[Madison]

Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone would look down upon anyone or stuff like that. . .and certainly no conspiracies or anything.

I'm not speaking as a rookie, but instead trying to take the point of view of a veteran team. Personally, I think everyone will agree that all the teams should always try their best, no matter the circumstances. That much seems obvious.

However, with that said, there's always a possibility that the members of a veteran team might feel some guilt should their success prohibit another team from attending Nationals. I didn't say it's fair, or necessary, or if it's even likely to happen. It's just a possibility that shouldn't be around at all.

Similarly, the judging of the awards should not and probably will not change. I'm just a bit weary of the idea that they count so much toward qualifying.

The outcomes of the game. . .the scores. . .the seeding. . . those are all objective things. There's a clear cut winner who outperforms the other robots. Their merit is obvious, and a shot at Nationals warranted. A judged award is subjective, and, as such, isn't a fair indicator of who should and should not be at Nationals.

I think, in a lot of ways, we're agreeing about this. Some qualification process is necessary, of course, but the laundry list of exemptions and exceptions and things is a bit ridiculous. There must be a simpler solution somewhere.

With these new rules, many new teams are crying foul. If it were a first come, first serve system, for example, I just can't imagine veteran teams saying, "But we were here first!". . .