View Single Post
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 13-12-2004, 19:03
Marc P. Marc P. is offline
I fix stuff.
AKA: βetamarc
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Watertown, CT
Posts: 997
Marc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Marc P.
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
It is most definitely a slippery slope situation. I wish that we could figure out rules that didn't lend themselves to that sort of argument, because Kevin, or I, or anyone else, can pick out a situation that makes the rule look foolish. Doing so isn't being "lawyerly", though--it's an easy way of gauging what could go wrong with the rule, and in so doing, it guides your personal interpretation of what's reasonable. When we're asked to consider "gracious professionalism", or the "spirit of FIRST", we're interpreting the rule--whether it does or doesn't happen to coincide with the unspoken beliefs of the rule-writers is irrelevant, because by leaving ambiguity, and leaving room for interpretation, the door is open to a wide variety of reasonably considered, and strictly legal variations, even though some extreme cases might not be terribly appealing. For that reason, you need a rule to define the limits of what's acceptable, not merely the fallacious argument "it isn't graciously professional enough".

So while I think that Al's "fully functional" stipulation is quite sensible, I don't think that there is enough basis in the rules to force a team to abide by it; they couldn't reasonably be expected to have inferred that from what the rules stated.

In real life, we do have laws that are ill-written, and we do have people who argue about semantics, and people who push the limits of what's acceptable. If we want FIRST's rules to represent a broad cross-section of what's good and bad about law and its conventional interpretation in society, then loopholes are par for the course. Otherwise, we need to actively strive to be explicit about our rules. The trick is controlling interpretation, without limiting creativity.
The interpretation here is relatively clear, and ultimately soley at the discretion of the inspectors and referees at each event. My reasoning would have been if there is a possible weight problem due to any two mechanisms needing common parts, do your best to design and mount the common parts directly to the chasis. If a common motor is needed between two devices, mount the motor directly to the chasis, with a sprocket to use a chain, or a gear for a belt, to each device's gearbox/mechanism. Then, each mechanism can be mounted without worrying about the extra weight of a new motor between them.
Reply With Quote