Go to Post Unfortunately our team missed out on a great opportunity to "learn from the pros" because we did student-centric things like insisting on having a student field coach. - Tom Bottiglieri [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2010, 20:02
dag0620 dag0620 is offline
Because we're FiNE
AKA: David Givens
FRC #1071 (Team MAX)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Wolcott, CT
Posts: 784
dag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond reputedag0620 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Pi View Post
I believe offseason events get a near-full version of the FMS this year (doesn't have wireless encryption), including the seeding system. However, it would be possible to write an alternate seeder independent of the FMS that calculates based on our own algorithm
I can confirm that off-season events (useing the first field at least) will be useing FMS-Delta which included everything expect encryption (Seeding, Pit Screens, Audience screen with all the graphics etc.). Unless the even planners choose to use FMS Light (which I heard is going to be released shortly for the 2010 edtion) this should be the case.
__________________
David Givens
Alumnus Team Max 1071 ('13) | FIRST Volunteer | NE FIRST

Away making magic for a bit...
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 11:20
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,074
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Lighten the expansion rules slightly. If a team goes to hang earlier than 20 seconds let them instead of possibly penalizing them if they aren't completely in contact with the tower. Obviously, if a team expands in the middle of the wrong zone they aren't hanging and should still be penalized.

Take a closer look at flipping. It is kinda silly that a team is allowed to ram and flip another team at will but if they go near the tower in the last 20 seconds it is a yellow card.

Allow 2 defensive robots in the other alliances zone if and only if one of the robots is tipped over. Having a flipped robot is enough of a penalty.

Call balls that are kicked outside of bounds. In soccer intentionally outing a ball is a penalty (as far as I recall) 1pt penalty per ball. As long as the ball first contacts another robot or game element it is ok but if it just flies clear out and hits a ref/volunteer/grandmother in the face that is a safety hazard. Place the balls back into play in the defensive zone of the robot that booted them out. Yes, this discourages teams that just blast the ball but it also encourages safety.

I too would like to see more points for hanging/suspension but it is not fair to teams who designed and built their machines for the REAL game.
__________________




.
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 11:37
548swimmer's Avatar
548swimmer 548swimmer is offline
CAD Leader
AKA: Alec Wagner
FRC #0548 (Robostangs)
Team Role: CAD
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 299
548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post


Allow 2 defensive robots in the other alliances zone if and only if one of the robots is tipped over. Having a flipped robot is enough of a penalty.
I like the concept, but what if my robot flips over blocking one goal? Then the other robot that came in could block the remaining goal, eliminating scoring potential.

What if you allowed a second robot into the defensive zone only to right the flipped robot. Once the robot was righted, the alliance would have 10 seconds to figure out which robot will stay in the zone, and act on it.
__________________
My religion is physics, it can explain everything.

WINNER -- 2011 Waterford District
District Chairman's -- 2011 Waterford District
Finalist -- 2011 Ann Arbor District
State Chairman's -- 2011 Michigan State Championship
Quarter-finalist -- 2011 Galileo
2011 Championship -- Highest Ranking Score
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 11:40
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,074
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by 548swimmer View Post
I like the concept, but what if my robot flips over blocking one goal? Then the other robot that came in could block the remaining goal, eliminating scoring potential.

What if you allowed a second robot into the defensive zone only to right the flipped robot. Once the robot was righted, the alliance would have 10 seconds to figure out which robot will stay in the zone, and act on it.
Well, then the other team would have a pretty big interest in NOT flipping you wouldn't they?
__________________




.
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 11:43
548swimmer's Avatar
548swimmer 548swimmer is offline
CAD Leader
AKA: Alec Wagner
FRC #0548 (Robostangs)
Team Role: CAD
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 299
548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of548swimmer has much to be proud of
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
Well, then the other team would have a pretty big interest in NOT flipping you wouldn't they?
True, and that would accomplish the goal of reducing unnecessary ramming/flipping. I know that if we try hard enough, and have our elevator on, we can flip ourselves. I'm not sure if there are many other teams out there who can do that, but it may be an issue.

