View Single Post
  #46   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-12-2004, 21:20
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 jonathan lall
1) Don't factor in what the rulemakers intended to say, but rather what they did say, because intent of rulemkers is immaterial, especially with this rule. He quotes Dave Lavery, one of the 2004 rule writers, on this point to great effect from a different YMTC. It would seem that nearly everyone that disagrees with Tristan, including Dave, cite what Dave intended to say in the rules. JVN goes so far as to appeal to authority (since Dave said this, it must be done this way) as a reason he's right.

For the purposes of this particular discussion, John was right in appealing to Dave's post. Dave does have a better understanding of the rules than any of us here, as he did have influence in writing the 2004 rules. To quote the original post of this thread, as is the case with all other YMTC threads: "Based on the 2004 Robot Rules, YOU MAKE THE CALL!"

Therefore, for all intents and purposes of this thread, Dave, as a 2004 rulemaker, would have the supreme authority in defining what the boundaries of the 2004 rules were, which in this particular case say "All configurations cumulatively must weigh less than 130.0 pounds."

Quote:
2) Explain to us why these two modules constitute "different configurations" as there exists no robot configuration in which both motors are used simultaneously. Here's a leading question for you: Isn't it true that enforcing/interpreting this rule here is nothing more than nitpicking, penalizing creative thinking that does not disadvantage other teams on the battlefield to even a small degree?
Also for the purposes of this discussion, as presented in the original post, Jumpy is the mechanism to hang from the bar, while Grabby is the mechanism to pick up the balls. I'd certainly call them distinctly different functions, so clearly one mechanism is not a spare for the other. Nor would it be fair to call the drill motor between them a "spare," as ultimately when installed in each mechanism, it will clearly perform a different function.

I'll throw this thought out for all to munch on: A drill motor by itself is just that- a drill motor. By itself it has no function other than to spin itself until it's brushings wear out. However, couple the drill motor with another device to perform a function, and the potential use of the drill motor changes from merely spinning, to driving a mechanism. By extension and definition, the drill motor becomes whatever device it's coupled with. When the drill motor is seated in Jumpy, it's only function is to reach up and grab the bar. When the motor is mounted in Grabby, it's only function is to collect balls. Deductive reasoning tells me the drill motor is not defined as a drill motor by itself, but as the devices it drives. By that logic, there is no way it can be considered a spare part, because the functions it performs in each mechanism as totally different. The only legal way around the problem would be to lose enough weight to compensate for the presence of another drill motor, such that both mechanisms are operable at the time of weigh in.
Reply With Quote