"noodle hats" for Quals

[Jaxom]

So, Team A has brought a ROBOT, which ROBOT has a part that is not necessarily mounted on Team A's robot although it appears in every Team A match, mounted on a robot. The question is, is that part still part of Team A's robot? Your answer is that for any given match, the answer is "No" (assuming of course that the part is not actually on Team A's robot). My answer is "Yes", because while it does not appear on Team A's robot in every match, they are the ones using it every match (though their partners are presumably quite willing participants). On a per-match basis, you are quite correct. Over the entire event, I think it becomes less and less arguable that this device is actually part of Team A's robot, when it appears on Team B, Team C, Team D, Team E, and so on, only when they are on an alliance with Team A (and in no other matches).

Interesting; now I understand where you're going and how you're getting there. And unfortunately I have to withdraw my "I think we agree" statement, although "interesting discussion" applies even more. I never thought of a robot part being considered this way. The difference appears to be form vs. function. If the part is connected to robot B, it's clearly a part of that robot. Now, the question is if team A built it, but put it on robot B, is that function the defining factor of whose robot "owns" the part, or is the form -- where it's connected -- the defining factor?

Your reasoning seems to be based on a matter of degree. You've already agreed that it's OK for a team to help another team build their robot, and that such fabrications are part of the helpee's bot. So if it's one bot, apparently it's OK to not call this part of team A's robot. If it's some number more than one robot using another team's fabricated part, that part somehow becomes part of the building team's robot. What's the right number? If I make the example more specific, does it change things? Said specific example would be when a team builds a blocker for one other, single, robot to use in a single match.

I submit another factor for your consideration -- the definition of "use". All alliance partners use, in effect, other same-alliance robots' features. If my alliance's defensive bot relies on my team's shooter to score, that doesn't make our shooter part of their bot. Same thing with us using them to keep the other alliance's FCS from getting to the loading zone; their drive train clearly isn't part of our robot. Somewhere there must be a definition of "use" that crosses the line from my point of view to yours, but I have no idea where that point is.

Another problem: If this part really *is* part of team A's robot then R05 says it must be weighed with that robot. Since it's not part of teams B, C, D, etc. robots, the weight of this blocker doesn't affect their weight. I *really* am interested in hearing how you explain this one.

I'm intrigued by your logic, but you haven't convinced me that a part not physically attached to a robot during a match can be considered part of that robot. This doesn't count parts that fall off, of course.

Fabricated Items tend to be custom for a particular robot (or two or three, for collaborations and practice robots), requiring some modification to robot or item to mount to another robot.

This one apparently isn't very customized. Does the fact that this exchangeable blocker actually fits on 12 different robots make it function like a COTS part?

I agree, this is a very interesting discussion. Maybe next year we'll see some resolution in the game design. (I also think it relates to the "win match or win tournament" meta-game discussions, where the right answer is "both!".)

I think you're dreaming, but I hope you're right. The rules do get improved & more clear every year, but never enough that I think they're actually totally clear. The "win matches or tournaments" discussion is one of the more interesting ones on CD, and I don't see how it'll ever go away. I hope not; I think it makes a lot of people think.

Tangent:

Sidecars are almost a required component.

Nah, they're absolutely required. R53 and R67 say that all relay modules, servos, and PWM motor controllers must be plugged into the digital sidecar. And if you somehow build an all-pneumatic robot, you still have to have a sidecar; the RSL has to be plugged into the sidecar to function, and all robots must have a RSL.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jaxom

Interesting; now I understand where you're going and how you're getting there. And unfortunately I have to withdraw my "I think we agree" statement, although "interesting discussion" applies even more. I never thought of a robot part being considered this way. The difference appears to be form vs. function. If the part is connected to robot B, it's clearly a part of that robot. Now, the question is if team A built it, but put it on robot B, is that function the defining factor of whose robot "owns" the part, or is the form -- where it's connected -- the defining factor?

As I noted before, A builds it and puts it on B's robot, which is quite normal. The defining factor is not that A builds it and puts it on B's robot. It is that A builds it, puts it on B's robot, takes it off of B's robot and puts it on C in the next match. After a few matches of that, then it's pretty obvious that Team A is the "owner" of the part, due to the form--where it resides between used and the "user" who it appears with most commonly--though in an individual match it's "loaned" to another robot to "own".

Your reasoning seems to be based on a matter of degree. You've already agreed that it's OK for a team to help another team build their robot, and that such fabrications are part of the helpee's bot. So if it's one bot, apparently it's OK to not call this part of team A's robot. If it's some number more than one robot using another team's fabricated part, that part somehow becomes part of the building team's robot. What's the right number? If I make the example more specific, does it change things? Said specific example would be when a team builds a blocker for one other, single, robot to use in a single match.

