Quote:
Originally Posted by Squillo
If they had just added three words, it would all be clear(er).
"The contiguous part of the appendage must be outside the Frame Perimeter at all times" (Italics were ADDED BY ME, NOT part of the actual GDC answer!)
If they'd just added those words. Not that I'd WANT those words, but it is STILL "clear as mud".
If you "extend" your "H" shaped appendage so that it is vertical (prongs of H sticking up) until fully outside the perimeter, then flip it down, it might satisfy the "at all times" requirement. Still a pain in the butt.
But maybe they didn't put "at all times" for a reason. Maybe it's OK to briefly have two prongs outside the perimeter. But what if your robot broke at exactly that point and you couldn't get it further out? Penalty! And who defines "briefly"? This is a quagmire and I think the GDC knows it.
Should have had a lawyer on the committee from the 'git go'... it's our job to avoid this kind of ambiguity! (Not that we always succeed.)
|
By adding that the appendage has to pass the contiguity test outside the frame perimeter the rules are further muddied... as you mentioned..
My opinion would lead to a definition that would simply state that this outside the frame perimeter contiguous requirement should not read
at all times but rather should read
after deployment.
This would make the Y-shaped appendage legal (as was stated in an earlier Q and A) Presently, given the initial answer for the Y shaped appendage which was "OK" one could only assume that during deployment it was permissible to "lead" with the forks. If forks are ok... then the outside the frame contiguity "at all times" is not consistent... You would have to have a triangle leading rather than a fork. (I would imagine that triangle would not work like a fork...
I would hope that Q and A makes it clear that they really mean "After Deployment"
I know this does not help those teams that were designing a cylinder with little tubing arms sticking out side the frame perimeter... but it would at least clear up the situation...and make the earlier QA answer regarding the forked appendage consistent with the new revelation of "contiguous outside the frame perimeter"