View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:14
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
I DONT

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/28/99 7:28 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I agree... posted by Justin Ridley on 3/28/99 3:25 PM MST:



I disagree. I think a robot deserves the right to be with whomever it deems most worthy. We changed this rule because we were worried that the top 8 teams may not really be in order of ability (luck plays a huge part due to the small amount of QMs). Say, for example, Beatty gets seeded #8 because they had some tougher opponents than #1 seed went up against. Shouldn't the best robot get the best partner? Don't we want the best three robots to win this thing? If a top 8 seeded team is good enough to convince some other team to reject a higher seed, don't they then deserve to have first pick? C'mon!

You guys seem scared that some "POWER" alliance will be formed with three awesome robots and end up taking it all. But you know what? THAT’S THE POINT! Don't we want our #1 alliance to have the #1 teams?? I say people are smarter than you're giving them credit. This rule lets the best robots have the best alliance partners regardless of seeding (which we've already seen is largely inaccurate). Let the best of the best take home the gold. That's what GOLD means.

Reactions?

-Daniel


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.