Is keeping mobile goals in a container hoarding?

One competition my team went to, there was a robot with a large container on a six motor base. The container can store up to 4 mobile goals and in general it is impossible for robots without elevated claws to reach mobile goals stored in the container - this situation very much matches hoarding definition in my mind. Thoughts?

Alas, it does not match the definition of hoarding in the game manual:

If you’re not keeping mobile goals in a corner of the field, you’re not hoarding.


Though in the spirit of hoarding, if we do not allow blocking more than two mobile goals at two corners, the situation of storing four mobile goals is significantly worse than two mobile goals blocked at a corner. I think allowing a storing four mobile goals and making them not accessible is very inconsistent in the spirit of defining hoarding.

There is no rule that generally prohibits “preventing opponent robots from gaining access to mobile goals” – only hoarding more than one goal at a time. Keeping mobile goals away from your opponents without violating any rules is a legal and expected part of the game.


I do not disagree that by the rules in the game, storing mobile goals away from reach of other teams is currently not a violation. I am saying calling out two mobile goals blocked at corners a violation is strange when there are worse things that can happen - makes me wonder then why calling out hoarding specifically.

The GDC has stated why hoarding is illegal, but other forms of mass possession aren’t.


A Q&A was answered on hoarding that clarifies it Hoarding Clarification : Robot Events


As a referee, I have interpreted this as “Instructing the team hoarding the goal that it needs to give unobstructed access to the corner to the other team or risk DQ”.

The notes on “Hoarding” specify that the GDC intends for calls that DQ a team to be “rare”. IMO, that leads referees to direct gameplay to avoid the potential DQ.


It seems DQ is less about the corner and more about no access to mobile goals, because if you are at a corner without blocking any mobile goals, there is nothing to worry about. The game may have assumed that corners are the only place hoarding can happen but there are surely ways to prevent access to mobile goals outside corners.

Sure. But those normally require a more detailed and complex robot design and strategy than simply pushing the goals in a corner and sitting there. Read the post 9motorgang quoted above.

1 Like

And I am referring to different situations:

  1. robot has possession of multiple mobile goals but other robots can access the mobile goals - I am actually ok with this
  2. robot has possession of multiple mobile goals but other robots can NOT access any of them because they are walled in in the robot’s collection container- I think this should be same as hoarding

I don’t know if this is true, I mean, the robot was just a simple design, build a big container, push mobile goals into the container. Doesn’t seem all that hard to build such a robot.

I don’t think anyone here cares about your opinion on the rule. If the rule states that its not hoarding, its not hoarding.

If the robot is this effective that you think it should be banned, why not just join in and use the design instead?


@Ryan_4253B , ok, so I may have used “I think” wrongly and was not expecting such response. My topic started with a question mark so I was obviously looking for comments. If our opinions don’t matter why then are there revisions to the rules? I don’t know if you necessarily get to represent everyone here, you might for many but can’t be all because my question was from discussing with others in the game too.

Thanks for the link, it helps.

As @Ryan_4253B stated. Why not just build a robot that possesses lots of goals? I will tell you, building a robot that can hold (and acquire) 3 goals is challenging. I am yet to see a robot get 4 in a match against strong opponents.

Also, if the GDC won’t change a rule as major as this almost halfway through the season. The game manual is scheduled for any big updates for before worlds. Also, many people have already built robots that would be completely invalidated by a new rule limiting possession leading to many unhappy teams.

This might’ve been the case initially. However, the topic quickly went down and digresses from the original “question”

Throughout the entire topic, even within your first reply of the post, you are trying to push your opinion about bulk possession, all because there are don’t like some well designed robot that beat you. Throughout the post there are a number of helpful people explaining why holding multiple mobile goals isnt hoarding (holbrook, jess, 9motorgang all bringing up relevant rules and Q&A. It should be clear what the GDC’s intent on setting up the hoarding rules like this this year. However, you simply continued.

Let’s have a quick look at the header of the Tipping Point Q&A Page:

The Q&A system is used to ask for “interpretations and clarifications.” Nowhere on the Q&A does it say “suggest a rule change because people want it”
Was SG3 removed because people didn’t like it?
Was bulk possession banned because people didn’t like it?

I do not represent the view of the entire forum. However, it should be obvious to see where the forum stands by having a quick glance at the number of likes received on either sides. (23 vs 0)

If you think building a robot that can intake and stow multiple mogos securely and climb is this easy, just join in and use their design lmao. As the GDC says: “At some point, the best robot should win”.
62A ITZ had a non conventional design and became division champions
185A Starstruck had a non conventional design and became division champions
Were any of these robots penalized because they have an unique, original design? No. Why should the mogo hoarder, which is also an unique, effective design, be penalized because some kid don’t like it? Gitgud

  • Ryan

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Although this does support the fact that you can say whatever you wish, it also means that his opinion is indeed valid since according to international law and the US constitution, he can say whatever he wishes to say. Let me also remind you that it was his opinion and did not state it as a fact.

Additionally, let me introduce you article 1 and article 2.

Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

This means that he is by international law, subject to the following rights in the universal declaration of human rights, including article 19.

You could also argue that he is arguing against vex rules, but let me emphasize that it was his opinion on the matter and nothing else. I believe that his question was successfully answered previously and he only choose to express his opinion on the rule.

In conclusion, you are in no position to say that his opinion does not matter (because it does), especially in a forum like this (yeah, remember gracious professionalism? That thing kinda exists).


did you seriously just quote both the us constitution and the un declaration of human rights in an internet argument


Yes, I realize we are well into the season and rule changes are highly unlikely. The robot from the competition I went did well in keeping the goals it was able to get but like you said it was hard to go beyond 3 if there are other fast and effective robots. This robot lost in first elimination game due to the same reason. The 6 motor base seemed to make moving on the platform easy, there was no traction issues at all (3 motors on each side of the drive base were connected too - totally a good move here)

As I was watching the games, robots without claws on an arm that can elevate did not have a way to goals in that container, that was when the idea of hoarding came to mind (but I think there is enough discussion over it by now).