|
If the "agreements" involve protecting HP stacks, and we busted our butts building a stacking mechanism - I say such agreements are unfair to my team.
If the "agreements" involve a free pass to the top of the ramp, and we struggled with having enough power and friction to battle our robot onto the top - I say such agreements are unfair to my team.
If the "agreements" make it clear that this is not a competition, but rather a scripted exhibition of robots dancing around a floor - I say these agreements are unfair to all the teams who embrace FIRST with the goal of building competitive robots within all of the rules and maintaining Gracious Professionalism.
I find it interesting that the title of this thread contradicts the question in the poll - that doesn't seem fair either!
I'll abstain from voting in this poll, but be assured: our team will abstain from making "agreements".
__________________
"There's never enough time to do it right, but always time to do it over."
2003 AZ: Semifinals, Motorola Quality; SoCal: Q-finals, Xerox Creativity; IRI: Q-finals
2004 AZ: Semifinals, GM Industrial Design; SoCal: Winners, Leadership in Controls; Championship: Galileo #2 seed, Q-finals; IRI: Champions
2005 AZ: #1 Seed, Xerox Creativity; SoCal: Finalist, RadioShack Controls; SVR: Winners, Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technologies"; Championship: Archimedes Semifinals; IRI: Finalist
2007 LA: Finalist; San Diego: Q-finals; CalGames: Finalist || 2008 San Diego: Q-finals; LA: Winners; CalGames: Finalist || 2009 LA: Semifinals; Las Vegas: Q-finals; IRI: #1 Seed, Finalist
2010 AZ: Motorola Quality; LA: Finalist || 2011 SD: Q-finals; LA: Q-finals || 2013 LA: Xerox Creativity, WFFA, Dean's List Finalist || 2014 IE: Q-finals, LA: Finalist, Dean's List Finalist
2016 Ventura: Q-finals, WFFA, Engineering Inspiration
|