Ruling on Robonauts Balance

[Justin Ridley]

As we posted yesterday in the Alamo thread, the GDC made a decision regarding our bridge balancing mechanism. We wanted to provide a little more of the details that were provided to us. A picture of us using this mechanism to balance the co-op bridge with 488 was posted in the Alamo thread. This was a very exciting moment and the Robonauts are proud of achieving this on Thursday of our first regional.

The head ref at Alamo approached our team prior to opening ceremonies on Friday. He told us that a telecon was held last night amongst the GDC and they determined our robot’s mechanism fell under their definition of the word “grapple” when interacting with the bridge. It would therefore be a violation of [G10] when used, and be penalized accordingly. We were told it was not the GDC’s intention that teams utilize the features at the edge of the bridge to hang or lift off of during a balance.

During a break in matches at the beginning of the day, the head ref explained this ruling to the crowd. During this he read the following definition for Grapple: “The use of a tool to catch, hold, or rake to gain a physical/mechanical advantage”.

In our conversations with the head ref he expanded on this definition, talking about devices which react against multiple surfaces to create a moment or torque.

We understand that we took a risk in this design. Nonetheless, we are disappointed in the ruling the GDC has made. Even more, we are disappointed that the risk we took was created only because FIRST refused to answer direct Q&A questions related to it. Answering the following question could have clarified this situation very simply and early in the build season. At the time, it was our honest belief that if FIRST intended for this to be illegal, they would have stated so here.

Q. Would a passive device applying force to multiple sides of the 2x2 angle on the bridge to partially/fully support robot weight violate [G10] if it didn’t actively clamp/grasp/attach to the angle, so that at match end the robot can be lifted off the bridge w/out actuating/releasing any mechanism(s)?
FRC1967 2012-01-16
A. The purpose of this forum is to answer questions about rules, not to perform design reviews for legality.

Furthermore, giving their definition for the word “Grapple” seems like a fair thing to do when they were asked, especially when that definition differs from the one in a common dictionary as well as the definition they used in the 2011 game Q&A. (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=16727&highlight=grapple). Instead they stated that “there is no formal definition…”

We’re all competing in a competition in which we’re encouraged to think outside of the box to solve difficult problems. A set of rules must be in place to create some boundaries for those solutions. The Robonauts have no desire to step outside of those boundaries. We do, however, feel that FIRST allowed these boundaries to be unclear, seemingly on purpose. Not until Friday of the first week of competition was this issue clarified. These actions are not indicative of the Gracious Professionalism we would expect from this organization. It’s our hope they use this situation as an example for better managing the rules and Q&A system in the future.

The head ref at San Antonio was extremely polite, gracious, and friendly in explaining this decision to us. He listened to our arguments and passed them along to New Hampshire. We believe there are likely other teams who were planning on using a strategy similar to ours. We're sorry that they may not have the opportunity to state their case and we hope the GDC will reconsider this ruling for future weeks.

We don’t intend for this post to start another discussion on the specific rule, we simply wanted to explain the events that took place and our thoughts about them.

The Robonauts

[BigJ]

The GDC essentially said "We didn't think a team could innovate this, so we're calling it illegal".

No they didn't.

While I agree that there were problems with the way the definition of grapple was handled, please don't try to put words like those in their mouths.

[Andrew Lawrence]

We were told it was not the GDC’s intention that teams utilize the features at the edge of the bridge to hang or lift off of during a balance.

No they didn't.

While I agree that there were problems with the way the definition of grapple was handled, please don't try to put words like those in their mouths.

Like I said in my post, the post wasn't meant to be negative. And like Justin has quoted above, the GDC admitted they didn't think about teams utilizing the edge of the bridge. I'm not saying the GDC is saying they aren't pushing teams to think out of the box. I'm saying they admitted that they weren't prepared for a team like 118 (though nobody IS every prepared for 118), and therefore made it illegal. Sort of like the 254/1114 hanging in 2010. Not the GDC's intentions, though if I remember correctly they were ruled legal.

I'm not arguing the legality, and somewhat agree with the ruling, but WHAT they said about it, and there response to 118 was what I was disappointed about.

[davepowers]

Sorry to hear about the ruling, I was hoping that wouldn't be the case.

I'm looking forward to facing and competing with you guys at Hartford, a team like 118 really has inspired and motivated myself and a lot of kids on GUS.

Regardless of the fact that your bridge balancing was deemed illegal, you have done an outstanding job of trying something that was different and outside what everyone else was thinking, so everything that you have accomplished is nothing near a waste. Thank you Justin for giving us all this information. Good luck with the rest of Alamo and see you in a couple of weeks!

-D

[pfreivald]

I'm glad you guys had a 'plan B' (as I knew you would -- you guys are class acts all the way), because I never in the world dreamed it would be ruled legal, especially given the 'astute observer' definitions in the Q&A.

Please keep in mind that designs like this put the Q&A folks in a difficult situation -- they can't possibly anticipate every solution that a team can dream up, and so the intentionally broad definition criteria of 'astute observer' (which I personally find to be completely reasonable) gives them wiggle room to do exactly as we are instructed to: interpret the spirit of the game, and not try to squeeze every advantage out of the letter.

If FIRST is going to co-opt the sports model successfully, they must at almost all costs avoid the audience thinking, "I thought that was cheating?" Designs based on letter-of-the-rule interpretations will therefore always be a major risk, and perhaps an even bigger risk than they have been in the past.

Yes, there is a cost in ingenuity; but if FIRST is to become a true culture-transforming spectator sport, it can't also be a 100% proscriptive rules set game. (Most games are permissive. Proscriptive games are much more open-ended... which is what makes them harder to follow, and thus gives them less mass appeal.)

My favorite quote applies here: "It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work."

[Andrew Lawrence]

I'm glad you guys had a 'plan B' (as I knew you would -- you guys are class acts all the way), because I never in the world dreamed it would be ruled legal, especially given the 'astute observer' definitions in the Q&A.

Please keep in mind that designs like this put the Q&A folks in a difficult situation -- they can't possibly anticipate every solution that a team can dream up, and so the intentionally broad definition criteria of 'astute observer' (which I personally find to be completely reasonable) gives them wiggle room to do exactly as we are instructed to: interpret the spirit of the game, and not try to squeeze every advantage out of the letter.

If FIRST is going to co-opt the sports model successfully, they must at almost all costs avoid the audience thinking, "I thought that was cheating?" Designs based on letter-of-the-rule interpretations will therefore always be a major risk, and perhaps an even bigger risk than they have been in the past.

Yes, there is a cost in ingenuity; but if FIRST is to become a true culture-transforming spectator sport, it can't also be a 100% proscriptive rules set game. (Most games are permissive. Proscriptive games are much more open-ended... which is what makes them harder to follow, and thus gives them less mass appeal.)

My favorite quote applies here: "It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work."

Wow. If you don't mind, can I steal that quote? :p

Everything Mr. Freivald has said is 100% accurate. There is no way the GDC can predict everything, so therefore the answer to that is to have FIRST be a little less proscriptive, and a little more permissive. I'd say 50-50 for each. While you don't want too much strained and controlled rules, you don't want the rules to lack clarity enough that events like 118 this year happen. I'm sure no team wants to spend time during their build season designing, manufacturing, and perfecting a mechanism deemed illegal because of a lack of clarification.

[davidthefat]

Can anyone post a video of them balancing? I mean, this is not the first time FIRST has had issues with miscommunication.

[pfreivald]

Wow. If you don't mind, can I steal that quote? :p

Absolutely. I stole it from Poe, who "sampled"/stole it from a lecture given by her father, the tape of which she found some years after he passed away.

I'd say 50-50 for each.

I'd say that game theory is a lot more complicated than that. Almost all games are permissive, because it's much easier to write a permissive rules set than it is to write a proscriptive one. FIRST has historically been more proscriptive than permissive, but every sport in the world is permissive.

The most interesting (IMNHO) games (mathematically and strategically) are proscriptive, but they don't garner much of a following a lot of the time because they're often hard to follow, hard to predict, hard to manage... As someone who has made some small amount of money doing freelance game design, I can really, truly admire just how well FIRST has skirted the line between a permissive and a proscriptive rules set.

