pic: Robot Bumpers

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

My Dissent:
As a general rule of thumb- the GDC should not provide a figure as an example for a rule that violates other rules in the manual. This definitely creates confusion. The other part of the figure 8-2 which creates confusion is corners E and F. These two corners apparently are not corners and are in fact "curves." From the Q/A response, the GDC will not define a curve.

From that my friends, I may make without hesitation and purely for intellectual and kindly debate that I make this claim: In the Scott Hill Image corners A and B are not corners and are in fact "curves" making this configuration LEGAL.

<sigh> The Q&A forum has made this statement over and over and over again:

Figure 8-2 is solely intended to illustrate the legality of some ways in which BUMPERS could be arranged on the four indicated exterior corners (marked "OK" or "Not OK"). This is to provide insight into one particular clause of one rule. It is not intended to provide a complete example of every Robot Rule. Please do not infer any other conclusions from that example (e.g. the location of the Trailer Hitch is intentionally not shown in Figure 8-2; please do not make any assumptions about the legality/illegality of the Trailer Hitch location based on this illustration).

DO NOT READ MORE INTO THE ILLUSTRATION THAN IS SUPPORTED BY THE TEXT OF THE RULE. I don't know how that can be stated more clearly. To state that every illustration must be in complete compliance with every rule in the manual is possibly one of the most unrealistic notions ever. EVERY illustration is based on the reasonable expectation that the audience will apply a modicum of thought to understanding the illustration, and use the available context (established by the referencing text) to identify and extract the useful information supplied. There is NEVER an expectation that an illustration be anything more than an abstraction of a particular subset of all available information, included as a clarifying aide regarding a particular point.

For example, why is it that you are just focused on the presence/absence of bumper segments across the lower edge of the robot in the 8-2 illustration ("lower" in the reference frame of the illustration)? If anyone were really on their game, they would also note that upon immediate inspection the robot is also in violation of Rule <R06>, <R10>, <R11>, <R14>, <R15>, <R18>, <R19>, <R20>, <R21>, <R23>, all of the fabrication schedule rules, <R29>, <R32>, <R33>, every one of the power distribution rules (<R38> through <R49>), <R55>, <R56>, <R57>, <R58>, <R59>, <R62>, <R64>, all of the operator console rules (<R79> through <R88>), <R90>, <R91>, <R93>, and probably several other rules. The illustrated robot is also a two-dimensional figure. Two dimensional robots are not allowed in the competition (implicit effects of Rule <R55>, <R58> and <R64> wherein three-dimensional devices must be included as part of the robot). Since it is in violation of Rule <R18> it cannot haul a trailer, thus it cannot participate as a viable entry into the game. So it is in clear violation of both the letter of the rules and the intent of the game. Yet no one seems to have a problem with that.

At this point, if you have any common sense at all, you are saying "that is silly, of course the illustration of the robot in figure 8-2 doesn't need a control system included. That is not relevant to the text referencing the illustration, and it would be unnecessary - even distracting - to include all that extra information."

That is exactly the point. Neither the illustration nor the text referencing the illustration are saying anything about anything other than the four corners indicted with "OK" or "not OK." Don't assume that there is any more implied information content than that.