[Kendal Reed]

I have read this entire thread very thoroughly, and I feel forced to conclude that the GDC has failed to define a robot sufficiently to preclude the argument that 1519's complete electronics board and electrical system is their robot and "Fezzik" and "Speed Racer" are both interchangeable MECHANISMs, making this approach entirely within the rules. The example of the robot from 2007 which had ramps and no drive system and passed inspection reinforces this argument in that the other possible "implied definition" of a robot was an electrical system and a drive base, and this possibility is clearly refuted by the existence of an approved robot without any drive system at all.

1519's approach is innovative and does not violate any explicit rules as far as I have been able to tell (Yes, I realize after seven pages of debate that probably doesn't mean squat, and I also recall seeing an objection based on the inability of either configuration to accept all of the prepared bumpers which, while neither something I can find in the rules nor something the GDC used to justify their official decision, might legitimately disqualify them), and I commend them on that.

I also believe that while the GDC obviously has the power to say "no, that's two robots," they should have done so in a manner that clearly defined a "basic robot structure" for future reference, and should not have included the last paragraph denouncing 1519 for "lawyering" and finding/creating "loopholes" in a rule through which their approach makes it clear you could drive a truck (or, perhaps more appropriately, two complete drive trains).