Designing a technical challenge that encourages ingenuity and creativity lends itself strongly toward a proscriptive rules set. Designing a game that's fun to watch for an audience not obsessed with the game requires a strongly permissive rules set. The balance is insanely hard to meet, and I have so very much admiration for the GDC for doing so yearly as well as they have.

In recent years, FIRST rules have tended more toward a permissive rules set. If they want the game to be spectator-friendly, they have to. That said, they have kept the design side of the robot very proscriptive, which is why you see wheel-shooters and catapults and sling-shots, and you see tank drives and drop-center drives and swerve drives and mecanum drives and octocanum drives...

Give credit where credit is due: there are a lot of companies that do nothing but design games for a living. None of them have a single team of a dozen-ish people put out a completely new and innovative product on a yearly basis. The GDC does.

Hats off to the Robonauts for an extremely innovative and interesting solution to an engineering problem. Hats off to the GDC for sticking to the game they designed (and the philosophy behind it) and ruling against them. Ya both done good.

[Marc S.]

I want to thank team 118 for not only building such an innovative design, but posting it in their reveal video for all to see. I would also like to thank them for going to a week 1 regional, which forced a long overdue ruling to be made.

I know there is quite a few teams scrapping designs right now but at least now they can all go into their next competition without taking as big of a risk(at least from hanging).

PS. If its Finals 2 and 118's alliance is up by one, with <20seconds left with a score of 20+ the opposition, they should definitely hang anyway(give the crowd a show). ;)

[Akash Rastogi]

I want to thank team 118 for not only building such an innovative design, but posting it in their reveal video for all to see. I would also like to thank them for going to a week 1 regional, which forced a long overdue ruling to be made.

Ditto this. x100

You were also absolutely awesome for explaining in detail how the system works. That is truly inspirational for kids like me.

Thank you and best of luck this weekend.

[bduddy]

This is what happens when the GDC (or anyone else) tries to make "common-sense" rules or "simple" rules or anything of the sort. Discussion about "rules lawyering" or whatever misses the point: rules need to be clearly defined and as comprehensive as possible, or there's no point in having them. Otherwise you end up with differing interpretations and that very rarely ends well.

[EricH]

This is what happens when the GDC (or anyone else) tries to make "common-sense" rules or "simple" rules or anything of the sort. Discussion about "rules lawyering" or whatever misses the point: rules need to be clearly defined and as comprehensive as possible, or there's no point in having them. Otherwise you end up with differing interpretations and that very rarely ends well.
Maybe not "as comprehensive as possible".

The rules need to be a) clear, b) as comprehensive as necessary to communicate the intent of the rules, and c) written clearly.

But the questions about interpretations need to be answered promptly and clearly. Not "we're using the common sense definition of 'grapple'" or "We don't give design reviews". More like "We are using the following definition of 'grapple'..." and "We don't give design reviews; however, you may want to pay close attention to the following rules..."

The GDC neither declared the concept legal nor declared it illegal. They simply said, "We aren't going to make the call." Then, it seems that they decided to make the call... a month and a half after it was asked, and a few weeks after declining to provide a specific definition of "grapple", "grasp", and "attach".

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened (and yes, I can cite instances); however, the real question is, how do we keep it from happening again?

[Brandon_L]

OP couldn't have stated this any better. You took a risk, and it got called illegal. But you handled it very well. +1 for you guys, I'm impressed.

On the GDC side of things, ruling it illegal is 100% okay to do. But being extremely vague on definitions of things like "grappling" and "balanced" and what consists of the bridge until the final week/first day of competitions is..I can't even think of a word for it. If they were made clear from the start, and if they wouldn't beat around the bush with these "we can't comment on designs" answers, none of this would have happened. Even in this case, if they couldn't comment on the design, they could at least clarify what consists of clamp/grasping/whatever. And then stick with that definition, and not change it when someone thinks outside of the box with a design that still fits those parameters. even something as flat out as "no, you cant hang off the side of the bridge." Nothing to lawyer there.

Something just has to be done about that, at least I think. Its okay to change rules, just not so late in the season after you refused to clarify them a million times.

2c.

[Cory]

Please keep in mind that designs like this put the Q&A folks in a difficult situation -- they can't possibly anticipate every solution that a team can dream up, and so the intentionally broad definition criteria of 'astute observer' (which I personally find to be completely reasonable) gives them wiggle room to do exactly as we are instructed to: interpret the spirit of the game, and not try to squeeze every advantage out of the letter.

I see no possible interpretation in which this put them in a difficult situation. The Q&A Justin quoted was asked in week 1. It is eminently clear what the question is asking (can we hang off the side of the bridge, or otherwise partially support robot weight in order to balance without being entirely on the polycarb on the bridge?).

There is no way the GDC did not understand that teams wanted to know if they could hang from the side of the bridge. They chose the cop out route of answering with a non-answer.

Nearly a month and a half later the issue was forced and they had no choice but to give the answer they should have given originally. Instead of playing games with the Q&A all they had to do was say "we intended the angle on the side of the bridge to be a guide to keep teams from falling off, not a support for teams to hang from". That would have taken thirty seconds to post. Instead they give a typical useless response and multiple (I'm sure there's more than just 118) teams waste time and money implementing such a device in the hopes that it is legal.

7 weeks ago the GDC wasn't between a rock and a hard place. They chose to insert themselves there by not answering a simple question (completely not robot design related...it is a fundamental question about how the game is to be played). End of story.

[Ken Streeter]

Robonauts,

Having been on the wrong side of a questionable game design committee (GDC) ruling on legality of a robot (back in 2008, Overdrive, with Speed Racer (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65363)), we know what it feels like to invest hundreds of hours in an innovative solution that you felt was legal, only to have it disqualified by a GDC.

You have our understanding in this matter, whether or not we actually agree with the ruling.

The good news is that it seems that you have an incredible robot this year, even despite the disqualification of the innovative bridge balancing approach. Best regards for a continuing great performance at Alamo!

[wireties]

This is what happens when the GDC (or anyone else) tries to make "common-sense" rules or "simple" rules or anything of the sort. Discussion about "rules lawyering" or whatever misses the point: rules need to be clearly defined and as comprehensive as possible, or there's no point in having them. Otherwise you end up with differing interpretations and that very rarely ends well.

This argues both sides of the issue. "This is what happens when" versus "as comprehensive as possible". One absolute truth is that it is NOT possible (preivald - "they can't possibly anticipate every solution") to construct a set of rules that is 100% comprehensive. So every year there will always be some level of ambiguity. The engineer's response is to calculate the risk and make a decision.

The robonaut's device is ingenious (dare I say awesome). It was risky for consuming mass on the robot, money, time and effort etc. But the ramifications of it not working (or being illegal) was near zero because the robot is awesome without the feature. So risk of effort times risk of result is still near zero and they went for it. It was kewl to see it in action!

[pfreivald]

I see no possible interpretation in which this put them in a difficult situation.

It's a difficult situation for all game designers who want a game that is both fun to play and to watch. (IMO Warhammer 40K and D&D are both fun to play... not so much fun to watch. Football is fun to watch, but I have no interest in playing.)

There is no way the GDC did not understand that teams wanted to know if they could hang from the side of the bridge. They chose the cop out route of answering with a non-answer.

It's not a cop-out at all. What they did was refuse to get into a cycle where they are forced to define every word in the manual (and then possibly define the words used in the definitions, and then the words in those definitions). These are really smart people, and I'm certain they understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorem as applied to creating rules sets.

They've been using "reasonably astute observer" definitions for years as a way to essentially say, "Look, folks, it's impossible to create a positivist document. Not difficult, not really hard, but actually impossible. So we're not going to try to do that. Be creative, but do so within the spirit of the competition-as-sport that we've set up."

The engineer's response is to calculate the risk and make a decision.

And The Robonauts did indeed create an awesome device with minimal risk -- it's not like they can't balance without it.

[Billfred]

Some thoughts:

1) Yes, 118 is taking this design to the very limit of the rules (though, in my mind, never quite over).
2) Yes, the GDC should be more clear in these edge cases. (Not the "Can we use the F-P motor to raise our shooter up to get a closer shot?" questions, but you know what I mean.)
3) Yes, I'd love to read the GDC's position on the whole matter.
4) I'm a touch surprised, but eminently pleased that we made it to Week 1 of competitions before we reached a rule or ruling that made me want to say "Paging the IRI Planning Committee..."
5) No, I still don't want to be on the other side of the glass from these guys.

