Final Task

[hogger]

No, as long as the wall does not touch the platform, that should be good.

An inch away? So if a domino or a battery is impeded from falling off the platform by the wall, is that ground for violation?

[Oddrenaline]

If the domino falls over but is stopped from falling off of the platform by the wall, you would not get points for the domino, but I don't see why this would be ground for violation. However, if one domino falls but is stopped by the wall, it is more likely to hit the other dominoes. It would be best that you remove the wall unless it is necessary for another step.

[hogger]

If the domino falls over but is stopped from falling off of the platform by the wall, you would not get points for the domino, but I don't see why this would be ground for violation. However, if one domino falls but is stopped by the wall, it is more likely to hit the other dominoes. It would be best that you remove the wall unless it is necessary for another step.

So you are saying a wall next to the platform is ok and it does not violate the raised edge rule? I think that definitely violates the rule, and ground for violation. I think most judges that run the event would call that a violation because the whole point of the rule is that the dominoes are not impede in any way from falling off the platform. Otherwise I would build a wall all around the the platform but a small distance away so it is not part of the platform to prevent anything from falling off the platform.

[gnuelsirhc]

You may get a lot of points on the final task

[Flavorflav]

By the way - at the invitational we were at last weekend, the Mission judges told each team before they competed that if any domino fell off the platform they'd lose the points for the final task, since they didn't meet all 4 conditions.

Chalker, could you give an advisory opinion on this? I will be running this event at a regional in a couple of weeks and I would like to advise teams in advance of the rule I will be following. Personally, I would say that if the battery falls off then the task has not been completed, but since it describes the dominoes as optional then any that fall off would simply not be counted for points. I know, not the place for official clarifications, etc., but we have a two-week lead time policy for posted clarifications in NY and that means I would need an official answer by tomorrow for it to be binding, so I am just asking for advice and I will submit the ruling on my own authority. Do you agree with my interpretation, or do you have another thought?

Anyone else is free to weigh in as well, of course - particularly experienced supervisors.

[hogger]

I think the wording is quite clear. Anything placed on top the platform at the start must stay on the platform to satisfy condition 3. That requirement is quite harsh but it is not ambiguously stated.

[chalker]

I think the wording is quite clear. Anything placed on top the platform at the start must stay on the platform to satisfy condition 3. That requirement is quite harsh but it is not ambiguously stated.

Unofficially of course, I agree I this. I think the wording is pretty clear.

[Flavorflav]

I suppose it is, now that you mention it. I will confess that I only looked at the rules for the first time this morning and it seemed overly harsh, but it does say "all items" and not "all scored items."

A second question, based on something that came up last year. A student had a task that they clearly knew wasn't going to work, so they tried to get the task points anyway by a clever reworking of the TSL. They defined task completion as "task pulls string," and then added a nonscoring task "string flips switch" in between the nonfunctional task and the next scoring task, arguing that the first task was completed because the slack string moved a bit and the only task which failed was the nonscoring one. I did not give them the points because it was transparently obvious what they were doing, but I didn't feel like I had a completely solid rule-based rationale for doing so. Opinions?

[chalker]

A second question, based on something that came up last year. A student had a task that they clearly knew wasn't going to work, so they tried to get the task points anyway by a clever reworking of the TSL. They defined task completion as "task pulls string," and then added a nonscoring task "string flips switch" in between the nonfunctional task and the next scoring task, arguing that the first task was completed because the slack string moved a bit and the only task which failed was the nonscoring one. I did not give them the points because it was transparently obvious what they were doing, but I didn't feel like I had a completely solid rule-based rationale for doing so. Opinions?

I'm a bit confused by this example. The scorable tasks are clearly defined in the rules. So regardless of what the TSL says, if the task matches what the rules say then fine, award points, otherwise don't.

[Flavorflav]

Well, but what the rules say is that the task must "cause the next action." It is permissible to have non-scoring elements in between scoreable tasks, is it not? I suppose my question is, if one scoreable task activates a nonscoreable mechanism which fails to activate the next scoreable task, requiring a touch, did the student earn points for the first scoreable task completion, or is the nonscoreable mechanism considered part of the previous task?