Official Forum frustration.

[Madison]

I see I'm not alone in this, I think.

In this thread , ChrisH said,

In my question, which they declined to post, I pointedly asked that some codification be incorporated into the Rules through an official update. They basically said the "interpretations" on the FRC group ARE official and there was no need to do so. I hope they change their minds on that, the no need part that is.

I agree, entirely. Keeping up with the volume of questions and the myriad interpretations, answers, and 'official' rules changes is overwhelming and confusing.

I started a new thread to discuss this because the discrepancies between answers to the same or similar questions, outright changing of published rules, and FIRST's failure to make clear, concise changes in Team Updates has my team concerned.

In particular, one our critical mechanisms may now be in violation of these 'unpublished' rules, and while we are developing a backup, it's creating some undue hardhship. Maybe you all can help me with the interpretation.

Rule GM28 states,

Robots may not intentionally:

- Attach themselves to the railings/walls of any field structure.

GM31 reads, in part,

The outer field barriers are safety features of the playing field and robots should not be designed to react against them. Reacting is grabbing or using ... the top of the pipes at midfield ... with the intent of support a robot or robot part.

Specifically, rule GM31 makes no mention of reacting with the lower part of the midfield barrier.

We have a mechanism that was designed to tip over by contact with the lower part of this barrier - an action that seems to lie completely within the rules as they were published in the manual.

To quell my uneasiness, I watched the official forums with great interest. Particularly, I paid close attention to discussion regarding tipping the light down into the robot when going beneath the barrier. This isn't our function, but it's similar.

My question, as written, read,

Earlier, in response to this questions -
http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...c69676874#2264
- you say that it is acceptable for a some mechanism to react off the bar with the intent of lowering itself below the truss. Later, in reply to this question - http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...t=15&trange=15
- it seems as if you contradict your earlier ruling. Can you please
clarify? To what extent can parts of the robot contact the lower part of the midfield barrier? The rules, as written, do not prohibit any reaction with the lower pipe, short of damaging the playing field. If it is acceptable to design a light mount that rotates out of the way by contact with the midfield barrier, would other similar mechanisms unrelated to the light be allowed?

They e-mailed me a reply before posting it to the message board. Their reply, in private, was:

The intent of Rule GM31 is that the playing field structure is not to
be
used by robots to react against to gain a mechanical advantage. This
is
done, firstly, to protect the playing field structure components. We
envisioned robots trying to crawl over the midfield bar and in an
attempt
to prevent this, used the "top" of the bar prohibition. We also
anticipated robots going under the bar to avoid going over the ramp and
accepted this action. We allow containers to be tossed over the bar
but
not pushed under the bar. The rule states that you may use "minor
forces"
to contact the bar to activate sensors. We have expanded this
allowance to
allow teams to contact the bar to retract or shift the rotating
beacon. Other similar mechanisms that are used to sense the bar and
produce an operation are allowed. Other than incidental contact,
accidental contact or being forced into the bar by an opponent, the bar
should not be used for any strategic reactive purpose.

I cannot post question in the forum in the form that it is in. I may
shorten it so that it will be of benefit to all teams.

When they posted my question to the official forums, however, it was heavily edited, and their response was almost entirely different.

http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...=2&thread=1177

Now, I don't know which interpretation is correct. Should I be guided by what was written to me in private, which, by all accounts, seems to indicate that our mechanism is legal? Or, am I to assume that what was 'officially' posted on the forum is the true answer and what I was told never happened? I'm confused.

If the forums' answers are 'official' and the changes made there are not to be clarified in Team Updates, I think things may turn into a giant mess. Which one of the twelve different answers to the same question is the real answer?

With regard to our specific problem, how would you interpret the situation? We are designing a back up measure, just in case, but it's requires additional weight, money, time and resources that we don't have to waste.

Any ideas? Sorry for the length.