[Taylor]

Has anybody done a stress analysis on the actual bridge structure to see if it could withstand suspensions from the side? As thorough as they are, I'd assume 118 has done so but I haven't seen evidence.
That's a pretty incredible moment arm for that part of the bridge to support; if the same part of the bridge was used to suspend several times during a regional, and several regionals during a season, it's possible for that component to fail.
Can you imagine the (figurative and literal) carnage that would follow if the bridge broke during eliminations? Possibly leading to field, robot, even site damage? Screams of "We were balanced until the field failed - we should be given those points!"
Are there spare bridges shipped with the field? What if a particularly innovative team coupled 118's design with 1501 - allowed a robot to drive upon it, then balanced on the side of the bridge? There's no way the structure could support that.
The GDC made the ruling that had to be made. Sometimes the game has to be played in real time to really understand the rules - it's happened before. That's why we have team updates on Tuesdays and Fridays.
I agree the timing is poor in this circumstance. Kudos to 118 for everything.

[Jim Giacchi]

Are there spare bridges shipped with the field?


Yes, having set the field up in New Jersey, each field has a spare bridge, spare back boards, spare hoops, spare plexiglass for the player's station and a spare barrier. There is also an entire extra backup field ready to go in the case of some catastrophic accident with a truck catching on fire or freak meteor showing destroying a building.

[cgmv123]

There is also an entire extra backup field ready to go in the case of some catastrophic accident with a truck catching on fire or freak meteor showing destroying a building.

Just to clarify, that field is not on site. It's in Tennessee, and I think it becomes Einstein after the season.

[O'Sancheski]

and I think it becomes Einstein after the season.

It only becomes Einstein if it is never used.

[JesseK]

To the Robonauts: you guys took a calculated risk in which the impact meant you potentially wasted build time. Given that the rest of your bot performed remarkably well for Week 1 from what I saw and that you could still balance like an "average" robot, I'd say the risk was very worth it. The evident systematic decision making on your team is something that every team should aspire to. I'd like to thank you for sharing the full extent of your experience.

The good news: The "side-hanger" can be replaced with a "stinger". Heh. I agree that the way the ruling happened leaves some room for improvement, but the ruling itself may put them in a better position than before.

[KrazyCarl92]

I just hope this helps the GDC realize that there is a REASON these specific to design questions are asked in the Q&A isn't because we want to ask for design reviews, we need to know whether or not certain and specific robot-robot or robot-field element/game piece interactions are legal in order to build robots within the rules. Something that is vague and without formal definition is immediately something that needs clearing up. Although I personally agree with the GDC's decision as to the "grappling" associated with 118's mechanism, I would like to thank the Robonauts for a few things:

1. Pushing the envelope
2. Inspiring others to push the envelope
3. Hopefully showing the GDC why this kind of legality is an important thing to decide week 1 or 2 of build; not week 1 of competitions. Would this have gone on til week had that been when 118 first competed? That would be ridiculous... (it already is in my mind).

[Kevin Sevcik]

They've been using "reasonably astute observer" definitions for years as a way to essentially say, "Look, folks, it's impossible to create a positivist document. Not difficult, not really hard, but actually impossible. So we're not going to try to do that. Be creative, but do so within the spirit of the competition-as-sport that we've set up."The problem with falling back on "reasonably astute observers" is that, clearly, reasonably astute observers are going to disagree about things. It's a fine guideline for most cases and situations, but it's completely useless in these kinds situation. I mean, I hope we can agree that teams like 1967 and 118 are made up of reasonably astute people. These reasonably astute people are telling the GDC, "We think this is legal, but we thought we'd check with you. What do you think?" And then the GDC mumbles something, shrugs and wanders off. Exactly how are teams supposed to react to this kind of behavior?

One option is to move forward in good faith but with some trepidation that the the GDC will turn around and declare it illegal: "Didn't you hear us mumble that it wasn't legal?" Clearly 118 picked this path and I think they have some cause to be annoyed at the GDC for mumbling and equivocating during build season before finally making a decision over a month later.

I suppose your other option is to start assuming that a "reasonably astute observer" is actually a perverse killjoy that hates creativity and unexpected situations. So any time the GDC falls back to that excuse you just assume that your idea is illegal, but they don't want to outright TELL you so because, you know, that'd be all depressing and would make the GDC feel bad. This is certainly a safer position to take, but you have to admit it makes things a lot less interesting.

[waialua359]

Although I dont agree with the final ruling made on Friday morning, perhaps its a lesson to teams and the GDC in the future where teams should be allowed to submit diagrams and pics in the Q&A asking a question like, "Is this legal?"

[=Martin=Taylor=]

I think the rules keep getting more restrictive each year...

And there were only a few teams who came up with this innovative solution. They should be rewarded.

Are there any good videos of it using the rollers to balance?

[Chris is me]

I think the rules keep getting more restrictive each year...

And there were only a few teams who came up with this innovative solution. They should be rewarded.

I agree with you in principle, but I think the better answer would be "The Q&A should actually answer questions like these in advance so that more teams are willing to know if it's a waste of time or not." Non-answers hurt everyone. If they allowed it, teams would feel cheated when they didn't take a legality risk due to their interpretation of a vague Q&A answer. It would be a firestorm. Remember how bad the perfectly, unambiguously legal 469 robot in 2010 was?

Regardless... I can't help but draw comparisons to the "troll bot" debacle debated here just a few weeks ago. Both were failures of the Q&A system, though this was a non answer gone wrong versus a full answer suddenly reversed... They're the same issue to me. The teams are not at fault in either situation.

I'm interested to see if anyone thinks one was different than the other, and why they believe that to be so... but since that would derail this thread, private message may be a more appropriate medium for that discussion. Or I could start a new thread, I dunno.

[45Auto]

[G10]
Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure. Robots may not push or react against the top of the Fender. (Robots may push or react against any element of the Arena that is not protected by another rule.)

A reasonably astute observer would look at G10, and say that 118 was "attached" to the arena structure.

They would say the same thing if the 118 mechanism was used by a robot to lift itself on the rail around the arena, or the gates into the arena, or the backboards behind the goals to create a robot capable of dunking the balls (in other words the rule works the same way for "any arena structure").

[philso]

I had the privilege of speaking with one of the students who designed the mechanism that was ruled illegal. He seemed pretty astute to me. I am very sorry that we will not get to see the improvements to that mechanism that he spoke of. I am sure that even though the mechanism was ruled illegal and will not be used in competition, one of the main purpose of this competition has been achieved. The students learned how to solve a difficult engineering problem and did it in a spectacular way.

Kudos for pushing the boundaries yet again, 118. That is why our civilization advances.

Phil

[Joe Ross]

A reasonably astute observer would look at G10, and say that 118 was "attached" to the arena structure.

A reasonably astute observer would watch 118 remove their robot after the match without releasing anything, as they did in their video. Then the reasonably astute observer would come to the conclusion that they aren't attached.

[pfreivald]

Exactly how are teams supposed to react to this kind of behavior?

The same way engineers do when given design specifications. The English language is imprecise, but "can't grab, grasp, or grapple" is at least highly indicative of the customer's design specs. If an engineer comes up with a solution that can be argued to not grab, grasp, or grapple, and yet it can be argued to do so as well, they'd better be prepared to suck up the opportunity cost of having designed/built that mechanism, because the customer might reject it.

I suppose your other option is to start assuming that a "reasonably astute observer" is actually a perverse killjoy that hates creativity and unexpected situations.

I think that any "option" that involves ascribing negative characteristics to persons involved on any side of this is wrong-headed. Implying that the GDC hates creativity and unexpected situations is every bit as wrongheaded as implying that 118 was trying to cheat -- neither are true, and either way there's a reason why argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

[lemiant]

The same way engineers do when given design specifications. The English language is imprecise, but "can't grab, grasp, or grapple" is at least highly indicative of the customer's design specs. If an engineer comes up with a solution that can be argued to not grab, grasp, or grapple, and yet it can be argued to do so as well, they'd better be prepared to suck up the opportunity cost of having designed/built that mechanism, because the customer might reject it.


