Subject:
|
Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 May 2002 02:30:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
885 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Brian Sadowski writes:
[Additional stuff added from Tobbe's post]
> In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> > My suggestion is to _allow_ modifications _but_ these MOC's will be
> > clearly marked as "Modified" on the vote-page and other pages on the
> > MoTeC site. Also, the information text on the MOC's homepage _must_
> > specify exactly what parts have been modified, the amount of parts and
> > how they are modified - or if there is non LEGO elements in the MOC
> > that should also be clearly specified. If the model is on Brickshelf
> > there should be a info textfile with this information.
> >
> > This way it can be up to the voters if they like or dislike modifying.
> >
> > The relevant model that sprung the question will be disqaulified from
> > this May voting process and the new rules will spring to action
> > starting with MoTeC June, when the model might enter again should the
> > creator decide so. I wont reveal what model it is but it's out of the
> > competition for May - unless the creator feels ok with that in which
> > case I'll remove the entry from the vote page ASAP.
> >
> > Does this sound like a good solution to you?
>
> Nope, and I'll tell you why.
[snip]
> How are things such as ballast be allowed in the contest where these shims
> are not. Ballast effects over stablity on structures and without it, some
> structures will not work. There are even lego elements which are
> specifically designed for this task.
I agree, and I don't see any problem specifically allowing non-LEGO elements
such as yours in future MoTeCs, however the current rules (as announced for
the May MoTeC) specifically disallow it, so I agree with Tobbe's decision to
not allow you to enter it for May.
> I can agree that I broke the exact interpretation of the rules, but is this
> cheating? No, I dont not at all believe this is any means of cheating.
> Punishable by disqualification, not at all.
For May, yes. Future MoTeCs ... that's up to how (and if) Tobbe decides to
change the rules after May.
> Since I believe this is a severe punishment, I would like to see a break up
> of who voted for it and against it.
As I see it, the "voting" was for a future rule change, so the break-up has
no relevance to the May contest.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
| (...) There were personal e-mails between me and Tobbe. In an e-mail to me, Tobbe tells me, I have been found breaking the rules. He also goes on to say how he does not know a punishment, and he will ask the group. My understanding, from his (...) (22 years ago, 12-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
| (...) Nope, and I'll tell you why. It is my MOC which is subject to debate. In my shrimp rover, on one of the wheels I used the non-lego parts which are in question. Here is the picture: (URL) is the MOC: (URL) you can clearly see the two plastic (...) (22 years ago, 11-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
40 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
|
|
|
|
