Ruling on Robonauts Balance

[RRLedford]

Since we also balance on the edge of the bridge rail with 20" of our 33" width protruding off the bridge, but in a way that does not grasp grapple or grip the edge rail, I will offer my assessment of why 118' scheme was disallowed.

The device that they engage the bridge with clearly relies on the cantilevered weight of the bot to effectively hook, pinch, grip, squeeze, grasp, and clamp on to the edge rail of the bridge.

Functionally. their device initiates rail contact via multiple opposing points of contact on the mechanism, and the subsequent torque developed, as the cantilevered weight of the bot transfers onto the mechanism causes the mechanism to rotate around the length axis of the rail, so as to twist the device downward and away from the bridge, and this mechanism rotation results in a net pinching effect on the thickness of the rail's aluminum.
The problem with the 118 design results from the way that the multiple opposing points of contact react against the rail to produce a net compression of the opposite sides of the rail. This seems to be exactly what the GDC and their rule wording would not allow.

If I place a C-clamp over the bridge rail, but then I stop tightening it right before it contacts the rail, at which point, I then apply all my weight to the C-clamp, the resulting torque on the C-clamp will make it grip the rail. Just because the C-clamp was not initially squeezing the rail before the weight was applied does nor mean that the C-clamp is not gripping the rail after the weight is applied.

Now if the 118 bot relied on another bot to move the bridge upward in order to lift them off the ground, then I would consider this a possible allowed exception, since the 118 bot is not manipulating any device against the bridge, and the grasping result is just incidental to the motion of the bridge, which they did not cause. Still a stretch though, since grasping engagement was the desired result of how the bot was positioned relative to the bridge.

-Dick Ledford

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by johnr

How exactly were the students going to descibe this function to the pit judges? We hang off the ...nope, can't say that. We grab on to the...nope,can't say that. How would you descibe it to a judge? How would you describe it to anyone? Isn't there another team hanging off the edge of the ramp?

Presumably the technical judges asking questions about it would understand an explanation similar to the one given in the 118 reveal thread.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You're assuming that this similarity is intentional for a very specific reason, rather than coincidental, or intentional for other reasons. And you're also implying that the operation of a competitive bid process is a good thing.

Does it matter if the similarity is intentional or not (and I think it is)? It just exists.

Does it matter whether the process is good or not? It is widely used and an appropriate analogy. I know this from vast experience with such things. Are you implying that a competitive bid process is always a bad thing? May I ask what life experiences lead you to make such a statement?

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In any case, even in a competitive bid, bidders are entitled to equitable treatment by the tenderer. In that sense, they have the right to make demands (e.g. protests) if they feel mistreated. I would say at a minimum, FIRST teams are also entitled to equitable treatment, and to make such demands as are necessary to acquire that.

Entitled? hehe, spoken like someone who has never suffered through such a process! Here is what really happens. A company suffers through the interminable delay (due to the protests) and gives up. Or the bid is broken up, changed or withdrawn. Or the request is ignored and you do not sue because you can't afford it. In all cases one acquires a reputation for complaining, warranted or not. It is not fair - again, it just is.

The idyllic world to which you refer does not exist. I wish that it did.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by wireties

Does it matter if the similarity is intentional or not (and I think it is)? It just exists.

Of course it matters—you can't do justice to the intent of the rules if you don't know whether it was actually intentional!

Originally Posted by wireties

Does it matter whether the process is good or not? It is widely used and an appropriate analogy. I know this from vast experience with such things. Are you implying that a competitive bid process is always a bad thing? May I ask what life experiences lead you to make such a statement?

I'm saying that a competitive bid process is sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing—and that for the reasons explained above, bidding is probably not a great analogy for the situation encountered in FRC.

And yes, process is important. Even if you get the right principal result from a process, its side effects and externalities can still make it a bad process.

Originally Posted by wireties

Entitled? hehe, spoken like someone who has never suffered through such a process! Here is what really happens. A company suffers through the interminable delay (due to the protests) and gives up. Or the bid is broken up, changed or withdrawn. Or the request is ignored and you do not sue because you can't afford it. In all cases one acquires a reputation for complaining, warranted or not. It is not fair - again, it just is.