In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted. Then when you came to them with the finished product they admonished you for not giving them what they wanted and rejected your design. Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such, one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand :P.

[Kevin Sevcik]

The same way engineers do when given design specifications. The English language is imprecise, but "can't grab, grasp, or grapple" is at least highly indicative of the customer's design specs. If an engineer comes up with a solution that can be argued to not grab, grasp, or grapple, and yet it can be argued to do so as well, they'd better be prepared to suck up the opportunity cost of having designed/built that mechanism, because the customer might reject it.Part of the whole design and specification process involves discussions with the customer, right? RFI's, design reviews, discussions of scope of work, all that fun stuff. It seems to me that the Q&A serves the same purpose in our FRC world. So I'll ask again in terms more familiar to you. How would you react if you went to a design review and the customer shrugged and mumbled about your fancy, innovative design?

On one hand, you can move forward with your innovative design that you think meets all their specifications. And risk them seeing the finished product and declaring that that isn't at ALL what they were thinking, didn't you hear them mumble that?

On the other hand, you can take the most defensive and restrictive interpretation possible of the specifications, and reach a design that couldn't possibly be a problem. At the expense of forgoing any real innovation or creativity in your solutions. But at least you won't have any nasty surprises in store for you.

On the gripping hand, none of this angst, indecision and heartache would have been necessary if the customer simply held up his end of the deal and actually provided you with information and input on his expectations. If they simply actually answered your question clearly the first time you asked it instead shrugging and declaring the can't comment.

[Joe Johnson]

A reasonably astute observer would watch 118 remove their robot after the match without releasing anything, as they did in their video. Then the reasonably astute observer would come to the conclusion that they aren't attached.

I don't know. Is a grappling hook attached to the castle walls? No, if you mean, do you need to release a latch or a mechanism to remove it. But I think the common man test (aka the reasonably astute observer test) would say they've attached to the rail.

I think FIRST was remiss in not giving a clear answer when they had a chance but after 15 years of doing FRC, I can tell you that there is nothing new here. FIRST sometimes makes bonehead rulings or as in this case passes on making a tough ruling early and then makes it later.

I know it is difficult for us to understand, and frankly, the folks at FIRST are scratching their heads too at what they have done (how did we get to this point?). FIRST is like all human institutions: Flawed it the DNA level.

AND YET... ...for all their flaws (cough, control system complexity, cough) FIRST has put together a system that is "fair enough." I am sorry to those teams that lost out. I wish it were otherwise. But a perfect system is not on offer.

Yes, let's seek to do better next year. But let's not lose site of the larger picture. If watching the Alamo is any indication, the GDC has done an amazing job. The elims in TX were about as exciting as one could have hoped for.

Joe J.

[pfreivald]

In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted.

I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.

It would be nice if it were possible to create a positivist document. It's not.

In light of that, the "reasonably astute observer" standard is something you have to live with, and by "live with" I mean "take into account when making your design decisions".

Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such

Indeed. In the real world, the customer doesn't have thousands of engineering teams clambering for nits to pick on design specification. The time sink alone must be a consideration when determining how to answer questions.

one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand :P.

...and everyone on the GDC could be doing anything else with their time and make more money with less grief. I hear enough of the "I'm paying for this so everything has to go my way" drivel from my college students; I would hope to never see it in FIRST.

[galewind]

In my opinion, if the GDC is relying on a head referee to determine whether something is legal, then the rule(s) and terminology are not clearly enough defined.

I do see it as a cop-out by those managing the Q&A. And kudos to 118 for an amazing job with your design. You made a few of our students' and mentors' jaws hit the floor when they saw the side mounting.

Just my $0.02

[Michael Hill]

I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.

Nobody is asking them to define every word in the rules. People asked for them to define that phrase, and they refused to. FIRST dropped the ball and is punishing a team for innovation.

[Anupam Goli]

I actually had the opportunity to speak with one of the members of the GDC (Jeremy Roberts) on Saturday , and he said it was a very tough ruling. He personally liked 118's ingenuity and innovation, but the GDC decided to rule against it, citing G10 and defined "grasping, grappling, or attaching" as "Applying pressure to two or more sides of an arena structure". Official ruling from GDC.

[pfreivald]

Nobody is asking them to define every word in the rules. People asked for them to define that phrase, and they refused to.

Right, because after that word, there's the next, and the next, and the next... Setting the precedent of defining one word or two or three or five beyond "reasonably astute observer" but not another would create an emotional firestorm much bigger than this tempest in a teapot.

FIRST dropped the ball and is punishing a team for innovation.

Do you honestly believe that the GDC is punishing them? If so, I'm sure there's little I could say to convince you otherwise, but I hope you don't really mean that. If you do, that's quite sad.

[Tristan Lall]

The same way engineers do when given design specifications. The English language is imprecise, but "can't grab, grasp, or grapple" is at least highly indicative of the customer's design specs. If an engineer comes up with a solution that can be argued to not grab, grasp, or grapple, and yet it can be argued to do so as well, they'd better be prepared to suck up the opportunity cost of having designed/built that mechanism, because the customer might reject it.
The thing is, in a real engineering situation, you hope to have a sufficient level of communication with the customer in advance of, and during the design process.

And if you don't have that level of communication, maybe you should bid/bill more, to cover the risk.

That's where the analogy to ordinary engineering falls apart: there's no meaningful way to compensate for unclear specifications, so FIRST has a higher duty to get them right in the first place.

[pfreivald]

That's where the analogy to ordinary engineering falls apart: there's no meaningful way to compensate for unclear specifications, so FIRST has a higher duty to get them right in the first place.

I agree with the former, and to some extent the latter. However, I believe that FIRST satisfied their duty in this regard with the 'reasonably astute observer' metric.

I maintain that it is unreasonable to expect first to define common English words used in the manual, unless there is true confusion as to what a phrase means.

[Tristan Lall]

I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.

It would be nice if it were possible to create a positivist document. It's not.

In light of that, the "reasonably astute observer" standard is something you have to live with, and by "live with" I mean "take into account when making your design decisions".
The GDC's fallacy is in the application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard.

I concur and am at peace with the fact that every word can be dissected...but that's not to imply that every such dissection is the same. When interpreting a rule, some ambiguities are more ambiguous than others. The aim is hopefully to provide a document that replaces big ambiguities with small ones, whenever possible—and does so in a way that's also reasonable to understand, follow and enforce.

In that respect, the knee-jerk application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard to so many different situations leaves a lot of big ambiguities. Refusing to further describe them preserves the symmetry of using the same standard everywhere, but also leaves us questioning whether there's a fundamental set of conditions that implies that this standard is appropriate. This dilutes the value of the standard, because we can't even articulate why the standard is right for a specific set of circumstances.

[Tristan Lall]

I maintain that it is unreasonable to expect first to define common English words used in the manual, unless there is true confusion as to what a phrase means.
FIRST often uses common words, but attaches special meaning to them. I think the Q&A questions about definitions were perfectly reasonable attempts to discover whether this was the case here.

Also, dictionary definitions of these terms often imply an analogy to the human hand. Even if you accept an ordinary definition, you still need to know whether the anthropomorphic aspect of the definition is relevant, or merely the end result.

[SenorZ]

If you use your flat palm to lift yourself onto a ledge and support your weight, how would you describe your interaction with the surface? I would call it grabbing. But thats just me.

As a mentor I tell my kids to err on the side of caution; if you think you might be breaking a rule, stop. Then again, we're a small, newish team. Our challenge in FRC is to make something that works and performs basic game functions. Once you have the skills and tools to to accomplish that quickly, you have time to be innovative. Maybe, with some luck, we'll find ourselves in your predicament in the future.

[pfreivald]

The GDC's fallacy is in the application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard.

I don't understand what you mean. How is that a fallacy?

In that respect, the knee-jerk application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard to so many different situations leaves a lot of big ambiguities.

How many different situations this year had the "reasonably astute observer" applied to them? Considering grab/grasp/grapple to be one, what were the others?

FIRST often uses common words, but attaches special meaning to them. I think the Q&A questions about definitions were perfectly reasonable attempts to discover whether this was the case here.

