YMTC: Bluabot "Descores" Red Tetra

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

At any rate, I think it's more "lawyeristic" to claim that red should get the win. Reading the rules--as written--leaves no doubt that Team Update 18 does not apply to this situation. When you start to make inferences from it, such as that since they were talking about a similar action, and red should be the winner, you've just changed the rules.

Also, what I really think it boils down to is this is a part of the game challenge. You don't build a robot with a high cg if you don't want to tip. If you don't want to be pushed, you should make a stronger drivetrain. FIRST said there are elements that are part of the game challenge. I would define this as one of them.

$0.02

At this point, I think that I am just going to have to adopt Cory (hey Sean! you have a new brother! ). He obviously "gets it." Listen to him, he is a wise person (at least this week).

-dave

p.s. Cory, now that you are a member of the family, I need to fill you in on a few family rules. #1: the typical allowance structure you may be used to is different for us. Allowance is limited to $20 per week - but you pay me, not the other way around. #2: Krispy Kremes for breakfast are OK, as long as you leave some for me. #3: Taking the last Krispy Kreme will result in a punishment of double allowance for that week. #4: You can work off your allowance by mowing the lawn, as long as you do not drive through the neighbors fence on the lawn mower. #5: When arguing over who gets to use the computer, Dad's game of Railroad Tycoon III takes precedence over anyone else's game of Warcraft at all times.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by dlavery

At this point, I think that I am just going to have to adopt Cory (hey Sean! you have a new brother! ). He obviously "gets it." Listen to him, he is a wise person (at least this week).

-dave

p.s. Cory, now that you are a member of the family, I need to fill you in on a few family rules. #1: the typical allowance structure you may be used to is different for us. Allowance is limited to $20 per week - but you pay me, not the other way around. #2: Krispy Kremes for breakfast are OK, as long as you leave some for me. #3: Taking the last Krispy Kreme will result in a punishment of double allowance for that week. #4: You can work off your allowance by mowing the lawn, as long as you do not drive through the neighbors fence on the lawn mower. #5: When arguing over who gets to use the computer, Dad's game of Railroad Tycoon III takes precedence over anyone else's game of Warcraft at all times.

Cory, when you get out here I can show you around the area.

Wetzel

[Andy Baker]

Wow... a first on ChiefDelphi: adoption.

We've had alliances, co-opertition, and collaboration. Now, we have an adoption. Congrats to the McBride and Lavery family.

Does this mean that Dave has to pay Cory's tuition at WPI?

Andy B.

[Spikey]

I have seen this situation happen twice. Once at the NJ regional our robot had made a back row, but one of our allaince partners touched one of our tetras and we lost the row. Also at Philly we were in the semi-finals and the opposing alliance was placing a tetra on their home row, time ran out they were still touching the tetra so it did not count, also we had a tetra underneath that goal, and our tetra was higher then the tetra which they had under the goal so our alliance got that goal.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Cory

...Reading the rules--as written--leaves no doubt that Team Update 18 does not apply to this situation. ...

$0.01

Reading the rules as written this year is often an exercise in futility, at least when it comes to finding anything that resembles the essence of law in its purest and most concentrated form. One such case in point is:

<S05> A ROBOT may not impede the placement of TETRAS on the
loading structures or the hand-off of a TETRA by a HUMAN PLAYER
to a ROBOT. No HUMAN PLAYER or field attendant may be
accosted by a ROBOT while placing TETRAS. Violations will result
immediate disabling of the offending ROBOT, and disqualification of
the alliance.

I have a problem with the part that mentions a human being accosted by a robot. My problem with it stems from the definition of “accost.”

Main Entry: ac·cost
Pronunciation: &-'kost, -'käst
Function: transitive verb
: to approach and speak to often in a challenging or aggressive way

While it may be that machine vision has been added to this year’s game, I have yet to hear one talk. Should we then seize upon this loophole and take it to mean that we’re free to drive our robot into the opposition’s zone and use it to beat the tar out of their human player? Of course not! We are not barbarians!

