Starting Heigh versus Shipping Height: A FIRST Trick?

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Let's give them nice highlighted rules and maybe even a pre-built robot...

First, Adam, the rules do come highlighted to a certain extent - but are you against the rulebook being legible?

Second, the so-called Kitbot has over the years increased in effectiveness to help rookie teams out. "Some assembly required" would be an understatement, and that's a good thing. However, you do seem to be saying that you think we should just let rookie teams flounder around. Is this the case?

Paul

[efoote868]

My team is building a robot that is 6 feet tall.

I have no problem with the fact the rules are not cross-referenced; there really is no reason to do so. In fact, I absolutely hate it when there are cross references, it makes me want to immediately jump to the place they're pointing out. It also stops me from getting the important part of the rule, too.

I also cannot imagine any team making a robot that cannot be disassembled somewhat. Theres got to be somewhere where you can take off 2-4 inches... maybe take off the wheels, or tilt the robot a bit.

Last of all, FIRST is not out to trick anyone! Do you really think that they would go against the GP they've been advocating for so long? What an absurdity.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by mtaman02

For Rookies on the other hand it should be second nature to find away to get to the rules and start planning ahead.

By definition, rookie teams have never participated in FIRST before. How can something you've never done before be second nature? This seems to be the exact opposite of second nature. I'm puzzled.

Originally Posted by efoote868

I have no problem with the fact the rules are not cross-referenced; there really is no reason to do so. In fact, I absolutely hate it when there are cross references.

Last of all, FIRST is not out to trick anyone! Do you really think that they would go against the GP they've been advocating for so long? What an absurdity.

Efoote,

I understand that you don't see a good reason to cross-reference here, and that's a legitimate viewpoint. However, you shouldn't let your own reading habits interfere with what might otherwise be a useful addition for others.

Furthermore, I realize that FIRST is not out to trick anyone (as I believe I have said). I think the way it is now poses an possible unintentional problem; the title I used was to provoke a response on the question.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I never said they did cross-reference. It's the teams responsibility to make the link. Additionally, FIRST MENTIONED THIS POSSIBLE ISSUE DURING KICK-OFF!. So no information was "buried" anywhere. The teams are responsible for reading every rule, not just the ones they feel might be important.

YOU STILL FAIL TO REALIZE THAT NOT EVERYONE LIVES UP TO YOUR STANDARDS and that FIRST should do its best to make the manual understandable. Please name one disadvantage (other than efoote's jumpiness) of putting a reminder under <R07>.

Paul Dennis

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

YOU STILL FAIL TO REALIZE THAT NOT EVERYONE LIVES UP TO YOUR STANDARDS and that FIRST should do its best to make the manual understandable. Please name one disadvantage (other than efoote's jumpiness) of putting a reminder under <R07>.

FIRST gave such a reminder during the kick-off broadcast. Hand-feeding FIRST teams every-thing would be counter-intuitive to the nature of FIRST. There is no easy way to make anyone read everything, but teams must do it. It would be additional work for FIRST to find every possible cross-reference and would make the manual cumbersome and hard to read.
Treat the FIRST manual like a dictionary. <R07> defines <R07> and <R07> only. For other rules, consult the definition of that rule. They shouldn't have to spell out everything 10 times in order for teams to get it.
Yeah, not everyone reads the rules, but it's their own fault they don't. FIRST does publish a very understandable manual, and posts updates and clarifications (as well as a Q&A forum) for anything that poses questions. If FIRST doesn't live up to your standards, perhaps you ought to find a different competition.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

If FIRST doesn't live up to your standards, perhaps you ought to find a different competition.

Instead of trying to improve the competition? That's like saying, "If George Bush doesn't live up to your standards, perhaps you ought to find a different country." A much better solution is to have discussions like this one - or, following the metaphor, vote for someone you think will do a better job. While you might not feel that such an addition to the manual constitutes a useful change, I do. Neither my team nor I was inconvenienced by this, as we are not building a 6' robot. I also (as others have pointed out) probably overestimated the difficulty of getting a 6' robot into a 5' 6'' box (it is a problem, but certainly not insurmountable).

In case any further clarification is required, I don't believe FIRST is trying to trick people. Overall, I think FIRST is a great organization with a few small faults. Nothing is perfect; last year, there were several issues that were not resolved in a very consistent manner (as I said, no one is perfect). However, saying that if you don't like it you should leave is ignoring half the point of bringing these things up (as I believe Jane alluded to).

Paul

P.S.: Looks like we're winding down?

[DonRotolo]

Folks, this is a great opportunity to say "Let's agree to disagree". We don't need a ****ing contest.

Don