I agree -- and I think the application of the "reasonably astute observer" litmus test clearly articulated that these common words did not have special meaning attached to them.

As a mentor I tell my kids to err on the side of caution; if you think you might be breaking a rule, stop.

What the Robonauts did was make sure that a ruling against them wouldn't cripple their robot or their game plan if it didn't pan out -- which is exactly the type of risk-taking I would encourage my team to consider.

[jspatz1]

I must say I am rather bewildered by this whole discussion. The rules state that you cannot grapple on the field elements. 118's edge hang is about the purest example of a grapple that I can imagine. It couldn't be more clear that the intent of the rule is to prevent this kind of technique. I don't blame the GDC for not engaging in a debate about which dictionary to draw the definition of grapple from. They made it clear that you cannot grapple on the field elements. Period. Even if you can think of a word maze to rationalize that a grapple isn't really a grapple. Yes, you could do it in 2010. No, you can't do it in 2012.

[Marc S.]

I must say I am rather bewildered by this whole discussion. The rules state that you cannot grapple on the field elements. 118's edge hang is about the purest example of a grapple that I can imagine. It couldn't be more clear that the intent of the rule is to prevent this kind of technique. I don't blame the GDC for not engaging in a debate about which dictionary to draw the definition of grapple from. They made it clear that you cannot grapple on the field elements. Period. Even if you can think of a word maze to rationalize that a grapple isn't really a grapple. Yes, you could do it in 2010. No, you can't do it in 2012.

The issue was which definition of grapple applied. Only 1 of 3 definitions that i could find classified 118's hang as grappling.

[wireties]

In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted. Then when you came to them with the finished product they admonished you for not giving them what they wanted and rejected your design. Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such, one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand :P.

Actually, this is exactly how an open bidding process works in the "real world". The GDC did not respond to requests to "validate a design". That is often how it works (always in my experience). A proposal team does not want to ask a question that is too revealing (because all bidders typically see all responses) and the customer will not answer private queries (to avoid an appearance of favoritism). So one is left with a risk management decision (which 118 did well in my judgment).

FIRST is meant to encourage young people to pursue careers in science and technology. If FRC was simply a game and not meant to mimic the "real world" - Why have Chairman Awards? Why the formal focus on quality and safety? Why have project managers? Why have engineering inspiration awards? Why do it in 6 weeks? Why the effort to use industry standard parts? In my opinion FIRST is definitely mimics the real world (with some limits).

Further, in the real world, one also pays to play and assumes a huge risk (no contract award) - at least in FIRST everyone gets their 10-12 matches worth. The $5K is a pittance against what it cost to put the events on. Consider the event volunteers, mentors and teachers and FIRST national staff volunteers. The $5K is just affirmation of serious intentions in my opinion. Teams are not "customers" who should make demands of FIRST.

[Tristan Lall]

I don't understand what you mean. How is that a fallacy?
I don't mean that in the sense of a strict logical fallacy. I'm talking about their mistaken belief that relying on the perceptions of a "reasonably astute observer" would remove sufficient doubt to allow teams to discern what was meant in a variety of complex cases.

How many different situations this year had the "reasonably astute observer" applied to them? Considering grab/grasp/grapple to be one, what were the others?
This version of the Q&A doesn't let you search the answers (huge flaw). Nevertheless, here's at least a few times FIRST has invoked that phrase:
Game - The Robot » Bumper Rules » R33
Q. How much tolerance is for attaching at the "end" of the bumper? Do we need to attach within 4" of the physical end? 1"? At the infinitesimal point at the end of the bumper? Physical constraints may make it difficult to place two perpendicular fasteners at the same infinitesimal point in space. FRC0057 2012-02-15
A. If it appears that a Bumper is rigidly attached at the end to a reasonably astute observer, it will be considered attached "at the end".

Game - The Robot » Bumper Rules » R33
Q. Where is the end of a Bumper? We have bumpers that are two 8" pieces of plywood rigidly attached perpendicular to each other at the corner, plus noodle cloth, etc. Do we have to attach to the frame perimeter at just the two end points of this L shaped bumper, or at the corner as well? FRC0057 2012-02-15
A. If it appears that a Bumper is rigidly attached at the end to a reasonably astute observer, it will be considered attached "at the end".

Game - The Game » General Rules
Q. Please define Grapple. FRC0973 2012-02-13
A. There is no formal definition. If a reasonably astute observer would consider what a Robot to be doing as grappling, it's grappling.

Game - The Game » General Rules
Q. Please define Grasp. FRC0973 2012-02-13
A. There is no formal definition. If a reasonably astute observer would consider what a Robot to be doing as grasping, it's grasping.

Game - The Game » General Rules
Q. Please define Grab. FRC0973 2012-02-13
A. There is no formal definition. If a reasonably astute observer would consider what a Robot to be doing as grabbing, it's grabbing.

[R08C]
Any devices or decorations specifically intended to jam or interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another Robot, including vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infra-red proximity detectors, etc.(e.g. including imagery on your Robot that, to a reasonably astute observer, mimics the Vision Target)

[R28D]
be covered with a rugged, smooth cloth. The cloth must completely enclose all exposed surfaces of the plywood and pool noodle material. The fabric covering the Bumpers must be a solid red or blue in color. Visually, the red or blue must be as close to the corresponding color in the FIRST logo as reasonable (i.e. to a reasonably astute observer, they appear similar). The only markings permitted on the Bumper fabric cover are the team number (see Rule [R35]).
That's 3 or 4, plus grasp, grapple & grab; there are probably other places as well.

Apart from the obvious question of which reasonably astute observer, these are hardly similar situations. There are various degrees of urgency, consequence and ambiguity. Are we supposed to infer that because FIRST uses the same test in all cases, there's a likeness between them? Or are these completely independent situations, which only happen to share a dependence on the observer?

In law, when a judge defines a legal test (like this famous one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)), usually there are several paragraphs of explanation, and citations for context. FIRST is emulating the pithiness of that practice, without any of the supporting documentation. (Indeed, I don't expect supporting documentation, because precedent has no defined role, and because FIRST only infrequently explains its intent thoroughly.)

I agree -- and I think the application of the "reasonably astute observer" litmus test clearly articulated that these common words did not have special meaning attached to them.
Fair enough, but I think they also inserted a term with special meaning ("reasonably astute observer") into the situation. In essence, the problem is not to 'grasp' but to 'grasp in the opinion of a reasonably astute observer'. It might have been better to have said 'at the discretion of the referees'. That way, we know that there is uncertainty—but we know where the uncertainty lies. There would be no question of a team arguing that some reasonably astute observers justifiably believe this legal, and feeling wronged because the officials did not recognize the well-founded opinions of those other observers.

Interpretation of "reasonably astute observer" comes down to this: is it supposed to a question of what the referee thinks, or a question of what the referee thinks the community of reasonably astute observers thinks? (Same for inspectors, where the call is instead theirs to make; note that inspectors have the leisure of time to discuss the call with everyone.)

[zachmartin1806]

The rule states that you may not grapple and if you do you will be given a foul. That is only a 3 point loss, however, there is no rule stating that in the event of a "grapple" the balance will not be counted. This being said why not use the mechanism and take the foul but get the three robot balance giving your alliance 37 points? Am i wrong in this thinking or am i correct that there is no rule that preventing a balanced bridge in the event of a grapple?

[Tristan Lall]

Actually, this is exactly how an open bidding process works in the "real world". The GDC did not respond to requests to "validate a design". That is often how it works (always in my experience). A proposal team does not want to ask a question that is too revealing (because all bidders typically see all responses) and the customer will not answer private queries (to avoid an appearance of favoritism). So one is left with a risk management decision (which 118 did well in my judgment).

FIRST is meant to encourage young people to pursue careers in science and technology. If FRC was simply a game and not meant to mimic the "real world" - Why have Chairman Awards? Why the formal focus on quality and safety? Why have project managers? Why have engineering inspiration awards? Why do it in 6 weeks? Why the effort to use industry standard parts? In my opinion FIRST is definitely mimics the real world (with some limits).
You're assuming that this similarity is intentional for a very specific reason, rather than coincidental, or intentional for other reasons. And you're also implying that the operation of a competitive bid process is a good thing.

