[dlavery]

At the time the original question was posted to this thread, a total of 22 questions had been answered on the FIRST Q&A system. The answer had been provided as the sixth question to be answered. I do not think it is unreasonable to let someone know that a clearly-marked answer can be found by referring to a short 22-line list of titles. The only reason that the response did not take a more precise form like "the answer has been posted in section xxx of the FIRST Q&A" is that at the time the Q&A list was so short that a section pointer was unnecessary.

In addition, the requestor had specifically asked for an official answer. Official answers are not available on CD - they are only available from FIRST via the Q&A system. So suggesting they check the FIRST Q&A system for the answer to their question is not only appropriate, it is directly responsive to what they had asked for in the first place.

That said, I will disagree with your sentiment that we are here to just spoon feed answers to every question. With that sort of an approach, the requestors will never learn about the resources that are already available to them, and with which they should be familiar. Detailed technical questions are one area where basic information may be necessary. However, particularly in the case of questions about rules, responses that point to complete, official answers are much more appropriate than having anyone here provide a paraphrased, intermediate recitation that may be incorrect.

Furthermore, doing so avoids all manner of misinterpretation and indeterminate lawyering discussions such as those that have erupted here lately. And avoiding those situations saves all of us ever so much more of the precious time that is apparently so important.

-dave