Annual Reminder--Please Read the Manual!

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges

Also, do NOT use FIRST Q&A to find an answer that IS in the manual. This wastes their time when they could be answerring a legitimate question (and it makes them cranky ).

To expand on this, assuming Q&A doesn't change this year, also don't use Q&A to ask questions about robot design. And odds are, if you have to include a picture to describe what you're asking (as I look through last years Q&A to see what the GDC wouldn't answer), odds are they can't specifically answer.

And generally, if a question involves electronics of some sort (ie. electronics, custom circuits, lasers) the rules/specifications/safety concerns are explicitly laid out in the manual!

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

To expand on this, assuming Q&A doesn't change this year, also don't use Q&A to ask questions about robot design. And odds are, if you have to include a picture to describe what you're asking (as I look through last years Q&A to see what the GDC wouldn't answer), odds are they can't specifically answer.

This really frustrates me. Ok, I understand why you can't be uploading CAD files to the Q and A, but the excuse that the GDC "doesn't comment in robot design" is far overused. I'm far from the first one to point this out, but issues like 118 in 2012 should have been definitively answered before 118's first match, where they were ruled illegal. Top notch teams who know what they are doing and want to play by the rules should not have to wait until their first match to figure out if they robot they built is legal.

It's fine by me if the Q and A isn't intended for pre-vetting a extremely specific design, but if questions like "can we hang off the side of the bridge" won't be answered there, then I'm confused as to how the Q and A really serves a purpose.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

This really frustrates me. Ok, I understand why you can't be uploading CAD files to the Q and A, but the excuse that the GDC "doesn't comment in robot design" is far overused. I'm far from the first one to point this out, but issues like 118 in 2012 should have been definitively answered before 118's first match, where they were ruled illegal. Top notch teams who know what they are doing and want to play by the rules should not have to wait until their first match to figure out if they robot they built is legal.

It's fine by me if the Q and A isn't intended for pre-vetting a extremely specific design, but if questions like "can we hang off the side of the bridge" won't be answered there, then I'm confused as to how the Q and A really serves a purpose.

Seconding this. The point of robot rules is precisely to limit the space of legal designs. If you cannot put forth a specific design and get an answer as to its legality, then how is the Q&A serving its intended purpose at all?

[magnets]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

This really frustrates me. Ok, I understand why you can't be uploading CAD files to the Q and A, but the excuse that the GDC "doesn't comment in robot design" is far overused. I'm far from the first one to point this out, but issues like 118 in 2012 should have been definitively answered before 118's first match, where they were ruled illegal. Top notch teams who know what they are doing and want to play by the rules should not have to wait until their first match to figure out if they robot they built is legal.

It's fine by me if the Q and A isn't intended for pre-vetting a extremely specific design, but if questions like "can we hang off the side of the bridge" won't be answered there, then I'm confused as to how the Q and A really serves a purpose.

Some of their answers are (in my opinion), really quite rude. Half the answers are "we cannot comment on hypothetical situations" , "the purpose of this q/a is not to perform design review" , and a statement of a rule (see q42 this year)

My favorite answer -"Carbon Fiber is not wood."

Last year, somebody asked about the bump. The reply "there is no bump on the field"

I do remember there being some funny ones in the old Q and A though, like what's underneath the scoring table, and the answer went all the way to the center of the earth. I'll see if I can find it.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Seconding this. The point of robot rules is precisely to limit the space of legal designs. If you cannot put forth a specific design and get an answer as to its legality, then how is the Q&A serving its intended purpose at all?

Originally Posted by DampRobot

This really frustrates me. Ok, I understand why you can't be uploading CAD files to the Q and A, but the excuse that the GDC "doesn't comment in robot design" is far overused. I'm far from the first one to point this out, but issues like 118 in 2012 should have been definitively answered before 118's first match, where they were ruled illegal. Top notch teams who know what they are doing and want to play by the rules should not have to wait until their first match to figure out if they robot they built is legal.

It's fine by me if the Q and A isn't intended for pre-vetting a extremely specific design, but if questions like "can we hang off the side of the bridge" won't be answered there, then I'm confused as to how the Q and A really serves a purpose.

I don't necessarily agree with the way the GDC answers certain things (2012's 'grab, grasp, grapple' definition for example) but I understand why they won't look at a picture or design and give a ruling; pictures and descriptions are great, but the problem is they might not fully convey the design/look completely different in person. Also, what happens when Team XXXX gets a ruling based off a picture on Q&A, Team YYYY does something similar, doesn't get a ruling? Are they able to reference Team XXXX's Q&A? It, in my opinion, overly complexifies the Q&A system and adds another burden on the GDC if they start openly reviewing designs via the Q&A.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

I don't necessarily agree with the way the GDC answers certain things (2012's 'grab, grasp, grapple' definition for example) but I understand why they won't look at a picture or design and give a ruling; pictures and descriptions are great, but the problem is they might not fully convey the design/look completely different in person. Also, what happens when Team XXXX gets a ruling based off a picture on Q&A, Team YYYY does something similar, doesn't get a ruling? Are they able to reference Team XXXX's Q&A? It, in my opinion, overly complexifies the Q&A system and adds another burden on the GDC if they start openly reviewing designs via the Q&A.

