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: 152
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: 436
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: 152
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: 174
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: 152
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.

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

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:42 am

After the rule debates about expansion at the weekend with Team Effort and Team Antivate, I was told that it didn't say in the rules that an expanding robot (or any robot for that matter) had to start in the configuration in which it fits within the four inch cube size limits.

It most certainly does I'm afraid:

http://robotwars101.org/ants/rules.htm

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".

However, I take the point that we should probably also make clusterbots start in some sort of 4" configuration from now on too.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

User avatar
Lincoln
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Olney, Milton keynes

Re: Rule Debates

Post by Lincoln » Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:57 am

as i was not at aws 55 i did not see whatever robot caused these rules to be debated but,
changing the rule for cluster bots contradicts the rule saying you can use 2 fleas as a ant-wight cluster bot as long as they fit in the 3 inch flea cube.

i agree that expanding robots must start in the cube configuration and then change via remote activation of some kind, if this rule is not followed then its basically the same as saying you can put a pile of bits in the cube and then put them together into a bigger shape before a fight.

basically i think cluster are a different beast and realistically it would be pretty difficult to build clusters that can start in the cube configuration.
for a extreme example, remember lemmings. theirs no way they could start in a cube configuration. changing this rule to apply to clusters would make pretty much all existing clusters against the rules.
Team RobotMad, home of the Smart robots, and very mean pots :)
Chris and Lincoln Barnes

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

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:16 am

There is no rule that says 2 fleaweights used as an antweight cluster must also fit into the 3" cube, unless they also want to be considered separately in the fleaweight competition.

And I don't think it's that hard to make a cluster start in such a configuration. Lemmings, if you grouped them in a pile before activate, they would easily fit. Wedge Wedge Wedge could start 2 back to back and one on top, for example.

I guess by definition a clusterbot is also automatically an expanding robot and should therefore follow all expansion rules.
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 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:51 pm

DieGracefullyRobotics wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:42 am
After the rule debates about expansion at the weekend with Team Effort and Team Antivate, I was told that it didn't say in the rules that an expanding robot (or any robot for that matter) had to start in the configuration in which it fits within the four inch cube size limits.

It most certainly does I'm afraid:

http://robotwars101.org/ants/rules.htm

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".
Sorry Dave, that was not what we were saying.

Just to break down the rule:

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 - each botlet must expand from no more than the size of a 4 inch cube before the fight.

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.

We were saying that (in the case of Robox) the fact that it is a cluster would mean it does not have to start within a 4 inch square footprint provided by the cube when both together (as is the case with any cluster). The expansion is instigated by remote control and neither Robox nor its cluster partner (drone or otherwise) exceeded the 4 inch cube limit at any time before the fight. Both botlets fit fully into the 4 inch cube together with no issues during tech checks and sit in the arena in an acceptable configuration for any clusterbot.

Robox has been rigorously checked for complete compliance with all rules, hence its admittance into multiple events to date.

Chris did agree with us on the day that the rules as they are written allow the method of expansion and give the final ruling that Robox was competition legal.
DieGracefullyRobotics wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:42 am
However, I take the point that we should probably also make clusterbots start in some sort of 4" configuration from now on too.
Making cluster botlets fit into a 4 inch cube formation is tricky as some would have to be realistically held in free space before the fight for the clusterbot to be in the arena exactly how they are in the cube. I think this is being confused with starting within a 4 inch square footprint which is an entirely different matter.

Robots do normally exceed a 4 inch square footprint before any fight (such as long flippers for example) as they use the diagonal of the cube to fit. If there is to be a rule implemented on expanding clusters in the way you suggest, it must also be true for all other robots and hence all long flippers (for example) would have to enter into the arena diagonally and be able to support themselves on their sides to be fully competition legal.

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

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:23 am

OK.

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.*

2) A robot that fits in the cube on the diagonal is not an expanding robot. Your robot is. If you imagine a 'virtual cube' that can float over a robot in any formation as it is at the start of a fight, it would be able to go over a robot on the diagonal. It would not be able to fit over any permiatation of ROBOX.

3) I talked to every committee member present at the AWS about this issue (apart from Peter) and every one said you are in violation of the rules for expansion**. Being allowed into previous competitions doesn't automatically mean its legal***, just that nobody has told you no. I was told it has been objected to on several previous occasions by committee members. As I said at the event, you are going to have to change it to follow the rules**** properly from now on, which you agreed to.

