|
[DPRG] Re: Can-Can Rules
Subject: [DPRG] Re: Can-Can Rules
From: Mike McCarty
jmccarty at ssd.usa.alcatel.com
Date: Tue Sep 11 11:54:07 CDT 2001
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, John R Caldwell wrote:
> Rules should not stifle creativity.
Agreed. OTOH, creativity usually flourishes where the challenge is
great, and the restrictions the highest. Poetry is what it is partly
because of the restrictions. If any written piece were considered
poetry, then there would be no beauty, charm, or challenge in writing
it.
> For a long time Quick Trip was run two different ways:
> . wall following
> . go down, turn around, come back
>
> The winner of the Fall 2000 contest used a third way, forward and reverse. In
> Spring 2001, 10 out of 14 robots used forward and reverse. 5 of those robots
> had times that would have won in Fall 2000. Creativity inspires competition and
> excitement.
Indeed. May I suggest considering a change to the name? How about "There
and Back Again"? (As in "A Hobbit's Holiday" :-)
> The winner of Can-Can in Spring 2001 used a different way to retrieve the cans.
> Since Can-Can has so few competitors, we should encourage new ideas, not
> suppress them.
Agreed.
> That being said, we would support a change in the Can-Can rules for Spring 2002.
>
> . 5 points for correctly signaling that a can was located
> . 15 points for returning a can to Area A.
I think that if there are going to be rules permitting awarding of
points for location, and deducting of points for false location, then
there need to be definitions of what constitute location and false
location.
Suppose I build a robot which throws out a 10' diameter net, and then
beeps once. Did it just "locate" 20 cans? Certainly one could argue that
if the net is resting on top of a can, then a part of the robot is
within one foot of it.
Is this the type of competition one wants to foster? IOW, the real
creativity is in trying to see just what can be made to fit the rules
linguistically? I think that most would want to encourage the
expenditure of creativity on the mechanical and software angle, not the
linguistic angle, of robotics competitions.
Another thing to consider is that, when writing a law, the legislatures
also write what is called a "Legislative Intent". It says, in more or
less plain language, what the law is intended to accomplish. Courts
read and consider these Legislative Intents before making rulings, even
though these Intents are not part of the law. A well written
Legislative Intent makes a statement as to what is intended, as well as
what is not intended. Of course, the actual words of the law itself are
what determine the outcome of any ruling.
Just the $0.02 worth from an outsider looking in.
[BTW, Lewis Carrol (Dodgson) wrote an interesting and educational
little piece about the difficulties of writing good rules in which he
describes a town council attempting to write a leash ordinance for a
park. They start with "All dogs in this park must be on a lead." It is
then pointed out that this ordinance is addressed to the *dogs*, not
the owners. It is ammended to "All dog owners in this park must keep
their dogs on a lead." But this means that the owners cannot go into
the park without their dogs, and doesn't place any restriction on those
walking someone else' dogs. Though they eventually do succeed, it is
only after great effort, and the article points out just how difficult
it is to write truly good requirements.]
Mike
--
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I don't speak for Alcatel <- They make me say that.
More information about the DPRG mailing list
|
