|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Once again, hats off to 60 and 254 for an excellent idea.
I have seen people find objections to having cooperation of this kind between teams. People were talking about how unfair FIRST would be if there were alliances of great teams, creating robots which would be unbeatable. People have also mentioned the fact that both teams will have done only "half the work".
I will speak now from experience. Building a robot is child's play compared to creating a consensus between people. Especially smart people who know how to create things, know what they are capable of. It has been said that invention is a human art, compromise a divine one. Pride in ideas is a very remarkable factor, as are logistics. If 60 and 254 were able to make sure nobody was silenced during the creation of this alliance, then all power to them. Especially to those who were directly behind this idea - does becoming a diplomat sound like a good career?
There is no such thing as an unbeatable robot. Teams with experience and resources will seem invincible to those who don't have the same resources. It has been said that FIRST isn't fair. I think that statement itself is unnecessary. If FIRST was a competetion of equals, where would the motivation to build an incredibly slick robot come from? I wasn't at many competetions last year, but 25's robot (at J&J) sticks out in my mind as having been very well done. If all the robots present were of equal calibre, strategy and teams would be unnecessary. And just look at 25 at PARC. They were not invincible, just very good.
I know that sometimes alliances between competetors can create improper situations. However I have enough trust in all of the students, mentors, etc. participating in FIRST to recognize such problems and ward them off. After all, bitterness takes all the fun out of wiring.
__________________
-- vs, me@acm.jhu.edu
Mentor, Team 1719, 2007
Team 30, 2002-2005
|