Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
The point of contention is whether or not the two assemblies, taken together, violate any of the rules that apply to a ROBOT. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that they do not. Together, they follow the letter of the rules.
There's only one problem: the manual does not explicitly define what a ROBOT is. The Game Design Committee agrees with your take, saying that 1519 built two robots. I'm still not convinced they built two ROBOTs, but the GDC is backing the inspectors who decided that's what they did.
|
The GDC is attempting to cover their tracks, but with circular reasoning, which was actually susprising to me. Of all people, I figured the GDC could find an argument that was clear, concise, and actually CLARIFIED the rules that were used in their defense.
Their response was none of these.
They quoted rules that were very vague in themselves, and then did exactly what they accused 1519 of doing: they lawyered interpretations. In fact, they lawyered their entire response. The concept of using vague rules that you can manipulate in interpretation in attempts to back up your completely bogus point (which, that's just my opinion.. it's one robot) is exactly what the GDC did, and exactly what they were asking 1519 what to do.
Coming from the people that wrote the rules and designed the game, I figured the response would at least give people some piece of mind.. but, judging from the 6 pages of discussion that followed the posting of response, it's easy to see that no one's really satisfied.
If nothing else, I hope that the GDC takes this as a lesson to more clearly define things in the future.
((I quoted you because I agreed that I'm not convinced they built two and that they didn't clearly define ROBOT.))