Re: The Rules

[Duncan Louttit <duncan@swallow.co.uk>]

Hi Everyone,

         I only put two constraints on the mouse. It must be safe (I don't 
see how you can avoid this constraint in a public competition) and it must 
not damage the maze (again I don't see how you can avoid this). The only 
other item is to limit the time available to something sensible.

         The rest of the "mass of text" is examples of the sorts of things 
that WOULD be allowed.

         If it proves to be impossible to form a consensus on the rules, as 
seems to be the case, I am perfectly happy to give up and let the rules run 
themselves.

         Regards,

         Duncan

At 09:01 03/11/04, you wrote:
>All
>I must say that I agree with Tony. The competition is one thing, and
>should have rules governing its operation, and a 'run-wot-u-brung' event
>is entirely different.
>Having said that I would encourage the inclusion of a 'R-W-U-B' session
>at all MM competitions - perhaps we could, as I think Duncan is
>suggesting, lay down a FEW basic requirements for such entrants as a
>separate task.
>                       ****************************
> >Hi all ....
> >
> >Duncan .. you have proposed ...
> >
> >>"The organisers will allow all comers to demonstrate robots in the
> >>maze.
> >>This is intended for builders to show interesting systems and
> >>techniques without the constraints of the formal competition. In
> >>particular, outsize robots, umbilical systems, external position
> >>references and similar will be permitted. The entrant may request that
> >>formal timing is carried out according to the rules. The organisers
> >>may choose to award prizes. The constraints are:
> >>
> >>The judges must deem the mouse safe and unlikely to damage the maze.
> >>
> >>Demonstration time will be limited to 10 minutes or less depending on
> >>the time available"
> >>
>Tony commented:
> >Sounds like a 'run-wot-u-brung' .. as we quaintly and colloquially
> >named it at MM2004.
> >Why do we need to add a statement like this to the 'rules'? The rules
> >are for the competition, yet we have here a rule for an event outside
> >of the competition.
> >I don't believe an event such as micromouse can, or should, be defined
> >in a totally objective way. We appoint judges to ensure that the mice,
> >maze, and competitors follow the spirit of the rules, to provide
> >subjective assessment, and to rule on the grey areas. We should be
> >trying to simplify the rules, and provide guidance as to the spirit of
> >the competition, NOT extending the rules with a mass of text in a vain
> >attempt to cater for every eventuality.
>
>Regards
>--
>Martin J. Barratt