[Rion Atkinson]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Morals? Isn't it immoral (and not GP) not to try your best? And if your best chance at winning is to pin/release/re-pin/adinfinitum isn't that what you should do?

As long as you follow the rules ... pin for less than 5 seconds, give 6 feet clearence, give 3 seconds to free themselves, repeat ... then morals do not enter the equation. We're not talking about damaging another robot, or breaking any rules.

I suggest you take your "pile of GP crap" and re-evaluate how you are measuring others, because GP isn't a yardstick to measure others by, it is a goal for each individual to live by.

And if trying you best means finding a way to break a robot while staying the the rules?

Actually. The rules say you only have to break away at least 6 feet for more than 3 seconds if you pin for more than 5 seconds. with 4 seconds, as long as you allow them to move for at least a second it is perfectly legal to pin them again within 2.

I was not measuring him an any way. I was simple stating how I felt about this. If I seemed like I was attacking him, I do apologize. I did not mean to. I was stating the way I understood the rule, I must have come across differently, and I apologize for this. I did not intend to stir anything up.

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Not to say that you are wrong, but I think this view is minority. It has been debated how GP playing defense is and it seems most view it as a viable strategy. The fact that pinning for 4 seconds has been allowed and used in the past (2007) and the GDC again allows it, shows that they don't have a problem with it. While you may view it as wrong, I would suggest you understand that it will happen and you should plan accordingly.

I agree, defense is viable, and good. I my self will planning on have a way for our robot to use defense. But excessive pinning, I hope our drivers do not. Onces or twice a match, ok that is fine. Once or twice ever thirty seconds. I very that has pitiful. I would lose respect for myself if the only way I could win is by inhibiting another robots movement so often.

I do know that it will happen, and I plan on planing ahead. While you say this though; here is a story.

LUNACY

My team had just finished setting the robot up on the field, they were standing at the starting line. The match starts! All the robots start moving completely autonomously. Out robot in the middle takes a very powerful hit from the right just as we start moving. Our trailer pin pops out!. The refs have now disabled our robot, and our trailer is sitting right in front of the other alliances fuel depot! The student sitting there now has a choice. He can fill up our trailer with all his moon rocks. OR, he can wait for another place to score and be kind to the helpless trailer. What did he do? He put three rocks into our helpless trailer. Then he decided to save the rest.

We were extremely grateful to this man. And if I ever had the chance; I would repay the favor.

I tell you this story just as a way of saying, it can happen, and will happen, but not always.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I have personally never felt that any legal game strategy is "un-GP" as then it becomes a slippery slope. Next people will be telling me playing any defense is "un-GP", or hoarding balls is "un-GP", or doing anoything that involves your opponent is "un-GP". While one should not win at all costs (i.e., by breaking the rules, trying to work around them, lawyering), if there is a perfectly legal defensive strategy that has existed for years without being changed, I see no reason why it becomes "un-GP" to do it again just because doing it too much is illegal.

I do apologize Chris. I did not intend to attack you. That was how I viewed the rule. You asked how I came to my point, and I told you. My wording my not have been the best though. I do apologize if I have offended you or anyone else.

-Rion