Reasoning of the GDC

[martin417]

After the latest update, I began to wonder, what drives the rulings of the GDC? One would assume that there are few criterea for a rule:

1) safety
2) Game-play
3) Damage prevention
4) Fairness (try to keep veteran, or well funded teams from having a big advantage over rookies teams)

Not sure what other criteria may apply, but these will do for a start.

With that in mind, what drives rulings? Looking at team update #7, I am baffled. This ruling will likely punish rookie teams because they are less likely to carefully follow Q&A, updates, and Chief Delphi. Let's assume a team builds the kit-bot chassis. In order to keep the CG low, they choose not to use the wheel stands provided. They use the 3/8" bolts for axles, and build the frame upwards to make a mount for the bumpers in the zone. Unless they make the upper frame larger than the lower frame, they will violate the new rule. How does the improve safety? Playability? Damage prevention? I don't see where this will improve anything, and I definitely see where it adds to the frustration of teams.

Another example is the valve rule introduced last year, setting a max Cv. We have a quantity of valves on the shelf that we will be unable to use because of this rule. Again, it doesn't affect any of the criteria mentioned above. In fact, it punishes poorly funded teams. A well funded team can get around the rule by using multiple smaller valves, so it has no effect other than increasing cost to teams. We have to spend hundreds of dollars to buy valves, even though we already have valves that are perfect in every way, except the Cv is slightly higher than allowed (~.4). The flow is pretty well limited by the fittings and tubing anyway, so little is gained by adding more Cv.

I understand the GDC wants to make the best game possible, and I am not privy to all the reasoning behind their decisions, but I can see the frustraion among the posters here on CD.

[JesseK]

5.) Veteran teams lawyer the rules to H*** and back.
6.) Many veteran teams are willing to assist the rookie teams, if the rookie teams ask.
7.) The answer to the universe and everything is 42. Perhaps a CV of .32 is a random number, or a generated number based upon safety, or a number based upon possible suppliers for the KOP. Who knows :confused:

[martin417]

5.) Veteran teams lawyer the rules to H*** and back.
6.) Many veteran teams are willing to assist the rookie teams, if the rookie teams ask.
7.) The answer to the universe and everything is 42. Perhaps a CV of .32 is a random number, or a generated number based upon safety, or a number based upon possible suppliers for the KOP. Who knows :confused:

5) I have always had a problem with complaints about "lawyering" the rules. If we don't understand a rule, how can we follow it? All the discussion I have seen about rules, especially the fastener protrusion rule has to do with understanding the rule or trying to clear up inconsistencies (allowing pockets for fastener protrusions, but fastener protrusions are illegal).

Every team should make every effort to fully understand all rules so they won't be surprised at inspection. Don't complain about attempts to understand.

6) this is not a criteria
7) Neither is this

[JesseK]

I have always had a problem with complaints about "lawyering" the rules. If we don't understand a rule, how can we follow it?
...
Every team should make every effort to fully understand all rules so they won't be surprised at inspection. Don't complain about attempts to understand.

My comments were more directed at philosophies that seek to exploit rules in order to simply get a win at the expense of sportsmanship/GP. Those philosophies are abundant and obvious to anyone who reads the Q&A. If I remember correctly there was even a seminar in Atlanta last year on (and I'm paraphrasing here...) 'How to Win, Period'. While I don't wholeheartedly disagree with that line of thinking due to the fringe ideas it produces, those philosophies are what expose loopholes in the wording of the rules that are against the obvious (to me...) intent of the rule. Thus I'm sure there is much consideration given to such philosophies, ergo the sometimes odd or constricting wording of the rules. It would seem apparent that the less word play to find a niche strategy, the better off a team is. A perfect example is 190 in 2008 (I hate to call their design out, but it's the epitome of what I'm describing).

