[Dmentor]

Forgive me for rambling but this thread has me thinking in too many directions at once. It has made me think about the alliance optimization problem (selection of robots based on optimization of the alliance versus selecting optimal robots) and the trade-offs between flexibility in strategy versus optimization of a single strategy. It has made me think of the essentials of team building and how to streamline the process to fit into a 15 minute time block (because you can’t really predict your alliance ahead of time – unless you are Looking Forward). It has forced me to consider rejection and the disappointment we all feel when our team isn’t picked by the “best” team to join them. And I was struck by the myriad parallel analogies in the world of sports that shed insight on our debate… And while I could probably contribute something useful I learned from thinking about each of these topics, I would rather discuss this statement instead (at the risk of running even farther away from the thread topic):

If you say life shouldn't be fair I would understand where you are comming from, but life isn't has no relevancy.

Perhaps I’m reading this wrong (and it wouldn’t be the first time) but I would say that life itself is perhaps the MOST relevant thing in all these issues. The stated goals of FIRST are to inspire a culture that values science and technology. Inspiration needs Motivation. What motivates people? Competition. Competition is the struggle for survival and I would argue that it is an inherent natural trait as well as a heavily indoctrinated concept (at least in western culture). This need is fundamental to our being (life) and hence why it is such a powerful source of inspiration.

The goal of competition is survival (as has been said many time in this thread already but in another way -- winning). If you aren’t trying to win then you aren’t really competing and most likely missing the key motivator behind the inspiration in FIRST. One byproduct of a competition process is that there is continual improvement in the competitors themselves. This means that every year the competition gets better. This may or may not be encouraging but it can be observed from similar competition structures from sports to economics to war. In nature, we find the consequences harsh: improve or die. In FIRST I would say it is more like: improve or be disappointed (I mean this only with respect to competitive results – you should never be disappointed in the process of stretching yourself personally, being part of a team, contributing to your community and just plain working hard).

In re-reading this before posting, it occurs to me that I really do need to discuss all my thoughts on those other subjects to tie everything together but it would be very long and this post is long enough already.