|
Re: [FIRST EMAIL] Stop Build Day Survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
...
[1] Yes GBlake, I view this as an important goal in itself, I'm not speaking to "success". I'm solely looking at methods of addressing teams that consistently miss eliminations. I have reasons for this and am more than willing to discuss them via PM if you'd like.
|
I have no problem with "competitiveness" used in the sense you did (and you don't need my permission anyway  ).
The reason it has become a red flag for me (YMMV), is that the conversation here on CD almost always quickly moves to (or begins with) competing (with a high chance of success) for the blue banner, instead of focusing on being able to enjoy an event because you are able to join your colleagues in a match.
I had my first serious conversation about the distinction between the two possible meanings over a decade ago. That opened my eyes. There are definitely (at least) two slants to the way that word is used, and often people talk right past each other when they use it.
Blake
__________________
Blake Ross, For emailing me, in the verizon.net domain, I am blake
VRC Team Mentor, FTC volunteer, 5th Gear Developer, Husband, Father, Triangle Fraternity Alumnus (ky 76), U Ky BSEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Kentucky Colonel
Words/phrases  I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate
Last edited by gblake : 08-09-2016 at 11:33.
|