Every year / game / rules / logistics - brings some level of frustration. Haven’t been involved in that past few years, but I have always believed that as the # of events increase, the only way to reduce the frustration due to inconsistancy, is to design the rules to reduce the possibiity of that occuring as much as possible.
Games can be designed to be challenging, fun, complicated, audience friendly, viewable, less frustrating, and understandable (even by you grandmother that only watches it once) - and most importantly - without a ton of rules.
The #1 rule of the game design is that it must have strict and unwavering overall experience goals, that tie directly back to what I indicated above. Anything that does not allow the overall experience goal to be met - is NOT allowed. The game MUST pass the test of meeting those overall experience goals, by an independent 3rd party (preferably a small group of people that understand how the game impacts a team - and not by the same people that designd it).
The rules, which are the result of the game itself, document what is allowed and what isn’t. One of the best games we ever developed for our Chief Delphi Invitational, was the game we had all the rules on a single 8 1/2 X 11 sheet of paper. Too many rules make it more difficult to determine which rules over rule each other, and even worse - you even have to determine a way to consistantly interpret them. Then, you have to succussfully communicate that interpretation method to everyone involved in deciding how it is administered (depending on the rule, it could include the inspectors just as much as the referees).
Based on other responses, it appears as though some of the same frustrations from the past are still being felt. Some are more difficult to address than others, but after implimenting the year end meetings to gather the input from team leaders and mentors - some of the key things should have been taken care of, or at least had a plan implemented - and maybe that is happening.
Too bad about the politics issue creeping in - although some would argue it isn’t politically motivated - so call it what you will. I will say that back in a day, a smaller organization, dealing with a completely different set of growth management circumstances, chose to limit how much of that sort of thing was allowed in. It was easier in part, because it was smaller and more easily managed. Over the years, certain decisions to do things one way or another, could have been the result of relationships “within” changing. Relationships with people always muddy things up - and often, those outside of knowing what really is going on - just have to deal with the changes as best we can. Difficult relationships, and decisions impacting the stuff in the kit - sometimes can’t be avoided. Unfortunately, sometimes we get frustrated because we don’t fully understand why (thus one reason for the call for more transparency).
The best you can do as a participant, is to learn that you must be able to adapt. Look at it this way, every year in FIRST is a new year. Don’t expect that any aspect of it HAS to be the same as before - it doesn’t. The things that remain the same year after year, are strictly a bonus to those teams returning. I think some veteran teams forget that, and when something does change, it adds to the frustration because it is one more thing that they are required to do something differently from what they have done in the past. In reality it shouldn’t - no one should have preconcieved notions of what was done in the past HAS to be included in the future.
I’ve typed enough for now - so I’ll pass on the discssion related to the growth model - both have some advantages an disadvantages depending on what your frustration is.
My main point here, is that you can have a great game with fewer and less complicated rules - that could reduce some of the frustration, but just be prepared for a new and different type of frustration - because no matter what the GDC comes up with - it can be a bit frustrating at times.