We know, or should know by now, darned well how this year’s game is supposed to be played. We should not seize upon the fact that a particular Q & A did not address every possible twist and turn. We should either follow the spirit of the ruling, or start downloading the rules for next year’s game tomorrow. I expect it would take that long to fetch the rule set needed to counter every devious scheme that you all may come up with.

Originally Posted by Cory

...
Also, what I really think it boils down to is this is a part of the game challenge. You don't build a robot with a high cg if you don't want to tip. If you don't want to be pushed, you should make a stronger drivetrain. FIRST said there are elements that are part of the game challenge. I would define this as one of them.

$0.01

And you don't build a robot that powers down when the clock strikes zero?
And you do build a robot that defies Newton's Laws?

Sorry for changing the $0.02 at the end of the quotes to $0.01. It was the only way I could make it add up.

[Steve W]

Dave, I have to disagree with you (nothing new I guess). I voted blue to win but have since changed my mind. According to the rules if a robot causes another robot to descore then they are at fault. Descore has already been quoted from the rules. If blue robot pushes red robot causing red to descore (not count the tetra) then the goal belongs to red and the descored tetra counts. The red robot had scored and was moving away from the goal and then pushed back in. If the red robot had not let go or stopped touching the tetra you would be correct but once they had left the tetra and met the conditions of a scored tetra then the only way that it would not be counted was to descore. If done by themselves the tetra would not count but the fact that blue caused the descoring the goal should be awarded to red.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Dave, I have to disagree with you (nothing new I guess). I voted blue to win but have since changed my mind. According to the rules if a robot causes another robot to descore then they are at fault. Descore has already been quoted from the rules. If blue robot pushes red robot causing red to descore (not count the tetra) then the goal belongs to red and the descored tetra counts. The red robot had scored and was moving away from the goal and then pushed back in. If the red robot had not let go or stopped touching the tetra you would be correct but once they had left the tetra and met the conditions of a scored tetra then the only way that it would not be counted was to descore. If done by themselves the tetra would not count but the fact that blue caused the descoring the goal should be awarded to red.

So Steve, you actually voted for it before you voted against it?

I think you should run for President in '08'.

[Keith Jones]

Originally Posted by Cory

Also, what I really think it boils down to is this is a part of the game challenge. You don't build a robot with a high cg if you don't want to tip. If you don't want to be pushed, you should make a stronger drivetrain. FIRST said there are elements that are part of the game challenge. I would define this as one of them.

If you don't want to be pushed into your own stack of tetras while scoring, don't build a mechanism to score them!

Blue caused the de-score. -> Red tetra counts, red owns goal.

[craigbutcher]

The blue robot was not defending against seating a tetra, merely bashing another robot to no purpose. In fact the contact could serve no defensive purpose; defense in the rules is clearly conceived as impeding or blocking. One robot may not pick up and move another robot. That's the clear intent of the rule. Hence one robot may not position another robot either.

If the red robot's arm were contacting the tetra stack, and blue then blocked the red robot, preventing it from moving away, then that would be defensive. Forcing the other robot against the goal is not blocking or impeding. That is the same as picking up and moving the other robot.

The blue robot pushing the red robot against the goal for the purpose of positioning it against the goal is purposive, not accidental.

Contact which is not defensive or accidental cannot be justified.

Thus the blue robot's action should be considered in the same light as if the blue robot had grabbed some other object and placed it against the goal tetra. The other object effectively becomes an extension of the blue robot. This is forbidden.

If the blue robot, ramming a red robot, caused the goal to fall over and spill tetras, the red robot would not have "descored" the pile even though the red robot would have been the only robot contacting the goal. The penalty would go to blue because red was not the actor.

If anything, blue should be penalized.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by craigbutcher

The blue robot was not defending against seating a tetra, merely bashing another robot to no purpose. In fact the contact could serve no defensive purpose; defense in the rules is clearly conceived as impeding or blocking. One robot may not pick up and move another robot.

