[Rich Kressly]

Cory's got the right ideas here (as he usually does). Fundamental changes would need to take place. Please also note that eliminating the FRC GDC's obfuscatory ways has as much, if not more, to do with the game and rules themselves as it does with any answer they may issue.

Having spent a few years on "the other" GDC, this is not necessarily an easy task. However, taking on the task of making the Robot and Game sections as short as possible while still being comprehensive is the key IMHO. After that, it's all about word choice. For example, if there is ANY potential disagreement about what words like "grasp" or "grapple" mean, then those words need to get tossed in favor of more specific/understandable terminology OR be included in an explicit definitions sub-section.

Without trying to toss anyone under a bus, I've always believed that falling back to a position like, "what a reasonably astute observer would consider..." and other phrases like that are complete cop outs. ANY time a statement like that is issued there's going to be an issue.

While some of these other ideas here would be potential improvements, they're mere band aids on a larger ailment that needs to be addressed at a more fundamental level. As someone who used to spend 8+ months of the year answering Q&A Questions for FIRST/VEX, I always wanted to be as sure as I could that we created a manual that invited as few questions as possible, then understanding that there will always be questions.