There's more nuance to it than that—a bid process is good when you have strong bidders who represent their own interests effectively, and who don't particularly care about the economic inefficiency caused by incomplete information. I don't think this describes most FIRST teams very well.

Further, in the real world, one also pays to play and assumes a huge risk (no contract award) - at least in FIRST everyone gets their 10-12 matches worth. The $5K is a pittance against what it cost to put the events on. Consider the event volunteers, mentors and teachers and FIRST national staff volunteers. The $5K is just a affirmation of serious intentions in my opinion. Teams are not "customers" who should make demands of FIRST.
You're conflating overhead related to preparing a bid with a registration fee paid to the event organizer. I don't think that's a good comparison.

In any case, even in a competitive bid, bidders are entitled to equitable treatment by the tenderer. In that sense, they have the right to make demands (e.g. protests) if they feel mistreated. I would say at a minimum, FIRST teams are also entitled to equitable treatment, and to make such demands as are necessary to acquire that.

[johnr]

How exactly were the students going to descibe this function to the pit judges? We hang off the ...nope, can't say that. We grab on to the...nope,can't say that. How would you descibe it to a judge? How would you describe it to anyone? Isn't there another team hanging off the edge of the ramp?

[EricLeifermann]

How exactly were the students going to descibe this function to the pit judges? We hang off the ...nope, can't say that. We grab on to the...nope,can't say that. How would you descibe it to a judge? How would you describe it to anyone? Isn't there another team hanging off the edge of the ramp?

Yes, 179 hangs of the edge of the ramp, yes its not the same edge but you didn't specify which edge they had to hang from...

[BigJ]

How exactly were the students going to descibe this function to the pit judges? We hang off the ...nope, can't say that. We grab on to the...nope,can't say that. How would you descibe it to a judge? How would you describe it to anyone? Isn't there another team hanging off the edge of the ramp?

Presumably the technical judges asking questions about it would understand an explanation similar to the one given in the 118 reveal thread.

[wireties]

You're assuming that this similarity is intentional for a very specific reason, rather than coincidental, or intentional for other reasons. And you're also implying that the operation of a competitive bid process is a good thing.

Does it matter if the similarity is intentional or not (and I think it is)? It just exists.

Does it matter whether the process is good or not? It is widely used and an appropriate analogy. I know this from vast experience with such things. Are you implying that a competitive bid process is always a bad thing? May I ask what life experiences lead you to make such a statement?


In any case, even in a competitive bid, bidders are entitled to equitable treatment by the tenderer. In that sense, they have the right to make demands (e.g. protests) if they feel mistreated. I would say at a minimum, FIRST teams are also entitled to equitable treatment, and to make such demands as are necessary to acquire that.

Entitled? hehe, spoken like someone who has never suffered through such a process! Here is what really happens. A company suffers through the interminable delay (due to the protests) and gives up. Or the bid is broken up, changed or withdrawn. Or the request is ignored and you do not sue because you can't afford it. In all cases one acquires a reputation for complaining, warranted or not. It is not fair - again, it just is.

The idyllic world to which you refer does not exist. I wish that it did.

[RRLedford]

Since we also balance on the edge of the bridge rail with 20" of our 33" width protruding off the bridge, but in a way that does not grasp grapple or grip the edge rail, I will offer my assessment of why 118' scheme was disallowed.

The device that they engage the bridge with clearly relies on the cantilevered weight of the bot to effectively hook, pinch, grip, squeeze, grasp, and clamp on to the edge rail of the bridge.

Functionally. their device initiates rail contact via multiple opposing points of contact on the mechanism, and the subsequent torque developed, as the cantilevered weight of the bot transfers onto the mechanism causes the mechanism to rotate around the length axis of the rail, so as to twist the device downward and away from the bridge, and this mechanism rotation results in a net pinching effect on the thickness of the rail's aluminum.
The problem with the 118 design results from the way that the multiple opposing points of contact react against the rail to produce a net compression of the opposite sides of the rail. This seems to be exactly what the GDC and their rule wording would not allow.

If I place a C-clamp over the bridge rail, but then I stop tightening it right before it contacts the rail, at which point, I then apply all my weight to the C-clamp, the resulting torque on the C-clamp will make it grip the rail. Just because the C-clamp was not initially squeezing the rail before the weight was applied does nor mean that the C-clamp is not gripping the rail after the weight is applied.

Now if the 118 bot relied on another bot to move the bridge upward in order to lift them off the ground, then I would consider this a possible allowed exception, since the 118 bot is not manipulating any device against the bridge, and the grasping result is just incidental to the motion of the bridge, which they did not cause. Still a stretch though, since grasping engagement was the desired result of how the bot was positioned relative to the bridge.

-Dick Ledford

[Tristan Lall]

Does it matter if the similarity is intentional or not (and I think it is)? It just exists.
Of course it matters—you can't do justice to the intent of the rules if you don't know whether it was actually intentional!

Does it matter whether the process is good or not? It is widely used and an appropriate analogy. I know this from vast experience with such things. Are you implying that a competitive bid process is always a bad thing? May I ask what life experiences lead you to make such a statement?
I'm saying that a competitive bid process is sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing—and that for the reasons explained above, bidding is probably not a great analogy for the situation encountered in FRC.

And yes, process is important. Even if you get the right principal result from a process, its side effects and externalities can still make it a bad process.

Entitled? hehe, spoken like someone who has never suffered through such a process! Here is what really happens. A company suffers through the interminable delay (due to the protests) and gives up. Or the bid is broken up, changed or withdrawn. Or the request is ignored and you do not sue because you can't afford it. In all cases one acquires a reputation for complaining, warranted or not. It is not fair - again, it just is.
"Entitled" merely means a moral, legal or other right to something. I don't think it's controversial to believe that by registering for FRC, a team is entitled to be treated equitably. At the very least, there are contractual rights created by registering. And while legally, FIRST might be able to put on a poor-quality dog and pony show, and satisfy the contract, there's a strong moral imperative that it go substantially beyond that. Every sporting tradition suggests that the officials should be fair in their application of the rules. They may not always get it correct, but it's hardly contentious that a competitor is entitled to feel wronged by an incompetent, corrupt or even innocently mistaken official.

As for the bidding process, the law recognizes that entitlement exists there too. Things you could do—but don't for practical reasons—don't diminish the remedy to which you're entitled.1 They just make it less likely you'll ever collect it. That can actually be a good thing, if as you note, it means that you avoid a reputation for complaining, and therefore get more business. On the other hand, it can mean that you acquire a reputation as a pushover, and get all the business you can manage, at a grossly inadequate rate.

The idyllic world to which you refer does not exist. I wish that it did.
Equity is inherently an ideal. In the real world, there's nothing wrong with approximating it to the degree possible. That's the essence of doing business in good faith.

1 I'm going to leave estoppel, laches and other equitable doctrines out of it; basically, in the English common law system that we're familiar with, if you're operating in good faith and satisfying your own obligations, this is true.

[pfreivald]

I'm talking about their mistaken belief that relying on the perceptions of a "reasonably astute observer" would remove sufficient doubt to allow teams to discern what was meant in a variety of complex cases.

It was awfully cut-and-dry to me, and to most people I've spoken to.

That's 3 or 4, plus grasp, grapple & grab; there are probably other places as well.

No, grasp, grapple, and grab were included in your quotes, and the bumper ones were essentially the same question. Thus, four cases as far as you were able to drum up. Blue is blue (and this was intended as 'close enough, don't worry about dye lot numbers'), bumpers have to be supported on the ends, vision interference is vision interference, and grasp/grab/grapple mean what they mean. I hardly think that's "so many different situations" that leave "a lot of big ambiguities".

Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

Are we supposed to infer that because FIRST uses the same test in all cases, there's a likeness between them?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes -- they're alike in that they're all extremely obvious if you're not trying to game the system.

In law,

I'll stop you there. We are specifically instructed not to lawyer the rules. Talking about how judges define legal tests is directly contrary to what you're supposed to be doing when you look at these game rules. (And besides, if you're going to drag judicial practice into this, Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" is a much better analogy to the "reasonably astute observer" test.)

In essence, the problem is not to 'grasp' but to 'grasp in the opinion of a reasonably astute observer'. It might have been better to have said 'at the discretion of the referees'. That way, we know that there is uncertainty—but we know where the uncertainty lies. There would be no question of a team arguing that some reasonably astute observers justifiably believe this legal, and feeling wronged because the officials did not recognize the well-founded opinions of those other observers.

