Designs

[goodcheer]

I think you misunderstood me. I am in the same exact boat as you are in. My team is lifting 3 (on a good day) golfballs right now, but it is very large. If many teams decide to go with a smaller design and get all the ETS's without even having the lifting a golfball restriction I think it would be incredibly unfair because of the size that we needed to lift just a few golf balls. This whole situation is just a mess right now and I hope that a decision can be made as soon as possible that is fair to all teams.

Yes I did, sorry about that and thanks.

[chalker]

...... Not to be rude to the Chalkers .......

No rudeness inferred or taken. All of the comments on this thread are very helpful and are being read. Keep in mind though that my brother and I aren't the only ones involved behind the scenes. To the contrary, this event technically isn 't in my committee and hence I have less involvement than were it a Physics event.

[MC McGilicutty]

...... Not to be rude to the Chalkers .......

No rudeness inferred or taken. All of the comments on this thread are very helpful and are being read. Keep in mind though that my brother and I aren't the only ones involved behind the scenes. To the contrary, this event technically isn 't in my committee and hence I have less involvement than were it a Physics event.

I apologize if it feels like I attacked you guys personally. I did not mean to offend you. You guys have been very helpful to the SO community. I did not realize that you guys weren't the only ones in charge of these rules. I apologize again

[chalker7]

This is a little off topic, but to clarify, there are a very large number of people in charge of the rules. Each event has one or two event supervisors who are in charge at nationals. These are the people who generally write the first drafts of the rules. Similar events are grouped together on committees (such as tech, physics, biology, etc) which are headed by a committee chair. This person is in charge of all the events in that subject area and sends the rules off to Gerard and the executive board, who ultimately approve/disapprove the event. This isn't even accounting for the role of the State Directors, who provide lots of advice and commentary on the rules. Some people wear multiple hats and have more generalized interests, so some of us are involved with multiple events. Overall, there are probably 150 people (or more) who have some hand in the rules writing process from start to end.

Once it comes to FAQ's/Clarifications (there is technically a difference,) there is a central person who reviews the questions as they come in and either sends them out for advice to a number of different people or answers them if they are obvious. Each year we receive several thousand questions through the website, spread out over all of the events. When a complicated rules interpretation comes up, there will be many different people with different opinions and sorting it out can take some time. Obviously, Mission is in that position this year. As we stated earlier, everyone involved in this event is very well aware of the problem (not just the Chalkers) and there are in-depth conversations going on. I don't have a timetable for when things will be answered, but we are aware of the urgency. Hopefully it will be soon.

As my brother said above, we are pretty thick skinned and appreciate the lively conversation about this event. It is extremely informative and helpful.

[conspicuousClockwork]

It would not be reasonable to change anything back at this point, including the point values of the golf balls... It's too late

Just offering a proposal that might be fair to everyone, not just those who benefited from the FAQ change. Changing point values should not be a problem.

To MCMc, what about those who have been working since Oct perfecting the lifting of golf balls? Where is the concern for them (if I may speak for our team and others with similar concerns)? The first FAQ requiring the lifting of golf balls for an ETS came down the end of Oct. The one that reversed that FAQ came down the end of Jan. When the new FAQ came along and changed the requirement late in the game (in my view), some did not want to scrap three months of hard work. Although they do so at the risk of being left in the dust by those who have been designing for easier ETS points the past one month. "Sad...unfair...disheartening" is not beyond repair; lets keep hammering this out. Whatever is decided in the end, lets just do our best and be happy to compete against whatever we might come up against. Good luck to everyone.

Been working by myself on this, and from the very beginning it was very clear lifting golf balls was a very inefficient method of receiving points. You receive more points from saving space than each golf ball... meaning if you want to maximize points you must only use one. In addition, any mechanism used to lift a golf ball will take considerably more space than the one golf ball itself. Seeing that so many have already taken this into account even with the new rule changes, it would probably be best to compensate the golf ball bonus points with 1): points according to its size, and maybe double that [ Don't know the dimensions off the top of my head, but it should be subtracted from the machine's total dimensions] and 2) A few more points to take in consideration a lifting mechanism [Maybe bonus points determined by the positive change in elevation?].

Not only will this justify (to some extent) keeping a golf ball lift on existing designs, but will also mitigate the loss of potential points for those who cannot change their design and built it with the golf ball lift in mind. This doesn't make it too "easy", as it provides an advantage to those who chose golf balls over the maximization of space.

[XJcwolfyX]

It would not be reasonable to change anything back at this point, including the point values of the golf balls... It's too late

Just offering a proposal that might be fair to everyone, not just those who benefited from the FAQ change. Changing point values should not be a problem.

