Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Copioli
What makes you think they haven't. If they did, what makes you think FIRST will listen?
|
Because the "solutions" in this thread haven't been well thought-out solutions so much as they've been ideas that would introduce the same magnitude of risk as the current implementation did 2 weeks ago. The GDC would be vilified further if they implemented a "new" design that had the same issues as the current/old (Week 1) design.
Quote:
|
Because it is their job and responsibility. A 'spec' is not a rule, it is the specifics of how something should work, hence the name 'spec.' A rule or ruling is what update 18 is and I do not consider "Oh well trigger it or else it does not count" as adapting to it.
|
The Update simply enforces the rule as it was before referees made their decisions to manually score it. The spec and the update have nothing to do with each other in that regard. The Update simply points out a spec that was available before (though this is more opinion in regards to what the intention of putting that note in an official rule update is).
Quote:
|
A spec would be easier and much more efficient since teams have unlimited access to the minibot.
|
Yet the argument that has been made very clear (and most accurately) is that the specs provided by FIRST haven't been 100% complete or accurate thus far.
I do agree that it's an insane amount of information in too many different places that make things confusing, but I'm more inclined to think that (right now, moving forward) more test time would be less time consuming and less frustrating that expecting teams to
believe a new specification at this point.