I'm a bit astounded at this line of reasoning. Are you seriously positing the argument that anyone reading the phrase "a reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation would interpret it as any observer that considers themselves reasonably astute?

I mean, I suppose you could read it that way, but I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would do so, as doing so would render the rule so subjective as to be meaningless (and thus it cannot possibly be the intent of the GDC).

This, by the way, falls right into the positivist trap. I can just imagine the question to the Q&A: "When you say 'a reasonably astute observer', what do you mean by 'a'? Does it mean any reasonably astute observer, a particular reasonably astute observer, or an observer that is considered by the team or the person themselves to be reasonably astute? Also, in assessing observers, what is the difference between reasonably astute and unreasonably astute (or reasonably unastute?)"

Reading requires interpretation; finding the correct interpretation means asking yourself, "what does the author most likely mean in this case?" I have a hard time believing that anyone would read "reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation and come to any conclusion other than a generic layman observing the relevant phenomenon.

Interpretation of "reasonably astute observer" comes down to this: is it supposed to a question of what the referee thinks, or a question of what the referee thinks the community of reasonably astute observers thinks? (Same for inspectors, where the call is instead theirs to make; note that inspectors have the leisure of time to discuss the call with everyone.)

I think that any reasonably astute FRC team member can safely assume that FIRST chooses people that they consider to be reasonably astute to serve as judges, referees, and inspectors. I am flabbergasted that anyone would spend an iota of brainpower trying to figure out precisely what aggregate gestalt makes up the relevant "reasonably astute observer" pool, and somewhat amused by the notion that some people think it would matter vis-a-vis the rules to a game.

[wireties]

I'm saying that a competitive bid process is sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing—and that for the reasons explained above, bidding is probably not a great analogy for the situation encountered in FRC.


sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing - really?

One could make that statement about all matters involving one or more humans - it means nothing.

On the other hand, it can mean that you acquire a reputation as a pushover, and get all the business you can manage, at a grossly inadequate rate.


That is not the net result. Performing for a grossly inadequate rate puts one out of business and/or likely not to make the same mistake again.

And in FIRST, the troll-bot teams will likely modify their risk assessment methodologies next year.


Equity is inherently an ideal. In the real world, there's nothing wrong with approximating it to the degree possible. That's the essence of doing business in good faith.


Like I said - I wish that it did.

[Tristan Lall]

sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing - really?

One could make that statement about all matters involving one or more humans - it means nothing.
Here's a very straightforward example. Sometimes it is overall less economically efficient to expend resources in a competitive bid process, than it would be to simply award the work to a particular vendor. Tendering it is therefore a "bad thing" under those circumstances. (I said not uniformly good, to qualify the remark, because perhaps some good can still come out of a net loss.)

I gathered from your previous post that you were describing the similarity to a competitive bid as an example of FIRST mirroring good real-world practice. I'm merely saying that competitive bidding isn't necessarily something worth emulating in a robotics competition, because it is not a good thing a priori. (And yes, you can say that about anything—that's why the discussion needs to go beyond what people usually do in the real world, and instead cover why they do it, and what the consequences are.)

That is not the net result. Performing for a grossly inadequate rate puts one out of business and/or likely not to make the same mistake again.
Sure; but that's not really a point of contention, is it? One can work to change others' perceptions in any situation.

And in FIRST, the troll-bot teams will likely modify their risk assessment methodologies next year.
They probably will. But was teaching them the lesson in this fashion productive?

Do they have reason to feel mistreated or misled? Does it matter to FIRST that they might feel that way, as a result of FIRST's statements? (And should it matter?)

[wireties]

Here's a very straightforward example. Sometimes it is overall less economically efficient to expend resources in a competitive bid process, than it would be to simply award the work to a particular vendor. Tendering it is therefore a "bad thing" under those circumstances. (I said not uniformly good, to qualify the remark, because perhaps some good can still come out of a net loss.)


Agreed - this may be more efficient in isolated instances and with all parties acting benevolently. But as a system, it cannot function. Somehow and somewhere, somebody is making the decision. In a non-competitive system, the criteria are hidden thus possibly (and probably) unfair. In my opinion, if the system is not fair and competitive, the system is unworkable.


Sure; but that's not really a point of contention, is it? One can work to change others' perceptions in any situation.


It is not contentious at all. It was a simple statement of fact. What happens to parties that under-bid and/or under-perform? The system consumes them, as it should. They do not get a chance to repeat their mistakes (often) as you implied.


They probably will. But was teaching them the lesson in this fashion productive?


It was harsh. I wish it had not happened. But it was definitely productive. The troll-bot devotees were not harmed by FIRST. They took a HUGE risk and lost - simple. There are a number of FIRST teams (along with observers) who will now dispassionately assess risk mathematically. The mentors and students involved will not easily repeat the same process and/or error, perhaps for an entire career.

[Tristan Lall]

No, grasp, grapple, and grab were included in your quotes, and the bumper ones were essentially the same question. Thus, four cases as far as you were able to drum up.Yes, that is what I said: 3, or 4 if you count the bumpers separately, plus the grasp/grapple/grab thing. So at least four separate issues in total.

Blue is blue (and this was intended as 'close enough, don't worry about dye lot numbers'), bumpers have to be supported on the ends, vision interference is vision interference, and grasp/grab/grapple mean what they mean. I hardly think that's "so many different situations" that leave "a lot of big ambiguities".
Let's look at those individually. The ambiguities are pretty straightforward, and should have been anticipated. (I also think those ambiguities are consequential enough to be justifiably described as "big". You're entitled to believe otherwise.)

The bumper colour one is an example of good use of the term. It's not very ambiguous at all. As far as I can tell, any reasonably astute observer is probably going to understand this in one way only. (Well, apart from visual impairments, I guess.)

The vision target one is not. Is the standard met when the observer thinks it's similar, or when they think a camera will perceive it similarly? Does the observer's impression of mimicry depend on whether they understand how a shape-tracking algorithm works? What about intent? What is the practical consequence of uncertainty and misinterpretation? These are things that can easily be specified, to guide teams and officials.

The bumper end questions are also open to interpretation. Which parts of which faces constitute the ends? And what about soft parts of the bumper? If FIRST is trying to be permissive, they need to try harder—even after the clarification, they left people guessing as to whether FIRST missed the point of the question (and thus could have meant that a reasonably astute observer would obviously decide that the end face was the "end"), or was trying to cut teams some slack (anything remotely near to the end, on any surface). Again, this would be easy to specify, either numerically/geometrically, or as a functional test for inspectors to perform. (This is also annoying because it's a largely useless requirement.)

And we've already discussed grasp/grab/grapple.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes -- they're alike in that they're all extremely obvious if you're not trying to game the system.
Is your understanding of that likeness universal? (And in case your insight about obviousness was a flippant rather than serious response, can you articulate what the meaningful likeness is?) Does it lead to useful, inescapable conclusions that help satisfy the questions I described above?

In other words, by observing the interpretation of one of these things, are you sufficiently informed about how the interpretation of the others will proceed? I think not, because the details are so different, and the people responsible for making the calls cannot help but be inconsistent.

(Also, 118 would be disappointed at your implicit characterization of them, I'm certain.)

I'll stop you there. We are specifically instructed not to lawyer the rules. Talking about how judges define legal tests is directly contrary to what you're supposed to be doing when you look at these game rules. (And besides, if you're going to drag judicial practice into this, Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" is a much better analogy to the "reasonably astute observer" test.)
I'm not the one who first invoked the concept of legal tests. Indeed, there's a fair chance that FIRST had legal tests in mind when they wrote the "reasonably astute observer" standard—and if that's the case, it's undoubtedly an appropriate way to analyze the question. It might well be their own fault, despite their 'no lawyering' mantra.

Even if FIRST did not intend for us to be talking about the law, one can't help but draw the obvious parallels. Those parallels don't just go away, because some members of the GDC are repulsed by the notion of people acting like lawyers.

