maybe not an issue
 

Since this is a variation of the other thread, I'm going to repost this because I still think teams may be wasting a lot of energy on this before seeing how FIRST clarifies the update on Monday or Tuesday.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SC8 and SC9 say that:

A container is counted as "IN" if it is touching the carpet in the scoring the zone, touching a container which is supported by a container touching the carpet in the scoring zone, or is supported by an OPPONENT robot that is touching the scoring zone carpet.

"IN" means it counts as a POINT, NOT a stack. No where does it say this counts as a stack. I think an assumption was made that is never actually said by FIRST. Again - NO WHERE does FIRST actually state that a container being held in the air counts as a multiplier or a stack. It is too vague and up to interpretation - that is true - but lets see how they clarify the wording to see what their real intention is.

The STACK is determined by the highest SHU of the STACK, not of a container "IN" in the scoring the zone. Two different issues - I don't think a robot holding a container 8 feet high in the air has anything to do with the "STACK" multiplier - all SC9 says is that container being held 8 feet high will count as "IN", meaning it's worth one point. But to count as part of a stack it must be touching containers which are touching containers which in some pile/stack/chain are touching the carpet of the scoring zone.

Dave, Joe, and others - what do you think? Do you think this could just be a case of reading something between the lines which isn't actually there? I don't think there is any scenario which allows for negative points - but I think SC9 just says that if a container is supported by (resting on top of, is being held by, etc...) an opponent robot which is in "YOUR" scoring zone that it will be counted as "IN" and count as a point. Nothing to do with the stack.

If I'm right, than at least there is no controversy and everything is exactly as we thought it was on Friday - just that we had a really interesting 48 hour hypothetical discussion. Any thoughts?

JM

dave's comments

basic point, they never said you couldn't get negative points, and they don't care if you want to try, because if you give negative points, you get 2x their negative points, so the idea of giving negatives is moot and just plain crazy

Looking At the Updates (or, What's the Issue?)
 

In going through the updates and adding them to HyperRules, I have to agree with Jason Morella on this one. The only rule which FIRST has changed regarding an opponent holding a container is SC8, which ONLY deals with which containers you get one point for. Nowhere in SC8 does it discuss the multiplier. Rather, the multiplier is discussed in SC9, which has not been updated regarding opponents holding containers.

Something to keep in mind that I just realized as writing this is nowhere in SC8, SC9, or SC10 (the rules regarding scoring) does it state that measuring will be done from the ground. Therefore, it may be the case(we'll have to wait for clarification on this from FIRST) that in the event that the largest(I'm not using the word "tallest" here on purpose) stack is being held by an opponent robot, it may be measured from the bottom of the lowest container in the stack.

Your missing something important
 

While what Jason and Nate said both are correct, you both did miss one important part. In update #3, first changed SC8 not only so that a robot holding the container would count, but they also changed what a stack is. Now they are simply looking for the highest point within the scoring zone. My interpretation of this would mean that an opponent robot in a scoring zone holding a bin that is above any other bin in the scoring zone would count as the multiplier measured in SHU.

Re: maybe not an issue
 

Count on the English teacher to be the one to actually understand the wording of the rules! :)

Jason, I think you are right on. This whole hysteria is being caused by a massive "over-interpretation" of Update #3. The only thing that changed in that Update was a clarification of how they would determine if a container is "in" the scoring zone, as defined in SC8. The one preamble note concerning stack height that precedes the SC8 write-up, I interpret as a comment regarding "piles" of containers (i.e. piles can count as "stacks" and "stacks" do not have to be perfectly placed one atop the other). I don't see anything anywhere discussing "virtual stacks" held by the opponents robot.

All in all, this has been fun thought exercise, but I don't see anything to worry about here.

-dave

-----------------

Y = AX^2 + B.... ehhh, whatever

Try this one out...
 

The rules state that if any team on your alliance is touching a stack in your scoring zone, that stack's multiplyer is not counted. Would it work the same way if you substituted "stack" for "enemy robot"?

It would then read: If any team on your alliance is touching an enemy roobt (holding a bin in the air to get the stack multiplyer), that stack's multiplyer is not counted.

Thoughts?

Prefer not to be a target
 

Well, now that Update 4 is out, I can reveal that WildStang had no intentions of raising a bin 20 feet in the air and become a punching bag for other robots.

Joe and Bill, sorry to dissappoint you, but thanks for the kind acknowledgement anyway.