Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
But for a team building a blocker, singular, for other robots, plural, to use in one match and return so other robots, plural can use it... That's stretching it quite a bit. How far? I will take the GDC approach and go with "if a reasonably astute observer thinks there's something funny going on, something funny is going on".
|
I think we've gotten, at least for me, to "agree to disagree" -- I'm still not convinced that this is stretching anything. Although I will admit that while most people who know me will give me the "astute observer" label, some significant percentage won't attach "reasonable."
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
I'll make a stab at it. The part is part of team A's robot overall, and passed inspection with them (unless they like a lot of red cards for non-inspected robot). However, because each other robot that carries it is making a modification, it must pass inspection too, with it aboard, and it is NOT exempt from size and weight, unlike the battery and bumpers.
|
This is circular logic. The discussion so far has been that the part isn't on team A's robot; they just give it to an alliance partner every match, and then take it back. You've been saying that this makes it part of team A's robot; I don't think so. It changes things to have it have been attached to team A's robot at any point in time. In that case, we agree; it's clearly part of team A's robot.
BUT (in my opinion, anyway) only while it's physically attached to team A's robot. If it's attached to team B's bot, then it needs to be considered part of that robot, and team A -- for that match -- has nothing to do with it except ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
I think that this would be a pretty interesting gray area to explore with the GDC, just sort of in casual conversation, and see what they thought about devices that showed up in one robot's matches that were not on that robot or held by the drive team. That should be entertaining...
|
Other than the "gray area" part of of your statement, I agree -- I would like to see what the GDC said about this. Obviously, I don't think there'd be much of a discussion, since I think they'll agree with me.

But I'd still like to see what they say.
This is good; you've made me think about something I wouldn't have otherwise. Thank you.