Subject:
|
Re: Walker Sumo Revisited.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:09:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
664 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> Well, back to the original subject of this thread. "Walker Sumo" That kind of
> implies a way to do something up front. In a normal sumo event, few people
> would enter a walking sumo, even if it is allowed by the rules. It wouldn't
> have much chance of even doing well. It would be like going to a block stacking
> event with a robot that just flings blocks up in the air.
Well, I was never a fan of the idea of walker sumo. It's an interesting idea,
but I've never seen a good excuse for a walking robot that wasn't other than for
the novelty of the entire affair. Research (ie, Mars explorers) or
entertainment (Lego, Battlebots) included.
> "external power suppilies?" So, now I have to ask how you define an "external"
> power suppily. I'm sure when that was written, it was refering to using an AC
> adaptor to power the robot, not a battery box, which would fit within the 12
> inch starting cube, and is loosly connected to the portable part of the robot.
> That seems more like internal power than external power.
Whether it's AC or DC, the issue, written VERY CLEARLY in the ruleset is that
"the cable harness will end up tangling other robot".
If I write a rule that says "Don't have anything outside your robot" to say one
shouldn't have external battery boxes (presumably to clarify), does that mean I
could disqualify you for having parts fall off your robot?
Let me explain in a second why this is a fine line...
> > Anyways, you shouldn't complain-the added weight of your battery box came in
> > handy on the downstroke.
>
> As it turns out, having the battery box mounted may have been more dangerous to
> other competitors than if I had a cord. I challenge you to explain how cables
> to a battery box would have caused problems in ANY of the Pipe Racer matches we
> saw at Brickfest.
If we ran the double upside down loop track configuration (which didn't hold
together without glue) the trailing 9V wire would have certainly tangled either
the other competitor, yourself, or the track.
I could also see it getting snagged on a large robot like Derek Raycraft's
entry.
From planning of rtl3 in 1999, we deliberately discouraged fibre weapons because
of such situations.
> In the future, it may be a good idea to avoid pointing out that the rules are
> written to allow loopholes, and then get mad when someone actually exploites one
> of the loopholes.
They're not written to allow loopholes, they're written to be simple and to
suggest different ways of approaching an issue. There's a difference between
being creative (which we encourage) and being stupid with loopholes (which we
can't honestly control, but we tend to shun).
I'll give you an example of being stupid:
We tried sumo back in early 2000 and Jeff Elliott, en route to the airport or
something, popped in for 15 minutes to say hi. Jeff adheres a single
Adventurers sticker onto the sumo ring and declares he's won the competition.
Under the ruleset, rather thin at 6-8 simple rules, he does have a valid entry.
Is it legal? Yes. It is a good entry? No. My how clever he is.* No, I think
the general consensus was, he's a schmuck, we all had a good laugh, and called
it that.
The question is, how do you want to approach such a competitor/entry? What
you're implying to me is that I should let that into the competition and next
time around, write a rule that says "No stickers."
The end result is that you have a 300 page tome that outlines every eventuality.
And the next contest after that, you have 301 pages, because yet another schmuck
thinks of something "clever" to work around.
The rules are meant to be simple. Chris and I always wanted them simple from
day one, because we didn't want to have to pull out the rule book every five
minutes. We did okay with this, because people weren't out thinking of devious
ways to find loopholes.
Another example:
rtlToronto3, our first contest, was Marble Sorting. One "loophole" was dumping
a bucket of basic bricks (say, 1200 pieces) onto the playfield as you drove
around to screw up a competitor.
Now, under your way of dealing with the issue, we'd write a rule in that says "Your robot should not have more than one part". Well, this discourages a potential design which has two functional components. Well, you could say, "Not more than ten components". But when do you draw the line?
We tried to avoid it early on using two methods: The idea of a "gentleman's
game", to inject some "Do the Right Thing (tm)" into it and the concept of
"group consensus", ie, if everyone thinks it's stupid, we toss the entry out.
That should have been enough to deter anyone from wasting all their time on a
loophole.
Since you brought up this issue of the external battery box. At the start of
the day, I think you asked me if it was legal. My answer was no, and that
wasn't because it was you, because if Derek had asked, I would have told him no
too. But then you said, "That's okay, I planned for that" and proceeded to clip
the box to a mount already on the robot.
Why the hell would you bother then? You knew it was controversial, you
obviously planned for the outcome, then why make a stink about it?
We walk a fine line designing rules. Sometimes it's a judgement call. Perhaps
some of it is hypocritical, self contradicting, inconsistent or whatever. It's
the best we can do given the flavour of the group we are.
I don't know what more to say.
Calum
* - Elliott likes to be clever. I really wish he built more Cinderblocks than
stickers, because he's good at it, really. I do know that stickers will go
through the mail from California easier than Cinderblocks.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Walker Sumo Revisited.
|
| (...) Well, back to the original subject of this thread. "Walker Sumo" That kind of implies a way to do something up front. In a normal sumo event, few people would enter a walking sumo, even if it is allowed by the rules. It wouldn't have much (...) (21 years ago, 22-Aug-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
