Subject:
|
Key aspect and my vote
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 May 2002 22:54:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
827 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Brian Sadowski writes:
> my shrimp rover would work just the same without those pieces.
I am as hard-core a purist as they come, but the above argument sounds
pretty definite to me, and more so if we take into account the ballast
question. Cosmetic changes, those non essential to the workings of the
machine are ok. It's not like you can't take them out and still have the
full MOC, right?
> 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.
>
> Since I believe this is a severe punishment, I would like to see a break up
> of who voted for it and against it.
While I agree with you, I also think the word that Tobbe wanted to use is
penalize. Small difference, but in the right direction. In your place, I'd
probably wouldn't be happy about all this. However, Tobbe has a point when
he says that the contest is already small enough to lose participants. I
hope you guys work it out.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
