## Clarifying "Initiates the next action..."

Flavorflav
Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

### Re: Clarifying "Initiates the next action..."

builder83 wrote:
November 25th, 2019, 12:04 pm
Seems to me that the golf ball hitting the wedge is the initiating act. That initial ball does not continue to be a part of the next action. (Where the above example with the incline plane and pulley system that golf ball would continue to be used throughout the next action as a counterweight.)
The two cases are not parallel. The dropped golf ball is the initiator of the action, while the pulled golf ball is not.
marty3 wrote:
November 25th, 2019, 1:39 pm
That's exactly how I read it.
The question comes down to your interpretation of the word "utilized." You are reading as "utilized to earn points," which is a defensible interpretation but IMO would put the wedge in the same category as the golf ball in the ramp task, as both are the object being moved. I am reading it as being utilized to perform an action, in which case it applies only to the input and not the output.

Flavorflav
Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

### Re: Clarifying "Initiates the next action..."

Never mind.

Flavorflav
Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

### Re: Clarifying "Initiates the next action..."

Well, the FAQ has been answered:
02/01/2020
IF THE GOLF BALL WHICH IS RAISED FOR ONE OF THE OTHER TASKS WERE TO FALL INTO A CUP TO BECOME A COUNTERWEIGHT FOR THE PULLEY TASK (3.C.VII), WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AS "BEING UTILIZED BY MORE THAN ONE ASSIGNED ACTION" UNDER 3.A.IV?
Yes, it would be considered being utilized by more than one task if the second task wouldn't work without the golf ball being the counterweight there.
I am not quite sure how to apply this interpretation to other tasks, though. In this case, some input 1 causes the golf ball to go up the ramp, which we can call output 1. The golf ball drops into a cup, becoming the input to task 2 and causing the pulley to activate, output 2. How is this different that the sample ASL's task 1 and 2? Golf ball dropping into device is input 1, wedge is output 1 and input 2. Task 2 wouldn't work without the wedge there and task 1 wouldn't score if the wedge didn't move, so isn't that a moveable object being utilized by two tasks? That logic would render every task illegal.
The best rationale I can come up with that could be applied consistently derives from the key difference between those two examples: in the first, output 1 is specifically required by the task, whereas in the second, output 1 is generic (i.e., the golf ball could have caused any action while in the first the golf ball going up the ramp is the task). Any thoughts?

Unome
Moderator
Posts: 4250
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 29 times

### Re: Clarifying "Initiates the next action..."

Flavorflav wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 10:09 am
Well, the FAQ has been answered:
02/01/2020
IF THE GOLF BALL WHICH IS RAISED FOR ONE OF THE OTHER TASKS WERE TO FALL INTO A CUP TO BECOME A COUNTERWEIGHT FOR THE PULLEY TASK (3.C.VII), WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AS "BEING UTILIZED BY MORE THAN ONE ASSIGNED ACTION" UNDER 3.A.IV?
Yes, it would be considered being utilized by more than one task if the second task wouldn't work without the golf ball being the counterweight there.
I am not quite sure how to apply this interpretation to other tasks, though. In this case, some input 1 causes the golf ball to go up the ramp, which we can call output 1. The golf ball drops into a cup, becoming the input to task 2 and causing the pulley to activate, output 2. How is this different that the sample ASL's task 1 and 2? Golf ball dropping into device is input 1, wedge is output 1 and input 2. Task 2 wouldn't work without the wedge there and task 1 wouldn't score if the wedge didn't move, so isn't that a moveable object being utilized by two tasks? That logic would render every task illegal.
The best rationale I can come up with that could be applied consistently derives from the key difference between those two examples: in the first, output 1 is specifically required by the task, whereas in the second, output 1 is generic (i.e., the golf ball could have caused any action while in the first the golf ball going up the ramp is the task). Any thoughts?
Agreed. I don't see how you can continue the chain from the golf ball if using it to do just about anything seems to count as use in another task.

