Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
Yet some have chosen to continue even after the ruling was made. They have clearly indicated that they do not intend to use this design themselves, but are merely arguing simply for the sake of arguing and upholding a point in which they do not actually believe. That is the point where you have become the very definition of disingenuous, and as Paul Copioli has said, "you are making fool's of yourselves." That is the point where cantillation erudition to corpulent ungulates ceases (to quote RSH), and I choose not to participate.
|
No one is being disingenuous or making a fool out of themselves. (Anyone who assumes anyone else is a fool is acting elitist IMHO)
I have 10 years of FIRST experience and a college engineering degree... this puts me into the category of person who should be able to easily understand the competition manual.
My concern is that the competition manual does not adequately explain why Mr. Hill's image is illegal. If it does explain it, it is not clear enough for a high school audience. It's as if "lawyering" must be used to understand why it is non-compliant.
I get a unique perspective working with other FIRST teams in the Boston schools. For many of these students English is not their first language. Many of the teams do not have a strong foundation. They are not your "typical suburban" FIRST teams where FIRST powerhouses reside. These type of teams will have difficulty with confusing rules.
Again, I'm not looking to get into a "I'm right, you're wrong" match. I just find the bumper rules to be inadequate enough to avoid confusion.