Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
YOU abandoned the idea, I want to emphasize that point. YOU made the choice to abandon that idea and that was your choice to make. 469/51/etc chose differently. That was THEIR choice. They ran the same risks as you did but came up with a different conclusion.
I must also comment on the notion of fairness. FIRST is not fair. Is it fair that 397 has only a handful of college mentors? Is it fair we have to spend 90% of the build season doing homework rather than helping inspire our students? Is it fair that we only have what we can make by hand? Is it fair that our students don't have access to classes such as Calculus or Physics? Get the point? You make due with what you have, complaining about it won't get you anywhere.
Finally, 469 is NOT unbeatable. 469 LOST 4 matches during qualifications. They are only really dangerous when coupled with a powerful scorer. 469 is designed to play Elimination matches but that often means they are somewhat at the mercy of the picking system.
|
My issue is only regarding the rules, and specifically the one rule preventing expansion at the opponents tower. I feel that at least within the rules, there is at least a good chance of keeping them and the game play fair. I don't expect all aspects of the FIRST program will ever come close to being fair, and as you say, we will all make due with what we have.
I am only questioning the fairness of a specific rule, and suggesting how a simple change to it could improve on fairness in game play. If you want to characterize this as complaining, that is just your assessment of my statements.
-Dick Ledford