View Single Post
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-03-2007, 20:43
Goldeye Goldeye is offline
Registered User
AKA: Josh Hecht
FRC #0694 (Stuypulse)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 145
Goldeye has a spectacular aura aboutGoldeye has a spectacular aura aboutGoldeye has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via AIM to Goldeye
Re: YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
For this logic to be true, then the ramp must not be considered part of the Robot. Can you show ANY rule, or Q&A answer, or Team Update, that would indicate that the ramp is not part of the Robot?

-dave
The above logic isn't true either. For his statement to be true, either the ramp must not be part of the Robot, or the statement that support is a transitive property must be false. Brandon was implicity denying the assertion that support is transitive when he said what he did. He used the word as is most intuitive, especially considering what is actually the definition.


The statement that support is a transitive property is also not necessarily true, unless we take the GDC's words as automatic truth. It is true that if the entirety of the ramp robot was supported by a tube, then the raised robot would also be supported by that tube; however, it is not mentioned that the entire ramp robot is supported by the tube, nor can it be guaranteed if only part of the robot is supported. From a physical perspective, supported would seem to mean that the force on the tube remains the same or decreases in magnitude when the raised robot is placed on the ramp. In practice, if the raised robot's position remains the same when the tube is removed, it is apparently not significantly supported by the tube and probably not supported at all.

By this common-sense definition of support in the original rule, the bonus points would be awarded.
By the interpretation the GDC expressed, the bonus points are not awarded.

It seems to me the original interpretation is more in accordance with the spirit of the game. If I am wrong, the rule should stay as Q&A clarified. Otherwise, the GDC ought to thoroughly define support and not rely on the transitivity of it. For a term that has such an impact on the outcome of games, the common-sense definition clearly does not suffice. Between the poor understanding of the rule as written (as demonstrated by this split poll)
__________________
Team 694

2005 Championship - Galileo Semifinalist
2005 New York - Regional Chairmans Award
2005 New York - Semifinalist (Thanks 1257,1340)
Reply With Quote