2015 AWS Rule Debate?

[razerdave]

The transmitter issue isn't a problem for some builders (I have TX's coming out the wazoo, the new G&E will be on my DAD robot remotes. We do need a clause in the rules to allow for a seperate driver however. Do we put any limit on how many robots any one driver can drive? For example, Andy enters 4 robots but drives one half of Salt an Pepper, or I recruit Alisdair to drive one half of mine but he's already driving his own 4?

[Remote-Controlled Dave]

Will built me a spinner once. And Dave W has made enough kids their first robot. I don't see the difference between that and a built for purpose kit, but I do see a difference between that and an off the shelf RC car or Hexbug.

Dave, I mentioned that last time it was debated. I believe you should only be able to help one other team out with their cluster per AWS. I also think a wording is needed to say the borrowed driver must drive the 'lesser' part of the cluster, providing this is obvious.

As I've said time and time again, having a self contained driver per team means anyone who competes alone (which is most of us) would not be able to enter a cluster unless they brought a friend along, which is ridiculous.

[Shakey]

If we were to include kits or people building ants for other I'd have a few robots on my desk with sad owners. The difference between a custom ant, shockbotz kit and a commercial toy is in the purpose. The toys are generally annoying as they don't contribute to the fight whereas a purpose designed bot does.

Gary, every time you bring that rule up, we debate it and come to the same conclusion that you are allowed to 'borrow' a driver for a clusterbot, so maybe its about time an exception was put into that rule. It would have happened last time it was debated if any of us actually had access to the rules to host new versions now Oliver has gone to the dark side.

Sorted:
http://teamshakey.com/aws/rules.html

EDIT: Cleaned up the HTML behind it to make it easier to edit. About to shove a basic css on it to make it prettier.

[razerdave]

Only help with one cluster per AWS, not including their own.

Oh, and building ants for people. 9 that I can remember (10 if you count Napalm Death; I didn't build that totally on my own).

[Shakey]

A couple of things I noticed while re-writing the rules page (I wanted the rules to be easier to edit).

3c) and 4c) should probably be reworded to reflect what has become the usually accepted way of doing things.

Is 5a) necessary anymore?

5i) seems like it should be in section 4 (And probably reworded to "If opposing robots have left the arena simultaneously (e.g. because they struck each other so hard that they flew apart) the battle shall be paused, the robots returned to the starting positions in their current state [this covers a switch flick aswell] and the battle restarted."

5d) Also needs rewording to reflect the accepted interpretation.

[Remote-Controlled Dave]

I agree with all these observations. Though I think keeping the frequency rule is harmless enough, seen as we do register it on the sign up, but it is hardly necessary when the majority run on 2.4ghz.
Reading them through always makes me think the rules are in need of an overhaul, even just with wording. They sound so old fashioned! From a politer, less violent age of ant.

[Shakey]

Well there's no reason not to overhaul them now we can. Also define nanos in them.

[Remote-Controlled Dave]

Do you want to do a proposal Shakey? Or would you rather it was done by census?

[Hogi]

i deffinitely think some of the rules could do with rewording and it would be nice to have the nanoweight deffinitions in the rules too.

[Remote-Controlled Dave]

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).