Re: Catapulting minibot
 

I just so happen to have a tank of liquid nitrogen lying around in the shop! :ahh: XD being a curious person who doesnt know physics, y would u dip it in liquid nitrogen?

Re: Catapulting minibot
 

Something that is pushed is not autonomous? Have you ever seen a mini-sumo robot competition?

I don't see how the HOSTBOT acting on the MINIBOT with a force external two the MINIBOT creates a condition where the MINIBOT is no longer autonomous. They are separate entities. It says MINIBOTS must remain autonomous. There is no rule regarding interaction from non-autonomous external forces.

Think of a small autonomous robot driving along a table. Say it doesn't stop, and it falls off the edge, because the normal force upward on it is suddenly removed. At no point in this process did the small autonomous robot cease to be autonomous. Say the table it is driving on suddenly raises, before the small robot falls off. The small robot is still autonomous.

Re: Catapulting minibot
 

I'm talking about autonomy in the broader sense, not strictly the robot sense.

Re: Catapulting minibot
 

What about:

It is true that this rule deals mostly with removing sharp edges, but it does say that projectiles are a danger, and should be removed. And this rule would at least put a mini-bot/projectile under heavy inspection for dangers to the ARENA, GAME PIECES or people.

Re: Catapulting minibot
 

This could possibly be interpreted as "rules lawyering" but if the minibot deployment device deployed from the side or rear then it would not be subject to that rule. Also, I think by projectiles they mean free-flying ones, so if your minibot latches onto the pole before it is launched then it would not be subject.

Re: Catapulting minibot
 

Wasn't there a post not 10 posts ago saying to stick to the GDC's definition of words rather than what you think the words imply?

Re: Catapulting minibot
 

The GDC (rightly) does not define every word, only those which are new or used in a novel or unique manner in the manual. It becomes a never-ending process, as all definitions must at some point rely on (agreed-upon) undefined words.

I doubt they will ever define "autonomous", "position", and other commonly used words except indirectly through elaboration of other rule details. For example, I think rules questions are most often answered by clarifying the GDC interpretation in the Q&A, much less often by introducing new/changed definitions or rules.

Interpretation is unavoidable; the goal should be to get at the underlying motivation/spirit of the game designers intentions. Here, I think their goal is to have a standard race of traditional autonomous robots with start/finish lines and a starting gun; violate that spirit and you'll probably get a negative ruling. Proceed with that spirit over the next few days until clarifications come out, and it will probably be time well spent. If it turns out to be something very much different, we would all be justified in claiming to be highly misled.

Re: Catapulting minibot
 

This is the only definition we have. We don't yet know whether the "act of positioning" can include any upward impetus. I certainly hope it can - because I would hate to have to decide whether your robot did or didn't position the robot exactly parallel to the ground.