I do like the idea of less ramming, it would keep the driver's more focused on playing the actual game.

Which I just lost....
__________________
My religion is physics, it can explain everything.

WINNER -- 2011 Waterford District
District Chairman's -- 2011 Waterford District
Finalist -- 2011 Ann Arbor District
State Chairman's -- 2011 Michigan State Championship
Quarter-finalist -- 2011 Galileo
2011 Championship -- Highest Ranking Score
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 12:02
JamesBrown JamesBrown is offline
Back after 4 years off
FRC #5279
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Lynchburg VA
Posts: 1,281
JamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond reputeJamesBrown has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post

Take a closer look at flipping. It is kinda silly that a team is allowed to ram and flip another team at will but if they go near the tower in the last 20 seconds it is a yellow card.

Allow 2 defensive robots in the other alliances zone if and only if one of the robots is tipped over. Having a flipped robot is enough of a penalty.
We have had more problems scoring against robots tipped near a goal than against robots defending against us.

Teams really need to take into account CoG when designing and building, their is no reason to add a rule that benefits teams that designed poorly and have robots prone to flipping without the ability to right themselves.
__________________
I'm Back


5279 (2015-Present)
3594 (2011)
3280 (2010)
1665 (2009)
1350 (2008-2009)
1493 (2007-2008)
1568 (2005-2007)
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 12:11
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,074
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesBrown View Post
We have had more problems scoring against robots tipped near a goal than against robots defending against us.

Teams really need to take into account CoG when designing and building, their is no reason to add a rule that benefits teams that designed poorly and have robots prone to flipping without the ability to right themselves.
I agree, if a robot is tippy it is one thing. If a robot is rammed repeatedly it is an entirely different thing. I know 397 has no CG issues (it is ~5 inches off the ground and we never flipped) but that didn't stop people from trying. At one point in time we were vertical and another team kept pushing. THAT is trying to tip. Being hit once and rolling over because your CG is 25" in the air is another thing entirely and it is clear to any observer when a team is being way too aggressive.

Edit to Wayne:Rule G19 clearly states that the penalty and a yellow card are to be called for any ball outed from the field intentionally. I merely replaced the yellow card with giving the opponent a better chance to score the ball.
__________________




.

Last edited by Andrew Schreiber : 10-05-2010 at 12:18.
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 12:13
Wayne TenBrink's Avatar
Wayne TenBrink Wayne TenBrink is offline
<< (2008 Game Piece)
FRC #1918 (NC Gears)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Fremont, MI, USA
Posts: 528
Wayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond reputeWayne TenBrink has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
Call balls that are kicked outside of bounds. In soccer intentionally outing a ball is a penalty (as far as I recall) 1pt penalty per ball. As long as the ball first contacts another robot or game element it is ok but if it just flies clear out and hits a ref/volunteer/grandmother in the face that is a safety hazard. Place the balls back into play in the defensive zone of the robot that booted them out. Yes, this discourages teams that just blast the ball but it also encourages safety.
I think this is a solution without a problem. There were a lot of wide shots on goal that left the field of play without ever touching a field element or another robot. I don't recall seeing intentional O/B shots that presented a safety issue. It would be tough for referees to discern the difference between some intentional and unintentional O/B kicks. Returning balls to the opponents' home zone would have made sense if it was in the original rules, but I don't think it meets the "fundamental flaw" standard to change it now.
__________________
NC Gears (Newaygo County Geeks Engineering Awesome Robotic Solutions)

FRC 1918 (Competing at St. Joseph and West MI in 2017)
FTC 6043 & 7911
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 13:00
jmiller48167's Avatar
jmiller48167 jmiller48167 is offline
Mentor, Volunteer, Judge, and Dad
AKA: Mr. Jason Miller
FRC #0033 (Killer Bees)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Northville, Mi
Posts: 23
jmiller48167 has much to be proud ofjmiller48167 has much to be proud ofjmiller48167 has much to be proud ofjmiller48167 has much to be proud ofjmiller48167 has much to be proud ofjmiller48167 has much to be proud ofjmiller48167 has much to be proud ofjmiller48167 has much to be proud ofjmiller48167 has much to be proud ofjmiller48167 has much to be proud of
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post
Rule G19 clearly states that the penalty and a yellow card are to be called for any ball outed from the field intentionally. I merely replaced the yellow card with giving the opponent a better chance to score the ball.
In the 6 events I attended I don't recall this ever being called. Do you have a specific event where it was enforced.

I think it should be enforced due to being hit while sitting field side for reset.
__________________
Cad Mentor, Dad, Uncle, Volunteer
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 13:26
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,074
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmiller48167 View Post
In the 6 events I attended I don't recall this ever being called. Do you have a specific event where it was enforced.

I think it should be enforced due to being hit while sitting field side for reset.
No, it was never called to my knowledge.
__________________




.
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 13:27
StevenB StevenB is offline
is having FRC withdrawal symptoms.
AKA: Steven Bell
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: May 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 416
StevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond reputeStevenB has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

I'd like to chime in, having seen some rule modifications at BattleCry this weekend.

BC had a large box in the middle zone around each tower, in which robots were allowed to expand to finale volume. I think this eliminated a few unnecessary penalties, but didn't have any major effects. As XaulZan11 jokingly alluded, no one (I hope!) is going to rebuild their robot to violate the spirit of the rule just because the letter has changed.

Incursion penalties for driving over balls were rarely called at BC, although this was due to the referee's choice, not a specifically announced rule modification. In general I felt that this was a good thing, since accidentally driving over balls was common.

I would suggest that penalties not be called for robots which exceed the allowable volume because a chain falls off or other part of the robot breaks and drags around outside the frame perimeter. In my opinion, the penalty just adds insult to injury and doesn't improve game play.
__________________
Need a physics refresher? Want to know if that motor is big enough for your arm? A FIRST Encounter with Physics

2005-2007: Student | Team #1519, Mechanical Mayhem | Milford, NH
2008-2011: Mentor | Team #2359, RoboLobos | Edmond, OK
2014-??: Mentor | Looking for a team...
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 13:56
Bob Steele's Avatar
Bob Steele Bob Steele is offline
Professional Steamacrit Hunter
AKA: Bob Steele
FRC #1983 (Skunk Works Robotics)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,538
Bob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber View Post

Call balls that are kicked outside of bounds. In soccer intentionally outing a ball is a penalty (as far as I recall) 1pt penalty per ball. As long as the ball first contacts another robot or game element it is ok but if it just flies clear out and hits a ref/volunteer/grandmother in the face that is a safety hazard. Place the balls back into play in the defensive zone of the robot that booted them out. Yes, this discourages teams that just blast the ball but it also encourages safety.
.
FYI
Intentionally kicking the ball out of bounds is NOT a penalty in soccer...You may get penalized for intentionally delaying the game.... in the opinion of the referee ... kicking the ball out of bounds might be intentionally delaying....

Practically speaking... this infraction is extremely rare....especially in today's soccer that has extra balls lying around to be put back into play quickly...

Playing the ball out of bounds intentionally is an important part of the game of soccer...