If a rookie team can't put everything in their head at once to ensure conformity across the entire rulebook, then it should be up to the veteran teams to step in and help them come competition time. Turning a blind eye to it simply hurts the overall morale and sustainability of that team and by association the overall Regional. While that situation may not be a direct criteria for a ruling, it is probably present enough in reality that the GDC doesn't even need to consider such specific scenarios as what you described.

[Andrew Y.]

i agree with martin all the way. Seems every year the rules become more and more complicated. Its like i have to read, research, ponder, research, twiddle my thump then i MAY have a smiggin of a clue on what its saying...then its all changed a week later and the same process is happening!

Also, the updates should be to correct errors and clarify rules, this year the updates seem to be a bit "CHANGING RULES...TKE THAT!!"..:p
MAybe first should take the manual from the engineers to proof read it? things like the tunnel dimension differences is ridiculous! What if my robot was 1/2 too big?....it should be allowed through inspections:)

I am a firm believer that FIRST needs too find ways to lower the cost to teams. Yes there are teams out there with solid funding, but there are more teams out there with VERY limited funds and resources.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
I believe the GDC adds in certain rules to provide constraints to make teams think harder. I see these as "virtual gravity" rules and sizing fits into that grouping.

No comment on Team Update #7 at this time.

[Andrew Y.]

Martin,
I believe the GDC adds in certain rules to provide constraints to make teams think harder. .


haha or to raise my blood pressure :p

[coldfusion1279]

I would be curious to see what percentage of active teams have a member that is dedicated to checking CD forums or Q&A etc.

If there is a problem with information about relaying finer points of rules to the entire FIRST community, then maybe they should take a different approach to clarifying rules. I don't know what the next step is... emailing everybody everything seems a bit excessive, but something like this?

I do not think one can blame teams for trying work around the rules a little.

We do not have the luxury of other sports where the rules are consistent and fine tuned after years, yes YEARS of gameplay and critique. Every year in FIRST, there are going to be minor inconsistencies or unclear statements in the rules that could dramatically effect the game play.

A PERFECT example of this is the 2006 AIM HIGH game, in which there was a speed limit on initial ball velocity out of the shooter for safety reasons. I never recall any checks on actual ball velocity during competition, but I remember our team followed the rule strictly, while other bots had the ball flying out twice as fast.... Teams that shot at higher velocity could shoot from further... I know shooting faster could have helped many teams.

Could that be the difference between the horizontal component of velocity and velocity regardless of direction? Maybe... Was this ever explicitly clarified by the GDC? Maybe, I don't remember, but even if it was, our team never would have known because our team didn't have avid subscribers to Q&A forums back then...

My point is that both of these opinions are correct. "Lawyering" could lead to unfair advantages, so the GDC tries to set a rule on everything, even valves, just for consistency reasons. However, questioning the rules could be the only way to make the game better for everyone... point out inconsistencies in game play, as well as allowing your team to design an optimal and legal robot for the season.

Anyway, I need to get back to work... :(

[EricVanWyk]

I'm actually a fan of the 0.32CV rule, and I forgive it for appearing to be petty and random at first blush. It reduces cost to teams for free, so I hope we see similar changes in the future.

In the past, we were only allowed to use specific part numbers for valves. Now we can use any valve we have... that isn't better than those specific part numbers. Combined with the 24V ruling, it allows teams to use many valves that weren't available last year, thereby reducing probable cost. Even though your particular valves aren't available, many teams have been able to tap into existing unused resources.

Your complaint is that it doesn't go further, and I agree with you in principle - not enough to complain this year. 0.32CV is low hanging fruit, because we've proved it out over the last however many years and increasing the flow rate could arguably require testing/validation/etc. I'd rather the GDC pick as much low hanging fruit as possible before moving up the tree.

That said, I do hope it opens further next year.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

A PERFECT example of this is the 2006 AIM HIGH game, in which there was a speed limit on initial ball velocity out of the shooter for safety reasons. I never recall any checks on actual ball velocity during competition, but I remember our team followed the rule strictly, while other bots had the ball flying out twice as fast.... Teams that shot at higher velocity could shoot from further... I know that would have

Inspectors had access to a ball velocity test jig and used it frequently. Inspectors and refs were in constant contact to check teams coming off the field to insure that this specification was met. We take our jobs seriously.

