View Single Post
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-03-2012, 17:18
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ruling on Robonauts Balance

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald View Post
I don't understand what you mean. How is that a fallacy?
I don't mean that in the sense of a strict logical fallacy. I'm talking about their mistaken belief that relying on the perceptions of a "reasonably astute observer" would remove sufficient doubt to allow teams to discern what was meant in a variety of complex cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald View Post
How many different situations this year had the "reasonably astute observer" applied to them? Considering grab/grasp/grapple to be one, what were the others?
This version of the Q&A doesn't let you search the answers (huge flaw). Nevertheless, here's at least a few times FIRST has invoked that phrase:
Quote:
Game - The Robot » Bumper Rules » R33
Q. How much tolerance is for attaching at the "end" of the bumper? Do we need to attach within 4" of the physical end? 1"? At the infinitesimal point at the end of the bumper? Physical constraints may make it difficult to place two perpendicular fasteners at the same infinitesimal point in space. FRC0057 2012-02-15
A. If it appears that a Bumper is rigidly attached at the end to a reasonably astute observer, it will be considered attached "at the end".

Game - The Robot » Bumper Rules » R33
Q. Where is the end of a Bumper? We have bumpers that are two 8" pieces of plywood rigidly attached perpendicular to each other at the corner, plus noodle cloth, etc. Do we have to attach to the frame perimeter at just the two end points of this L shaped bumper, or at the corner as well? FRC0057 2012-02-15
A. If it appears that a Bumper is rigidly attached at the end to a reasonably astute observer, it will be considered attached "at the end".

Game - The Game » General Rules
Q. Please define Grapple. FRC0973 2012-02-13
A. There is no formal definition. If a reasonably astute observer would consider what a Robot to be doing as grappling, it's grappling.

Game - The Game » General Rules
Q. Please define Grasp. FRC0973 2012-02-13
A. There is no formal definition. If a reasonably astute observer would consider what a Robot to be doing as grasping, it's grasping.

Game - The Game » General Rules
Q. Please define Grab. FRC0973 2012-02-13
A. There is no formal definition. If a reasonably astute observer would consider what a Robot to be doing as grabbing, it's grabbing.

[R08C]
Any devices or decorations specifically intended to jam or interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another Robot, including vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infra-red proximity detectors, etc.(e.g. including imagery on your Robot that, to a reasonably astute observer, mimics the Vision Target)

[R28D]
be covered with a rugged, smooth cloth. The cloth must completely enclose all exposed surfaces of the plywood and pool noodle material. The fabric covering the Bumpers must be a solid red or blue in color. Visually, the red or blue must be as close to the corresponding color in the FIRST logo as reasonable (i.e. to a reasonably astute observer, they appear similar). The only markings permitted on the Bumper fabric cover are the team number (see Rule [R35]).
That's 3 or 4, plus grasp, grapple & grab; there are probably other places as well.

Apart from the obvious question of which reasonably astute observer, these are hardly similar situations. There are various degrees of urgency, consequence and ambiguity. Are we supposed to infer that because FIRST uses the same test in all cases, there's a likeness between them? Or are these completely independent situations, which only happen to share a dependence on the observer?

In law, when a judge defines a legal test (like this famous one), usually there are several paragraphs of explanation, and citations for context. FIRST is emulating the pithiness of that practice, without any of the supporting documentation. (Indeed, I don't expect supporting documentation, because precedent has no defined role, and because FIRST only infrequently explains its intent thoroughly.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald View Post
I agree -- and I think the application of the "reasonably astute observer" litmus test clearly articulated that these common words did not have special meaning attached to them.
Fair enough, but I think they also inserted a term with special meaning ("reasonably astute observer") into the situation. In essence, the problem is not to 'grasp' but to 'grasp in the opinion of a reasonably astute observer'. It might have been better to have said 'at the discretion of the referees'. That way, we know that there is uncertainty—but we know where the uncertainty lies. There would be no question of a team arguing that some reasonably astute observers justifiably believe this legal, and feeling wronged because the officials did not recognize the well-founded opinions of those other observers.

Interpretation of "reasonably astute observer" comes down to this: is it supposed to a question of what the referee thinks, or a question of what the referee thinks the community of reasonably astute observers thinks? (Same for inspectors, where the call is instead theirs to make; note that inspectors have the leisure of time to discuss the call with everyone.)
Reply With Quote