Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
If you're going to decide something without using the rules, there's no way to know whether someone else will decide the same thing. The objective standard is the collection of rules, not "common sense".
|
That's true.
However, you have to start somewhere....not every term used in the rules is defined, and in fact we are encouraged: "When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule."
Engineering thinking, to me, is that two frames with drive motors and wheels and everything else (except electronics) constitutes two robots. Lawyer thinking is that since one of the robots does not have electronics at any given time, then there is only one legally defined robot.
I think the reasoning behind the decision is that they want us to make only one robot, although we are welcome to make different mechanisms to go on that robot to play the game in different ways.
I also think that the concept of a small robot with a bigger drive system and ball handing mechanism that can be put onto it quickly is excellent, and it would have been very neat to see this happen. But I also think the way to do it would be to have a small robot that had more added onto it, rather than having two different robots. As you say, the rules will probably be refined to make this more plain.