Avoiding Post-January 3rd CD Explosion/Confusion

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan

Could we do a community sourced 2015 FAQ?

I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of someone giving a bad/non-official answer to a rookie team's question and the team not being able to compete because of it. The FIRST Q&A is the truly official place to go for these things.

However! (just thought of this) - we could do a less official kind of Q&A for the questions that FIRST refuses to comment on - something like 'which drivetrain would be best - 4 CIMs or 6 CIMs?'

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of someone giving a bad/non-official answer to a rookie team's question and the team not being able to compete because of it. The FIRST Q&A is the truly official place to go for these things.

However! (just thought of this) - we could do a less official kind of Q&A for the questions that FIRST refuses to comment on - something like 'which drivetrain would be best - 4 CIMs or 6 CIMs?'

I think there's just too much risk of people skipping any "it's not official" disclaimers we provide and treating the FAQ as an authority at all on the game. Most questions not in the Q&A don't have black and white answers everyone agrees on anyway (such as your example).

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I think there's just too much risk of people skipping any "it's not official" disclaimers we provide and treating the FAQ as an authority at all on the game. Most questions not in the Q&A don't have black and white answers everyone agrees on anyway (such as your example).

We've been providing those disclaimers for quite some time, with minimal effect. I agree on this.

When I answer a question, I tend to go "Here's the rule, your setup looks like it's doing this, as a [ref/inspector as appropriate] I'd tend to rule that way depending on actually seeing what's up" on any questionable rule.