View Single Post
  #65   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-03-2008, 00:43
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,730
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by squirrel View Post
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.
Jim,
You say the intent was for one robot that we put different manipulators on. Yet you still haven't defined what a robot is. That definition seems to imply a robot is defined by the drive train. Of course I can envision games where a modular drive train under a single manipulator would be beneficial. Kind of like this game. I mean, if that's the definition, then fine. But I could've sworn that the entire reason behind this year's extensive head ref training was complaints of too many "I calls'em like I sees'em" calls on the field. It seems a little silly to be falling back on that rhetoric for robot inspections just because the GDC doesn't have a better answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol View Post
Jim, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the GDC can decide that this looks like 2 robots and therefore it is. What most are disputing is that the GDC accuses 1519 of lawyering, and then goes through extreme manipulations of the rules to prove their own point. If they had just said, "Nope. We never envisioned a team doing something like this, but now that it's done, we can't allow it because it is two robots. We admit that we didn't craft the rules carefully enough. If you had asked earlier, we would have made a rule to cover it. We're sorry, but you will have to decide between the two of your designs, and scrap the other."
Yes. I wouldn't mind the answer near so much if they simply admitted that this was outside the scope of the current rules, since it obviously is. I find it rather disappointing that they instead decided to fall back on flimsy reasoning and themselves stretching rules as far as possible to cover the situation.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
Reply With Quote