A(nother) Sad Day For FIRST

[Liam Fay]

I'm going to not believe it until there is official confirmation, partly because that is what makes sense to do, and partly because I don't want to believe it.

[Jay O'Donnell]

They're still signed up for IRI in July at least.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

They're still signed up for IRI in July at least.

Yep, we'll be at IRI.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Until it is officially released, this is hearsay and rumor. Please, treat it as such.

Let's see, it was posted on the Rumor Mill forum, with a link to the source material, containing the phrase

Originally Posted by circlecircuit

..if this unconfirmed news is true...

Even being posted by a brand new account with no name and team number, there's no reason to give negative rep here.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Let's see, it was posted on the Rumor Mill forum, with a link to the source material, containing the phrase



Even being posted by a brand new account with no name and team number, there's no reason to give negative rep here.

In my humble opinion, anonymous accounts deserve negative rep.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by efoote868

In my humble opinion, anonymous accounts deserve negative rep.

Why?

That does not follow the CD's FAQ

What are good and bad things to give negative reputation for?
Negative reputation should be given if the person is posting something that detracts from the conversation. If the post is rude, inappropriate, breaks forum rules, is not gracious, etc; these are all good reasons to give negative reputation. If you have a personal grudge with someone, their team, etc, is it not appropriate to give them negative reputation for no reason. Giving negative reputation because you don't agree with what was said is not an appropraite use of the reputation system. People are entitled to their own opinions, and just because you don't agree doesn't mean the user was wrong or not contributing to the conversation.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

Why?

That does not follow the CD's FAQ

Anonymous accounts generally do break forum rules, unless the poster does not have another account I guess...

Creating multiple accounts for a single person is not allowed.

Originally Posted by WSiggs

That's insane... Did nobody think it was a bad idea to use that and not something like scrap metal?

It wasn't explicitly against the rules that year, a rule prohibiting the practice had been removed. The ruling created some controversy that probably shouldn't be rehashed here; do some searching to find the old threads.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

Why?

That does not follow the CD's FAQ

Anonymous also typically falls into "not gracious". Whoever created this thread has stirred up some controversy. Whether it was with malice, I don't know.

Not to mention - why would the user care if their anonymous account gets negative rep? The anonymous account isn't created to have a reputation.




As a side bar, someone has just negative repped me for "You can not make up reasons to give neg rep". I didn't rep the OP, but the irony is strong with this one.


EDIT - I appreciate all the support, but please save your good (and bad) reps for posts deserving it.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by efoote868

As a side bar, someone has just negative repped me for "You can not make up reasons to give neg rep".

LOL

Let them know that there are more things in Heaven, Earth, and CD, than are dreamt of in their philosophy.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by efoote868

As a side bar, someone has just negative repped me for "You can not make up reasons to give neg rep". I didn't rep the OP, but the irony is strong with this one.

My apologies. I did not mean to imply that any individual specifically gave the negative rep; I have no way of knowing who did it, but based on the red dot, it was obviously done. I have not given anyone negative rep for this thread.

Addendum:

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

I wasn't on the field, but reliable sources said that using the batterie(s) for ballast was OK'd be the inspectors before the start of the quarter finals. Then, there was a change of mind, and a call to FIRST HQ.

Didn't they have a manual handy?

Originally Posted by 2016 Game Manual

R32 No batteries other than those allowed per R31 are allowed on the ROBOT, whether or not they are being used to supply power.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Didn't they have a manual handy?

The wording was updated after this incident so that it was clear in future years.

[Michael Hill]

I'm not sure why this thread was created. Whoever posted it obviously knew they didn't want people to know about it until after IRI, but blabbed about it anyway. What happened to "keep your mouth shut"?

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

The wording was updated after this incident so that it was clear in future years.

I quoted this from a 29 Jan version of the manual.

[PayneTrain]

Don't tell anyone else yet but if everything holds true, 422 will unfortunately be competing next year. Sorry.

Great thread everyone!

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I quoted this from a 29 Jan version of the manual.

Of 2016?

Because this happened back in 2014