View Single Post
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2007, 21:58
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
OK, let's try this again. There is no inconsistency in the rule. The intent of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. The application of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. FIRST has made it clear your conclusion is wrong. The official Q&A has made it clear the conclusion is wrong. The FRC updates have made it clear the conclusion is wrong. You are finding fault and making distinctions where there are none. Again, if you still think there is an issue here then post a question to the Q&A system and get an official response from FIRST on the subject.
It has been established that Q&A responses are for guidance, and don't change the wording of the rules. Clarifications in updates can be assumed to clarify, not change the wording of the rules. Only new versions of the rules documents, and updates containing modified rules actually change the rules. So your insistence that it has been done to death in the Q&A and updates is hollow, because FIRST didn't actually change the rule—and the clarification isn't a good clarification at all, because it doesn't necessarily follow from what's written.

If the GDC writes a rule, then it's their responsibility to make the rule agree completely with their intent. It is never up to the teams to make up for a shortcoming in the communication of the GDC's intent. In particular, if, on a minor point, FIRST leaves a loophole, an inconsistency or a statement with multiple interpretations, then it stands to reason that FIRST ought to fix it (once it's been communicated to them via the proper channels). And if FIRST doesn't agree that there's a problem, then it's their prerogative to say so—but they do so at their peril, because it might represent a missed opportunity to defuse some of the conflicts that occasionally arise at inspection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
And this is exactly to the point. Tristan's incorrect conclusion about the legality of Parker cylinders that led to this follow-up question is flat out wrong. When this bad information causes other teams to question/alter their designs, then it needs to stop. Rather than purveying another round of torturous logic that leads to the wrong outcome, you need to refer to the one and only resource that teams should use when seeking a clarification of the rules – the official FIRST Q&A.
Actually, it appears that Mr. Van was considering using his teams old Parker cylinders this year, then came upon this thread and discovered that FIRST intends for them to be illegal. (He apparently learned from my post that "that the intention of the rulemakers was to ban those old Parker cylinders".) That's hardly a disservice to him, considering that not knowing this fact could have been far more harmful to his team.

And I know you don't agree with my rationale. But it's FIRST's job to avoid phrasing things in ways that lend themselves to torturous logic. If the rule were precise in its statement of intent, you wouldn't be having this argument.

I can send this to my team's Q&A person, and we'll see what happens. I would like to point out, however, that a flippant response of "see Update 5" doesn't address the issue—it would be nice if the person answering it takes the time to explain precisely why the existing rule justifies their interpretation, and not my own.



Quote:
Originally Posted by KTorak
This has to be the worst year, of my three years of experience where people are trying to argue the rule in favor of themself.
I'm not arguing in favour of myself or my team (and I'm not sure if that was what you were suggesting). I'm actually about 90% sure that none of <R105> will apply to 188's robot this year.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Van
Is there any other way to interpret this?
You've apparently captured what FIRST intended to say, but not necessarily what they actually said in the rules. Just so that Dave is clear on this point, I never recommended that any team (including my own) use the old KOP Parkers—merely that FIRST left a loophole in the rules that would have made them legal (de jure), if they weren't purchased. And as a matter of fact, with the differing interpretations here, I'd suggest that teams avoid the Parkers, whether or not they're actually allowed by the rulebook; with free Bimba alternatives available, it makes sense to avoid the controversy entirely.



Incidentally, there's another reason why you can't read <R105> in the manner that Dave prefers. If the fourth sentence applies to the first and second sentences, you're in effect saying the following:
"solenoid valves, air cylinders, pressure regulators, and connecting fittings" must be "identical to those listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form"
Of course, this makes no sense. You can't order valves, etc. from the Bimba form. If you want to cherry-pick the reference to cylinders, sure, that part makes sense (I referred to this earlier)—but then you have the little problem of how to justify the rest of the items ("they"); basically, the rule lacks logical consistency when read this way. (And on top of that, the rest of the fourth sentence would mean that any new fittings, even for the Festo components in the kit, would need to come from a Parker or Bimba dealer; while FIRST is free to mandate this, it's a bit strange, especially considering that other pneumatic parts like tubing can come from any vendor.)

Now, instead, read it as if sentence four follows directly from sentence three:
"additional air cylinders or rotary actuators may be purchased" and must be "identical to those listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form"
Note that this makes sense. Note that this one also doesn't require a leap of grammar to make it work.

Last edited by Tristan Lall : 30-01-2007 at 22:02.