Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

A rule: Please don't discuss the 2015 game/Hint(s). This is only about HOW the game will be discussed after Jan 3rd.

An Idea: Could there be a better way to organize discussion after the Game is released and Cheif Delphi EXPLODES? There are always a few threads discussing EVERYTHING, from drivetrain to strategy, and then later someone makes a specific thread that is even harder to find among other more specific threads that pop up. Maybe I'm just lazy, (or inexperienced with fourms) but perhaps we could all agree to be more organized. Just in some, simple way, buy making a standard for naming threads about the 2015 Game. If there could be such collaboration/agreement. I think if anyone, it might just be the people that build largeish robots in 6 weeks.

For example we would use specific titles for the 2015 game, like:
FRC2015 ROOKIE HELP WITH DRIVE
FRC2015 LIFTER RULES
FRC2015 DEFENSE STRATEGY
FRC2015 ALLIANCE SWITCHING
FRC2015 GAME HINT RECAP KOP SIZES

These are just examples. (yes, I put a plug from the game hint discussion, whoops.)

But the more specific, the better. This would be SO much better for everyone to get around and navigate the discussion after the Kickoff on Jan 3rd.

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

The problem is this would require basically everyone on CD to get on board - requiring everyone to see this and participate in this discussion, etc. We have too many people for that, many of whom aren't regulars enough to see this. A few hundred people will be logging on and posting on the 3rd for the first time in months, so they'll have no idea either.

I solve the post kickoff explosion by generally staying off CD. I need time to firm up my own ideas anyway.

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

I can try to be specific. Even if not everybody sees it, it will at least clean stuff up a little bit.

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

I agree with this, the first few days I try to stay away so I (and my team) can formulate our own ideas about strategy and mechanism design. Same with ri3d and build blitz. Although, with all the hints of change lately, I'll likely be on here earlier to verify that we haven't missed any changes to the rules.

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

I'd like to see a dual prong approach.

Step 1: FIRST scatters little robot emoji icons through the rules document.

Step 2: CD implements a capture check on each post for you to put the number of emoji and what it looked like.

Step 3: PROFIT! At least one person on each team had to at least open the document and scroll through it to count the emoji. This should cut down on the number of 11:45 AM posts since it will take time to look and count. With all the competitive roboteers on each team, it's possible the ones that can't wait might actually look at the rules too.

Just think of the huge decline in CD posts by people JUST READING THE RULES BEFORE POSTING!!! :rolleyes:

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

I know what I want for Christmas...

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

FIRST - the home of passive aggression

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

I deal with it by first, READING the RULES, ALL of them.

Then I go in and tell people asking "silly" questions (AKA, haven't read the Manual yet) to go read the Manual, specifically X section and rule.

Last year, I was a little more proactive. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=123854 Y'all are welcome to reuse that one for this year.

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

I know that not everyone will get on board, but . . .
If you reference a specific section of the rulebook in your title, people will not only be able to help you faster, but they will be more willing to since they know that you have looked at the rulebook yourself at least once.

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

Make the threads that you know will be there in advance. For example, make a strategy thread a day or two before kickoff, or drivetrain discussion. Anything that will always be necessary can be made in advance.

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

The problem is that most of the new post-Kickoff surge does not use the search function, and they'll just start a new thread anyway, almost always in the General Forum. If I happen to run across two identical topic threads, I'll merge them together to make it easier to follow discussions. There were like six different game hint threads on Monday in the first ten minutes.

Rather than make draconian rules, if you run across duplicate threads, kindly remind the OP to use the search feature and provide a link to the original thread! This also applies to rules questions - don't just tell the poster to read the manual if they have a question - quote a specific R# or G# rule that will help them.

Not searching before making a new thread or asking an [obvious to you] rules question are mistakes that all of us made when we were new. Show some GP and help these users.

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

Could we do a community sourced 2015 FAQ?

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of someone giving a bad/non-official answer to a rookie team's question and the team not being able to compete because of it. The FIRST Q&A is the truly official place to go for these things.

However! (just thought of this) - we could do a less official kind of Q&A for the questions that FIRST refuses to comment on - something like 'which drivetrain would be best - 4 CIMs or 6 CIMs?'

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

I think there's just too much risk of people skipping any "it's not official" disclaimers we provide and treating the FAQ as an authority at all on the game. Most questions not in the Q&A don't have black and white answers everyone agrees on anyway (such as your example).

Re: Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion
 

We've been providing those disclaimers for quite some time, with minimal effect. I agree on this.

When I answer a question, I tend to go "Here's the rule, your setup looks like it's doing this, as a [ref/inspector as appropriate] I'd tend to rule that way depending on actually seeing what's up" on any questionable rule.