Quote:
|
This happened at the Arizona regionals.The team that requested such a proposal also happened to make it to finals
|
ummm - facts are wrong. They lost in the first round of the playoffs. Also, more than 10 teams made such agreements, not just one. If your intent is to put down/insult another team (which your comment below seems to imply) - at least have your facts correct.
Quote:
|
That team also included the son of Microchip's President...
|
I can't quite figure out what your point is - but the person you speak of did more for every team at that event, including yours, than for his own son's team. Please discuss such comments with your team mentors before posting them - as they may be able to provide you with accurate information to form your thoughts and also may prevent you from making irresponsible posts.
Disregarding the above post and back to the topic of this thread, I should point out that 95% of the mentors who discussed this issue with me had very well thought out arguments, and while most of them were quite worked up/fervent, they remained respectful and rational during the discussion
(I can use percentages here, because I have now had over 20 mentors approach me about this - I will be setting up a "discuss stack agreements" booth at all future events, much like Lucy's "therapy" booth in Peanuts/Charlie Brown comic strips)
Since some of the debate seems to focus on particular teams doing something wrong - there seems to be one VERY important fact I think has been conveniently overlooked: It takes FOUR teams to make an agreement. And if it happened in 5 or 10 matches at an event, then anywhere from 20-30 teams (assuming there are a number of repeat teams) made such agreements. As many teams have acknowledged, they are very much against agreements, but they themselves actually made such an agreement at least once. I watched at least 10 teams in Arizona make these agreements, and many have posted VERY adament messages in this thread about how "clearly" wrong and unfair this is. This is a decision for ALL teams to make, not just a couple. And since so many teams struggled with it, I think it's clear that there are at least some valid points on both sides.
Last....What was most important to me, while some may or may not agree, I DID say the following to each mentor I spoke with about this the past 2 weeks:
1. Their teams should make whatever decision they feel is right for them.
2. While they might be disappointed in decisions other teams make, and while both sides might have very valid points, I thought emotions were creating a little more of a "the sky is falling" panic than may be warranted.
3. I felt the teams might be surprised that they could handle this issue in person at events and on forums such as Chief Delphi.
4. Having spoke to teams on both extremes of this debate, I can say with absolute certainty that EVERY team involved is a quality team and all the people on those teams are good, dedicated, quality people.
5. If all the teams at any given event agree not to agree, fabulous. If not, so be it - there are bigger things in the world to be really upset about. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree, and each team should consider their participation a success as long as they leave each competition proud of their effort, their decisions, and how they represented their team.