Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
All,
I have read most of the posts and, although the response from GDC was poor, the basic robot structure item is really what gets me.
I am in the robot industry (and that may be the reason for my bias), but a pile of electronics is never, ever considered a basic robot structure. Would the wires and furnace and pipes of a house be considered the basic building structure? No way.
I do not think 1519 lawyered the rules, but the flaw in the logic was assuming the electronics are the basic robot structure.
Maybe the simple test in the future should be: the basic robot structure should be considered a collection of parts / assemblies that can move under power in at least one degree of freedom.
When I first saw the post, I thought "there is no way that can be considered one robot." The intent was clear to me, but I have been wrong before (see blocking in hybrid thread).
|
The problem is that "robot" and "Basic robot structure" were never defined. You are defining it by your own Paradigms. Being in the robotics industry only reinforces your Paradigm and makes it more difficult to see the other argument in a fair and unbiased light.
1519 should be praised for "trying to break the mold" instead of punished. Under the current rules 1519 did no wrong, instead they tried something innovative, and for that they were told that they could not compete with one of their configurations.
It's the same as if the GDC stated "oh, we didn't mean for robots to shoot the ball ... thats not hurdling and is illegal". They could say this because they've never defined if a robot can / cannot be touching the ball when hurdling. It's our interpretation of the rules (through our Paradigms) that tells us that shooting is within the rules.
JM(NS)HO