"Entitled" merely means a moral, legal or other right to something. I don't think it's controversial to believe that by registering for FRC, a team is entitled to be treated equitably. At the very least, there are contractual rights created by registering. And while legally, FIRST might be able to put on a poor-quality dog and pony show, and satisfy the contract, there's a strong moral imperative that it go substantially beyond that. Every sporting tradition suggests that the officials should be fair in their application of the rules. They may not always get it correct, but it's hardly contentious that a competitor is entitled to feel wronged by an incompetent, corrupt or even innocently mistaken official.

As for the bidding process, the law recognizes that entitlement exists there too. Things you could do—but don't for practical reasons—don't diminish the remedy to which you're entitled.¹ They just make it less likely you'll ever collect it. That can actually be a good thing, if as you note, it means that you avoid a reputation for complaining, and therefore get more business. On the other hand, it can mean that you acquire a reputation as a pushover, and get all the business you can manage, at a grossly inadequate rate.

Originally Posted by wireties

The idyllic world to which you refer does not exist. I wish that it did.

Equity is inherently an ideal. In the real world, there's nothing wrong with approximating it to the degree possible. That's the essence of doing business in good faith.

¹ I'm going to leave estoppel, laches and other equitable doctrines out of it; basically, in the English common law system that we're familiar with, if you're operating in good faith and satisfying your own obligations, this is true.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I'm talking about their mistaken belief that relying on the perceptions of a "reasonably astute observer" would remove sufficient doubt to allow teams to discern what was meant in a variety of complex cases.

It was awfully cut-and-dry to me, and to most people I've spoken to.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

That's 3 or 4, plus grasp, grapple & grab; there are probably other places as well.

No, grasp, grapple, and grab were included in your quotes, and the bumper ones were essentially the same question. Thus, four cases as far as you were able to drum up. Blue is blue (and this was intended as 'close enough, don't worry about dye lot numbers'), bumpers have to be supported on the ends, vision interference is vision interference, and grasp/grab/grapple mean what they mean. I hardly think that's "so many different situations" that leave "a lot of big ambiguities".

Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Are we supposed to infer that because FIRST uses the same test in all cases, there's a likeness between them?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes -- they're alike in that they're all extremely obvious if you're not trying to game the system.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In law,

I'll stop you there. We are specifically instructed not to lawyer the rules. Talking about how judges define legal tests is directly contrary to what you're supposed to be doing when you look at these game rules. (And besides, if you're going to drag judicial practice into this, Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" is a much better analogy to the "reasonably astute observer" test.)

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In essence, the problem is not to 'grasp' but to 'grasp in the opinion of a reasonably astute observer'. It might have been better to have said 'at the discretion of the referees'. That way, we know that there is uncertainty—but we know where the uncertainty lies. There would be no question of a team arguing that some reasonably astute observers justifiably believe this legal, and feeling wronged because the officials did not recognize the well-founded opinions of those other observers.

I'm a bit astounded at this line of reasoning. Are you seriously positing the argument that anyone reading the phrase "a reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation would interpret it as any observer that considers themselves reasonably astute?

I mean, I suppose you could read it that way, but I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would do so, as doing so would render the rule so subjective as to be meaningless (and thus it cannot possibly be the intent of the GDC).

This, by the way, falls right into the positivist trap. I can just imagine the question to the Q&A: "When you say 'a reasonably astute observer', what do you mean by 'a'? Does it mean any reasonably astute observer, a particular reasonably astute observer, or an observer that is considered by the team or the person themselves to be reasonably astute? Also, in assessing observers, what is the difference between reasonably astute and unreasonably astute (or reasonably unastute?)"

Reading requires interpretation; finding the correct interpretation means asking yourself, "what does the author most likely mean in this case?" I have a hard time believing that anyone would read "reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation and come to any conclusion other than a generic layman observing the relevant phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Interpretation of "reasonably astute observer" comes down to this: is it supposed to a question of what the referee thinks, or a question of what the referee thinks the community of reasonably astute observers thinks? (Same for inspectors, where the call is instead theirs to make; note that inspectors have the leisure of time to discuss the call with everyone.)

