View Single Post
  #95   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-04-2004, 14:46
AmyPrib's Avatar
AmyPrib AmyPrib is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 688
AmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond repute
Re: You write <G34> and <G35>

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
several people have plea'd 'build a robust bot' as the defense for leaving the rules alone the way they stand. Build a bot that can take it, and there is no reason for refs to DQ anyone

in fact, we could have the inspectors do this to each bot in the pits, smack the bot for 2 minutes with a sledge hammer - if the bot breaks, it fails inspection

sounds like a good approach. Who needs rules of engagement? we can solve all our problems with thorough impact testing during inspection.
Yeah I'd have to agree.. you're really reaching. But doing a great job at keeping this thread alive and kicking with debate. You keep changing the subject of your proposals. First you're talking about "pushing and shoving" to be allowed only in bla bla bla certain cases, and "pushing and shoving" should be disallowed under bla bla bla circumstance.
Then you're twisting everyone's words into saying that robustness means withstanding a sledge hammer. That's ridiculous. We've already said there are rules against that type of behavior. It's called battlebots, and FIRST has come nowhere near that. Many believe the rules as they are prevent that type of play, however there's always room for improvement. Even with ramming speed, the rules still apply. If you don't trust the refs to make the calls, that's not our problem, but nobody else in this thread has gone this far to prevent or restrict good defense.
First you want to use new rules to prevent normal, legal defensive play. Then you change the subject to prevent the malicious, intentional, destructive defensive play - have I mentioned we already have rules for that?

Common sense again...that is, in order to quantify "robust" for your team. From what I can tell, 295 teams at nationals were able to quantify "robust" without much problem, without using sledge hammer validation. Great offensive machines apparently used common sense to think, "Hay, I might get beat up, pushed, tipped, etc. since I have such a great offensive machine... Maybe I should use this material, or shield this area, or close off this space to prevent as much damage as possible.. Maybe I should design this for easy repair if need be". Defensive machines did the same thing. It's called engineering.

If you're sore over the vigorous defense teams play, get over it. It happens and will continue to, as the majority of people hope.
__________________

Co-Chair Boilermaker Regional Planning Committee 2004-2011
2008 St. Louis Regional Finalists and Engineering Inspiration Award
2007 St. Louis Regional Champions - Thanks 1444 & 829! / St. Louis and Boilermaker Quality Award
2006 Boilermaker Chairman's Award
Referee - IRI - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2005 Midwest Regional - Semifinalist, Engineering Inspiration Award, and Safety Award / Boilermaker Regional - Judges Award
2004 Midwest Regional Champions - Thanks 269 and 930! / IRI Runner-Up - Thanks to 234 and 447!!!
2004 Championship: Archimedes Finalist - Thanks 716 and 1272!
"We are going to be praised and criticized more than we deserve. We are not to be affected by either." ~ co-worker