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, ...
|
Most people here would agree they like to compete in robotics competitions and win them with there robot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
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.
|
This isn't the science fair. As Jim Zondag has shown, For the most part teams are not actually all that good. How am I supposed to use a robot to inspire students when the average robot last season was only able to put up 6-10 points? Why is it that when i go to introduce someone to FIRST i have to go videos of Einstein or heavily edited reveal videos of top teams performing at their best to even stand a chance of getting someone to say " That looks cool, where can i see this"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
I think it would be more precise to say that you think removing access restrictions would make one part of the total FIRST FRC program better. Would that be correct?
|
It would make the robot better. Which just so happens to be the device both FIRST and I want to use in order to inspire students, gather sponsors, and change culture. So yes, you are correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
I'm pretty sure that making robotics into a spectator sport is explicitly not FIRST's primary goal.
|
idd argue its a pretty big part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
As such, it should only be allowed to support the true goals of the program.
|
Sorry but if i decide to build a robot (Something that has to be done for R and C parts of FRC to happen) and it performs soo well people actually want to watch it, i am going to use it for more than "supporting the true goals of the program".
Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
Investing in making FIRST a spectator sport should be justified by whether, and how much it contributes to FIRST's primary mission, minus its costs and/or any direct or indirect harm it does to that primary mission.
|
This is your opinion. I am reasonably sure a large part of the community does not share it. Personally, I design a robot to win the competition by any means necessary only restricted by the rules and the resources I have or can obtain. If doing so results in a robot that just so happens to be interesting to watch ( it generally does) than im fine with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
I think your point about teams becoming better able to play the game if they spend time with their robots is 100% correct, if you are talking about the time they spend at competitions.
|
Are you saying that driving practice on a 2nd robot dosnt improve a teams ability to play the game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
Neither FIRST as a whole, nor the FRC part of FIRST *is* a competition. Regardless of its somewhat unfortunate title, FRC includes a competition, but it most definitely was not created to crown on-the-field winners.
|
Then why do we have a multi tired succeed to advance system where trophies and banners are handed out with words like "Winner" put on it? Or that ever present C in FRC. You can argue the significance of the competition in the program but you cannot deny the First Robotics Competition is a Competition. After all it is the "varsity sport of the mind" and ive never heard of a sport that dosn't crown 1 or more champions.
Im going to stop here. My point is that most of us are here to build robots. We do it for a variety of reasons including: its fun, we like to compete, and to inspire others. I don't walk into a build space thinking " how can I build a robot that accomplishes the goals of FIRST without using it for anything else". I do however try to lead students to design a robot that can complete a task in the best way possible and by doing so may accomplish some side objectives.