Rule Debates

Please post all questions and answers in here. This way people can easily see if someone else has the same problem.

Moderators: petec, administrator, BeligerAnt

AntRoboteer
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Rule Debates

Post by AntRoboteer » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:52 pm

Thanks for your input Dave. I really appreciate the work you put in to ensure that the AWS is a fair competition; very admirable indeed.

I do take sticking to the rules very seriously so I am upset to see that you believe Robox to have been against the rules on the point of entry into AWS 55.

I personally believe Robox to have been fully competition legal at point of entry into and also throughout the entire AWS 55 competition.
DieGracefullyRobotics wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:23 am
1) Chris did not agree with you on the day. His quote was "I agree with you Dave, but I'll allow it for this event because we can't find the bit in the rules that specifically forbids it". We have now found that bit.
Please would you supply the part of the rules you have found which specifically eliminates robots such as Robox in the ruleset that was used at AWS 55 (published version 4.2). I cannot see the bit you mentioned anywhere.

User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:00 pm

As I've said before, sir, I (and many others) believe rule 2b makes ROBOX against the rules*. We are currently in the process of accessing that rule to clear up the loophole used and make it as explicitly clear as possible.

*EDITED ON BEHALF OF TEAM EFFORT - against what this rule is meant to convey but does not due to a loophole in the way it is currently worded.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Rule Debates

Post by AntRoboteer » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:08 pm

DieGracefullyRobotics wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:00 pm
As I've said before, sir, I (and many others) believe rule 2b makes ROBOX against the rules. We are currently in the process of accessing that rule to clear up the loophole used and make it as explicitly clear as possible.
Thanks Dave. I'm afraid I don't quite understand that.

I do not believe what has been said is fair at all.

Surely if there is a loophole to be cleared up, I cannot have broken any rules and therefore Robox was competition legal at the time. Please would you confirm that is the case.

Additionally, to reiterate, here is what I understand by 2b and included is demonstration of compliance in the case of Robox:

Rule 2b. Size limits. "Robots may only expand from their size limits once in the arena and only if their expansion is instigated by remote control".

Robots may only expand from their size limits once in the arena - (note the plural on robots and size limits) each botlet must expand from no more than the size of a 4 inch cube before the fight.

Demonstration of compliance 1: Neither Robox nor cluster partner expanded beyond the constraints of a 4 inch cube before activate.

only if their expansion is instigated by remote control - Some kind of radio controlled mechanism must be in place to allow of release of any expanding sections on demand of the roboteer.

Demonstration of compliance 2: The cluster partner used to expand is completely under radio control.

Please would you clarify which bit of rule 2b you believe I would not be in accordance with.

User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:55 pm

I would say that ROBOX was legal in comp via a loophole in the rule as currently written, yes. But I also believe that what 2b is supposed to mean is pretty widely understood by everyone and that, in this case, it is being exploited away from intended meaning.

2b means that a complete robot (yes, all parts of a cluster bot together too) have to start the match in the configuration in which they fit in the 4" cube. They may expand to a greater size after activate if it is by a method of remote control. ROBOX, as a single entity inclusive of the partner, can only exist in the arena unexpanded in a form that does not fit in the cube.

ROBOX has pointed out that 2b has a flaw in its current wording vs what it is supposed to convey. Therefore 2b will be re-written to properly meet the meaning it was introduced for in the first place.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Rule Debates

Post by AntRoboteer » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:01 pm

DieGracefullyRobotics wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:55 pm
I would say that ROBOX was legal in comp via a loophole in the rule as currently written, yes. But I also believe that what 2b is supposed to mean is pretty widely understood by everyone and that, in this case, it is being exploited away from intended meaning.
Thanks very much Dave. Could you please therefore make it plainly clear in any previous posts (potentially edits at bottom of your posts?) that neither members nor robots of Team Effort or Team Antivate have breached the AWS rules in any way as your previous posts imply breach of AWS rules (which we would never attempt to do).

We are completely in accordance with all rules and would not want the wrong impression given. Thanks very much.

User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:12 pm

Done. No more on it please. It's driving me mad.

Back to George's point, thank you George, I've added it to the list for discussion.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Rule Debates

Post by AntRoboteer » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:53 pm

Thanks Dave, really good of you.

Post Reply