Subject:
|
Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:06:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
804 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Rob Antonishen <rob.antonishen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I completely disagree that the rings were an end-run around the game
> rules. They were about the BEST interpretation of the contest, based
> on the rules set.
>
> Ever heard the phrase KISS?
>
> It seems that when someone manages a battery-box solution to
> accomplish what other need an RCX, everyone says "oooohhh what a good
> job.... how clever". So why use an RCX if a battery-box solution will
> work? Why use a battery-box if a stored energy solution will work?
> Why use a stored energy solution if a simple machine will work?
Except this is a Mindstroms robots group. I want to see Mindstroms robots being
used. Not just a LEGO contraption. It's like what Chris said in another post
here, I want to see robot enteries and LEARN something from them. RCX robots are
neat. I'm in a group to see RCX ideas at work, not see who can find the clever
loophole. Sure your idea -- a-hem, I mean your daugter's idea -- was clever and
valid, but in the long run I liked Dave's robot better. So if making rules that
you have to have something motorized is bad, well, heck, while were at it, why
bother using LEGO? Why limit ourselves to that? Why can't I just go over to the
balance beam and lift up with my arms? I'd win! I'd win against your -- I mean
your son's -- tower for sure!
Oh, because how fun would that be?
>
> As an aside - someone mentioned "hot-potato"...
> Off the top of my head this could be a great game - open topped boxes
> with a minimum area and maximum height. And one potato - say a ping
> pong ball (since many would not have access to
> http://peeron.com/inv/parts/x957 or http://peeron.com/inv/parts/x35.
> Start with everyone on the field. At the end of x minutes, who-ever
> has the ball is out. Repeat until there is only one bot left.
Hot potato? Oh my goodness! Tht was MY idea! This actually goes beyond what I
suggested, but I like it better!
-Greg
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
| (...) Greg - I agree completely! My point was not that we should endorse loophole entries or trivial entries, but encourage contests that lend them to an RCX solution. I also liked Dave's bot the best. It was well designed and exceptionally cool to (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
| (...) thank you greg. well said. and a very good point. sadly, we will forever have to struggle with where a line is between allowing non rcx bots and rcx based bots. why was robs monkey bot OK? why was my beam robot ok? why was a ring robot not? (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
| (...) Boy - I've been standing here ignoring this and hoping for a decision on a game, but feel I have to jump in here. I completely disagree that the rings were an end-run around the game rules. They were about the BEST interpretation of the (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
43 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
|
|
|
|
