A(nother) Sad Day For FIRST

[Matt_Boehm_329]

*Edit*

*Edit2* reference post removed

[Landonh12]

Honestly nobody should take this to heart until 233 has an official statement on the matter. 233 is an awesome team and I don't see any reason why they would so suddenly retire.

[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.

[natejo99]

I can only hope that this is not true. I'd hate to see such an amazing team leave FRC.

[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.

[WSiggs]

Does anyone know why in 2014 at Orlando Regional the alliance that 233 is on got 0 points in both quarter finals matches?

Here's the link.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by WSiggs

Does anyone know why in 2014 at Orlando Regional the alliance that 233 is on got 0 points in both quarter finals matches?

Here's the link.

Their alliance received a red card in both matches because one of the robots was significantly out of the rules (that robot had a second battery on board as ballast for playing defense).

Source: I was there in the stands

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by WSiggs

Does anyone know why in 2014 at Orlando Regional the alliance that 233 is on got 0 points in both quarter finals matches?

Here's the link.

A retroactive DQ for robots not in compliance of robot Rules.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...t=orlando+2014


It is sad news to hear Team PINK will be coming to an end.

[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.

[WSiggs]

Originally Posted by Billfred

Their alliance received a red card in both matches because one of the robots was significantly out of the rules (that robot had a second battery on board as ballast for playing defense).

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

[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.

[Fusion_Clint]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

Yep, we'll be at IRI.

Interesting, they will be at IRI; but he did not confirm or deny the rumor.

[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.