YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

[Tristan Lall]

Neither graciousness nor professionalism have anything to do with this problem--we can exemplify both to our hearts' content, but the fact is, there exist two reasonable interpretations of the rules, and the mere fact that one seems more altruistic doesn't excuse us from considering that the alternative is also a fair way of reading the rules. (Or maybe it isn't: that's the point we ought to be discussing.)

Steve you ask me to judge the intent of the rule. I seem to recall an issue a while back where we discussed the pros and cons of judging intent. Dave Lavery mentioned that "If you don't know the intent of the rule-writer, then all you have to go on is the words of the rule itself." While I wouldn't personally mind some consideration of intent, I don't feel that the rules and customs of FIRST allow us the luxury of doing that--largely because our judgments of intent are really just educated guesses of often-dubious validity.

Now, with regard to JVN's post, Dave has explained the intent of the rule-writers in a recent post--that was not known during the competition season, and could not be expected to have been known to any random team, unless it were officially announced. We can't argue with the benefit of that knowledge, since it was acquired ex post facto, and never officially disseminated. As we all know, Dave's answers on this forum can't be considered binding to FIRST teams at large, correct (or incorrect) as they might be. If we were to add the sum of our musings to the rules, the answer would be clear-cut, and in your favour--but we can't, because FIRST didn't.

I know why the rules were written--this was explained, and makes sense. I don't think that the rules were quite comprehensive enough to limit the scope of the robots in the manner intended.

And John, the sentence you quoted was directed at Jack, who seemed to be content with a post-and-run flame, rather than a statement of his reasoning.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
This thread has drifted a little to a really good discussion on the rules. Many of you have brought up the lawyer card in reading and interpreting rules. That is an easy deduction to make but I prefer to look at the rules as a substitute for Mother Nature. In my mind, generally, the rules keep us safe or give us a false physical limit to use for design parameters and construction. I can tell you that if you went to NASA with two attachments to be put on a spacecraft and tried to make the argument that they meet weight with a motor installed in only one, you, at best, would be laughed at. You know that both motors need to be installed for that device to fly and the weight limit is there to get it off the ground. All those inventors, scientists and engineers came up with real solutions to real world problems and did not try to bend the rules to achieve them. The rule is clear and specifies only one battery and does not include spares.
<R06> The maximum allowed weight of all robot configuration components combined is 130.0 pounds (58.97kg). At the time of weigh in, the basic robot platform and any additional items that might be used in different configurations of the robot must be weighed together. Weight limit includes (one) 12V battery, control system, decorations, bumpers, and any other attached parts.

[Rich Wong]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Guys,
I can tell you that if you went to NASA with two attachments to be put on a spacecraft and tried to make the argument that they meet weight with a motor installed in only one, you, at best, would be laughed at. You know that both motors need to be installed for that device to fly and the weight limit is there to get it off the ground.

*pause*
This is an excellent analogy! I wouldn’t be surprise if Dave or Woodie uses it in the next Kickoff intro.

please continue debate......

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I can tell you that if you went to NASA with two attachments to be put on a spacecraft and tried to make the argument that they meet weight with a motor installed in only one, you, at best, would be laughed at. You know that both motors need to be installed for that device to fly and the weight limit is there to get it off the ground. All those inventors, scientists and engineers came up with real solutions to real world problems and did not try to bend the rules to achieve them. The rule is clear and specifies only one battery and does not include spares.

Originally Posted by Natchez

Since only one mechanism is on Redabot at a time

Al, I don't think the analogy quite captures the problem--as you've phrased it, doesn't it lend itself better to a scenario wherein the total weight of the as-launched vehicle is less than the limit? (That is to say, like 2003.) After all, NASA would itself be laughed at if it thought its vehicle overweight for apparatus that would not be flying with the vehicle on this trip, and which couldn't have been attached in combination with the attachment being used. In short, no, both motors do not have to be attached for the device to fly (or the robot to run), because there exists no configuration that uses both motors simultaneously--there's no place to fit it in.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I think the point was that the rules as stated are an engineering constraint over the entire system, not just what you have on the field at any particular moment. Since this year's rules mandate weighing all attachments together, they are probably meant in this sense. The old modular rules were meant in your particular sense.

To better detail the analogy, NASA is asking for a system for astronauts to use in space to accomplish all these tasks. You wouldn't send them without one of the attachments, because then you'd never use it.

