View Single Post
  #76   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-02-2012, 13:57
Unsung FIRST Hero
Karthik Karthik is offline
VEX Robotics GDC Chairman
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,346
Karthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesCH95 View Post
For the love of Andy Baker can we please stop lawyering this into oblivion and use some common sense? The GDC doesn't want to artificially limit designs through inane rule interpretation.

The appendage may have forks or splits in it as long as it is mechanically connected in such a way as they must function unison. Your arm+hand+fingers is considered one appendage. Your two arms acting in unison through brain commands (i.e. robot code) are still two separate appendages.
I agree what you have here is a common sense interpretation, one that I believe most teams have been operating under for the past 3.5 weeks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
The GDC just replied to my question about appendages during deployment. It's pretty clear now...they must always be contiguous:

Here is the question and response:


Q. To prevent differing interpretations of G21 and the following Q&As on appendages could you address the legality of a appendage BRIEFLY crossing the frame perimeter in multiple places during deployment? For example, a "H" shaped appendage might cross in two places as it quickly folds out.

A. Any time the appendage is outside the Frame Perimeter, it must be a contiguous piece.
This response seems to completely contradict the common sense interpretation put forth above by JamesCH95. This is what frustrates me when people start saying "don't lawyer the rules, just use common sense". Well, sometimes the common sense of the community and the common sense of the GDC aren't the same, nor should we expect them to be. Different people will always have different interpretations. In this case, since the rule wasn't unambiguously spelled out in the manual, and since Q&A's weren't fully addressed, we're now 58% through the build season and being given a ruling that will significantly alter the designs of many teams. The teams who didn't "lawyer" the rules and used their own common sense are now the ones who will be forced to make major changes.

I can't see any justification for why this rule is being interpreted this way. I'm hoping that this is just a misinterpretation, similar to the issue we saw with the reference plane of the bumper zone earlier this season. If not, a lot of teams are to have to make a lot of changes, and a lot of inspectors are going to be forced to enforce a rule they'll have a very hard time justifying to the teams.

They don't call it the hardest fun you'll ever have for nothing. Just another challenge.
__________________
:: Karthik Kanagasabapathy ::
"Enthusiasm is one of the most powerful engines of success. When you do a thing, do it with all your might. Put your whole soul into it. Stamp it with your own personality. Be active, be energetic, be enthusiastic and faithful and you will accomplish your object. Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm" -- R.W. Emerson
My TEDx Talk - The Subtle Secrets of Success
Full disclosure: I work for IFI and VEX Robotics, and am the Chairman of the VEX Robotics and VEX IQ Game Design Committees
.

Last edited by Karthik : 02-02-2012 at 14:12.