[David Brinza]

Let me see if I can help sharpen your concerns:

Is there a concern that any criticism of FIRST is generally viewed as being either ungracious or unprofessional?

If so, then let me offer this.

It is easier to criticize than to create. FIRST may get things 99% right and some people will "whine" about the 1% that isn't quite right. Depending how that criticism is offered, it can be ungracious/unprofessional or consistent with GP.

FIRST as an organization is quite responsive to constructive criticism. This sort of customer feedback allows the program to improve. People who blindly side with FIRST (believing them to be totally infallible in their judgments) are not ungracious, perhaps they are unprofessional (or more likely, inexperienced).

Why do we see updates to the Game Manual? It's because all of the possibilities of the rules haven't been tested. Pointing out flaws in the rules will improve the game. So, offering criticism can be a very good thing.

How flaws are called out is important, let's use a real example. Just saying "<G36> is stupid" is both ungracious and unprofessional. Saying "<G36> s*cks because it doesn't allow teams to remove their Trackballs from the opponent's overpass without incurring a penalty," is not gracious, but at least offers an explanation of the issue and therefore is more professional. Saying "the game will be better if <G36> were eliminated" is perhaps gracious, but not professional. The gracious and professional way to offer the criticism is to say: "<G36> should be changed because it does not allow teams to remove their Trackball without incurring a penalty." BTW, in the first update, <G36> was deleted.

If you just complain about something you don't like and you don't offer an alternative solution, your not helping. That sort of behavior is not GP and needs to be put in check.