[martin417]

I'm actually a fan of the 0.32CV rule, and I forgive it for appearing to be petty and random at first blush. It reduces cost to teams for free, so I hope we see similar changes in the future.

In the past, we were only allowed to use specific part numbers for valves. Now we can use any valve we have... that isn't better than those specific part numbers. Combined with the 24V ruling, it allows teams to use many valves that weren't available last year, thereby reducing probable cost. Even though your particular valves aren't available, many teams have been able to tap into existing unused resources.

Your complaint is that it doesn't go further, and I agree with you in principle - not enough to complain this year. 0.32CV is low hanging fruit, because we've proved it out over the last however many years and increasing the flow rate could arguably require testing/validation/etc. I'd rather the GDC pick as much low hanging fruit as possible before moving up the tree.

That said, I do hope it opens further next year.

I just looked up last years rules, and saw that the .32 Cv rule came in then. (we didn't use pneumatics last year), but in 2008, there was no restriction on valves. We have a quantity of valves from 2008, they meet all rules, but Cv=~.4 Now we have to buy more valves, and at $50-$75 each, that is not a cost reduction. Teams already had access to the pool of valves you point out.

Limiting the Cv, but not limiting the number of valves allowed (It is allowed to hook up as many valves as you wish to a single actuator, this has been answered in Q&A) only punishes teams that can't afford a lot of valves, and those teams that have access to valves that would otherwise be legal.

The smaller Cv doesn't hurt us, but the $$$ we now have to spend to get legal valves does.

[EricVanWyk]

I just looked up last years rules, and saw that the .32 Cv rule came in then. (we didn't use pneumatics last year), but in 2008, there was no restriction on valves. We have a quantity of valves from 2008, they meet all rules, but Cv=~.4 Now we have to buy more valves, and at $50-$75 each, that is not a cost reduction. Teams already had access to the pool of valves you point out.

Limiting the Cv, but not limiting the number of valves allowed (It is allowed to hook up as many valves as you wish to a single actuator, this has been answered in Q&A) only punishes teams that can't afford a lot of valves, and those teams that have access to valves that would otherwise be legal.

The smaller Cv doesn't hurt us, but the $$$ we now have to spend to get legal valves does.

My apologies and retraction. I must have skipped a few years with pneumatics rules. My sporadic view supported my claims, but it appears that a full view does not.

[coldfusion1279]

Inspectors had access to a ball velocity test jig and used it frequently. Inspectors and refs were in constant contact to check teams coming off the field to insure that this specification was met. We take our jobs seriously.

Interesting, I guess my memory is a little foggy, my apologies, and there was no intent of ragging on judges for skipping checkpoints. I merely thought it was an 'honors system' type arrangement.

Nonetheless my point remains: our team thought we were following the rule very carefully, when clearly we could have enhanced our shooter even further.

Questioning rules allows more latitude in the creative thought process, but can offer unfair advantages to those who are privy to rule updates and discussion.

Like I said, it would be interesting to see what percentage of teams have someone avidly follow CD or Q&A etc.

[Jones571]

I just looked up last years rules, and saw that the .32 Cv rule came in then. (we didn't use pneumatics last year), but in 2008, there was no restriction on valves. We have a quantity of valves from 2008, they meet all rules, but Cv=~.4 Now we have to buy more valves, and at $50-$75 each, that is not a cost reduction. Teams already had access to the pool of valves you point out.

Limiting the Cv, but not limiting the number of valves allowed (It is allowed to hook up as many valves as you wish to a single actuator, this has been answered in Q&A) only punishes teams that can't afford a lot of valves, and those teams that have access to valves that would otherwise be legal.

