Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
If the statement is "no problem" then that's just fine. To me, the most basic issue is that FIRST say something, because there is obviously controversy surrounding the issue.
|
I'm sorry, but exactly where is the controversy? Is there any data, anywhere, to support the contention that this is a big deal for anyone? Other than the eight people that have contributed comments to this thread, I have not heard one peep about this topic at any competition, team forum, Q&A discussion, or feedback message. Eight people out of an audience of >10,000 does not exactly create a mandate for FIRST to do something. If there really is a groundswell of resentment arising from the teams on this topic, then please point out where data to support that contention may exist, and where we can find more information.
Again, I am looking for a clear, well thought out, fact-based argument for why the referenced parts sharing is a bad idea. Why is it necessary for FIRST to address this issue at all? If there is a real reason, then please point it out. So far, I am not seeing one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
But it appears to be exploitable to absurd degrees: what if 188 built a significant portion of a robot for 116, and vice versa? If exchanges of parts are legal without exception, do we have a problem?
|
Please, yes! We will be sending you the specs for some parts by the end of the week!
The second sentance gets right to the point: right now, this would apear to be a non-issue. The actions referenced in Rob's original post do not viollate any rules. So is there even a problem here? If the contention is that the rules need to be changed, then please make the case for WHY they need to be changed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TimCraig
Well, not all teams have exactly the same resources. And we know the way the team alliances are going to be formed. The teams who already have the most resources are going to be the ones getting together leaving everyone else that much further behind.
|
As Cory has pointed out, the actual data associated with patterns of collaboration counters this argument. It is this simple: this is not what happens, and the data supports that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cory
1114/1503/1680--We all know that the reason this collaboration was started was because the area couldn't support 3 independently operated teams. Combined, yes they do have a lot of resources. Individually, obviously they wouldn't.
70/494--As can be seen in this thread, 70 was on the verge of extinction until 494 stepped in and revived them.
980/4. I can't speak for this collaboration, but nobody has ever accused either of them of being rolling in dough in the past.
254/968--On the outside, you'd think that 968 has tons of money and resources, as they've had beautiful robots the past 4 years. Looks couldn't be more deceiving. They consistently achieve more with less than the vast majority of FIRST.
|
And just to complete the story, despite what some mis-informed people on this very forum may believe, Team 254 is far from swimming in cash or resources either. Their entire mentoring team is composed of four college students. No professional engineers work with the team. The financial support they receive from NASA is actually less than the amount received by many other NASA grant recipients. They don't have a lot - but they are very, very good at doing a lot with what they have.
-dave