Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
This.
It's a catch-22 - either way the GDC went with this would make teams upset. Personally, I think the decision to update the rule to make it more enforceable is the right way to go. I might moan and complain if it forced my team to change our design, but it would still be the right way to go.
What's the point of a rule if its impossible to be enforced on the field?
|
I agree that the rule is pointless if it can't be 'enforced', but I might suggest that enforcement is probably not what FIRST should be aiming for, rather, the goal should be compliance. Maybe that's a semantic difference, but it seems relevant to me right now.
I'd be happy to demonstrate that the robot design is legal per the original rule. Hauling it onto a pyramid and measuring would be difficult at best, but this is an engineering contest. We can do a simple report that examines the robot design in climbing orientation(s), bring that to inspection and use it to demonstrate to the inspectors satisfaction that we're legal. That kind of documentation is common enough in other competitions and business.
A better solution is simply to write rules from the start that can be checked easily for compliance during inspection. Failing that, I would rather have unenforceable rules that are at least consistent, then the current moving goal post. After all, it might be moved only to ensure compliance that was already going to be there in 99% of cases anyways.