View Single Post
  #71   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-03-2008, 09:11
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 Al Skierkiewicz View Post
I think we need to step back a little and not get so emotional about the GDC response. Take it for what it is on the surface. They are attempting to make a difficult ruling (I know it is difficult for me) and as they are the authors of the document in question they are trying to explain their decision based on what they thought they wrote. I think the implication is this... a robot is a structure that can stand on it's own and drive on it's own without the addition or moving of other parts. Anything that can be added to increase a robot's abilities are attachments. I think we can all see that an RC is not a robot, a drive base is not a robot, an electronics board is not a robot. However, a drive base with electronics and RC can be a robot. I also would not dwell on the lawyering statement. The GDC has asked us not to read into what is written. Take it for what it is, on the surface. There is no hidden meaning, no decipherable advantage or game hint. I believe the GDC is just reminding us to look at the rules for what they are.
I do want to point out that in my opinion, Team 1519 is trying to approach this matter in a very gracious and proffessional manner. I believe they are doing so not only for their own cause but for all of us, to allow some additional creativity. Sorry it didn't turn out for you guys, let us know if we can be of any help.
Al,
I believe the frustration and annoyance with the GDC ruling is that it doesn't really clarify anything. The robot definition you present is clear and enforceable. From my point of view it's a little arbitrary, but I don't mean that as a strike against it, as the whole issue is kinda murky and a simple declaration of "This is a robot" would at least clear things up. Unfortunately, that definition appears exactly nowhere in the rule book or the Q&A. You suggest we shouldn't read anything into the rules, but you have just done so yourself to come up with that definition. The entire problem here is that we have no choice but to read into the rules and try to divine what the GDC's definition of a robot actually means. They've even added an entirely new term that they've failed to define, "basic robot structure". This only ever appears in the rules in a specific example applied to a specific team robot concept. Otherwise it's used as if we already know exactly what it means. The ROBOT term is similarly used. 1519 has rather effectively pointed out that there's no real guidance on what the heck a ROBOT consists of, and the GDC has effectively stuck their fingers in their ears.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
Reply With Quote