View Single Post
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 20:21
dmlawrence dmlawrence is offline
MIT '14
FRC #1751 (Warriors)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 63
dmlawrence is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: My case against <G14>

Quote:
Originally Posted by bduddy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmlawrence
This rule also provides protection against crack shot Payload Specialists, which is in my opinion a more "fair" purpose.
Well, at least someone came up with something. (Sorry for my becoming increasingly sarcastic and confrontational, but this rule really is making me very angry because of how many flaws it has and how little purpose it has. I'm not trying to attack you, dmlawrence, at all.) I don't really understand what you mean, though. Can you explain it a little more?
FIRST may feel that most scoring in a match will be accomplished by humans, rather than by robots. In this case, G14 would serve primarily to limit the human factor in a match between robots. By reducing the power of high-scoring humans, the focus of the match will be kept on the robots. This is an admirable goal, even if its implementation is horrendous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bduddy View Post
And I'm a little disappointed that no one so far has responded to what I think was my most important point. FIRST has apparently assumed that blowout games are somehow bad and need to be eliminated. In my opinion, not only can a blowout loss be a valuable learning experience for a team, but an false close loss will certainly be no better.
What about a blowout match that was a blowout because the winning team had three amazing Payload Specialists, even if the losing team had superior robots?

Last edited by dmlawrence : 05-01-2009 at 20:25. Reason: Added an additional comment
Reply With Quote