Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblarg
Seconding this. The point of robot rules is precisely to limit the space of legal designs. If you cannot put forth a specific design and get an answer as to its legality, then how is the Q&A serving its intended purpose at all?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DampRobot
This really frustrates me. Ok, I understand why you can't be uploading CAD files to the Q and A, but the excuse that the GDC "doesn't comment in robot design" is far overused. I'm far from the first one to point this out, but issues like 118 in 2012 should have been definitively answered before 118's first match, where they were ruled illegal. Top notch teams who know what they are doing and want to play by the rules should not have to wait until their first match to figure out if they robot they built is legal.
It's fine by me if the Q and A isn't intended for pre-vetting a extremely specific design, but if questions like "can we hang off the side of the bridge" won't be answered there, then I'm confused as to how the Q and A really serves a purpose.
|
I don't necessarily agree with the way the GDC answers certain things (2012's 'grab, grasp, grapple' definition for example) but I understand why they won't look at a picture or design and give a ruling; pictures and descriptions are great, but the problem is they might not fully convey the design/look completely different in person. Also, what happens when Team XXXX gets a ruling based off a picture on Q&A, Team YYYY does something similar, doesn't get a ruling? Are they able to reference Team XXXX's Q&A? It, in my opinion, overly complexifies the Q&A system and adds another burden on the GDC if they start openly reviewing designs via the Q&A.