I think that any reasonably astute FRC team member can safely assume that FIRST chooses people that they consider to be reasonably astute to serve as judges, referees, and inspectors. I am flabbergasted that anyone would spend an iota of brainpower trying to figure out precisely what aggregate gestalt makes up the relevant "reasonably astute observer" pool, and somewhat amused by the notion that some people think it would matter vis-a-vis the rules to a game.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

No, grasp, grapple, and grab were included in your quotes, and the bumper ones were essentially the same question. Thus, four cases as far as you were able to drum up.

Yes, that is what I said: 3, or 4 if you count the bumpers separately, plus the grasp/grapple/grab thing. So at least four separate issues in total.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Blue is blue (and this was intended as 'close enough, don't worry about dye lot numbers'), bumpers have to be supported on the ends, vision interference is vision interference, and grasp/grab/grapple mean what they mean. I hardly think that's "so many different situations" that leave "a lot of big ambiguities".

Let's look at those individually. The ambiguities are pretty straightforward, and should have been anticipated. (I also think those ambiguities are consequential enough to be justifiably described as "big". You're entitled to believe otherwise.)

The bumper colour one is an example of good use of the term. It's not very ambiguous at all. As far as I can tell, any reasonably astute observer is probably going to understand this in one way only. (Well, apart from visual impairments, I guess.)

The vision target one is not. Is the standard met when the observer thinks it's similar, or when they think a camera will perceive it similarly? Does the observer's impression of mimicry depend on whether they understand how a shape-tracking algorithm works? What about intent? What is the practical consequence of uncertainty and misinterpretation? These are things that can easily be specified, to guide teams and officials.

The bumper end questions are also open to interpretation. Which parts of which faces constitute the ends? And what about soft parts of the bumper? If FIRST is trying to be permissive, they need to try harder—even after the clarification, they left people guessing as to whether FIRST missed the point of the question (and thus could have meant that a reasonably astute observer would obviously decide that the end face was the "end"), or was trying to cut teams some slack (anything remotely near to the end, on any surface). Again, this would be easy to specify, either numerically/geometrically, or as a functional test for inspectors to perform. (This is also annoying because it's a largely useless requirement.)

And we've already discussed grasp/grab/grapple.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes -- they're alike in that they're all extremely obvious if you're not trying to game the system.

Is your understanding of that likeness universal? (And in case your insight about obviousness was a flippant rather than serious response, can you articulate what the meaningful likeness is?) Does it lead to useful, inescapable conclusions that help satisfy the questions I described above?

In other words, by observing the interpretation of one of these things, are you sufficiently informed about how the interpretation of the others will proceed? I think not, because the details are so different, and the people responsible for making the calls cannot help but be inconsistent.

(Also, 118 would be disappointed at your implicit characterization of them, I'm certain.)

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'll stop you there. We are specifically instructed not to lawyer the rules. Talking about how judges define legal tests is directly contrary to what you're supposed to be doing when you look at these game rules. (And besides, if you're going to drag judicial practice into this, Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" is a much better analogy to the "reasonably astute observer" test.)

I'm not the one who first invoked the concept of legal tests. Indeed, there's a fair chance that FIRST had legal tests in mind when they wrote the "reasonably astute observer" standard—and if that's the case, it's undoubtedly an appropriate way to analyze the question. It might well be their own fault, despite their 'no lawyering' mantra.

Even if FIRST did not intend for us to be talking about the law, one can't help but draw the obvious parallels. Those parallels don't just go away, because some members of the GDC are repulsed by the notion of people acting like lawyers.

(Incidentally, "I know it when I see it" isn't a test for obscenity; it's preceded by an apologetic statement that a good definition of such a test escaped Justice Stewart, and that in that case, he was relying on his own instinctual reaction rather than a formal set of criteria. And like "reasonably astute observer", it's inherently subjective and ambiguous. One might ask, fruitlessly: 'Will Stewart think this other, similar movie is obscene?' That problem of ambiguity is precisely why the Miller test exists.)