The smaller Cv doesn't hurt us, but the $$$ we now have to spend to get legal valves does.

in 08 they did not limit cV but only limited you to the ones provided in the current KOP or previous years. Prior year FIRST Kit Of Parts solenoid valves, and pneumatic tubing may be used in addition to those provided in the 2008 Kit Of Parts. Their costs must be accounted for as explained in Section 8.3.3 Budget Constraints.

As we have found the old festo block has a Cv of .3 so it is good. So are you saying the SMC valve of 2008 had a .4 Cv? and if so were did you get this information from.

[Aren_Hill]

Interesting, I guess my memory is a little foggy, my apologies, and there was no intent of ragging on judges for skipping checkpoints. I merely thought it was an 'honors system' type arrangement.

Nonetheless my point remains: our team thought we were following the rule very carefully, when clearly we could have enhanced our shooter even further.

Questioning rules allows more latitude in the creative thought process, but can offer unfair advantages to those who are privy to rule updates and discussion.

Like I said, it would be interesting to see what percentage of teams have someone avidly follow CD or Q&A etc.

They definitely had speed testers that year, consistency between regionals would be one thing that may have varied. In St. Louis our team had many complaints from others about "shooting too fast" and we spent ~2 hours at that test rig proving we didnt. Turns out alot of backspin creates a flatter trajectory, who knew :rolleyes:

[martin417]

in 08 they did not limit cV but only limited you to the ones provided in the current KOP or previous years.

As we have found the old festo block has a Cv of .3 so it is good. So are you saying the SMC valve of 2008 had a .4 Cv? and if so were did you get this information from.

Don't make a statement unless you are sure of your facts. I always check my facts before I post.

from the 2008 rule book:

<R88> There is no limit to the number of solenoid valves, pressure regulators, pressure gauges,
and connecting fittings that may be used on the ROBOT. All such devices must be “off the
shelf” pneumatic devices rated by their manufacturers for pressure of at least 125psi.

We used a manifold with 4 SMC valves rated at .4 Cv.

[Jones571]

Don't make a statement unless you are sure of your facts. I always check my facts before I post.

from the 2008 rule book:



We used a manifold with 4 SMC valves rated at .4 Cv.

And R87 2008 is were I took my statement of solenoids are allowed from 08 kop and older so how are my facts not checked? I read the entire pneumatics section not just the rule that if taken out of context helps me.

R87 IMHO says all solenoids needed to currently or previously offered in a KOP. R88 would clarify this even further that it must be COTS so you can't use something that would be discountinued and you can have as many as you would like on your robot.

So if the SMC you used was never in a KOP it should of never been a ROBOT PART to begin with.

[martin417]

And R87 2008 is were I took my statement of solenoids are allowed from 08 kop and older so how are my facts not checked? I read the entire pneumatics section not just the rule that if taken out of context helps me.

R87 IMHO says all solenoids needed to currently or previously offered in a KOP. R88 would clarify this even further that it must be COTS so you can't use something that would be discountinued and you can have as many as you would like on your robot.

So if the SMC you used was never in a KOP it should of never been a ROBOT PART to begin with.

Again, opinions are just that. We had the same concern in 2008, and asked and received the following on Q&A:

Pneumatic System
Pneumatic valves
Pneumatic valves
Posted by FRC1771 at 01/18/2008 09:18:14 am
Rules <R86> and <R87> seem to limit the pneumatic valves to the ones in the KOP (from this
or previous years). However, rule <R88> appears to allow any solenoid valve, regulator,
gauge, or fitting, as long as they are off the shelf, and and rated for at least 125 PSI.
My question is: can we use other valves and fittings than those supplied in the kit. Specifically,
Valves with larger Cv than the ones in the kit, and other one touch fittings such as muliti-T's
Page 172 of 223
2008 Q&A Forum Export
generated: 02/27/2008 09:27:01 am EST
etc.
Re: Pneumatic valves
Posted by GDC at 01/21/2008 12:32:44 pm
Rule <R88> specifically permits the use of additional (not-Kit Of Parts) solenoid valves and
fittings. Valves with a larger internal Cv than the KOP valves are permitted by this rule. Note,
however, that all valves and fittings must connect to, and use, 0.160" ID pneumatic tubing.
This is a safety constraint (as the Cv for the entire pneumatic system is dominated by the
tubing flow rate) and must not be violated.