To me common sense dictates that "spare" parts are there to be swapped out when something is broken, worn out, scratched, etc. The reason that the second motor is no longer a spare is the fact that it's not being swapped out because it's already there bolted down and integrated to the assembly. No work is being done to swap it out, you're just using semantics and pretending it's being swapped for the other part without actually doing anything. So I guess my definition of a spare part includes the physical act of replacing something.

[jonathan lall]

Okay, the two sides in this debate are clear-cut; my righteous brother, stick. The only way it's going to go forward is if people stop repeating themselves. Tristan has presented the exact same challenge I would have if I agreed with him (which is creepy), but it has gone largely unanswered because people can't get past other things. Here is something the other side needs to do if they are to beat Tristan through logic:

1) Don't factor in what the rulemakers intended to say, but rather what they did say, because intent of rulemkers is immaterial, especially with this rule. He quotes Dave Lavery, one of the 2004 rule writers, on this point to great effect from a different YMTC. It would seem that nearly everyone that disagrees with Tristan, including Dave, cite what Dave intended to say in the rules. JVN goes so far as to appeal to authority (since Dave said this, it must be done this way) as a reason he's right.

2) Explain to us why these two modules constitute "different configurations" as there exists no robot configuration in which both motors are used simultaneously. Here's a leading question for you: Isn't it true that enforcing/interpreting this rule here is nothing more than nitpicking, penalizing creative thinking that does not disadvantage other teams on the battlefield to even a small degree?

3) Stop invoking GP like it's the new Elvis. Whenever someone does the whole "Gracious Professionalism is on my side" routine, my body's natural reaction is to cringe. What, pray tell, makes GP on your side rather than Tristan's?

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I seem to recall an issue a while back where we discussed the pros and cons of judging intent. Dave Lavery mentioned that "If you don't know the intent of the rule-writer, then all you have to go on is the words of the rule itself." While I wouldn't personally mind some consideration of intent, I don't feel that the rules and customs of FIRST allow us the luxury of doing that--largely because our judgments of intent are really just educated guesses of often-dubious validity.

Now, with regard to JVN's post, Dave has explained the intent of the rule-writers in a recent post--that was not known during the competition season, and could not be expected to have been known to any random team, unless it were officially announced. We can't argue with the benefit of that knowledge, since it was acquired ex post facto, and never officially disseminated. As we all know, Dave's answers on this forum can't be considered binding to FIRST teams at large, correct (or incorrect) as they might be. If we were to add the sum of our musings to the rules, the answer would be clear-cut, and in your favour--but we can't, because FIRST didn't.

OK, a swing and a miss on the first one. Strike One. But you followed up with a drive to right field and you get a clean single. Man on base.

Good attempt to bring in the prior discussion regarding the necessity for referees to ignore "intent" when making their rulings, but I would postulate that it is irrelevant to this discussion. The referenced discussion had to do with the ability of referees to determine the "intent" of a team’s actions as they played the game. In that scenario, the referees are required to make instantaneous decisions based solely on what they can observe at that moment. With only a few rare exceptions, there is no opportunity for debate or deliberation. In such a situation, the only data that can be considered reliable is that directly observed by the referees. There is no ability to determine “intent,” therefore, it must be ignored by the referee. But in the case of determining the “intent” of a rule, the situation is different. When the rules are made public at the beginning of the season, there is ample opportunity to examine, discuss and review the rules. At the kick off, teams are invited to look at the rules and to strive for the simplest, most basic “non-lawyer-ish” interpretation possible. If there is still confusion you have many opportunities, through multiple channels, to seek clarification. There is time and means for discussion to understand the intent of the rules and the rule-makers. Unlike the former example, where there is no time to discover “intent,” this is a situation where you are explicitly invited by FIRST to investigate and understand the intent of the rules and how they may affect your robot design and game-playing strategy. Thus, the prior discussion really doesn’t have any bearing on this thread.

On the other hand, you are correct in the assertion that my comments in this forum can't be considered binding. As I have stated before, any comments I make here DO NOT represent any official positions by FIRST. I am not speaking for them, just for myself (and occasionally my team and/or NASA). While I do have some insights into some of the discussions that take place while the game and rules are being developed, I do not participate in all of them and I am not the only one in those discussions. There are many, many other opinions, positions and ideas that are contributed by the members of the Game Design Committee. At the end of that process, the consensus opinions and final determinations are represented and issued by FIRST (and only FIRST). So please just take my comments for what they are - slightly informed opinions that may offer partial insights and some modicum of clarification, but not words from The Oracle (for those, you have to talk to Woodie ).

You may now return to your previously scheduled arguing...

-dave

p.s.

Originally Posted by JVN

Now I understand why Dave has grey hair.