Besides, if we're supposed to analyze this in the manner of an engineer, without resorting to law, don't you think that precision is a hallmark of that profession as well? Shouldn't we be talking about dimensions and tolerances when it comes to the bumper ends, and functional tests and specifications when it comes to the vision? A thoughtful engineer might even include the Pantone number of the FIRST logo colours, just to avoid questions about whether we were supposed to approximate the version with the light background, or the one with the dark background. As for grasping, an engineer might distill it down to a discussion of force and contact, or explain whether the true objective of the specification is to limit field damage. At the very least, an engineer should be prepared to discuss things in these terms, if questions arise about the initial open-ended specification.

Why then do we get a test that looks like none of the above, and instead looks like a snippet of legalese?

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'm a bit astounded at this line of reasoning. Are you seriously positing the argument that anyone reading the phrase "a reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation would interpret it as any observer that considers themselves reasonably astute?

I mean, I suppose you could read it that way, but I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would do so, as doing so would render the rule so subjective as to be meaningless (and thus it cannot possibly be the intent of the GDC).

Surely you've seen teams and wondered, 'what were they thinking'? Why then is it so hard to believe that a team couldn't interpret FIRST's dictum as "if you're reasonable, we'll be lenient"? (In other words, a team member might think that as long as they can describe their reasoning in a way that makes them appear reasonably astute, the inspector will grant them a pass.) That's just a made-up example, but it's not so implausible that FIRST should reject it as a possible outcome.

Another possibility: a team might agree that all of the referees at the field are reasonably astute observers, and that it is the referees that conference at the end of some matches to discuss rulings. So, if it was a violation in any of their opinions (i.e. the action was inappropriate to "a reasonably astute observer"), it should be impermissible. Again, that's a made-up example that doesn't represent my personal take on the situation. But it's not crazy—notice that the manual doesn't say that refereeing decisions aren't conducted like that.

You could go all the way, and wonder: 'With all these reasonably astute observers everywhere, how will FIRST poll them all?' That is blatantly ridiculous, and should probably be dismissed as such—but the fact that the statement could be interpreted that way exposes its weakness.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

This, by the way, falls right into the positivist trap. I can just imagine the question to the Q&A: "When you say 'a reasonably astute observer', what do you mean by 'a'? Does it mean any reasonably astute observer, a particular reasonably astute observer, or an observer that is considered by the team or the person themselves to be reasonably astute? Also, in assessing observers, what is the difference between reasonably astute and unreasonably astute (or reasonably unastute?)"

Reading requires interpretation; finding the correct interpretation means asking yourself, "what does the author most likely mean in this case?" I have a hard time believing that anyone would read "reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation and come to any conclusion other than a generic layman observing the relevant phenomenon.

By that logic, doesn't a referee (likely not a generic layman in their own right) have to adopt their impression of the thought process of a hypothetical individual to make the call? How is that reasonable, or even predictable?

Besides, it's a more complex question than what the author "most likely" meant. You have to think about cases that are less likely, but still plausible (because the referees might interpret the rule differently, within the bounds of what a generic layman might believe). There's nothing wrong with asking FIRST some of the things you alluded to in an effort to narrow the solution space a bit.

Indeed conversely, the author of the rule should be thinking about all the ways the rule could be interpreted by a reasonable person, and hedging against them. Either use precise language, or construct the requirement in a way that precision is immaterial. If FIRST really wants it to come down to the referee's on-the-spot judgment, then they should just say so—no need to invoke a standard that lacks a clear definition, and is potentially applied differently under different circumstances.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Let's look at those individually. The ambiguities are pretty straightforward, and should have been anticipated.

I found none of them ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

These are things that can easily be specified, to guide teams and officials.

No, not 'easily'. When rules are going to be picked apart as much as they are, specificity in this manner creates well more problems than it solves.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(This is also annoying because it's a largely useless requirement.)

This opinion is entirely moot to the conversation. "I find this rule annoying" is not a discussion I'm interested in having.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Is your understanding of that likeness universal?

It doesn't have to be. It just has to be universal enough to be predictable by those who need to incorporate the rule into their design process. (Which again, I would like to emphasize that 118 did very well.)