Can you point out where it says that (or makes the intent clear) in the rules? I've looked, and I can't find any such referece that limits "defense" to just "impeding or blocking."

-dave

[Collmandoman]

I'm having a hard time reading this thread without noticing several codescending and dismissive remarks.. I'm kinda shocked.. or am I just dreaming...

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I'm having a hard time reading this thread without noticing several codescending and dismissive remarks.. I'm kinda shocked.. or am I just dreaming...

I think that what you are seeing is a couple of people working together to make a point.

Long-time participants in this forum have learned that one of the wonderful traits of these discussions is that things are not always what they seem. Yes, some of the participants like to play with our heads! There are messages within messages, and subtleties that have to be pondered to be uncovered.

-dave

p.s. for those that know me, yes there is another "when I was little, I learned something from my Grandmother" story coming along in the near future...

[Goldeye]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Can you point out where it says that (or makes the intent clear) in the rules? I've looked, and I can't find any such referece that limits "defense" to just "impeding or blocking."

-dave

If I recall, it doesn't say defense is just impeding or blocking. But there is clear evidence that we want the game to be won through offense... and moving other robots around isn't Triple Play's meaning of offense.

Originally Posted by Team Update #18

By changing the answer to #1824, we hope to discourage robots from playing aggressive defense and return Triple Play to primarily an offensive game.

Pushing a team onto one of it's stacks is a single maneuver that can swing the score of a game massively. It does this without the team gaining the advantage even touching a tetra. That's quite possibly the most aggressive defense possible. We clearly don't want teams to win through such methods. Regardless of offense, defense, and intent of the rules, this is a gamebreaking method that can have one robot shift a game's score as many as 30 points. It must be taken care of, unless we want to see teams winning with it at the championship.

[BandChick]

Originally Posted by Goldeye

That's quite possibly the most aggressive defense possible. We clearly don't want teams to win through such methods. Regardless of offense, defense, and intent of the rules, this is a gamebreaking method that can have one robot shift a game's score as many as 30 points. It must be taken care of, unless we want to see teams winning with it at the championship.

I have to say, I completely disagree with you. I WANT to see teams fighting down to the last second, playing defense and trying to score the best they can. Not only does it make it interesting, but it makes the drivers have to think on their toes. It makes them have to be aware of everything that's going on right until the buzzer. It makes for a stronger, more intense competition.

Granted, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm entitled to mine. I don't think the red tetra should count because, even though blue pushed, it is REDS fault for not being strong/fast enough to push back, or move away at the end. It is NOT blue's fault, but rather a weaker robot. Yes, it is hard to make a competitive robot, but that's the point of FIRST. You win some, you lose some.

Redabot obviously wasn't fabricated well enough, wasn't strong enough, wasn't fast enough or didn't have a quick-enough thinking drive team. How is that blue's fault when all they did was try to defend the center goal?

[Collmandoman]

Originally Posted by BandChick

Granted, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm entitled to mine. I don't think the red tetra should count because, even though blue pushed, it is REDS fault for not being strong/fast enough to push back, or move away at the end. It is NOT blue's fault, but rather a weaker robot. Yes, it is hard to make a competitive robot, but that's the point of FIRST. You win some, you lose some.

Redabot obviously wasn't fabricated well enough, wasn't strong enough, wasn't fast enough or didn't have a quick-enough thinking drive team. How is that blue's fault when all they did was try to defend the center goal?

see this is why I have a problem with this.. It's reds fault because they played the game better than blue team ( when I say better I mean achieved the offensive objectives) yet they will lose because of a loophole-
I think FIRST has realized.. defensive machines attract more viewers(which some become sponsors)... but we promote teamplay and cooperation.. and they are balancing a strange middle ground - FIRST could easily say.. only unintetional contact is allowed.. and you are allowed to play interference.. but not defense-- but that might lessen an audience or disable robots that have no other purpose but defense(usually because they didn't have the resources/interest/time to get the objectives) to be useless