YMTC: Redabot Scores 30 Bonus Points?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

So... There really isn't a Transitive property mentioned in the rule book, and since the Q&A forums ARE only suggestions as to interpretations of the rule... The rule book states that they would recieve the points, cut and dry. Right?

Assuming that we're justified in saying that the Q&A is not binding without a rule to back it up (and really, that's not spelled out anywhere official), I'm of the feeling that since we lack a specific definition of "supported" anywhere, the Q&A response is the only definition of "supported" upon which we can all rely. This bothers me, because to treat it as such is a case of circular logic; effectively, it's supported because something else is supported. I have a harder time with this, because depending on the definition of support, no conflict necessarily exists, and it's quite possible that both the Q&A and rulebook are consistent. If there was a contradiction, it would be easy to defer to the rules, but given that the Q&A is intended to offer official guidance, I don't want to ignore it, despite the lack of clarity in the response.

On the other hand, maybe we should ask ourselves whether it is a bad thing for the referees to make the determination of support a judgement call. They're already relied upon to judge 4" and 12" bonuses (it's a judgement, because they often can't directly measure the robot, only the edges of the not-necessarily-flat object supporting it). The referees could examine the particular mechanism, and decide for themselves whether the toroid was supporting, or not. As long as the rules made clear that this determination was being made at the head referee's discretion, I don't think anyone would have a substantial problem with it (assuming that the referee was halfway competent). It's certainly far more practical than introducing some solid-mechanics-based criteria for determining support.