I think it's "in the eye" here. A team building a blocker for another robot, singular, to use in one or more matches (singular or plural) is building it for that other robot. Or a team building blockers, plural, for partners, plural (in toto, not necessarily in a single match), to use in matches, plural, with a ratio of 1 blocker to 1 team, would still be on the other robot.

But for a team building a blocker, singular, for other robots, plural, to use in one match and return so other robots, plural can use it... That's stretching it quite a bit. How far? I will take the GDC approach and go with "if a reasonably astute observer thinks there's something funny going on, something funny is going on".

I submit another factor for your consideration -- the definition of "use". All alliance partners use, in effect, other same-alliance robots' features. If my alliance's defensive bot relies on my team's shooter to score, that doesn't make our shooter part of their bot. Same thing with us using them to keep the other alliance's FCS from getting to the loading zone; their drive train clearly isn't part of our robot. Somewhere there must be a definition of "use" that crosses the line from my point of view to yours, but I have no idea where that point is.

Your shooter stays on your robot, does it not? Their defense robot does not change drivetrains, correct? In those cases, you make use of the entire robot, in toto, unseparated (we hope it's not falling apart). In the blocker case under consideration, the use of the part requires it to be removed from one robot and placed onto another. This, I think, would be the crossing of the line.

Another problem: If this part really *is* part of team A's robot then R05 says it must be weighed with that robot. Since it's not part of teams B, C, D, etc. robots, the weight of this blocker doesn't affect their weight. I *really* am interested in hearing how you explain this one.

I'll make a stab at it. The part is part of team A's robot overall, and passed inspection with them (unless they like a lot of red cards for non-inspected robot). However, because each other robot that carries it is making a modification, it must pass inspection too, with it aboard, and it is NOT exempt from size and weight, unlike the battery and bumpers. Team A does not have to reinspect (unless they made another modification), because they passed inspection with it aboard, but are not using it. The implications of this are that any team that makes a modification to carry the blocker for that one match must not unmake the modifications (that's been covered before), and Team A needs to be able to replace the blocker on their robot at any time.


I think that this would be a pretty interesting gray area to explore with the GDC, just sort of in casual conversation, and see what they thought about devices that showed up in one robot's matches that were not on that robot or held by the drive team. That should be entertaining...

[qzrrbz]

If we extrapolate this a bit...

We could propose a "generic blocker" as a strap-on in the queue line. :-)

All that would be needed is for a bot to be weighed in with that blocker at inspection time as an "additional mechanism". Good to go. Hmm... probably need at least N>=2 of them, for each alliance, spares, whatever.

We could even get a little sticker printed up for bots that had been certified "noodle hat capable"!

Kind of like last year's "Nessie" stickers...

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by EricH

But for a team building a blocker, singular, for other robots, plural, to use in one match and return so other robots, plural can use it... That's stretching it quite a bit. How far? I will take the GDC approach and go with "if a reasonably astute observer thinks there's something funny going on, something funny is going on".

I think we've gotten, at least for me, to "agree to disagree" -- I'm still not convinced that this is stretching anything. Although I will admit that while most people who know me will give me the "astute observer" label, some significant percentage won't attach "reasonable."

Originally Posted by EricH

I'll make a stab at it. The part is part of team A's robot overall, and passed inspection with them (unless they like a lot of red cards for non-inspected robot). However, because each other robot that carries it is making a modification, it must pass inspection too, with it aboard, and it is NOT exempt from size and weight, unlike the battery and bumpers.

This is circular logic. The discussion so far has been that the part isn't on team A's robot; they just give it to an alliance partner every match, and then take it back. You've been saying that this makes it part of team A's robot; I don't think so. It changes things to have it have been attached to team A's robot at any point in time. In that case, we agree; it's clearly part of team A's robot. BUT (in my opinion, anyway) only while it's physically attached to team A's robot. If it's attached to team B's bot, then it needs to be considered part of that robot, and team A -- for that match -- has nothing to do with it except ownership.

Originally Posted by EricH

I think that this would be a pretty interesting gray area to explore with the GDC, just sort of in casual conversation, and see what they thought about devices that showed up in one robot's matches that were not on that robot or held by the drive team. That should be entertaining...

Other than the "gray area" part of of your statement, I agree -- I would like to see what the GDC said about this. Obviously, I don't think there'd be much of a discussion, since I think they'll agree with me. But I'd still like to see what they say.

This is good; you've made me think about something I wouldn't have otherwise. Thank you.

[Gregor]

Can someone with access to the Q&A ask this before it closes on Wednesday? We might get lucky and get a response.