Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
In this thread what I see over, and over again is: Robot, Robot, Robot, Robot, Win, Win, Compete, Compete, Robot, Robot Compete, Win, Win, Robot, Compete, Win, ...
Sprinkled among those sentiments are the occasional mentions of the reasons Dean, and the other folks we respect founded the program.
Additionally, while I can't see into the hearts of anyone else, I get a sense that most of the folks who want a longer build season, want it because it strengthens only the on-the-field, crown-a-game-winner part of the program; and that their main motivation isn't using that part of the program to strengthen the entire program.
|
People shouldn't have to support an
arbitrary, unnecessary, wasteful rule to avoid the accusation that we don't get what FIRST is really about.
Removing access does cost teams money. It does reduce quality of competition.
The stop build rule doesn't give us a benefit. Consider: there is absolutely nothing that we can do now, with a build deadline in place, that we wouldn't be able to do just as well with no stop build deadline. Want to do outreach in March? Great - do it.
Furthermore, having a longer build season would make it
easier to do outreach in January and February. A longer season gives you
more flexibility to spread things around, so it would be less of a big deal to take days off in Jan/Feb for non-robot activity.
We're talking about a rule change that FIRST can make for zero cost that can help a lot of teams.