At the beginning of the season, I made a bet with a friend on whether or not there would be a match with a “max score”. Loser eats a shoe (of course).
Here is the conversation word for word:
A: “i will consider eating a shoe if there isn’t a max point round incl practice by the end of the season”
B: “commit to it, I’ll eat the shoe if there is one but only if you do if there’s not”
x2 *
The match in question would be Monterey Bay Practice Match #36
Considering the new team update that was released today, there is disagreement about who won the bet (centered around the definition of “max”). So, what are your thoughts? Who eats the shoe?
It WAS a max score match [person B eats the shoe]
It was NOT a max score match [person A eats the shoe]
After careful consideration of the facts, I can see both sides of the argument. The bet was initiated under the precedent of a high score of a full grid (193), of which there have been multiple matches of. BUT the update practically removes the max score, and the terms of the bet clearly said “max score” not 193. The only deadline was within this season and the offseason, which means the rule change is within the scope of the bet.
It is important to acknowledge how perfect this situation is. The expected outcome of such a bet is that one will win and one will lose, but this is the most unexpected and improbable outcome in which both parties have technically lost. It would be a shame to waste such a unique situation, therefore I suggest both parties must consume a shoe as both parties have technically lost.
It is necessary to consider that the vast majority of shoes are in pairs, and per the terms of the agreement, the loser must eat “a shoe”. This results in a remainder shoe, which is an utter waste of food and does not display gracious professionalism. If both parties eat a shoe, there is no food wastage.
Also as Enrico Fermi once formulated 2S=F² and 7F=G³+π
Where: S=Shoes Consumed, F=Funny, and G=Good.
Therefore it is mathematically proven that an increase in the shoes consumed will result in exponentially more funny which results in exponentially more good.
All in all, the only logical conclusion to this bet is both persons consuming a shoe.
There are valid arguments both ways. There were max point matches while the max was 193, so one could argue that since in the past you would say there were max point matches, that cannot be changed, and thus A wins the bet. Alternatively, one could argue that there are no max point matches. It all depends on whether the “end of the season” deadline is when you judge whether a match is max points, or if that is judged at match time.
However. I believe that both sides are missing a crucial argument. I think we can all agree that as mere spectators to this debate, more shoes eaten = more funny, and more funny = more better. Thus, I propose that, because there are valid arguments to both sides, A and B both eat shoes.
Interestingly, in my own communication with person A, they have suggested that I should eat a shoe as well, because more shoes = more funny = more better. However, I believe that this logic actually harms the shoe-eating more than it helps, because it can be carried all the way to making everybody eat a shoe. And more shoes = more funny = more better has a limit; if everybody eats a shoe, it’s not funny for anyone. It must be capped, and it is reasonable to cap it at the people that considered eating a shoe in the first place.
If we want to feel forgiving, they can share one shoe.
That’s a very good point. Perhaps another member of the FIRST community has made a similar bet, and we could avoid shoes going to waste? But yes, I do agree that all pairs of shoes involved must be eaten.
The second shoe would be given to the team members that are campaigning that more shoes eaten is better. Afterall, they must practice what they preach.
At the time of the 193 practice match, that was considered the max score at the time of the match. Therefore a max score was achieved, irrelevant of future rule changes.
x2 *
