Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Stu, you are missing the original post. It addresses sitting on the ramp and waiting only for the "tipsy" robot to ascend. If you are blocking/challenging all robots trying to ascend, I will give you "no intent". However, this strategy specifically addresses waiting for the "tipsy" robot. If it is your strategy to only push against the "tipsy" one, I believe intent has been shown. You are selecting the robot "most likely" to tip over in your defensive actions.
|
I did not interpret the original post to mean targeting a specific balance-challenged robot. In that case I would agree with you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
If you are merely sitting still, and the "tipsy" robot drives into you and tips itself -- no call.
You can't be saying that because a robot has a "design flaw" it is fair game to tip over? What other design flaws can allow us to ignore the rules? These could be strategy points!
|
No, I certainly did not mean to imply that a design flaw makes a robot "fair game". However if a robot is attempting to climb the ramp and the design of that robot causes it to be precariously positioned while doing so, that should not prohibit me from defending my position, or trying to keep that bot off the platform/ramp. If the only way to keep them off the ramp is to push then I should be able to push and not be penalized. Now if a referee makes a judgment call that I intentionally tipped the other bot, then we will accept that and go on. While I can't control the actions of our drivers I can say that I would not approve or endorse any actions by my team that would intentionally damage another robot or knowingly break any rules.