You are trying to find loopholes in several different rulesets in order to allow your own design that you already know is a dodgy interpretation at best, hence your need to explain it. *****The rule on expansion mechanisms is EXPLICITLY CLEAR. You can only expand beyond the 4" limits when the fight starts using methods instigated by remote control. ROBOX breaks that rule******. There were a lot of expanding bots at the AWS that did not break the rule. I had 4 variations and all started out their fights in their cube positions. As you have correctly pointed out, clusterbots tend to break this rule******* and will therefore be required to follow it in future too. You always used Wedge Wedge Wedge as an example, fine - it is relatively easy for that robot to start in a configuration that the 'virtual cube' could fit over. It is IMPOSSIBLE for ROBOX to start in such a configuration, in any of its current permiatations.

You are a very creative guy. One of our most "outside the box" thinkers. You remind me of me when I started, constantly trying to bend rules or find ways to test them. I'm sure you can come up with a robot between now and October that follows the rules properly, or gives us a new headache at least. It's a great creative opportunity for something new. Using loopholes to get around rules can be spirited but it also exposes them so that they can then be closed.

Side note - All the committee members at the event said that the rules are in desperate need of an update. That there are many little rules that the community operates to now that haven't been added due to none of us having the access to do so. I'm currently working on getting the access so that we can go to proper, democratically voted changes again, something an awful lot of people have been asking me to try and sort out. Not sure why me, but there we go. Guess you could all vote for someone else to take charge if you wanted to!

*EDITED ON BEHALF OF TEAM EFFORT - I have now found the bit I was referring to but it is badly worded and does not explicitly disallow it via a loophole.

**EDITED ON BEHALF OF TEAM EFFORT - against what everyone agrees the rules are meant to convey but the wording currently does not.

***EDITED ON BEHALF OF TEAM EFFORT - agreed to be in coherence with the meaning of the rules.

****EDITED ON BEHALF OF TEAM EFFORT - when they are rewritten.

*****EDITED ON BEHALF OF TEAM EFFORT - I believe that...

******EDITED ON BEHALF OF TEAM EFFORT -...in my opinion, but technically not until the rule is rewritten.

*******EDITED ON BEHALF OF TEAM EFFORT - break the spirit of this rule.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

User avatar
voorsk
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:11 am
Location: Stockport, UK
Contact:

Re: Rule Debates

Post by voorsk » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:39 am

I like your style of pedantry, Dave. Someone's gotta chuck the rulebook about sometimes, even if it's just to show how vague some rules are, although I'm glad you're not a police officer. :P

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

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:48 am

I am insecure doing it, I don't mind admitting. I feel like the bad guy a lot of the time. But I think someone needs to take the role and I seem to be the...loudest and...most productive. *sigh*

I now have permission to post a rule update. I'm getting the committee together now to collect all rule issues that need addressing. We will then vote on them as a committee, make the proposed changes, then post the proposals on the forum for everybody else to agree on.

I try my best to keep things democratic and make sure everyone has the opportunity to have their say. I hope I do it OK. The majority ruling will have it, both on committee first, then wider community second. I'm certainly not interested in forcing my opinions on everyone else.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Rule Debates

Post by GeorgeR » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:09 pm

Have you considered the part of the rules (last bit of rule 2i) letting two fleas run as an ant cluster? You could feasibly have two legal fleas that are unable to fit into the 4" cube in any orientation, but the current rules allow them to run.

I like the "virtual cube" interpretation for expanding robots, but if it is applied to clusters then their will either need to be an exemption for 2 flea clusters, or the removal of the 2 flea rule.

While I don't have strong feelings either way about clusters starting in cube configuration, I do feel that if it is used then the 2 flea rule should be scrapped, as a specific exemption for this type of cluster seems unfair.
Team Zero
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Orion - horizontal spinner walker

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

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:32 pm

I think that the last part of 2i is being misinterpreted. I remember when it was added and why. Its supposed to mean if the individual fleaweights want to also take part in the fleaweight competition (if there is one) as separate robots then they must conform to the fleaweight rules as well. It doesn't mean that 2 75g machines that want to cluster in an AWS have to also fit separately into a 3" cube regardless of whether they want to compete in an FWS or not, they just all have to fit in the 4" cube together.

I agree that it is really poorly worded and pretty much unnecessary though. I'll add it to my clean up list.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Rule Debates

Post by GeorgeR » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:47 pm

I always took it as an additional thing, so you could have 2 75g robots that fit in the 4" cube together as an ant cluster, OR have 2 75g robots that each fit into the 3" flea cube, but didn't have to fit the ant cube together.

I assumed it was to allow two people with fleas to team up as an ant without having to worry about the ant cube.

It definitely sounds like it needs a rewrite.
Team Zero
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Orion - horizontal spinner walker

Post Reply