[Lil' Lavery]

Wait, so you're complaining about not being able to use a part that you purchased before you knew the new games' rules (and a rule that existed in 2009 as well)? Did you complain about not being able to use traction wheels last year, as well?

[martin417]

Wait, so you're complaining about not being able to use a part that you purchased before you knew the new games' rules (and a rule that existed in 2009 as well)? Did you complain about not being able to use traction wheels last year, as well?

Perhaps people are misunderstanding the gist of this thread. I am not complaining (well, maybe a little). The title of the thread is "reasoning of the GDC" The purpose of the thread is not to complain, or to bash the GDC.

I started this thread as a discussion about the motivation and reasoning that goes into rules and decisions made by the GDC. I was using the valve rule as a case study on this subject. What could be the motivation behind limiting the Cv to .32? It is NOT flow limitation, because it is legal to use as many valves as you like, connected in parallel to create a Cv as high as you would like, provided you have the money to buy the valves. It is possible that, as AL said, rules are put in place as constraints to make teams think. I doubt that is the case here, because it doesn't take much thinking to put two valves in place of one.

So the question is, why the rule? (I realize now that the rule appeared last year, but that doesn't make any difference). One thing that lawmakers (rule makers) in general overlook is the law of unintended consequences. While there may be a perceived reason to make a change, that change may affect many things far beyond what was intended, sometimes, the negative outweighs the positive.

In this case, the restriction favors well funded teams, either by allowing them to get an advantage by using more valves, or by forcing a team to purchase new valves when they have perfectly serviceable ones in stock.(our case). This is, in my view, a negative. I don't see what he positive could be.

Again, not bashing, just putting forward thoughts for discussion. So, if you have a thought, put it out here. Discuss it civilly. Tell me what the positives of this rule might be, and how they outweigh the negatives.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
I follow you up to a point but I have to say that there aren't that many well funded teams this year. I would think the majority are struggling as we are. Sign of the times, but I would rather teams be in and struggling than out. Of course it always possible that we feel stronger about GDC decisions this year because we are all struggling. We will know for sure when we get to regionals and find many old friends are not there.

[martin417]

Martin,
I follow you up to a point but I have to say that there aren't that many well funded teams this year. I would think the majority are struggling as we are. Sign of the times, but I would rather teams be in and struggling than out. Of course it always possible that we feel stronger about GDC decisions this year because we are all struggling. We will know for sure when we get to regionals and find many old friends are not there.

Al,

I agree that times are tough, and many teams are struggling with budget issues. The budget issue is another facet of the law of unintended consequences. Since this thread is about reasoning and motivation for GDC decisions, and it is a stated goal of FIRST to be as inclusive as possible, and to have as many teams in as many places as possible, I think this an excellent topic for discussion.

How do GDC rulings affect the cost of participating in FIRST? We have already discussed the valve rule and two ways it can impact costs, what other examples can we come up with? One positive example is the motor rule. All motors allowed for use are provided in the KOP (with the exception of the optional 3 CIMs this year) That keeps costs down, since teams don't have to worry about competing with other teams using expensive exotic motors.

I am assuming that members of the GDC read posts here on CD, and want this to be a thought provoking exercise that may bring up points of view they haven't explored. So when responding, please stay on the topic at hand, be polite, positive, and constructive. I don't want this thread to turn into a complaint fest.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
Some of the indicators will be the number of robots that show up with the kit frame and wheel standoffs. Another less accurate indicator will be how many students travel to out of town events or how many second events teams are registered for. Some of the restrictions that the GDC has included in the rules tend to limit the functionality of the robots. This may be in part a method of leveling the field and part limiting the need for teams to design and build do all robots. This is the first year in a ball game that robots can't carry or possess more than one ball. That leaves teams with no ball pickup to design and pay for.

