| |
Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
>
> The rules were set out early without any spacing on the side. For whatever
> reason (Bruce, me, otherwise), that is the ruleset that was posted. You had
> several weeks to complain, and no one did until not too long ago.
I did in fact point out the problem verbally very early on, but nothing
was done about it and I have been to busy with work and the season to
follow up on it.
> Since then, people may be expecting to be able to build up to the side. If you
> make an official change now, all the people who may have built up to the side
> are saying, why are you penalizing me for starting early on my design?
I built my dropper to the rules we decided on. Should I be penalized
because a mistake was made on the rules page?
> Hence, my lack of eagerness to change the rule to enforce a larger space.
But you'll call people a dink if they don't?
We are changing the rule anyway. If you don't leave space you are a
dink. Whether you build a wall or stop your head at the side of the
board, even though you are within the rules, you are a dink for doing this.
I don't see why we should be defining things this way. If we are to
leave space anyway why not make the rule say we should leave space and
not have to call any one a dink for building within the rules.
A straight forward dimensional rule should not be a spirit of the game
issue. Building a pipe racer that doesn't carry it's battery with it is
dink worthy, conforming to a prescribed dimension is not.
Now on the other hand, what about the poor person that's under the
impression that they can extend out over the end of the board. We there
has been lots of discussion that this is ok despite the fact it's not in
the rules.
Now what do we do when two robots interfere. They can no longer play
each other. Is it right to send the person who followed the rules home
because they didn't care about being called a dink. No. Is it right to
send home the person who was miss led into thinking they could use more
space. No.
We should not be making gray areas out of what can so easily be a binary
rule.
> Who, who is entering, wants a six dot space on the sides of the common board?
> Does anyone wish to object to the six dot increase?
I am for it.
I do not object.
Derek
p.s. Steve, sorry I'm defending you with one hand and but making more
work for you with the other. :-)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: ply vs turn
|
| (...) Me too, although I assumed it was sort of unnecessary to flail it, since everyone knew what my bot took up in terms of space way back in November. The guts have changed dramatically since then, of course, but the external form-factor is almost (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: ply vs turn
|
| (...) It's funny this keeps coming up. Was there a pipe racer that ran in competition that didn't have a battery box attached? no. I didn't have it attached when I was testing it, and you guys said I couldn't do that. So, I didn't hesitate to mount (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: ply vs turn
|
| (...) The rules were set out early without any spacing on the side. For whatever reason (Bruce, me, otherwise), that is the ruleset that was posted. You had several weeks to complain, and no one did until not too long ago. Since then, people may be (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
