Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Honestly, the original GDC ruling was exactly in line with the rules. Not the tradition, but the rules. It sounds like now we need to figure out what the rules are, all over again, two days before competition.

To be fair, R1 and the corresponding rules in numerous previous years have suffered from ambiguities about who is a member of the groups allowed to build robot parts for a team, and ambiguities about what it means to build a robot part. The GDC's original ruling was consistent with one plausible interpretation of those ambiguous constraints, and past practice was consistent with an alternative plausible interpretation. In fact, because of all those plausible interpretations floating around, you've always needed to be ready to figure out the rules all over again, because the officials at an event or the GDC might suddenly decide to clarify them in a way you hadn't anticipated.

Obviously, clearer rules make interpretations a simpler task, and I think (as always) that FIRST should strive for that. But I do acknowledge the possibility that FIRST might have been making an active decision not to regulate this quite so precisely, in the hope that something unforeseen and beneficial¹ comes out of it. I'm not sure it's a bet I'd have been willing to make if I were the GDC of several years ago—but given FIRST's recent and much appreciated willingness to change course when good cause is shown, I would grant today's GDC more latitude in allowing ambiguities to be resolved in an evolutionary, rather than prescriptive way.

¹ Like cheesecake, of course.

[cglrcng]

Special thanks beyond those already extended to FIRST, The GDC, & Frank, are also owed by the entire FRC community (IMHO), to both Karthik (and 1114), for his forthright answers to direct questions in the RAMPS thread and posting the Q&A Questions, and to Cory (and 254) for creating this thread, as it helped straighten out major ambiguities, and helped the rules makers and the entire community. Thanks also to all others that contributed along the way.

(Just too bad those litter bins & litter still exist, it sure noodles up the game, especially when it keeps the co-op stacks from happening in Q~Matches. Trading a possible 40 points for zero points, when they land inside the landfill opening 1~2 seconds or so into teleop, and a bot carrying 1 yellow tote or 3 just can't seem to safely get to the shelf.....LOL). Just kidding.

You guys made me hungry for cheesecake tonight!

[JB987]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

Special thanks beyond those already extended to FIRST, The GDC, & Frank, are also owed by the entire FRC community (IMHO), to both Karthik (and 1114), for his forthright answers to direct questions in the RAMPS thread and posting the Q&A Questions, and to Cory (and 254) for creating this thread, as it helped straighten out major ambiguities, and helped the rules makers and the entire community. Thanks also to all others that contributed along the way.

(Just too bad those litter bins & litter still exist, it sure noodles up the game, especially when it keeps the co-op stacks from happening in Q~Matches. Trading a possible 40 points for zero points, when they land inside the landfill opening 1~2 seconds or so into teleop, and a bot carrying 1 yellow tote or 3 just can't seem to safely get to the shelf.....LOL). Just kidding.

You guys made me hungry for cheesecake tonight!

Communication with the opposing alliance can help keep the path clear for coop efforts. We had agreements in almost all of our quals to hold off on throwing noodles until the teams had attempted coop. Not a 100% but better than nothing