[Petey]

While it is beyond me to design an entire game, I would like to provide one essential suggestion.

Dave said, in his opening post, that there is a "preference, but not a requirement, for a human player."

I would request that the role of a human player become a requirement. I realize that Dean, in his opening speeches, often downplays--if not insults--the importance of physical adeptness in the context of society. This is very sad.

As a webmaster, FIRST subcaptain, and ex baseball and football player, it seems to me that it is essential that FIRST does not forget that the well formed person is deficient in neither mind nor body. But that is a largely theoretical argument (and certainly it is inaccurate to suppose that all FIRST gurus share Dean's view, since Dave himself is a notorious outdoorsman--and, I might add, an inspiration for many of my 1073 teammates, who do FIRST in the winter and lead expeditions in the summer).

More practically, I propose that it is necessary to include a strong human player role because it is important to remember that much of the importance in science and technology lies in the interfacing of man and machine. While both can operate in a vacumn (in the metaphorical sense--but, in the case of machine, in the literal sense as well), it is usually much better if they act in cahoots.

That's why I feel that the best FIRST game I ever participated in was the 2004 challenge. The interaction between the bots (bar hanging, ball corralling) and humans (ball scoring) added a certain spark to the air absent in, say, the 2003 game. It really drove home that message of man and machine working together.

So please, FIRST...no matter what Dean thinks of athletics, strive to keep human players actively involved. It doesn't mean that FIRST will be overtaken by jocks (one of the best shooters I saw in 2004 was bespectacled and wheelchair bound). It just means that the game will be more diverse and interesting.

Thank you for all the great years.

--Petey