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

User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Thu May 03, 2018 7:11 am

I agree with Shakey.

I also don't really think the "2mins is bias towards spinners" point holds much water but even if it did it would be easy to argue that 3mins is therefore bias towards non-spinners anyway. Using previous fights as examples is also immaterial because all new fights would be run under the new criteria anyway. "If that had gone 3mins instead of 2, I might have won" would be a pointless argument to raise.

I'm not sure we need to change anything right now anyway. It's more an idea in the tank should AWSs start to pack out again, which I hope they do.

I definitely agree we need some solid judging criteria. The problems with judging are obvious though - the best way is to have a panel of 3 pre-approved people who do not compete, who watch every fight with full attention and make every call, but obviously this isn't very likely. We need to go back to assigning them at the start of each fight, with the participants having the right to reject anyone they may feel will be bias against them, then we need solid criteria that will be the same for every decision. Its a slight faff and often not needed anyway which is probably why the practice has dropped off but we can reinforce it again.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Rule Debates

Post by AntRoboteer » Thu May 03, 2018 6:43 pm

As far as the judges are concerned, I personally feel that this aspect has been handled really well recently. Especially at AWS 54, the judges/arena marshalls only had one robot each and were therefore able to watch all of the fights. It's actually been a very good experience from that perspective. I feel the judges have been fair and well informed so no problems have arisen so far. However, I agree there is potential there for problems due to different takes on how/why a robot should win and so it would be nice to have a clear, documented set of judging criteria.

As for the 3 minute rule, I agree we should leave as is for now and worry about it when/if the AWS events become more packed and fights are taking significantly longer.

User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Thu May 03, 2018 6:57 pm

Good to hear that allocated judging has been of a decent standard recently. Kudos to the event runners.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

Paulmchurd
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:39 pm

Re: Rule Debates

Post by Paulmchurd » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:26 am

Destructive and non destructive category.

I know time constraints but it would be interesting to see which event people would sign up 2. Maybe the same amount of people but even split so the day will go smoothly.

Then people who don't want their bots damaged can go to battle knowing they won't face spinners.

User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:22 am

We used to run a non-spinner warm up competition but time is far too tight nowadays. Adding any secondary tournament to an AWS day is pretty much impossible unless the numbers drop again.

I think non-spinner comps are a good idea at non-AWS events but I don't really see the point at the official ones. If you want to compete in an official tournament you should be up for taking on whoever you draw, in my opinion. No tournament is compulsory, after all. And we do have the tap out rule in place.

Anyway, there's nothing like seeing a nervous first timer beat a scary spinner. Happens all the time and boosts the confidence of the roboteer ten-fold.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

Post Reply