Maybe the intention is that the intermediate steps that the golf ball performs must always be one step removed from the "assigned action"? Which does not seem any different to me aside from fulfilling a technicality.
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

Flavorflav
Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

### Re: Clarifying "Initiates the next action..."

Unome wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 12:50 pm
Flavorflav wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 10:09 am
Well, the FAQ has been answered:
02/01/2020
IF THE GOLF BALL WHICH IS RAISED FOR ONE OF THE OTHER TASKS WERE TO FALL INTO A CUP TO BECOME A COUNTERWEIGHT FOR THE PULLEY TASK (3.C.VII), WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AS "BEING UTILIZED BY MORE THAN ONE ASSIGNED ACTION" UNDER 3.A.IV?
Yes, it would be considered being utilized by more than one task if the second task wouldn't work without the golf ball being the counterweight there.
I am not quite sure how to apply this interpretation to other tasks, though. In this case, some input 1 causes the golf ball to go up the ramp, which we can call output 1. The golf ball drops into a cup, becoming the input to task 2 and causing the pulley to activate, output 2. How is this different that the sample ASL's task 1 and 2? Golf ball dropping into device is input 1, wedge is output 1 and input 2. Task 2 wouldn't work without the wedge there and task 1 wouldn't score if the wedge didn't move, so isn't that a moveable object being utilized by two tasks? That logic would render every task illegal.
The best rationale I can come up with that could be applied consistently derives from the key difference between those two examples: in the first, output 1 is specifically required by the task, whereas in the second, output 1 is generic (i.e., the golf ball could have caused any action while in the first the golf ball going up the ramp is the task). Any thoughts?
Agreed. I don't see how you can continue the chain from the golf ball if using it to do just about anything seems to count as use in another task.

Maybe the intention is that the intermediate steps that the golf ball performs must always be one step removed from the "assigned action"? Which does not seem any different to me aside from fulfilling a technicality.
I agree. I am somewhat surprised and disappointed with this ruling. It seems like needless hoop-jumping - although, to be fair, needless hoop-jumping is pretty much the spirit of this event!

Follow-up question: presumably the same ruling would apply to the lever, water and the two wedge task. Would it also imply that the fourth domino similarly could not be used as part of the pulley counterweight? I think it would have to.
Last edited by Flavorflav on February 2nd, 2020, 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

marty3
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: March 1st, 2011, 12:20 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

### Re: Clarifying "Initiates the next action..."

Flavorflav wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 10:09 am
Well, the FAQ has been answered:
02/01/2020
IF THE GOLF BALL WHICH IS RAISED FOR ONE OF THE OTHER TASKS WERE TO FALL INTO A CUP TO BECOME A COUNTERWEIGHT FOR THE PULLEY TASK (3.C.VII), WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AS "BEING UTILIZED BY MORE THAN ONE ASSIGNED ACTION" UNDER 3.A.IV?
Yes, it would be considered being utilized by more than one task if the second task wouldn't work without the golf ball being the counterweight there.
I am not quite sure how to apply this interpretation to other tasks, though. In this case, some input 1 causes the golf ball to go up the ramp, which we can call output 1. The golf ball drops into a cup, becoming the input to task 2 and causing the pulley to activate, output 2. How is this different that the sample ASL's task 1 and 2? Golf ball dropping into device is input 1, wedge is output 1 and input 2. Task 2 wouldn't work without the wedge there and task 1 wouldn't score if the wedge didn't move, so isn't that a moveable object being utilized by two tasks? That logic would render every task illegal.
The best rationale I can come up with that could be applied consistently derives from the key difference between those two examples: in the first, output 1 is specifically required by the task, whereas in the second, output 1 is generic (i.e., the golf ball could have caused any action while in the first the golf ball going up the ramp is the task). Any thoughts?
I think the key phrase from the FAQ is "wouldn't work without". If the ball serves as a counterweight (e.g. pulley, lever), then the ball is necessary for completion of the task. More generally, it might apply better if rephrased to "wouldn't finish without". For the wedge action, the ball only needs to impart momentum into the wedge. After that, the balls separated by the wedge move on their own to complete the action.

