Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Rule change for Robomegellan... Think before you type

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Impson
    Hi Tom, I suggest in the future that you adhere to the groups rule of no flaming, intentional or not. Case in point... not tall towers on a tipsy robot to
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 1, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Tom,

      I suggest in the future that you adhere to the groups rule of no flaming, intentional or not. Case in point...

      "not tall towers on a tipsy robot to 'cheat.'"

      The main term here is "cheat".

      In my family Honor and Truthfulness are held in the extreme, even suggesting that an Impson is trying to "cheat" is bad karma.

      I think you need to read what you type and think about how it will be interpreted before clicking 'send'.

      I made this mistake with a 3 star General once and learned my lesson the hard way when I was 24.

      I don't know what your intent was but I don't appreciate it. I found the rest of you comments as creative criticism which is great. But, rules of a competition are meant to be updated not to just flounder; Innovation and creativity are key, not stanch ism and bull pigheadedness.

      As Bob himself has suggested that giving it a go to see what happens is maybe the thing to do?

      Anyway, please continue creative criticism, just leave the rudeness in the closet.

      If you hadn't noticed I sent this off list because I feel my comments are not needed on the main list because of simple politeness to the rest of the group.

      Kevin Impson

    • twcarroll@...
      Kevin, I always think before I write. Many don t. When I used the term cheat, I wasn t implying a dishonest strategy, but rather using a type of robot that
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 1, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        Kevin,
         
             I always think before I write. Many don't.  When I used the term 'cheat,' I wasn't implying a dishonest strategy, but rather using a type of robot that might have an unfair advantage over other contestants who did not have the skills, materials and know how to build a massive mast.  I am sure that most other readers of my post will not see my use of the term as negative as do you.
         
             This whole series of posts has gotten way out of hand with 10 to 14 foot high robots, versus the original robots that rarely were over 24 inches high.  I used the term to open the eyes of those who saw the sensor masts rising to great heights to gain some sort of advantage, rather sticking to the present rules that can allow our contestants to use ingenuity and good old common sense to traverse the course to a win.
         
             By the way, the term 'karma,' whether good or bad is not in my vocabulary.
         
             Tom
         
            
        I suggest in the future that you adhere to the groups rule of no flaming, intentional or not. Case in point...

        "not tall towers on a tipsy robot to 'cheat.'"

        The main term here is "cheat".

        In my family Honor and Truthfulness are held in the extreme, even suggesting that an Impson is trying to "cheat" is bad karma.
      • Lorenzo Geib
        Rather than legislating, sometimes it is better to use filters to prevent extremes of design. I entered a boat race where you had to get your boat off a
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 2, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
          Rather than legislating, sometimes it is better to use "filters" to prevent extremes of design. I entered a boat race where you had to get your boat off a beach, and do a short portage to prevent extremes of weight, and had to go under a bridge that had piers 8' a apart to prevent extremes of width, ( and height) and had to go through shallow water to prevent extremes of draft. 

          Nowhere was the size of the boat legislated, but although there were innovative designs, there were no extreme designs.

          Larry
          On Jun 1, 2014, at 8:13 PM, "twcarroll@... [SeattleRobotics]" <SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          Kevin,
           
               I always think before I write. Many don't.  When I used the term 'cheat,' I wasn't implying a dishonest strategy, but rather using a type of robot that might have an unfair advantage over other contestants who did not have the skills, materials and know how to build a massive mast.  I am sure that most other readers of my post will not see my use of the term as negative as do you.
           
               This whole series of posts has gotten way out of hand with 10 to 14 foot high robots, versus the original robots that rarely were over 24 inches high.  I used the term to open the eyes of those who saw the sensor masts rising to great heights to gain some sort of advantage, rather sticking to the present rules that can allow our contestants to use ingenuity and good old common sense to traverse the course to a win.
           
               By the way, the term 'karma,' whether good or bad is not in my vocabulary.
           
               Tom
           
              
          I suggest in the future that you adhere to the groups rule of no flaming, intentional or not. Case in point...

          "not tall towers on a tipsy robot to 'cheat.'"

          The main term here is "cheat".

          In my family Honor and Truthfulness are held in the extreme, even suggesting that an Impson is trying to "cheat" is bad karma.
        • dpa_io
          ...or Robomagellan could just stick with the rules now in place, which might be simpler. I think this is moot because Bob has already indicated that he will
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 2, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            ...or Robomagellan could just stick with the rules now in place, which might be simpler.   I think this is moot because Bob has already indicated that he will allow it, at least for this year.  At any rate, Kevin is going to have his robot finished next week and post some pictures, and then all will be in a better position to consider whether the proposed rule change violates the spirit of the competition.

            dpa
          • Robert Dyer
            Tom, So anyone who has a significantly better mouse-trap is cheating? Does that mean we should all design and build to the lowest common denominator? Should
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 3, 2014
            • 0 Attachment

              Tom,


              So anyone who has a significantly "better mouse-trap" is cheating? Does that mean we should all design and build to the lowest common denominator? Should we stay with 24" high robots because that was what was available to, and used by, the early participants in the competition?


              Whenever someone openly demonstrates a step-wise leap in functionality, it raises the level for all of us. We all benefit in the end when someone opens our eyes to innovation, especially things not thought of before.


              Just the fact that Kevin PUBLICLY asked about the rules well ahead of the competition says to me he wasn't 'cheating' in any form of the word. Others may now attempt to use his idea as well, opening new possibilities for all. Besides, who knows if it will even help his robot? (By the way, you may want to go to your dictionary and check out the definition of "cheat". Other than "cheating death" every definition is pretty negative. An unfortunate choice of words in MY opinion, but of course I don't know what "most other readers" think of my opinion.)


              I like that Bob is open to new ideas, and that he has a 'let's wait and see' attitude regarding the rules. Go Kevin! Show us a usable mast construction and deployment method none of us may have even thought of. I'm anxious to see your design and implementation. And even more anxious to see what new ideas it spawns in my mind!!!


              Robert



              From: "twcarroll@... [SeattleRobotics]" <SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com>
               
                   
                   I always think before I write. Many don't.  When I used the term 'cheat,' I wasn't implying a dishonest strategy, but rather using a type of robot that might have an unfair advantage over other contestants who did not have the skills, materials and know how to build a massive mast.  I am sure that most other readers of my post will not see my use of the term as negative as do you.
              _

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.