[Madison]

I'd been trying to avoid replying to this thread once more, as I think it's spiraled out far beyond my original intent, and I'm sure some of what I would've liked to have written would be taken to be at lot more caustic that I intend.

So, with that said, this will be my final reply on the subject, and I hope that I can clarify some of *my* feelings, so maybe you all won't think I'm a 'big giant mean idiot'(TM).

Foremost!!!!! I have no ill feelings toward anyone on the 340 alliance. We played an excellent series of matches, both together and as opponents, and I have nothing but praise for the members of all of the teams.

I understand that you were just acting in accordance with the standard set forth by the refs., as our alliance did the same as yours in our semi-final round. None of this troubles me.

What does trouble me, moreso than anything else, is the disregard for the published set of rules. Again, I understand that an announcement was made regarding this. Primarily, though, my biggest complaint is that it has *not* been consistent from one regional to the next. . . and, as such, I'm not sure what to expect at Nationals. In my mind, whether or not something is consistently wrong is irrelevant, as it is still wrong. 2+2 does not equal five. . . no matter if we keep saying that it does for 20 years. The real truth is, well, it won't ever equal five. Similarly, they might've deviated from the published rules for the entire regional, but the fact remains that they *did* deviate.

I understand that they're all volunteers, and I do not disrespect them for their effort. I'm just worried by what seems to be, across the board, a lack of cohesiveness and consistency from one regional to the next.

Further, I understand everyone's argument about the symantics of which teams are involved (i.e. - if you lose, it goes to three anyway and all). Again, I believe that the order and combination of robots that play in the eliminations can greatly affect each alliance's strategy. This is a further reason I'd like some clarification as to how things may be at Nationals.

Finally, for those of you who saw me at NYC, I was a worked up. Like I said, my team had a tough day, and well - I'm quirky in that I tend to be too passive for my own good - and don't argue well as a result.

My attitude, throughout all of this, is most certainly not one of anger or disrespect or anything remotely like that.

My concern lies entirely in the blatant disregard of published rules (one more than one occassion, in my opinion) and the inconsistency of the enforcement of these rules from one regional to the next.

Like I said - I realize everyone's a volunteer, and, in retrospect, I'm beginning to worry if this is a signal that FIRST is growing too large for it's own good. . . Volunteers are wonderful, but I think things can only grow to a certain point with volunteer help - and then some of the magic is lost to bureacracy, efficiency, and red tape.

So, with all of that said, I am sorry that I ever brought this up. I wish, somehow, that I could've be a bit more concise and and written with a bit more clarity as to convey my feelings. My congratulations go out to all of the folks on the 340 alliance, and I hope that you all understand I did not wish to single out your teams, and I do not believe you were trying to gain any advantage. After two weekends of competition, I've once again returned to the conclusion that, cool robot or otherwise, winning isn't worth the stress and anguish, sometimes.

Sorry.