Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dlavery
I'm sorry, but exactly where is the controversy? Is there any data, anywhere, to support the contention that this is a big deal for anyone? Other than the eight people that have contributed comments to this thread, I have not heard one peep about this topic at any competition, team forum, Q&A discussion, or feedback message. Eight people out of an audience of >10,000 does not exactly create a mandate for FIRST to do something. If there really is a groundswell of resentment arising from the teams on this topic, then please point out where data to support that contention may exist, and where we can find more information.
|
You'll note that I said "controversy", not "popular outcry". I'm not talking about an outpouring of resentment from the masses; I'm describing a disagreement among interested parties as to the nature of the rules.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dlavery
The second sentance gets right to the point: right now, this would apear to be a non-issue. The actions referenced in Rob's original post do not viollate any rules. So is there even a problem here? If the contention is that the rules need to be changed, then please make the case for WHY they need to be changed.
|
Like I said before, if FIRST thinks that this is fine, and expresses that position, then there is no problem. However, doesn't FIRST realize that it might be imprudent for a team to base a major strategic decision on something which is simply omitted in the rules, and which is bound to generate dissenting opinions among participants and officials? Basically, if I show up with my robot (which has taken advantage of FIRST's lack of a ruling on the matter), and an inspector or referee, who is familiar with the spirit of the rules, decides that it violates certain principles, how am I to argue? To not state clearly what is allowed invites teams to push the limits of the existing rules, and forces officials to make interpretations which will inevitably be inconsistent. (I say inevitably, because the rules themselves are in conflict, much less their interpretations; see below.) It is a relatively simple matter for FIRST to write the rules in a more comprehensive way, to take into account the interactions between teams and other entities; to not do so only tempts conflict at a later stage.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
Letting teams donate parts off an eliminated robot invites all sorts of craziness like this. However, after (finally) reading R29, I think it already prevents teams from doing ALL of these things. Here's the rule:
The reasoning: It explicitly states that the 25 pounds are to be used to repair that team's robot. Moreover, it states that all other fabricated items not included in these 25 pounds to be used on the robot MUST arrive in the crate with that robot. Not in some other team's crate with their robot. Not brought in as spares by another team. So unless I'm somehow interpretting this rule too strictly (anti-lawyering?), I think it's pretty clear what teams can use on their robot.
|
The trouble with <R29>, as I noted in the footnote above, is that it contradicts the more explicitly worded <R19>. <R29> says that
all fabricated items not included in the 25# must arrive in the crate—clearly this is impossible, because <R19> (not to mention years of precedent) allows fabrication on-site. The reasonable way to interpret this allows fabrication on-site by ignoring that part of <R29>, but, to be consistent, it also opens the door to the sharing of fabricated parts.
Also, I just want to be clear on the issue with teams building parts for one another: while that may be fine in principle, the rules (as currently written) don't provide for a clear limitation on the timeframe under which this process can operate. It is
not the fix-it windows, because those refer to teams working on parts for
their own robots. One could reasonably determine that the prohibitions should be extended to teams working for one another, but then issues arise like whose fix-it window applies (one/the other/both/none)—but that's a ruling that will be made later, at each competition, and puts everyone in a precarious situation where everything hinges on matters of interpretation, and the officials' willingness to extend the rules beyond what's written, and the teams' willingness to accept that sort of ruling gracefully. It serves nobody's interests to let it come to that stage; all FIRST has to do is account for these possibilities in the rules. If that means a long-winded, even legalistic rule, then so be it. Because the alternative (i.e. conflict) isn't worth it.