Quote:
Originally Posted by magnets
The problem is that the guy who is answering the questions isn't trying to help teams figure out their solutions. Teams asking questions want to understand what they're trying to do. The GDC answers with a totally ambiguous answer. I really hoped that after the robonauts in 2012, with IMO was one of the worst decisions they've ever made, that the question and answer would be a little better. Building robots isn't easy for a bunch of high schoolers on a rookie team. They don't need to get garbage as a response. This rule really doesn't make any sense at all, and can't really be enforced.
These rules this year are pretty poor. They can't be interpreted word for word, otherwise some interesting possibilities come up. I struggle to see how much the GDC really reads over the rules before the game. They're historically missed some big stuff. For instance, this year, they didn't think what would happen if a ball got stuck in a robot. It took about an hour for multiple people on our team to point this out as being possibly problematic. In 2013, they obviously never tested the throw all the white discs in the last 30 seconds part of the game, and in 2011, they didn't get the stored energy minibot. I keep hoping that there will be improvements, but it isn't happening.
There is a huge negative reputation given to people who try to "lawyer" the rules. I disagree completely. The responsibility of FIRST is to give us a set of rules that don't have any loopholes they don't want. A good engineer will analyze the game and figure out a way to get the most points while preventing the other team from getting as many points. If you're making something in the real world, and you come up with a clever solution (like 469 did in 2010) that solves the problem given to you, then your company will win the bid, and you'll get paid to make the part. FRC does a great job mimicking a real world customer in terms of ambiguity. The rules are the specification given to us. If there is a "shortcut", then it is part of the specification, and the solution is ok. If your robot meets the rules, but doesn't follow the intention of the rules (118's definition of grasp, vs. the GDC's undefined definition of grasp), and this is illegal, then you get into a very subjective grey area.
|
Q&A responses aren't totally garbage. The problem is, you're statement here implies that you are expecting responses from them that "give the answers" to problems teams are having. That's not the purpose of the Q&A. There are other avenues (yes, other than CD) for that. Sure, they could be a little better, but to say they are "absolute garbage" is unnecessarily offensive and critical.
The quality of the manual this year is, in my opinion, no different than any other year. You can't expect them to expect those certain holes in the game that you listed. Also, you're viewing the manual for a different lens than the GDC. When they read it, they know their intent for everything, and will interpret things how they interpret, knowing how they "want the game" to play out. And in regards to the 118 2012 situation, I'd like to believe that 118 knew they were taking a risk with that strategy, but the exact specifics of what the GDC told 118 are not public knowledge (to my opinion). In my opinion, it was a risk because I highly doubt the GDC designed the game with the intent for a 118-type balance to be doable.
And the reason there's a "huge negative reputation given to people who try to "lawyer" the rules" because of this statement at the beginning of Section 4 of the manual:
Quote:
|
When reading these rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule.
|
emphasis mine.