Re: Reasoning of the GDC
 

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.

Re: Reasoning of the GDC
 

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.

Re: Reasoning of the GDC
 

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).

Re: Reasoning of the GDC
 

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?

Re: Reasoning of the GDC
 

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?

Re: Reasoning of the GDC
 

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!!!!