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(And in case your insight about obviousness was a flippant rather than serious response, can you articulate what the meaningful likeness is?)

I was being serious, and I've already articulated the meaningful likeness. That you disagree does not negate the statement.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Does it lead to useful, inescapable conclusions that help satisfy the questions I described above?

"Inescapable" is a bar set far too high. Nothing you or I or anyone else has said on this thread or any other about game rules is "inescapable".

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In other words, by observing the interpretation of one of these things, are you sufficiently informed about how the interpretation of the others will proceed?

I have yet to be wrong when interpreting FIRST rules described by the "reasonably astute observer" metric. So the evidence points to 'yes'.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(Also, 118 would be disappointed at your implicit characterization of them, I'm certain.)

I don't believe they would -- they were trying to game the rules to the best of their ability, and good for them. Nothing about that characterization is an insult. They should be rightly proud of what they did, and that they did so in a way that their risk was calculated and inherently mitigated.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Even if FIRST did not intend for us to be talking about the law, one can't help but draw the obvious parallels.

I can help but draw the parallel, because it's entirely unneeded.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(Incidentally, "I know it when I see it" isn't a test for obscenity; it's preceded by an apologetic statement that a good definition of such a test escaped Justice Stewart, and that in that case, he was relying on his own instinctual reaction rather than a formal set of criteria.

Yes, exactly. The entire point is that it's difficult to articulate but easy to ascertain.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(In other words, a team member might think that as long as they can describe their reasoning in a way that makes them appear reasonably astute, the inspector will grant them a pass.)

As I said, I find the fact that anyone might come to that conclusion downright astounding.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Another possibility:

Yes, indeed, you can come up with a gazillion possible interpretations. Your job, though, in reading the rules, is to come up with the most probable one.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

By that logic, doesn't a referee (likely not a generic layman in their own right) have to adopt their impression of the thought process of a hypothetical individual to make the call? How is that reasonable, or even predictable?

Yes, they do. It's reasonable and predictable because that's what refs do -- they enforce rules and make judgement calls in doing so.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Besides, it's a more complex question than what the author "most likely" meant.

No, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You have to think about cases that are less likely, but still plausible

True. ...and then determine which is most likely.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

There's nothing wrong with asking FIRST some of the things you alluded to in an effort to narrow the solution space a bit.

Also true. Which is what was done, and the answer given was the "reasonably astute observer" test, which everyone should have taken for the generality that it is.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Either use precise language, or construct the requirement in a way that precision is immaterial.

Have you ever written a game? I don't believe that you have a good grasp on just how difficult it is to do that -- and how unnecessary in many situations.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Either use precise language, or construct the requirement in a way that precision is immaterial.

Wow, apparently you have never worked to a set of real world requirements!

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Wow, apparently you have never worked to a set of real world requirements!

Thanks for the backup from another perspective.

The funny thing is that I'm not an engineer (though I have some experience with both semiconductor manufacturing equipment and quantum cryptography): my degrees are in theoretical physics, linguistics/ASL, and education, not engineering. I have, however, at one time or another been a professional freelance game designer, so my perspective on this -- and thus my disagreement with Tristan and my defense of the GDC -- comes primarily from what I know about writing game rules as opposed to engineering.

Until you sit down and write a set of rules, and then have people try to play a game (even a mock-up of that game) based on those rules, you have no idea just how hard it is to write good rules -- and that's not even taking into account whether or not the game is fun to play or fun to watch or both.

And as I said before, permissive rules sets are easier to write than (good) prescriptive rules sets, and each lend themselves to a very different type of game. Writing a prescriptive rules set that you know is going to be picked apart by tens of thousands of highly motivated, intelligent people is, to put it mildly, a daunting task. In light of that task, the expectation of language so precise that it can't be gamed is completely, utterly unreasonable.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I'm saying that a competitive bid process is sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing—and that for the reasons explained above, bidding is probably not a great analogy for the situation encountered in FRC.

sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing - really?

One could make that statement about all matters involving one or more humans - it means nothing.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

On the other hand, it can mean that you acquire a reputation as a pushover, and get all the business you can manage, at a grossly inadequate rate.

