View Single Post
  #84   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-03-2008, 11:34
MrForbes's Avatar
MrForbes MrForbes is online now
Registered User
AKA: Jim
FRC #1726 (N.E.R.D.S.)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Sierra Vista AZ
Posts: 5,962
MrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson View Post
I still don't see anything in the rules to justify how you're using the word "robot". You obviously have your own idea of what a "robot" is, independent of what the rules say (or fail to say).
Yes, I do have my own idea of what a robot is. I expect that you do too. And the rules don't say whether or not my idea is right or wrong, or whether or not your idea is right or wrong. I think that's the point. You have to actually think about what a robot is, and come to some reasonable conclusion. Unfortuntely Ken came to a different conclusion than the GDC did.

And Ken, I understand that you don't agree with the ruling, but I also get the idea that you can see what they mean about you having two robots.

I also don't think the GDC was implying mal-intent or complete lack of common sense on your part, but I can see why you think so. You had a really neat idea, but it turns out that implementing it as you did gives the appearance of trying to circumvent the rules. As I mentioned before, if you had somehow incorporated the small drive base into the big robot, it would most likely have been acceptable.
Reply With Quote