Quote:
Originally Posted by Abwehr
I totally agree that if the "both sides of the corner" ruling is in fact a rule, then it should appear in a team update. However, if it is NOT a rule, then the GDC did my team and many others a disservice by unambiguously answering questions pertaining to bumpers on corners. I don't believe that they would have done that and then reversed course without retracting their response.
So I remain adamant that ignoring the GDC's ruling about corners being protected on both sides is a risky decision.
EDIT: Bill's Blog also fairly unambiguously answered the "both sides" question here. |
I hear you- it's definitely unfair.
A.) Your a team who saw the Q/A response and decided to change your design to be consistent with what appeared to be a new addition to the competition manual.
B.) Your a team who has never seen the Q/A response but diligently follows the manual and team updates and an inspector declares your robot illegal.
I feel like this year there is trouble in the GDC. I can't recall a year where they have been inconsistent between the Q/A and rules. It's like this situation occurs:
1.) A team posts a question in the Q/A
2.) Someone representing the GDC answers the question. Most questions are straight forward and are easilly answered. Very rarely the answer quotes a rule in a context which no reasonable person could extrapolate by just looking at the rule. (i.e. "both sides of the corner")
3.) We discuss the matter on Chief Delphi.
4.) Teams move ahead thinking the Q/A response is a rule or will soon be a rule.
5.) The GDC comes together to work on a team update. In committee they decide that the Q/A response was flawed and will not revise the manual.
6.) They drop the issue and do not revise the Q/A response.
7.) Confusion, and we still discuss the matter on Chief Delphi.
Other Q/A Oddities:
1.)
Not being able to use I2C.
A.)This appeared legal in the rules.
B.) A team asked specifically via Q/A.
C.)The GDC responded you can not use I2C.
D.) Team update 4 came out and said you could use I2C.
E.) The Q/A response was revised.
In theory this is how things should work. But why did the GDC originally say I2C was illegal?
2.)
Not being able to use last year's kit frame without purchasing a new one
A.) This appeared legal in the rules
B.) A team asked specifically via Q/A
C.) The
GDC responded saying the frame was "custom" and quoted <R32-B>.
Why doesn't the GDC know the kit bot frame is a COTS part which would negate <R32-B>. Once they did find out, why didn't they modify the Q/A response? This in itself is extremely troublesome if as many of you said the inspectors will treat the Q/A response as a rule.