That is not the net result. Performing for a grossly inadequate rate puts one out of business and/or likely not to make the same mistake again.

And in FIRST, the troll-bot teams will likely modify their risk assessment methodologies next year.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Equity is inherently an ideal. In the real world, there's nothing wrong with approximating it to the degree possible. That's the essence of doing business in good faith.

Like I said - I wish that it did.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by wireties

sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing - really?

One could make that statement about all matters involving one or more humans - it means nothing.

Here's a very straightforward example. Sometimes it is overall less economically efficient to expend resources in a competitive bid process, than it would be to simply award the work to a particular vendor. Tendering it is therefore a "bad thing" under those circumstances. (I said not uniformly good, to qualify the remark, because perhaps some good can still come out of a net loss.)

I gathered from your previous post that you were describing the similarity to a competitive bid as an example of FIRST mirroring good real-world practice. I'm merely saying that competitive bidding isn't necessarily something worth emulating in a robotics competition, because it is not a good thing a priori. (And yes, you can say that about anything—that's why the discussion needs to go beyond what people usually do in the real world, and instead cover why they do it, and what the consequences are.)

Originally Posted by wireties

That is not the net result. Performing for a grossly inadequate rate puts one out of business and/or likely not to make the same mistake again.

Sure; but that's not really a point of contention, is it? One can work to change others' perceptions in any situation.

Originally Posted by wireties

And in FIRST, the troll-bot teams will likely modify their risk assessment methodologies next year.

They probably will. But was teaching them the lesson in this fashion productive?

Do they have reason to feel mistreated or misled? Does it matter to FIRST that they might feel that way, as a result of FIRST's statements? (And should it matter?)

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Here's a very straightforward example. Sometimes it is overall less economically efficient to expend resources in a competitive bid process, than it would be to simply award the work to a particular vendor. Tendering it is therefore a "bad thing" under those circumstances. (I said not uniformly good, to qualify the remark, because perhaps some good can still come out of a net loss.)

Agreed - this may be more efficient in isolated instances and with all parties acting benevolently. But as a system, it cannot function. Somehow and somewhere, somebody is making the decision. In a non-competitive system, the criteria are hidden thus possibly (and probably) unfair. In my opinion, if the system is not fair and competitive, the system is unworkable.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Sure; but that's not really a point of contention, is it? One can work to change others' perceptions in any situation.

It is not contentious at all. It was a simple statement of fact. What happens to parties that under-bid and/or under-perform? The system consumes them, as it should. They do not get a chance to repeat their mistakes (often) as you implied.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

They probably will. But was teaching them the lesson in this fashion productive?

It was harsh. I wish it had not happened. But it was definitely productive. The troll-bot devotees were not harmed by FIRST. They took a HUGE risk and lost - simple. There are a number of FIRST teams (along with observers) who will now dispassionately assess risk mathematically. The mentors and students involved will not easily repeat the same process and/or error, perhaps for an entire career.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

The GDC essentially said "We didn't think a team could innovate this, so we're calling it illegal".

No they didn't.

While I agree that there were problems with the way the definition of grapple was handled, please don't try to put words like those in their mouths.

Originally Posted by Justin Ridley

We were told it was not the GDC’s intention that teams utilize the features at the edge of the bridge to hang or lift off of during a balance.

Originally Posted by BigJ

No they didn't.

While I agree that there were problems with the way the definition of grapple was handled, please don't try to put words like those in their mouths.

Like I said in my post, the post wasn't meant to be negative. And like Justin has quoted above, the GDC admitted they didn't think about teams utilizing the edge of the bridge. I'm not saying the GDC is saying they aren't pushing teams to think out of the box. I'm saying they admitted that they weren't prepared for a team like 118 (though nobody IS every prepared for 118), and therefore made it illegal. Sort of like the 254/1114 hanging in 2010. Not the GDC's intentions, though if I remember correctly they were ruled legal.

I'm not arguing the legality, and somewhat agree with the ruling, but WHAT they said about it, and there response to 118 was what I was disappointed about.