Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry_222
Ethics Q: Would such a move be called good strategy or ungracious play?
If ever teams were required to demonstrate a lack of functionality, who is to decide just how functional robot in question should be?
To sum our talks, we were theorizing that in a division, the three best robots could play WITH each other... depending upn their seed and alliance selection.
|
Although I understand that it's perfectly within the rules, I find it unfair in a few ways. First of all, it's unfair to the team that you declare "broken". Even if their drive team agrees that it's a good move strategically, there would obviously be someone on that team who would be insulted; they spent six weeks building this robot and all weekend to get to this point, only to be switched out at the most exciting part of the competition, and losing a very rare opportunity to play on Einstein.
I also think that it's mildly disrespectful to the champions of the other divisions. They might stand no chance of winning without using the same strategy; what if they don't feel that it's an allowable strategy?
This is not to mention the type of underhanded play during divisional eliminations which go along with this strategy (let's say you're AC 1, you want to pick the second seed but instead pass them up knowing that on Einstein you can swap them in, so you pick the next best robot instead; or the alliance captain throws the finals knowing that they can be swapped in on Einstein).
P.S. Not trying to bash your idea at all, I thought of the same thing.
And, offtopic, would a backup robot brought onto Einstein be considered Divisional Champions (as far as trophies, etc.)?