Crushing Balls?

[aaeamdar]

Here is a post-by-post account of whether people correctly answered the original question:

#2: did not correctly answer question
#3: did correctly answer question
#4: did not currectly answer question
#5: offtopic
#6: offtopic
#7: offtopic
#8: mix, but certainly provided useful insight
#9: re-affirming #8
#10: offtopic
#11: offtopic
#12: offtopic
#13: offtopic
#14: offtopic
#15: offtopic
#16: mostly correct

First and foremost: when I say "offtopic" I do not mean bad in any way, and I definitely should have been less whiny about "in 15 posts no one answered the blah blah". These posts (the ones I characterized as "offtopic") were often useful and interesting to read (and I did read all of them). Many of them gave indirect insight into the question asked by the OP. However, I will maintain that none of them directly answered the question - I'm not making a judgment. I'm not trying to say that since you didn't answer the question, your post was useless, and again, I apologize for my somewhat snippy attitude about the 15 posts part.

But, I do have to disagree that people have been answering the question. Yes, I read all the posts before replying. And in my judgment, only one person gave a correct and direct answer to the question. This is in comparison to the two people who gave answers that were wrong.

You also seem to be suggesting that the OP was not asking a question about the rules (when you said "You'll note that the question asked is not 'Is destroying game pieces against the rule'"). I must confess that this is a substantially different interpretation of the original question than my own, and it could be a valid one. However, my interpretation, based in part on the fact that he was asking in the "Rules/Strategy Forum" was that he was asking about the rules, and that when he said "counted against us" he was referring to possible penalties. But I could be wrong.

As to your third paragraph:

Originally Posted by ScottOliveira

While it is certainly advisable for everyone to read the game manual, not everyone has the time to go digging for the specific rules, and this forum allows them to try to get answers with minimal time. And it is also a place for more experienced FIRSTers to give their own insight into how rules are actually applied.

On your first point ("not everyone has the time"), I am afraid that I must beg to differ. Every team should have at least one person with a thorough understanding of the manual. Not such that they have it memorized (though that would certainly be useful) but such that they know where to look for things. From kickoff, 6.5 weeks, which is 45 days, or 1080 hours (or thereabouts) until ship. I fail to see how this does not leave adequte time for one person on the team to read the manual several times over.

As to the second part of your point,I couldn't agree more, and in fact, this is my objection to the first and third replies to the original question. They were, in fact, incorrect. This is why all discussions of rules need to be based on the manual. CD is a great resource for everyone to pool their resources and share insight - and when people muddy the waters by giving incorrect answers, that doesn't help, it hurts.

To sum up my rather lengthy point: I did in fact read all of the replies to the topic. I do apologize for the snippyness about no one answering in 15 posts, and I hope that no one takes my labeling of some posts as off-topic to be a criticism. However, I do stick by the idea that discussions of the rules (and such was my interpretation of the OP's question) need to be based on the manual, and that incorrect responses do not further the discussion.

-Paul Dennis

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

But, I do have to disagree that people have been answering the question. Yes, I read all the posts before replying. And in my judgment, only one person gave a correct and direct answer to the question.

By your account, I nailed the answer in post #3. Why are you disappointed that the conversation has since wandered elsewhere? That's how conversations work: a topic is discussed until interested parties are satisfied, and then often progresses along tangents. People repeating what I already said doesn't add any value to the community; exploration of related ideas does. There's no need for yelling, snippyness, or disappointment... just relax and enjoy the discussion.

[Ryan O]

Ok, so aside from th debate about answering:

a) no, if it is unintentional and does not happen as normal operation of the robot, I don't think the rule implies you will still be penalized

b) useful info - i believe in one of the updates it says that any balls with two or more broken struts noticed by reset staff will be replaced (aka considered broken) - so that's not even total destruction, but a small piece of it, which would mean they will need a lot of them to replace them/repair them

[Siri]

For the benefit of continued discussion and possible clarification for any hypothetically interested parties, OP or otherwise:
<G29> Is also slightly on-point.