It seems to me that this is a fundamental problem with the consistency of the rules; if they can't give reasonable rulings of this nature during the Q&A session, how are they supposed to do it at competition? Do they really think the inconvenience of hampering the Q&A process outweighs the inconvenience of teams showing up with illegal designs which they could not have possibly known were going to be illegal?

Obviously, a picture can be flawed, and the judgment given based on a flawed picture will be flawed. That said, is the proper way to address that really to take a blanket approach of "we will not give rulings on the legality of specific designs?" I think that this cannot possibly be the best solution.

[Anthony4004]

Originally Posted by Brandon Ha

Is the manual even out coded so that we can download it pre kickoff?

On usfirst it says that it will be released on January 4th. I remember downloading it in the morning last year.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

This really frustrates me. Ok, I understand why you can't be uploading CAD files to the Q and A, but the excuse that the GDC "doesn't comment in robot design" is far overused. I'm far from the first one to point this out, but issues like 118 in 2012 should have been definitively answered before 118's first match, where they were ruled illegal. Top notch teams who know what they are doing and want to play by the rules should not have to wait until their first match to figure out if they robot they built is legal.

It's fine by me if the Q and A isn't intended for pre-vetting a extremely specific design, but if questions like "can we hang off the side of the bridge" won't be answered there, then I'm confused as to how the Q and A really serves a purpose.

Yep. And if there is a team like 118 who has to ask a question about an idea, than chances are the entire problem stemmed from the GDC in the first place because they didn't write the manual well enough. I'm not saying that the GDC has to be perfect, its understandable that the manual will be a little flawed, but the fact that they refuse to admit it and fix the issue is pretty disappointing.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

It seems to me that this is a fundamental problem with the consistency of the rules; if they can't give reasonable rulings of this nature during the Q&A session, how are they supposed to do it at competition? Do they really think the inconvenience of hampering the Q&A process outweighs the inconvenience of teams showing up with illegal designs which they could not have possibly known were going to be illegal?

Obviously, a picture can be flawed, and the judgment given based on a flawed picture will be flawed. That said, is the proper way to address that really to take a blanket approach of "we will not give rulings on the legality of specific designs?" I think that this cannot possibly be the best solution.

I think that it (unfortunately) has to be the way. It keeps the Q&A 'clean'/simple; you don't want to see Q&A's possibly contradicting themselves. And, if they reviewed/responded to pictures, I'm sure we'd see at least one instance of a team taking the (similar) design, not copying it exactly, and trying to use the Q&A response as a defense.

Basically, I feel that the line should be drawn at analyzing pictures/actual designs. Obviously, in the case of 118, that was a fault of the GDC's in my opinion, because the GDC didn't expand on the definition of "grab, grasp, grapple".

Originally Posted by tondogone

On usfirst it says that it will be released on January 4th. I remember downloading it in the morning last year.

That's the manual in the non-pdf form; hopefully tomorrow or Friday they'll release the encrypted PDF to download beforehand when the manual servers get slowed down(which they usually do). And hopefully this incoming NE snowstorm doesn't hurt that...

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I suggest you not base decisions on anyone who answers that "they think the manual says XXXXX", and doesn't quote the manual. I cannot state strongly enough that opinions on CD are merely that and the Q&A is only legal response to a question. For newcomers and rookies alike, there will be frequent updates (at least weekly) that modify the manual sections. Robot Inspectors, refs and judges will be using the latest changes at your event.
While this happens every year, I have a hard time telling a team that their assembly was ruled illegal in Team update #16 only to find out that they had faithfully copied and bound all team updates except #16. Thanks Eric for starting this thread. Teams if you have specific questions that you think may compromise your strategy, you may PM me for an opinion until such time as the Q&A is answered. While the Q&A team tries to respond quickly, correct answers are important to them. That may require more input from the team before a response is made public. Please be patient.

Not to be too nit-picky, but judges are not there to make calls on the legality of something. Judges are not asked to read the manual, team updates, or follow the Q&A. That's what referees and inspectors are for. Nothing more annoying than a judge telling you something is illegal.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by rsisk

Not to be too nit-picky, but judges are not there to make calls on the legality of something. Judges are not asked to read the manual, team updates, or follow the Q&A. That's what referees and inspectors are for. Nothing more annoying than a judge telling you something is illegal.

Are safety inspectors considered judges?

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Are safety inspectors considered judges?

No.

EDIT: If you mean the regular robot inspectors, no. If you mean overall safety of the event...that's different.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

No.

EDIT: If you mean the regular robot inspectors, no. If you mean overall safety of the event...that's different.

I mean the green shirts who determine the safety award.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
I included judges to the extent that the judged awards are part of the manual series.
As to rulings on robot design, the GDC (and the Q&A) cannot make a ruling based on a description given by the team. The description in most cases is flawed (in favor of a positive response) and thus a decision based on that description will be flawed as well. I can tell you that over the years, teams have sent me pictures of assemblies on their robot that look nothing like the picture when viewed in person and in context with the rest of the robot. Making a decision in person is often difficult until the robot is viewed from all angles. Think about the team that takes a picture of their mounted bumper and asks if it meets the robot rules. From the picture all looks fine but we cannot see that 20" of the bumper is unsupported by robot frame because we can't see behind the bumper in the picture. Just think about the daunting task faced by those who must respond to the Q&A and take a look at how many questions that you can answer actually are asked by teams.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Are safety inspectors considered judges?

Safety inspectors? I do not believe they exist.

Safety advisors wear green shirts.