Quote:
Originally Posted by lemiant
In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted.
|
I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.
It would be nice if it were possible to create a positivist document. It's not.
In light of that, the "reasonably astute observer" standard is something you have to live with, and by "live with" I mean "take into account when making your design decisions".
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemiant
Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such
|
Indeed. In the real world, the customer doesn't have thousands of engineering teams clambering for nits to pick on design specification. The time sink alone must be a consideration when determining how to answer questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemiant
one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand  . |
...and everyone on the GDC could be doing anything else with their time and make more money with less grief. I hear enough of the "I'm paying for this so everything has to go my way" drivel from my college students; I would hope to never see it in FIRST.