[ChrisH]

Here are some suggested strategies for dealing with this issue:

1) Probably the easiest to implement, if somebody "makes you an offer" then target ALL of their stacks, even though it makes you lose QP's. A few rounds of this and they'll get the point.

2) Send around a petition similar to the one from the AZ regional and post the teams that agree or not. One note of caution, make sure it is someone who can speak for the team that signs the petition. Been there, done that. It isn't that difficult.

3) More difficult but still doable. Agree that teams who have signed the above petition will not select teams that have not as alliance partners in the finals.

4) The most difficult would be to agree to refuse to be the alliance partner of a team that refused to sign and live by the agreement. I wonder what FIRST would do if all the other teams declined an alliance with the #1 seed? Declare them the winner? Talk about an empty victory, winning because nobody was willing to play WITH you. But it would certainly send a message.

One final note; there is a wide difference of opinion on this issue. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of it. Just because somebody disagrees with your position does not make them a "bad person or a bad team". They just see things a little differently. The reason you would not want to be on an alliance with them is that obviously your values are incompatible. That doesn't mean they should be shunned or belittled.

The on-going discussion is forcing people to think about their ethical structure and whether this fits within it or not. Teams are having to make a hard ethical choice, and I belive this is a good thing. So does FIRST, that's why they are "enjoying the discussion". Some times you learn the most from unexpected situations like this one.