|
Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
I am going to challenge one of the basic premises of this thread. It has been stated already in this thread (and several others) that one of the purposes for the changes incorporated into the 2009 game is to "level the playing field to close the have/have-not gap" for the teams.
Says who?
Can anyone show me where this assertion has been stated by any credible source?
Like so many other things, the "need to level the playing field" argument is urban myth. And like most urban myths, it is simply not true. While there are many, many factors that are considered during the design of a FRC game (some of which are obvious to teams, but many of which are not), I can state categorically that particular issue was never a consideration.
And if "leveling the playing field to close the gap" was not one of the intended effects of the game, then I am not sure why we are debating whether that gap was successfully narrowed or not.
-dave
.
__________________
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
- Stuart Vasepuru, 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest
My OTHER CAR is still on Mars!!!
Last edited by dlavery : 15-05-2009 at 14:48.
|