View Single Post
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-02-2010, 08:30
martin417's Avatar
martin417 martin417 is offline
Opinionated old goat
AKA: Martin Wilson
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 721
martin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Reasoning of the GDC

A new question on the reasoning of the GDC:

Why be deliberately vague in rules and Q&A?

There has much discussion here on CD about the meaning and intent of several rules, earlier it was fasteners protruding beyond the frame perimeter, lately is has been about electromagnets. These questions have been asked multiple times, and several different ways, with no crystal clear answer from the GDC. When several inspectors have posted that they don't know what the rule means, it looks like trouble, if the inspectors can't figure it out and agree, how is a team supposed to?

Why be deliberately vague? How does vagueness impact the aforementioned criteria?

1) safety
2) Game-play
3) Damage prevention
4) Fairness

(I realize that these criteria are mine not the GDC's)

I see several negative impacts of vagueness:

1) A team's design ruled illegal at competition

2) Discourages a team from attempting a novel approach because they can't figure out if it is legal or not.

3) May force a team to abandon an idea they assume is illegal, but isn't

4) causes delays in an already tight schedule while trying to understand the rules, get answers from Q&A etc.

Perhaps these are intended consequences, and are exactly what the GDC wants to happen. It is a lot like real life, unclear customer requirements, poorly written statement of work, bad communication from the sales / marketing team etc.

But again, are we modeling real life, or playing a game? If the teams and inspectors can't figure out the rules, how will spectators? Since the game is brand new every year, there hasn't been years of refinement and interpretation to perfect the rules like in most sporting events, so clarity and completeness is much more critical.

[opinion]I think the GDC needs to abandon its policy of inscrutability and adopt a policy of openness and clarity.[/opinion]
__________________
Former Mentor Team 1771
Former mentor Team 4509