The cheesecake runaway

[Steven Smith]

Originally Posted by lcoreyl

No. It goes back to the rule that lead to the thread where the cheesecake term came from, which was then reversed because FIRST was made aware of how it disallowed so many things that are good for FIRST.

At this point I've read this and the 900 champs thread, and all I've seen is this:

Team Cheesecake: "as a recipient of cheesecake I can tell you this was extremely inspirational for our team. Our kids loved being a part of this alliance"

Team lactose/gluten/fat free cake: "This made me feel icky regardless of the fact the team it happened to didn't feel icky. This wasn't the intent of FIRST. Also the other teams that could do things and didn't get drafted felt icky. This should be outlawed!"

Unless someone has a better argument than how seeing this makes you "feel", I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that only good came of this.

I think Mr. Van's post is a reasonable start, but I think that it could be extended to allow more than just COTS parts.

While it might not have been directly specifically at me, the usage of the phrase "icky" and arguing that posts (like mine) are based on "feelings" (implying, not logical), are basically ad hominem comments.

We're all reading the same posts, and clearly there are stories of teams that have benefited, and I'm honestly happy for all involved. I don't think that in the short time between the Q/A clarification and champs, this could have evolved in a problematic way.

In fact, I'm not even arguing against your claim that "only good CAME of this". My argument is that I would not extend that to say that "only good could EVER COME of this". I do not want to see a bar set that the most competitive team is the one that can show up with 3 complementary robots, and bypass the alliance selection process by providing them to their selections. More clearly, up until now I worked under the assumption that you can make anything you want in the build season (twinkie robots, strategically building complimentary robots with a friend, etc), but this is tempered by the fact that once you got to a regional... there is no guarantee they will be on your alliance. Having a single team show up with all three robots and the ability to give them to anyone... after the alliance selection process, seems hard to explain to a spectator.

I don't seriously anticipate it occurring, but I also wouldn't want to encourage low resource teams to design around the ability to be cheese-caked. I'd rather continue to see them encouraged to come up with basic but effective mechanisms such as those shown in BuildBlitz / Ri3D that allow them to be effective 2nd picks and contribute to their alliance's success.

A bit redundant, but once again, this is all forward looking, not looking back. I am not suggesting ill-intent on any of the now-notable examples, but instead voicing concern of what it might mean for the meta-game in 2016.