2015 AWS Rule Debate?

[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).

[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