You generally do have allow something to move for each action to trigger the next. They phrase things nicely in the sample ASL with things like "hits a [stationary] wedge" and "boat hits [stationary] lever". Doing more stuff after that with the triggering object (ball, domino, ....) is not allowed. Some actions only have 1 step required for points (lever, gear, pulley, ...), so you really do need something other than the triggering object to complete those actions (e.g. "...hits a weight." --> "Weight falls into cup. Pulley moves....").

The more I think about it, though, I do see a fault with the sample ASL in action 4 with the microswitch. The reason is that if the domino were to fall off at any point, the switch would turn off making the domino necessary for completion of the action. Instead, the switch would need to be some sort of toggle that stays on after being hit by the domino. Hmmm.....

Flavorflav
Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

### Re: Clarifying "Initiates the next action..."

marty3 wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 1:52 pm
Flavorflav wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 10:09 am
Well, the FAQ has been answered:
02/01/2020
IF THE GOLF BALL WHICH IS RAISED FOR ONE OF THE OTHER TASKS WERE TO FALL INTO A CUP TO BECOME A COUNTERWEIGHT FOR THE PULLEY TASK (3.C.VII), WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED AS "BEING UTILIZED BY MORE THAN ONE ASSIGNED ACTION" UNDER 3.A.IV?
Yes, it would be considered being utilized by more than one task if the second task wouldn't work without the golf ball being the counterweight there.
I am not quite sure how to apply this interpretation to other tasks, though. In this case, some input 1 causes the golf ball to go up the ramp, which we can call output 1. The golf ball drops into a cup, becoming the input to task 2 and causing the pulley to activate, output 2. How is this different that the sample ASL's task 1 and 2? Golf ball dropping into device is input 1, wedge is output 1 and input 2. Task 2 wouldn't work without the wedge there and task 1 wouldn't score if the wedge didn't move, so isn't that a moveable object being utilized by two tasks? That logic would render every task illegal.
The best rationale I can come up with that could be applied consistently derives from the key difference between those two examples: in the first, output 1 is specifically required by the task, whereas in the second, output 1 is generic (i.e., the golf ball could have caused any action while in the first the golf ball going up the ramp is the task). Any thoughts?
I think the key phrase from the FAQ is "wouldn't work without". If the ball serves as a counterweight (e.g. pulley, lever), then the ball is necessary for completion of the task. More generally, it might apply better if rephrased to "wouldn't finish without". For the wedge action, the ball only needs to impart momentum into the wedge. After that, the balls separated by the wedge move on their own to complete the action.

You generally do have allow something to move for each action to trigger the next. They phrase things nicely in the sample ASL with things like "hits a [stationary] wedge" and "boat hits [stationary] lever". Doing more stuff after that with the triggering object (ball, domino, ....) is not allowed. Some actions only have 1 step required for points (lever, gear, pulley, ...), so you really do need something other than the triggering object to complete those actions (e.g. "...hits a weight." --> "Weight falls into cup. Pulley moves....").
The more I think about it, though, I do see a fault with the sample ASL in action 4 with the microswitch. The reason is that if the domino were to fall off at any point, the switch would turn off making the domino necessary for completion of the action. Instead, the switch would need to be some sort of toggle that stays on after being hit by the domino. Hmmm.....
You are assuming the switch is a momentary switch. If it isn't, the domino doesn't have to stay on it.

As for the first part, you are still stuck on comparing the ball in the ramp task to the ball which triggers the wedge task. They are not comparable, since the ball in the ramp task is the output and the ball in the wedge task is the input. It is the wedge which is the output, and obviously the wedge task wouldn't work without the wedge.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest