Please read R17

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by JVN

I'd like to believe there is some intent here beyond making Paul (and others) aggravated.
-JV

Intent. That is the key word. This year, the intent of this rule and many others is quite unclear. Perhaps we would better appreciate the rules if we knew the intent. But Q/A responses such as "the robot controller is part of the robot so it must be shipped" do not at all help us understand the intent of the rule. A lot of the Q/A responses seem quickly put together to get teams to (how else do I say it) shut up and follow the rules. So many of the responses in there don't give any basis, reasoning, or explanation of intent.

For FIRST's sake, they should let us know what they are trying to get at, rather than letting us make potentially false assumptions.