To MCMc, what about those who have been working since Oct perfecting the lifting of golf balls? Where is the concern for them (if I may speak for our team and others with similar concerns)? The first FAQ requiring the lifting of golf balls for an ETS came down the end of Oct. The one that reversed that FAQ came down the end of Jan. When the new FAQ came along and changed the requirement late in the game (in my view), some did not want to scrap three months of hard work. Although they do so at the risk of being left in the dust by those who have been designing for easier ETS points the past one month. "Sad...unfair...disheartening" is not beyond repair; lets keep hammering this out. Whatever is decided in the end, lets just do our best and be happy to compete against whatever we might come up against. Good luck to everyone.

Been working by myself on this, and from the very beginning it was very clear lifting golf balls was a very inefficient method of receiving points. You receive more points from saving space than each golf ball... meaning if you want to maximize points you must only use one. In addition, any mechanism used to lift a golf ball will take considerably more space than the one golf ball itself. Seeing that so many have already taken this into account even with the new rule changes, it would probably be best to compensate the golf ball bonus points with 1): points according to its size, and maybe double that [ Don't know the dimensions off the top of my head, but it should be subtracted from the machine's total dimensions] and 2) A few more points to take in consideration a lifting mechanism [Maybe bonus points determined by the positive change in elevation?].

Not only will this justify (to some extent) keeping a golf ball lift on existing designs, but will also mitigate the loss of potential points for those who cannot change their design and built it with the golf ball lift in mind. This doesn't make it too "easy", as it provides an advantage to those who chose golf balls over the maximization of space.

This would essentially change the rules entirely.

[blakinator8]

New FAQ!

2015-03-10 20:30 The device task explicitly says that the device has to "lift one or more golf balls into scoring jugs." What is the penalty for not lifting any golf balls in the device?
You would receive no points for golf balls. You might receive other points for time, ETS completion, etc.

ETS points can still be scored without lifting golf balls. Guess that settles it?

[blakinator8]

EDIT: Here are all of the new FAQs from tonight: (as of 10:35 PM CST)

2015-03-10 21:42 The rules state "A single Action or component must contribute to only one scoreable Transfer." May an Action occur multiple times in different energy transfer sequences so long that it uses a different component each time, and still receive points?
Yes. The same type or similar actions may be repeated for scoring Energy Transfer Sequences, but the physical item can only be used once for scoring an Energy Transfer Sequence. Keep in mind that each scoreable ETS must be unique in the sequence of the transfers.

2015-03-10 21:51 What is your definition of a component?
A component is a physical part of the Mission Possible device. A commercial piece (component) with various transfers within this commercial piece (component) can not be claimed as individual transfers for an Energy Transfer Sequence.

2015-03-10 22:01 Can the golf balls be lifted above the jug all at once as part of the Start Task, and then triggered to drop into the jug one at a time, or does each one have to be lifted individually?
The golf balls can be lifted above the jug all at once as part of the Start Task, and then triggered to drop into the jug one at a time.

2015-03-10 22:13 When the golf balls are moved to the container, do they have to be fully inside of the container, or can they be sitting above the top of the container with the other golf balls under them?
They must be at least partially inside the container.

2015-03-10 22:25 The rules state, concerning scoring containers, "the sides must be at least 10 cm higher than the bottom of the scoring jug." Does this account for altering the orientation of the jug? Or must the sides simply be 10 cm tall when standing upright?
The height of the wall from the lowest point of the scoring jug in the orientation in the Mission Possible must be 10 cm or higher.

Must've been one pigeon of a meeting in the tech committee.

[conspicuousClockwork]

This would essentially change the rules entirely.

Then the rules were broken in the first place, IMO. Offering a measly 2 points for taking up space that could get you more points is essentially saying to ignore the "bonus points" for lifting a ball. Although now that I check, it's used as a tie-breaker... which is pretty moot because any of the real competition will be relying on dimension points, not golf ball points in order to achieve a higher score. That being said, with points being rewarded by millimeters, the chances of an actual tie breaker being needed are insignificant.

[goodcheer]

New FAQ!

2015-03-10 20:30 The device task explicitly says that the device has to "lift one or more golf balls into scoring jugs." What is the penalty for not lifting any golf balls in the device?
You would receive no points for golf balls. You might receive other points for time, ETS completion, etc.

ETS points can still be scored without lifting golf balls. Guess that settles it?

The rules committee has firmly established the idea you don't have to lift golf balls for the ETS points contrary to the rule book. Now they rule the MP device does not even have to complete the "Device Task" which is to lift and collect at least one golf ball (par. 4, line 1). The penalty should be a construction violation. All this settles is the conclusion that the rules committee is willing to make decisions that contradict the published rule book. They seem unwilling to repair this sinking ship.