In our game... I believe that the intent of this rule was to not allow teams to kick balls out of bounds just to keep them away from other teams...and to protect the referees/volunteers/spectators...
I would make the change that the balls be placed directly back into the zone they came from and NOT all in the middle zone.

getting ready for World Cup.... just a month away...
__________________
Raisbeck Aviation High School TEAM 1983 - Seattle, Washington
Las Vegas 07 WINNER w/ 1425/254...Seattle 08 WINNER w/ 2046/949.. Oregon 09 WINNER w/1318/2635..SEA 10 RCA ..Spokane 12 WINNER w/2122/4082 and RCA...Central Wa 13 WINNER w/1425/753..Seattle 13 WINNER w/948/492 & RCA ..Spokane 13 WINNER w/2471/4125.. Spokane 14 - DCA --Auburn 14 - WINNER w/1318/4960..District CMP 14 WINNER w/1318/2907, District CMA.. CMP 14 Newton Finalist w 971/341/3147 ... Auburn Mountainview 15 WINNER w/1318/3049 - Mt Vernon 15 WINNER w/1318/4654 - Philomath 15 WINNER w/955/847 -District CMP 15 WINNER w/955/2930 & District CMA -CMP Newton -Industrial Design Award

  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 15:24
mwtidd's Avatar
mwtidd mwtidd is offline
Registered User
AKA: mike
FRC #0319 (Big Bad Bob)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 714
mwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond reputemwtidd has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

One thing I found in this game is that is awfully difficult to follow for spectators. Its like watching a doubles tennis match with two balls.

Thus I would propose only using 6 balls on the field rather than 12.

Also make two balls worth 2 points if scored, it gives the audience something to focus on.

There was just simply too much going on in this game, it was almost unwatchable as a general spectator. It is interesting too because there was only one way to score during the main part of the match. (2004 had 3 ways and was much more watchable)
__________________
"Never let your schooling interfere with your education" -Mark Twain
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 15:33
ttldomination's Avatar
ttldomination ttldomination is offline
Sunny
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Roanoke, TX
Posts: 2,066
ttldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond reputettldomination has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by lineskier View Post
Thus I would propose only using 6 balls on the field rather than 12.

Also make two balls worth 2 points if scored, it gives the audience something to focus on.
Well, as already said, I feel like changing the number of points something is worth or even making any major game play changes the intent of the original game.

And I don't get why 2 points would be any different than one point. If it makes you feel better, multiply the scores by 2 at the end of the round. Unless you're trying to lessen the value of hanging to have the equality of one goals, in which case, the importance of hanging has been downgraded and you arrive back to my first statement.
__________________
1261: 2007-2012
1648: 2013-2014
5283: 2015
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 10-05-2010, 16:26
BrendanB BrendanB is offline
Registered User
AKA: Brendan Browne
FRC #1058 (PVC Pirates)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Londonderry, NH
Posts: 3,104
BrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rule change suggestions for MARC 2010

Anther addition to game play that isn't necessarily a rule, but definitely made matches more interesting at BattleCry11. Teams were allowed to trade 1-3 of their balls in the zone before autonomous for a 8 or 10 inch disk to place on one of the ball starting positions (max 3 per alliance). Robots touching or partially covering the dot at the end of auto received one bonus point, and robots fully covering dots at the end of the match also received bonus points. Balls removed before the match were placed back in mid-field at the start of teleop. It was a cool way for teams to earn a bonus even if they had no hanger or kicker as well as increasing match scores and increased match strategy with sometimes 4 dots on the field.

Also, what if at the start of the match a "special" ball was placed on each tower and worth 2 points each time it was scored?

Additional items like these make the game more exciting and add a new dimension to match strategy!
__________________
1519 Mechanical M.A.Y.H.E.M. 2008 - 2010
3467 Windham Windup 2011 - 2015
1058 PVC Pirates 2016 - xxxx

Last edited by BrendanB : 10-05-2010 at 16:30.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MARC 2010 IS OPEN Steve Ketron General Forum 142 30-06-2010 00:59
Change to Rule SC9 David.Cook Rules/Strategy 1 08-01-2003 10:59
RULE CHANGE!!! archiver 1999 11 23-06-2002 22:12
Possible Rule change for Flordia? (Please) and the reason for more seeding rounds. archiver 1999 6 23-06-2002 22:09


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:17.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi