Clarification on "Possession" Definition.

Disclaimer: I would like to believe that I thoroughly looked through the previous Q+As for an answer before posting this, but if a Q+A has a similar topic to mine, please point me to it.

The definition of possession currently states:

Dictionary definitions of these three terms:
Carry: to support and move (someone or something) from one place to another. (involves lifting the object)
Hold: to grasp, carry, or support with one’s arms or hands (arms and hands being mechanisms on the robot)
Encompass: to surround and have or hold within. (Was used to describe what cage bots did to mobile goals last year in In The Zone.)

With these definitions in mind, would it be legal to have a design similar to what is depicted in the image below? From what I can tell, the only thing that defines possession is lifting them off the ground or completely surrounding them, but I want to make sure.
Cap possesion.jpg

You are looking for the definition of “possession” in a statement of rule, as the definition?

Whereas, the rule states - possession is…now you add the following nomenclatures and apply the rule.

Hope that helps answer your question??

Under this logic SG4 would state:

So my question still remains unfortunately. I think the only person who can explicitly answer this is the GDC because it is their interpretation of the rules that matter here, not the basic analysis of the game manual everyone can do and assume is correct.

Please re-read <G2> “…common sense…”

Good luck n GDC answering different??

Beat me to it. I would hope and expect to see more application of common sense to the rule interpretation this year, and I imagine the GDC is hoping that as well. I don’t think you’ll find them giving a list of every word that might cover the idea that a robot/driver is controlling a game object for the purpose of scoring or preventing a score by your opponent. Certainly a purpose-built channel on the drive surface and demonstrated intent to move more than two caps around with that channel is a violation.

Ah. I did not put it together that the intent was to hold multiple at once. Yeah, that would be illegal. I’ll remove my earlier post.

yeah, the diagram posted shows three caps in an intake at once.

I agree with these others, just use common sense. If you are looking at dictionary definitions, you are obviously looking beyond the scope and spirit of the rules.
Plus, it would take as much time to grab the caps individually and flip them as it would take to gather all 3 in a grabber like that.

So I don’t want to quote everyone who mentioned common sense so I’ll just @ everyone instead
@Impulse Theory @To_Bi_As @kypyro @head referee

There were people that used “common sense” when looking at <SG6> last year, then went to their competition with a metabot and lost to mogo hoarders. I don’t want to be that person this year, so I will make sure I am aware of all the strategies at my disposal this season. Your arguments posted here could have also applied to SG6 last year, where the clear intent of the rule is to stop designs that completely deny mobile goals. However, that is wrong.
Also, the main reason I began looking into this is because certain rules like the horizontal expansion limit are ripped straight from In The Zone. If their intention in ITZ was the same as in TP, why would they not renew the possession rule against a concave surface? Therefore, I think they deliberately removed it, but of course I’m posting this thread to be sure.

Common sense tells me if you really cared, you post to official Q&A :slight_smile:

Have a fun season!

I’m sorry, but I’m a little confused with the new Q+A system. Is there a place where only the GDC can respond?
Also, the little smile and “Have a fun season!” are not all that appreciated thanks.

First part - absolutely yes. Official Q&A is the ONLY official response for any questions/clarifications to the game rules Official Q&A
Everyone understand that … one would hope :slight_smile: (you know the common sense comments…)

Second, sounds like you are harping on things which can be construed as “loophole hunting” - if that is what makes you happy, good luck! and have a fun season! :slight_smile:

Seriously, if you are planning to get around the possessing more game objects than the rules allow for by looking for exceptions in definitions that suit you, then you are likely to be disappointed.

Genuinely, have a fun season!


Yes, let’s discourage any sort of out-of-the-box thinking and all mindlessly play the game the way the GDC intended us to. kappa

Thanks for the info.
FYI, loophole hunting got me extremely far in the last game and every player has the right to play to the manual. Yes, it takes skill.
Have a fun season! :slight_smile:

Everyone that you tagged used unique and different details. No one solely relied on the common sense part. You can’t just post one umbrella reply and expect it to satisfy our objections.
And you can’t discredit the common sense rule because it is a rule. Just try to convince the GDC that that isn’t the case. Also, your example about last years rule has absolutely no effect on common sense’s application on this specific rule we are discussing. It is a case by case basis, and your example proves nothing.

Now, you pointed out that the dictionary definitions of the words that define possession don’t explicitly or immediately outlaw your design. Cool. But the possession term is always used in the context of a robot manipulating or transporting game pieces. Therefore, I think we can safely assume (using common sense, a rule) that your design is illegal, as it is meant to manipulate and transport more game pieces than allowed by the possession limit. I think if you used that design in a competition, a referee would conclude that you are breaking a rule faster than you can say, “It isn’t possession, though.”

Why can’t you ignore someone showing the smallest bit of passive aggression on a forum? That’s not a good way to go about things.

I completely doubt this. A robot that relies on scoring points more quickly will compete better than a robot that relies on exploiting loopholes. I dare say that 99% of all the people who made it to worlds didn’t make exploiting loopholes a high priority.
I also doubt this because you have a good program with lots of great teams, and I know that good robot designs (that didn’t rely on loopholes) led you guys to state.

Correct. But no player has the right do decide how the manual is interpreted in a game. It will always come down to a referee who is focused on the intent of the rules, which you are obviously trying to fight.

Please tell me you are joking. That is just a big waste of valuable skill. I know everyone on here wants to excel in this program, but exploiting loopholes is not the way. I think you know that that is true.

I don’t discourage out of the box thinking. I do encourage those who legitimately wish to have an official response ask the Q&A who want to play to limits of the game. We have done so by posting to the Official Q&A when the team was unsure if we broke the bounds of the rules. When things did not go right at events - we got clarifications on the Q&A that the local interpretation was incorrect. The Q&A is the way to go to add light on a rule. Posting here can be amusing and informative - but not official rulings.

This will be a fun season!

I apologize for being over the top … Was not intending to be passive aggressive, but apparently I was.

This year the game manual is pretty thorough. I expect a lot of discussion around controlling more game objects to your advantage - pushing/pulling and designs that enable it. In addition, the center platform will have quite a discussion around it - can you use the sides of the platform to prevent from being removed? or underneath… These are all good discussions. Once you want an official response, then a quick post to the Q&A is probably merited.

This is fairly true, although head referee did just mention <G2>, but obviously reponding to each of you would take a lot of time for a similar argument.

The common sense rule is a rule, but I don’t think you quite understand what I mean when I bring up my example. The common sense rule is applied to all rules, right? One would think so, and if so, my idea of pushing caps is out the window. However, there has been precedent in the form of <SG6> last year where common sense has been defied, so it makes perfect sense for me to believe it can happen again. If you still don’t understand why SG6 from ITZ is an example of how common sense is not always true, please ask for me to simplify my argument even more.

Except it isn’t. You made up the idea of a robot manipulating or transporting game pieces being possession. That is not what the definition of possession as stated in the manual. You cannot assume that is their intention, (oh no I want to mention SG6 as an example again.)

That’s why I’m making a Q+A :confused:

This is irrelevant to our argument, and I began ignoring it after he did not stop.

Are you suggesting you know more about my season than I do? I had very little building experience, and I found my success by mastering defensive strategy in ITZ rather than trying to outplay better builders with the same exact design. You can even claim I was the guy who “enlightened” (their terms) 929U’s leaders about the power of defense, leading them to pick 62A and win.


Also all official Q+A responses can overthrow any ref interpretation of the rules, otherwise cage bots would have never existed last year.

Any strategy is a good strategy. The ones I can think are a little too far are physical taunting or bullying, and lying about picks during alliance selection (which will happen a lot less now with the new system)
Like I said previously, my skills barely existed in building, but rather in strategy, so I used those skills, and I was an alliance captain at competitions ranging from 30-65 teams, usually in the 4-6 seed area for 4 competitions out of 6 (One we won as a 3rd pick.) I think that doesn’t sound like a waste of skill to me.