team single location FRC events should consider these important facts:

1) the only people who know today whether a 600 team event is going to work in St. Louis are those at FIRST

2) the people "in the know" felt so strongly that the event needed to be split that they proposed something they knew would be very controversial. Specific facts that support this statement:

a. They added a location to St. Louis in 2017. That is likely the earliest date that they could engage another venue, and in the convention business is a fairly short lead time for our size of event.
b. The announcement is signed by Dean, Don, and the co-Board chairs -- the top decision makers in FIRST. A trial balloon would be a blog post by Frank. This is not a trial balloon -- it is a decision.
c. It is accompanied by an announcement video, which only accompanies big announcements.
d. It was done 2 weeks before champs, so that they would have an opportunity to talk to the community face to face about the change and why they think it is necessary.