[tomgee4me]

Martin,

I just read your post and got worried. We are a rookie team that has done exactly what you cite as an example case. I just read through Update #7 and am not quite sure what you mean when you say the lower part of the frame will be in violation. Are you talking about the bolt heads that would be protruding beyond the actual frame?

Thanks for pointing this out.

Tom Gee
Mentor, Rookie Team #3323

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Martin,

I just read your post and got worried. We are a rookie team that has done exactly what you cite as an example case. I just read through Update #7 and am not quite sure what you mean when you say the lower part of the frame will be in violation. Are you talking about the bolt heads that would be protruding beyond the actual frame?

Thanks for pointing this out.

Tom Gee
Mentor, Rookie Team #3323

He is talking about boltheads protruding outside the frame perimeter that are outside of the bumperzone. They are illegal as per Team Update #7.

If you have any questions, PM me (or since you are somewhat local contact me through our teams website) and I'll help you out (if needed).

[johnr]

You may want to read this thread http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=81042

[MrForbes]

In this case, the restriction favors well funded teams, either by allowing them to get an advantage by using more valves, or by forcing a team to purchase new valves when they have perfectly serviceable ones in stock.

The restriction also encourages teams to think of other ways to solve the problem. How about designing a gearbox/mechanism and using a motor to make it work, instead of buying several expensive valves?

I don't worry much about the reasoning of the GDC. I understand that the committee works in strange and mysterious ways, and accept it. The rules are what they are, and we'll work within them as best we can.

[AdamHeard]

Whenever I get really frustrated with the GDC and their most annoying rules that I think are really arbitrary, I stop and think that this is nothing compared to the ridiculous amount of rules one must work towards in most large engineering firms. I guess they're just preparing my students and I for the real world?

[Rick TYler]

This is the first year in a ball game that robots can't carry or possess more than one ball. That leaves teams with no ball pickup to design and pay for.

I guess it's possible that the GDC made the rule to save teams money, but I think it's far more likely that we are seeing "robot soccer" in which "hands" aren't legal.

[martin417]

A new question on the reasoning of the GDC:

Why be deliberately vague in rules and Q&A?

There has much discussion here on CD about the meaning and intent of several rules, earlier it was fasteners protruding beyond the frame perimeter, lately is has been about electromagnets. These questions have been asked multiple times, and several different ways, with no crystal clear answer from the GDC. When several inspectors have posted that they don't know what the rule means, it looks like trouble, if the inspectors can't figure it out and agree, how is a team supposed to?

Why be deliberately vague? How does vagueness impact the aforementioned criteria?

1) safety
2) Game-play
3) Damage prevention
4) Fairness

(I realize that these criteria are mine not the GDC's)

I see several negative impacts of vagueness:

1) A team's design ruled illegal at competition

2) Discourages a team from attempting a novel approach because they can't figure out if it is legal or not.

3) May force a team to abandon an idea they assume is illegal, but isn't

4) causes delays in an already tight schedule while trying to understand the rules, get answers from Q&A etc.

Perhaps these are intended consequences, and are exactly what the GDC wants to happen. It is a lot like real life, unclear customer requirements, poorly written statement of work, bad communication from the sales / marketing team etc.

But again, are we modeling real life, or playing a game? If the teams and inspectors can't figure out the rules, how will spectators? Since the game is brand new every year, there hasn't been years of refinement and interpretation to perfect the rules like in most sporting events, so clarity and completeness is much more critical.

