Thread: Picker Or Pickee
View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:26
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
Re: think DIFFERENT
Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .

Posted on 1/11/2000 11:20 AM MST


In Reply to: think DIFFERENT posted by Daniel on 1/11/2000 10:38 AM MST:



: I'm starting to wonder what all this talk is about in the first place. Now that I think about it, and I invite all of you to try this angle out for this particular issue, there's no reason why there should be anything 'special' about the top 16 seeds.

At least some of us disagree. Raul and I have both given specific reasons why we feel the top 8/16 seeds should be exempt from the 'no reject' rule. To clarify my position: I object to the 'no reject' rule in its entirety; if the rule does exist I feel the top 8/16 teams (and any other team which has been bumped up into a position of selecting their own alliance at the time they are selected) should be exempt. My reasons are very similar to Raul's.

:FIRST has decided to give the biggest reward to the #1 seed (which is no easy possition to get), and only give the same privalege to the next robot down the line who hasn't had the honor of already being picked.

Unless they have posted a clarification to the rules I am not aware of, this decision has NOT been made (or at least it hasn't been announced).

Rule GM26 states:

[i]f a team declines they are no longer eligible to be chosen as an alliance partner.

Specifically, it does not address whether a team is eligible *to choose* alliance partners after declining an alliance. I've already asked for clarification of this point and Eric responded that they have the matter under discussion.


:We're all getting stuck thinking about how it was last year and 'oh wait! we don't get that same privalege that we got last year!!'. Maybe we just never stopped to think that it may just happen to be the way it's supposed to be. It seems like a fair system, as long as we're all not spoiled from being able to pick our alliances last year.

My objection has nothing to do with last year, but rather with what I feel is fairness to teams which have earned by their own performance the privilege to select their own alliance.

Jerry



__________________
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.