Define "ROBOT"

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

You don't need a new definition, the ones present are adequate. Their two configurations/two robots didn't pass inspection as such, and as such do not count as a robot.

I'm not going to comment on whether or not the decision not to pass them is right or wrong, that's the subject of the other thread. However, since they collectively did NOT pass inspection, they collectively do not count as a robot, by the definition presented.

The entire problem with the current definition is that it's completely circular. The rules talk an awful lot about, say, "the ROBOT will be inspected for compliance with...." If we're taking our definition as something that's passed inspection, then this is clearly nonsense and we've all been fooling ourselves that we've been having our robots inspected. Clearly we've instead been having our robots pre-approved as having passed inspection and then having them reinspected to make sure they got it right. Yes this is nonsense. It's just that no one noticed how silly it is until 1519 pointed it out.