Battlebots is NOT violence

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/11/2001 3:15 PM EST


Other on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: amen!
Posted by Mike Sklar on 04/11/2001 2:35 PM EST:



Whether or not BattleBots counts as actual "violence" is immaterial. The point behind Dean and Woody's statements is that BattleBots and programs like it are symptoms of our violent culture. And don't start denying that America has a culture that tends towards violence. Anyways, the point is that BattleBots is glorifying using all this wonderful science and technology that we have to make something for the sole purpose of destruction. Even if it's just for destroying other robots. D&W obviously are of the opinion that science can be turned toward more noble goals, and that it cheapens FIRST to be associated with such competitions. I'm inclined to agree.

Also, I think that by changing the competition to eliminate head to head and to remove purely defensive strategies, D&W have greatly increased our design options. Yes, increased. Defensive strategies tend to rely solely on pushing other robots around, and usually aren't terribly innovative. Just about anyone can design a robot to knock others over. However, while these options are open to teams, offensive designs and strategies suffer. When you have to worry about adding armor and protecting electronics, you've got less weight and material to work with. And when you have to consider other robots ramming you, it gets rid of a lot of strategies and design options. Do you think some of the cooler designs like Demolition Squad's goal lifting robot would have survived when another robot crashed into them? I don't think FIRST should be about who can design the robot that can best resist getting beaten to a pulp while still scoring points.