(Incidentally, "I know it when I see it" isn't a test for obscenity; it's preceded by an apologetic statement that a good definition of such a test escaped Justice Stewart, and that in that case, he was relying on his own instinctual reaction rather than a formal set of criteria. And like "reasonably astute observer", it's inherently subjective and ambiguous. One might ask, fruitlessly: 'Will Stewart think this other, similar movie is obscene?' That problem of ambiguity is precisely why the Miller test exists.)

Besides, if we're supposed to analyze this in the manner of an engineer, without resorting to law, don't you think that precision is a hallmark of that profession as well? Shouldn't we be talking about dimensions and tolerances when it comes to the bumper ends, and functional tests and specifications when it comes to the vision? A thoughtful engineer might even include the Pantone number of the FIRST logo colours, just to avoid questions about whether we were supposed to approximate the version with the light background, or the one with the dark background. As for grasping, an engineer might distill it down to a discussion of force and contact, or explain whether the true objective of the specification is to limit field damage. At the very least, an engineer should be prepared to discuss things in these terms, if questions arise about the initial open-ended specification.

Why then do we get a test that looks like none of the above, and instead looks like a snippet of legalese?

I'm a bit astounded at this line of reasoning. Are you seriously positing the argument that anyone reading the phrase "a reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation would interpret it as any observer that considers themselves reasonably astute?

I mean, I suppose you could read it that way, but I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would do so, as doing so would render the rule so subjective as to be meaningless (and thus it cannot possibly be the intent of the GDC).
Surely you've seen teams and wondered, 'what were they thinking'? Why then is it so hard to believe that a team couldn't interpret FIRST's dictum as "if you're reasonable, we'll be lenient"? (In other words, a team member might think that as long as they can describe their reasoning in a way that makes them appear reasonably astute, the inspector will grant them a pass.) That's just a made-up example, but it's not so implausible that FIRST should reject it as a possible outcome.

Another possibility: a team might agree that all of the referees at the field are reasonably astute observers, and that it is the referees that conference at the end of some matches to discuss rulings. So, if it was a violation in any of their opinions (i.e. the action was inappropriate to "a reasonably astute observer"), it should be impermissible. Again, that's a made-up example that doesn't represent my personal take on the situation. But it's not crazy—notice that the manual doesn't say that refereeing decisions aren't conducted like that.

You could go all the way, and wonder: 'With all these reasonably astute observers everywhere, how will FIRST poll them all?' That is blatantly ridiculous, and should probably be dismissed as such—but the fact that the statement could be interpreted that way exposes its weakness.

This, by the way, falls right into the positivist trap. I can just imagine the question to the Q&A: "When you say 'a reasonably astute observer', what do you mean by 'a'? Does it mean any reasonably astute observer, a particular reasonably astute observer, or an observer that is considered by the team or the person themselves to be reasonably astute? Also, in assessing observers, what is the difference between reasonably astute and unreasonably astute (or reasonably unastute?)"

Reading requires interpretation; finding the correct interpretation means asking yourself, "what does the author most likely mean in this case?" I have a hard time believing that anyone would read "reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation and come to any conclusion other than a generic layman observing the relevant phenomenon.
By that logic, doesn't a referee (likely not a generic layman in their own right) have to adopt their impression of the thought process of a hypothetical individual to make the call? How is that reasonable, or even predictable?

Besides, it's a more complex question than what the author "most likely" meant. You have to think about cases that are less likely, but still plausible (because the referees might interpret the rule differently, within the bounds of what a generic layman might believe). There's nothing wrong with asking FIRST some of the things you alluded to in an effort to narrow the solution space a bit.

Indeed conversely, the author of the rule should be thinking about all the ways the rule could be interpreted by a reasonable person, and hedging against them. Either use precise language, or construct the requirement in a way that precision is immaterial. If FIRST really wants it to come down to the referee's on-the-spot judgment, then they should just say so—no need to invoke a standard that lacks a clear definition, and is potentially applied differently under different circumstances.

[pfreivald]

Let's look at those individually. The ambiguities are pretty straightforward, and should have been anticipated.

I found none of them ambiguous.

These are things that can easily be specified, to guide teams and officials.

No, not 'easily'. When rules are going to be picked apart as much as they are, specificity in this manner creates well more problems than it solves.

(This is also annoying because it's a largely useless requirement.)

This opinion is entirely moot to the conversation. "I find this rule annoying" is not a discussion I'm interested in having.

Is your understanding of that likeness universal?

It doesn't have to be. It just has to be universal enough to be predictable by those who need to incorporate the rule into their design process. (Which again, I would like to emphasize that 118 did very well.)

(And in case your insight about obviousness was a flippant rather than serious response, can you articulate what the meaningful likeness is?)

I was being serious, and I've already articulated the meaningful likeness. That you disagree does not negate the statement.

Does it lead to useful, inescapable conclusions that help satisfy the questions I described above?

"Inescapable" is a bar set far too high. Nothing you or I or anyone else has said on this thread or any other about game rules is "inescapable".

In other words, by observing the interpretation of one of these things, are you sufficiently informed about how the interpretation of the others will proceed?

I have yet to be wrong when interpreting FIRST rules described by the "reasonably astute observer" metric. So the evidence points to 'yes'.

(Also, 118 would be disappointed at your implicit characterization of them, I'm certain.)

I don't believe they would -- they were trying to game the rules to the best of their ability, and good for them. Nothing about that characterization is an insult. They should be rightly proud of what they did, and that they did so in a way that their risk was calculated and inherently mitigated.

Even if FIRST did not intend for us to be talking about the law, one can't help but draw the obvious parallels.

I can help but draw the parallel, because it's entirely unneeded.

(Incidentally, "I know it when I see it" isn't a test for obscenity; it's preceded by an apologetic statement that a good definition of such a test escaped Justice Stewart, and that in that case, he was relying on his own instinctual reaction rather than a formal set of criteria.

Yes, exactly. The entire point is that it's difficult to articulate but easy to ascertain.

(In other words, a team member might think that as long as they can describe their reasoning in a way that makes them appear reasonably astute, the inspector will grant them a pass.)

As I said, I find the fact that anyone might come to that conclusion downright astounding.

Another possibility:

Yes, indeed, you can come up with a gazillion possible interpretations. Your job, though, in reading the rules, is to come up with the most probable one.

By that logic, doesn't a referee (likely not a generic layman in their own right) have to adopt their impression of the thought process of a hypothetical individual to make the call? How is that reasonable, or even predictable?

Yes, they do. It's reasonable and predictable because that's what refs do -- they enforce rules and make judgement calls in doing so.

Besides, it's a more complex question than what the author "most likely" meant.

No, it isn't.

You have to think about cases that are less likely, but still plausible

True. ...and then determine which is most likely.

There's nothing wrong with asking FIRST some of the things you alluded to in an effort to narrow the solution space a bit.

Also true. Which is what was done, and the answer given was the "reasonably astute observer" test, which everyone should have taken for the generality that it is.

Either use precise language, or construct the requirement in a way that precision is immaterial.

Have you ever written a game? I don't believe that you have a good grasp on just how difficult it is to do that -- and how unnecessary in many situations.

[45Auto]

Either use precise language, or construct the requirement in a way that precision is immaterial.

Wow, apparently you have never worked to a set of real world requirements! :)

[pfreivald]

Wow, apparently you have never worked to a set of real world requirements! :)

Thanks for the backup from another perspective.

The funny thing is that I'm not an engineer (though I have some experience with both semiconductor manufacturing equipment and quantum cryptography): my degrees are in theoretical physics, linguistics/ASL, and education, not engineering. I have, however, at one time or another been a professional freelance game designer, so my perspective on this -- and thus my disagreement with Tristan and my defense of the GDC -- comes primarily from what I know about writing game rules as opposed to engineering.

Until you sit down and write a set of rules, and then have people try to play a game (even a mock-up of that game) based on those rules, you have no idea just how hard it is to write good rules -- and that's not even taking into account whether or not the game is fun to play or fun to watch or both.

And as I said before, permissive rules sets are easier to write than (good) prescriptive rules sets, and each lend themselves to a very different type of game. Writing a prescriptive rules set that you know is going to be picked apart by tens of thousands of highly motivated, intelligent people is, to put it mildly, a daunting task. In light of that task, the expectation of language so precise that it can't be gamed is completely, utterly unreasonable.