I think the GDC needs to abandon its policy of inscrutability and adopt a policy of openness and clarity.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
This is an interesting dance we are in. The GDC and the Inspectors do not want to limit creativity. We want to see teams innovate, create, and strategize in their robot design. To that end, some robot rules are vague to allow this to occur. Other rules are constrained to foster more thinking and creative methods to overcome the constraints. Where we differ is in the implementation of our jobs. The GDC works very hard trying to fulfill their goal while inspectors are working hard to insure the goals are met. To these ends, teams come up with ideas that challenge both of us. Electromagnets are one of those areas this year. Last year it was propellers. To maintain this balance, both groups have to come to a consensus on how to fairly judge designs with these new innovations. I can assure you that we are working on it but there are other pressing issues. Ref and LRI training are fairly high up on the list at the moment so that we can be prepared for the first regionals.
For the record, I disagreed with the props rulings last year but it made for an interesting season. I also have asked to include electric solenoids for several years but I do understand the difficult task of limiting the rules for safety, additional power, and electrical wiring of the same.

One thing to keep in the back of your minds, Woodie Flowers is a driving force on the GDC. His experience in education at MIT has helped form some of these goals.

[Taylor]

I see the vagueness as a result of necessity. With 1800+ teams competing, the GDC can't possibly begin to comprehend the breadth and depth of possible designs. Rather than create a restrictive game with many similar-looking robots (a common complaint during the 2009 build season that was, in my eyes, proven to be false), they err on the side of allowing a broad spectrum of designs.

Edit: Al is much more eloquent than I am.

[martin417]

I understand the desire for a broad base of different designs. However, I am of the opinion that vagueness discourages innovation, for the reasons I stated earlier. Imagine a design team has a deadline, and several design alternatives, some of which are innovative, but may be in a gray area of the requirements (rules in this case). If it takes two weeks to get clarification, or clarification never comes, it would only make sense to abandon the innovative/gray alternatives for the tried and true, obviously legal ones. In other words, thinking outside the box is penalized (time delays), while following old methods is rewarded (immediate implementation).

[Kims Robot]

I understand the desire for a broad base of different designs. However, I am of the opinion that vagueness discourages innovation, for the reasons I stated earlier. Imagine a design team has a deadline, and several design alternatives, some of which are innovative, but may be in a gray area of the requirements (rules in this case). If it takes two weeks to get clarification, or clarification never comes, it would only make sense to abandon the innovative/gray alternatives for the tried and true, obviously legal ones. In other words, thinking outside the box is penalized (time delays), while following old methods is rewarded (immediate implementation).

Wow you just EXACTLY mirrored something I am going through with a customer at my real job!! Well nearly exactly... we have to meet the deadline and the budget, and there is an innovative technology a month away, but it would put us off our schedule, so we scratched it... huh FIRST really is a microcosm of the real world :)

I cant say I disagree that some of these things dont seem to make sense, or are hard to figure out the why's... but really take a step back and realize why we are doing this. If you belabor it to your kids and complain left and right, all they will remember 10 years from now is how political and nonsensical the GDC is. If you take it with a grain of salt and move on past the decision, 10 years from now your kids will remember how much fun they had building an awesome robot. What do you really want as the outcome?

[martin417]

If you belabor it to your kids and complain left and right, all they will remember 10 years from now is how political and nonsensical the GDC is. If you take it with a grain of salt and move on past the decision, 10 years from now your kids will remember how much fun they had building an awesome robot. What do you really want as the outcome?

As I have said several times throughout this thread, the purpose of this discussion is NOT to complain or to bash the GDC, but only to have a healthy discussion about the motives or reasons behind rules and/or decisions, and the consequences, intended or un-intended, negative or positive, of those decisions. I don't see any negatives to having this discussion. I am not looking for an "outcome". What outcome do you expect from any conversation or intellectual discussion other than the exchange of ideas?

[Bill_B]

FIRST and Woodie have given us the akwardly phrased concept of Gracious professionalism (what's wrong with Professional Grace?) so the GDC gives us the concept that could be called Vague Precision. They have ideas about how the game should be played but don't want to inhibit innovation. all hail to VP and GP!!!!