2015 AWS Rule Debate?

[Shakey]

I'll work out a proposal to rule ammendments I suggested and post them. As to a whole overhaul I don't trust myself that far.

[Remote-Controlled Dave]

Are we going with the idea that you can only help out driving with one other team's clusterbot, as well as your own team, at this AWS? I imagine Lemmings plans to enter again so it probably needs policing.

[petec]

Yeah, not changing the rules, just a tidy up on language, a couple of alterations to match modern times, and the addition of this commercial vehicle thing (seen as no one in the poll has voted against it).

Hmm, we seem to be getting away from debating rules and worrying about how pretty they are. Last time this happened we had to have three versions of the rules reissued to 'repair' the damage caused by well meaning 'cleaning'.

BTW the rules are, and have always been, primarily hosted here : http://robotwars101.org/ants/rules.htm - Oliver provides a mirror of that but I have all of the source files and will continue to host them.

Rules to be changed need to be clearly worded (or reworded) and then put up to a formal vote. Discussing it on here is perfectly fine and we've always encouraged open debate, but it won't in itself change the rules.

[Remote-Controlled Dave]

Forum debates are never taken to conclusions. Apart from the commercially available vehicle one which I put up a vote for and got a 100% response rate for adding it to the rules.

The rules just stay static because debates happen but no one feels they have the power to actually state "this rule was voted on, passed and now I'm adding it in". There is no impartial 'keeper of the rules'.

I don't think a lot of the proposed changes from Alex are just tidying up though. Some of them are actual changes, mostly to reflect what already happens. No point having rules that we ourselves no longer really follow...

[petec]

The rules just stay static because debates happen but no one feels they have the power to actually state "this rule was voted on, passed and now I'm adding it in". There is no impartial 'keeper of the rules'.

That was the whole point of having a commitee sign off on changes so that they didn't sit in limbo but also so that one person deciding they didn't like a particular version of the rules caused confusion - which did happen; I remember several attempts by people rewriting and 'publishing' rules that resulted in very confused newcomers not knowing what they were supposed to be following.

I would say that both Oliver and I have been impartial keepers over the years - we've both had opinions on rule changes but have never unilaterally modified the rules.

I don't think a lot of the proposed changes from Alex are just tidying up though. Some of them are actual changes, mostly to reflect what already happens. No point having rules that we ourselves no longer really follow...

Agreed - to an extent. If we (community) have developed a commonly recognised understanding of how a rule is interpreted then it would seem appropriate to reword the offending article. However, I maintain that it's very easy to 'improve' things only for them to become open to interpretation again. Clarity is everything in the rules.

Therefore I say again that a proposed change should be clearly stated, in it's intended final wording with a recognised vote to agree it.

For what it's worth, I think if we are going to challenge the rules as a whole set then we should be looking to simplify and reduce - we have far too many rules as it is and largely derive little or no benefit from having them. IMHO

[Shakey]

As a clarification I had no intention on changing rules without a vote.

However everyone just seemed to be sitting around discussing rules and saying that they should be changed... but doing nothing. So I tried to catalyse the changes to renew the rules.

There's a lot of things we need to look at Rules, signup system needs updating and antlog is getting close to capacity.

[petec]

There's a lot of things we need to look at Rules, signup system needs updating and antlog is getting close to capacity.

Signup and antweights.com site are going to get an overhaul shortly. I have been doing a bunch of work in the background which isn't currently visible but will modernise things generally and make it all a bit easier to maintain and use. I did some work recently to attempt to re-merge data from the sign up back into the main databases (which is part of the reason the sign up was written in the first place) but because things change at the events (people do / don't turn up; robot names get changed at the last minute; etc.) it would actually have been quicker to just type it all in.

I wasn't suggesting, BTW, that you were about the change the rules without consensus - but it has happened and it took a lot of sorting out afterwards. We also need to remember that antweights is first and foremost a category for beginners - literally anyone can build an ant with very little knowledge or skill and then improve on it as they learn. We've spent yet another three days in Brighton with people fighting in the most basic arena (mine) with only two rules - 150g and 4" cube - which just reminded me of the original principles on which ants were based...turn up, fight, have fun.

Here endeth the lesson from the old timer....

[See this is why I mostly lurk these days!]

[EpicentrE]

This isn't related to rules, but personally, I would not like to see ants described as "a category first and foremost for beginners". I completely agree that the class is a great starting place for beginners, and one of the reasons that I love it is that anyone can come in with a good idea and enthusiasm and perform relatively well, even with very little knowledge or experience. That said, because of this, I and others have argued with competitors in other weight classes in the past who've seen ants as nothing more than a beginner's class, and the description really isn't fair or representative of many of us individually, nor the community as a whole.

A brilliant class for beginners - Absolutely
First and foremost for beginners - No

For better or worse, I do care what others think of us, and I dislike anything that could reinforce others' opinions that we're only for beginners, or that we're a joke class, or an educational class, etc.

Just a little bugbear of mine. Sorry for the rant.

[petec]

Yeah, I don't disagree with you about others perception. The point I was trying to make (while v tired after three days at MW) was that those of us who have done it a long time can easily get into ever decreasing circles of nuance and complexity that doesn't really benefit greatly and confuses those younger or less experienced.

While I don't always get the time to devote to the sport that I used to, I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm not still passionate about it.

[Remote-Controlled Dave]

I know that is one of Scott's particular bugbears and I agree with him in what he says. Having dabbled in all weight classes, ants is my home. It is the most versitile, creative and friendly weight class running. I think Pete just meant that we welcome beginners though. No weight class is better suited to a new start than ants and no group of people is more welcoming than us for it.

The idea that you start in ants as a beginner level before moving "up" into feathers or heavies though irritates me as much as it does Scott, but in a way I believe we benefit from it. We run our own events, we're not governed by outside bodies and no one comes to compete if they think the class is a waste of time, which can only be a bonus for us!

I'll never forget the one AWS where Dave W brought along Geoff from team Scorpion, who walked round saying things like "if this was an FRA run event, it wouldn't have gone ahead". We are better off without the politics from other classes and, after being subjected to ridicule over on the other forum, it's one of the many reasons why my loyalty lies here.