Robo-Cross B

[Flavorflav]

BTW, you really didn't have to do anything special with the documentation issue. Just put in 0 for the number of correctly identified in the spreadsheet and it handles the rest of the calculations for you.

That is what I did. What I am saying is that when I did so, two teams saw their scores go negative. A negative score makes the 20% penalty for missing documentation become a 20% bonus, because their -6 became a -5.4. I'm not sure this is really a problem, bc IMO a team who fails their questions BC they have no documentation should beat a team who has documentation and fails anyway.

[jander14indoor]

Let me suggest that is a math/logic implementation error in the spreadsheet. The rule clearly states they get a penalty. So the correct score should be -7.2.
I suspect the rule is implemented as: "if no documentation then score = 0.8*(raw score)" = -4.8. Not sure where 5.4 comes from...
The correct logic should be: "if no documentation then score = raw score - 0.2*|raw score|" = -7.2
And I hope I'm not showing my age or confusing folks with symbology: |x| means absolute value of x

And yes that is unofficial opinion, but seems like a pretty straightforward reading of the meaning of "penalty"

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

Can you say 'BUG'

[Flavorflav]

Yes, that is my belief as well. However, I do think failing to answer questions because you don't know anything about the device deserves a worse penalty than failing to answer questions because they could not be asked. The supervisor does always have the option of DQing under general rule 4, but the bar for that should be set very high IMO.
5.4 came from my fallible memory - I conflated the two negative scores and didn't think about the math behind them. They were actually -5.6 and -2.4, from the original -7 and -3. I left them as-is, bc correcting to apply the penalty in the right direction would not have affected the ranking.

[kwinks]

Oh, I understand the application of the ruling, I just don't see it as being allowable under the text of the original rules. Fortunately nobody tried it on Saturday. I honestly don't know what I'd do if a competitor produced something that they claimed was an email from soinc.

This is a bit concerning since every question we have asked this year was answered by email; not one of those questions has been posted on the Soinc site. In regards to the passive device, I couldn't agree with you more, Flavorflav.

[Skink]

Oh, I understand the application of the ruling, I just don't see it as being allowable under the text of the original rules. Fortunately nobody tried it on Saturday. I honestly don't know what I'd do if a competitor produced something that they claimed was an email from soinc.

This is a bit concerning since every question we have asked this year was answered by email; not one of those questions has been posted on the Soinc site. In regards to the passive device, I couldn't agree with you more, Flavorflav.

E-mailed responses aren't tournament-enforceable since they're not covered by General Rule #3 (supported by the fact that they're not accessible to anyone except the individuals whom submitted them). My understanding of the system is that literally 'frequently' asked questions are the ones posted to the site as well as ones that might have reaching impact if answered and posted. Put another way, I've, myself, received an e-mail-only response when the question was, admittedly, mundane. It's hard to say if that generalizes, though, I suppose, without knowing what other questions folks are getting e-mailed back about.

[Flavorflav]

Oh, I understand the application of the ruling, I just don't see it as being allowable under the text of the original rules. Fortunately nobody tried it on Saturday. I honestly don't know what I'd do if a competitor produced something that they claimed was an email from soinc.

This is a bit concerning since every question we have asked this year was answered by email; not one of those questions has been posted on the Soinc site. In regards to the passive device, I couldn't agree with you more, Flavorflav.

The issue is that is would be fairly simple to construct something that looks just like an email from soinc which is not in actuality an email from soinc. There is no way to reliably tell the true from the counterfeit, and so I would have to think long and hard about what to do - and probably get the tournament director and/or the appeals committee involved.

[bernard]

Oh, I understand the application of the ruling, I just don't see it as being allowable under the text of the original rules. Fortunately nobody tried it on Saturday. I honestly don't know what I'd do if a competitor produced something that they claimed was an email from soinc.

This is a bit concerning since every question we have asked this year was answered by email; not one of those questions has been posted on the Soinc site. In regards to the passive device, I couldn't agree with you more, Flavorflav.

E-mailed responses aren't tournament-enforceable since they're not covered by General Rule #3 (supported by the fact that they're not accessible to anyone except the individuals whom submitted them). My understanding of the system is that literally 'frequently' asked questions are the ones posted to the site as well as ones that might have reaching impact if answered and posted. Put another way, I've, myself, received an e-mail-only response when the question was, admittedly, mundane. It's hard to say if that generalizes, though, I suppose, without knowing what other questions folks are getting e-mailed back about.

Students should also check with their state organization. Some states, such as Virginia, do not use national FAQs (which I think they mean when they say national "clarifications") and some states have cutoffs for FAQs (for example, the any FAQs posted after March 3 are not binding at the New Jersey state tournament on March 10).

If there are any FAQs that are emailed but you think would affect a lot of teams, post about it here and I'll see if I can make someone aware of it so it is published.

[ThatRoboGuy]

Hello everyone. Just want to hop in with what I've seen so far in the event. We can clear the board for full points in 2:15 at best possible, and at our regionals we were second to a team who cleared the board for full points in a minute and a half. At nationals, you will basically need to clear the board in 90 seconds or less for a medal.

[1nxtmonster]

Hello everyone. Just want to hop in with what I've seen so far in the event. We can clear the board for full points in 2:15 at best possible, and at our regionals we were second to a team who cleared the board for full points in a minute and a half. At nationals, you will basically need to clear the board in 90 seconds or less for a medal.

Our best so far is a score of 507. From what you have seen what mechanism is most used on successful robots? Claws? Buckets? Scoops with paddles?

[RobotFamily]

Just joined this Forum, here is what my son's group built. It's a scope with sweeping doors. It's pretty effective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns9rV1AgzPU .