[gblake]

Originally Posted by Nemo

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.

A) You may call me on the carpet when you show me all the posts in this thread that express something/anything along the lines of

• "My team needs extra time in the build season to introduce more students to the fun of STEM and FIRST, regardless of whether we win.", or
• "My team needs more time in the build season because we spend so much time helping other teams get ready for their competitions.", or
• any sentiments along those lines.

Until that happens I'll stand by my comments about this thread generally containing an over-emphasis on the robots, and on winning the on-the-field competition.

Painting with a broad brush, this thread resembles a tail trying to wag the dog. That expression isn't 100% applicable, but I think it is in the ballpark.

I wrote about it more plainly than others, but I'm not the only person who has noticed it.

B) I'll repeat my general assertion that I don't think Dean, Woodie, and many others would agree with sentiments such as characterizing the rule as "arbitrary, unnecessary", and "wasteful".

C) Competition-Creep, if it encourages individuals and teams to divert too many resources and/or too much attention away from the primary focus of the programs, harms FIRST. How much or how many is too much or many is certainly open to debate. I approach the subject with an assumption that 6 weeks is long enough for any team to build a fine robot that they can enjoy competing with. If my assumption is correct, then I think we have bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether six weeks is long enough to build uber-robots.

If anything, I think the right thing to do is to figure out how to create a true 44 day build season, and how to make all teams successful during it. That's my 2 cents, and for better or worse, it's the opposite of what is in most posts in the thread.

Blake