Originally Posted by "<G29">

Arena Interaction –ROBOTS may push or react against any elements of the ARENA, provided there is no damage or disruption of the ARENA elements. With the exception of a ROBOT towing a TRAILER, ROBOTS may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any ARENA structure. If a ROBOT violates this rule, the TEAM will be given one warning. If the referee determines that the TEAM is disregarding the warning, their ROBOT will be disabled for the remainder of the MATCH. ROBOTS that become entangled in the ARENA elements will not be freed until after the MATCH has finished, unless the entanglement represents a safety hazard.

Note that neither <G29> or <G30> (nor any others else I can find, having read the manual) make any mention on penalties--though <S01> may touch on specific cases. Thus, according to the "further damage is likely to occur" clause of <G30>, I will guess that the standard of proof for disabling may will be preventability (within the match), rather than intentionality. If penalties were to be assigned (presumably on the basis of <S01>), the standard would probably be intentionality or negligence of design or operation, the latter hopefully being a consistent practice rather than a brief mistake, though of course that makes the judgment even more subjective.

I don't remember many arena damage penalties from past years, though likewise I can't bring to mind too many intentionally or negligently damaging robots. I'd hope that the same will be true of this year.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Siri

Note that neither <G29> or <G30> (nor any others else I can find, having read the manual) make any mention on penalties--though <S01> may touch on specific cases. Thus, according to the "further damage is likely to occur" clause of <G30>, I will guess that the standard of proof for disabling may will be preventability (within the match), rather than intentionality. If penalties were to be assigned (presumably on the basis of <S01>), the standard would probably be intentionality or negligence of design or operation, the latter hopefully being a consistent practice rather than a brief mistake, though of course that makes the judgment even more subjective.

Disabling is a penalty that is worse than a penalty. It takes away an entire robot's scoring potential, and this year, your trailer is now a sitting duck for the other alliance.

<S01> doesn't apply here, unless your robot is being unsafe. <S04> might. (I'd have to find a robot rule that would be violated.)

As for intent, there is a large difference between just (trying to) drive around and accidentally slamming a game piece into another robot/the wall and taking in a game piece the intended way and having it come out in half-a-dozen strips, multiple times. The standard is intentionality, not preventability, or at least, that's how I read the rules.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by jgannon

By your account, I nailed the answer in post #3. Why are you disappointed that the conversation has since wandered elsewhere? That's how conversations work: a topic is discussed until interested parties are satisfied, and then often progresses along tangents. People repeating what I already said doesn't add any value to the community; exploration of related ideas does. There's no need for yelling, snippyness, or disappointment... just relax and enjoy the discussion.

Sorry, maybe I was somewhat misunderstood. I don't think there was anything wrong with how the discussion went except for the two answers that were misleading (discussed at length above). This is why I apologized for saying,

"

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

I feel a little disappointed that in 15 posts, no one has really answered the original question

This is also why I took great pains to stress that I had no problem with the posts that I labeled as "off-topic":

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

First and foremost: when I say "offtopic" I do not mean bad in any way, and I definitely should have been less whiny about "in 15 posts no one answered the blah blah". These posts (the ones I characterized as "offtopic") were often useful and interesting to read (and I did read all of them). Many of them gave indirect insight into the question asked by the OP.

Does reading that really give you the impression that I had something against how the conversation went?

As to "nailed the answer": while I did find your answer to be useful (and I hope the OP felt the same), it did not 100% answer the question. You said,

Originally Posted by jgannon

If you slam into the wall at 20fps, a ball rolls in between just in time, and the result is a pile of plastic and spandex, odds are that it will be considered incidental. However, if there is something particular about your robot design that is conducive to regularly destroying game pieces, odds are that you won't be allowed back on the field until you fix it.

I felt that in giving my answer, it was important to quote the rule in question. I fully respect your possibly different opinion of what constitutes "100% answer[ing] the question". Different people have different opinions on what constitutes a good answer to the question - sometimes quoting the rules is actually an inferior way to go, as the rules can be so arcane (*coughbumperscough*) that a more down-to-earth explanation is actually more understandable. And that's the great thing about a forum such as this one. Someone posts a question, and they get many answers back, which allows them to more fully understand the answer.

In short, I would ask you to re-read my second posting and reconsider your characterization of my opinion of the discussion thus far. I hope that you will come to a different opinion, though I understand if you don't.

-Paul