Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
I seem to recall an issue a while back where we discussed the pros and cons of judging intent. Dave Lavery mentioned that "If you don't know the intent of the rule-writer, then all you have to go on is the words of the rule itself." While I wouldn't personally mind some consideration of intent, I don't feel that the rules and customs of FIRST allow us the luxury of doing that--largely because our judgments of intent are really just educated guesses of often-dubious validity.
Now, with regard to JVN's post, Dave has explained the intent of the rule-writers in a recent post--that was not known during the competition season, and could not be expected to have been known to any random team, unless it were officially announced. We can't argue with the benefit of that knowledge, since it was acquired ex post facto, and never officially disseminated. As we all know, Dave's answers on this forum can't be considered binding to FIRST teams at large, correct (or incorrect) as they might be. If we were to add the sum of our musings to the rules, the answer would be clear-cut, and in your favour--but we can't, because FIRST didn't. |
OK, a swing and a miss on the first one. Strike One. But you followed up with a drive to right field and you get a clean single. Man on base.
Good attempt to bring in the prior discussion regarding the necessity for referees to ignore "intent" when making their rulings, but I would postulate that it is irrelevant to this discussion. The referenced discussion had to do with the ability of referees to determine the "intent" of a team’s actions as they played the game. In that scenario, the referees are required to make instantaneous decisions based solely on what they can observe at that moment. With only a few rare exceptions, there is no opportunity for debate or deliberation. In such a situation, the only data that can be considered reliable is that directly observed by the referees. There is no ability to determine “intent,” therefore, it must be ignored by the referee. But in the case of determining the “intent” of a rule, the situation is different. When the rules are made public at the beginning of the season, there is ample opportunity to examine, discuss and review the rules. At the kick off, teams are invited to look at the rules and to strive for the simplest, most basic “non-lawyer-ish” interpretation possible. If there is still confusion you have many opportunities, through multiple channels, to seek clarification. There is time and means for discussion to understand the intent of the rules and the rule-makers. Unlike the former example, where there is no time to discover “intent,” this is a situation where you are explicitly invited by FIRST to investigate and understand the intent of the rules and how they may affect your robot design and game-playing strategy. Thus, the prior discussion really doesn’t have any bearing on this thread.
On the other hand, you are correct in the assertion that my comments in this forum can't be considered binding. As I have stated before, any comments I make here DO NOT represent any official positions by FIRST. I am not speaking for them, just for myself (and occasionally my team and/or NASA). While I do have some insights into some of the discussions that take place while the game and rules are being developed, I do not participate in all of them and I am not the only one in those discussions. There are many, many other opinions, positions and ideas that are contributed by the members of the Game Design Committee. At the end of that process, the consensus opinions and final determinations are represented and issued by FIRST (and only FIRST). So please just take my comments for what they are - slightly informed opinions that may offer partial insights and some modicum of clarification, but not words from The Oracle (for those, you have to talk to Woodie
).
You may now return to your previously scheduled arguing...
-dave
p.s.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JVN
Now I understand why Dave has grey hair.
|
Hey!!