Hey!!

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Good attempt to bring in the prior discussion regarding the necessity for referees to ignore "intent" when making their rulings, but I would postulate that it is irrelevant to this discussion. The referenced discussion had to do with the ability of referees to determine the "intent" of a team’s actions as they played the game. In that scenario, the referees are required to make instantaneous decisions based solely on what they can observe at that moment. With only a few rare exceptions, there is no opportunity for debate or deliberation. In such a situation, the only data that can be considered reliable is that directly observed by the referees. There is no ability to determine “intent,” therefore, it must be ignored by the referee. But in the case of determining the “intent” of a rule, the situation is different. When the rules are made public at the beginning of the season, there is ample opportunity to examine, discuss and review the rules. At the kick off, teams are invited to look at the rules and to strive for the simplest, most basic “non-lawyer-ish” interpretation possible. If there is still confusion you have many opportunities, through multiple channels, to seek clarification. There is time and means for discussion to understand the intent of the rules and the rule-makers. Unlike the former example, where there is no time to discover “intent,” this is a situation where you are explicitly invited by FIRST to investigate and understand the intent of the rules and how they may affect your robot design and game-playing strategy. Thus, the prior discussion really doesn’t have any bearing on this thread.

Dave, I certainly don't contest the primary purpose of the linked thread, but I do think that there is merit to the notion that a random FIRST team, like an inexperienced referee, may not be as well-versed in nuances of intent as we veterans are. We need to make sure that the rules are clear-cut for the hypothetical lone rookie team in deepest, darkest Utah, whose only source of communication with FIRST comes in the form of rules, updates and the official (and often inconsistent) Q&A forum. When they, as laypeople, listen to Dean and Woodie at the kickoff, they may hear motivational speeches and little more, because they do not yet have the context to understand the underlying "spirit of FIRST" that Dean and Woodie exude. It's like a Catholic visiting a Baptist church--they understand, but they don't understand it all. The rules and their kin are dry, technical documents, which, once again, provide precious little context for these people. Just as new students often don't "get it" until they are present at their first FIRST regional, a new team may not understand that which we take for granted, until they show up at a regional and find themselves in violation not of an explicit rule, but a convention that has gained the force and effect of one. We can fault them for not doing enough to educate themselves, and to an extent, that is fair; but that doesn't absolve us of the need to try to make it as unambiguous for them as possible, while still balancing the other concerns that obviously affect the rule-makers' choices. While a new referee will have but a day or so to learn the nuances, I would submit that a new team, in the absence of guidance from the FIRST community, might well develop its own concept of the competition in a similarly short time, and will continue to exhibit that mindset until it is confronted with the reality of an event, several months later. Though hypothetical, I don't think that scenario is unreasonalble; since we would probably consider that undesirable, we should guard against it as well as we can, by offering guidance to the team, writing rules that do not lend themselves misinterpretation due to a rookie's mistaken impressions, and being empathetic to the fact that ultimately, we do seek growth for FIRST--why not aspire to make it simple for the layman to understand, but not so simple as to lose the precise concepts that we wish to convey?

Indeed, I know that Dave and the others who discuss game design seek to understand and cater to the needs of the community, and while I may disagree with them or others on certain specifics (like those littered throughout this thread) I just want to argue don't question the good intentions of those productively involved. I merely try to approach the question from an unconventional, but reasoned perspective.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(Or, rather, if you dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare, you might consider actually explaining yourself.)

I dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare. Here is why:

As stated in the original question, the drill motor is a distinct part of the 2 assemblies. It does NOT reside on the general base and "reach up into" the assemblies in any way.

As per the 2004 rules, if a component is a piece of 2 distinct assemblies and NOT part of the robot "base" which these assemblies attach to, it must be present in both assemblies during check in.


Last year's rules were designed to discourage modularity of ANY sort. It makes sense that the rules would be aggresively designed to put teams in the "worst possible" weight scenario.

Think of it this way: "If it hurts you, it is probably the correct interpretation of the modularity rules."

All the arguments I've seen from the Lall side of things are this:
"There are multiple ways to interpret the rules, here is mine."

Yep, there are multiple ways to interpret a rule; correctly and incorrectly.
This is just so clear cut, (like Steve Warren previously said) I am shocked that you guys are unable to see it. Just because one interpretation "makes more sense" to you, doesn't mean it's the right one. FIRST went completely aginst what a lot of tems wanted. They killed modularity. We all got over it, and didn't look for a loophole.

Canadian Lawyers...
Now I understand why Dave has grey hair.

John