Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Snodgrass
I pointed out something earlier, and I would like to reiterate it before we get too much further in this thread. Please do not assume just because we do not have a fix for the scheduling in the system yet, that FIRST is not working on the problem. Whether you term it as a bug or not is a point of view. I term a bug to be something that the end product user, which would be FIRST and the teams using it, did not intend for the system.
|
But this isn't a point of view. It's not a bug. I was told by a volunteer that FIRST intentionally paired a low number, a mid number, and a high number team together on an alliance. Many people I know felt that the least they could do is create a pool of what constitutes as a "low number," "mid number," or "high number" and let us compete with and against as many of those as possible.
I just hate being misled. I personally feel that if FIRST decides to not REALLY randomize the matches, then they should not use the adjective "random" to describe them.
I mean, what are the odds that my team went up against 435 in all eight seeding matches? Or that we go every 11 matches?