I am 100% in agreement that we should not shame any of the violators, but laying out the issues should not be not allowed as well.
I can understand that maybe RECF do not want to “give ideas” to the community in bending/breaking the rules, but if it is a widespread enough issue for RECF to make a rule change about it, then being specific about the issue is not giving anyone new ideas in breaking rules. In fact, sometimes it can act as a deterence of sort - “hey peeps, i know what you are up to. and we are putting a stop to it.”
For those of you arguing this, here’s a reminder that the game manual is not considered official until the June update (Version 1.0).
Very plainly stated" June 28, 2022 Version 1.0 May include critical gameplay or rule changes inspired by input from the official Q&A system and the VEX community"
I fail to see how this is “critical” given the wording of the screw rule at the start of the season has been the rule since time immemorial. Sure it’s not version 1 until June 28th, but they’re just indexing from zero.
Personally, I would like to see VEX address the shoulder screw issue by offering (at least) selected sizes in the official VEX store. At that point, RoboSource would be selling screws identical to official VEX screws, which would likely be allowed with no issues.
The phrasing of when the rule book becomes official may have changed last season, but the spirit is maintained by the use of “May include critical gameplay or rule changes”. They have always reserved the right to make changes early in the season. In many years the rules weren’t considered official until as late as mid-August. My point was the people arguing that this is the middle of the season are acting like this is coming down in January. If you really are in a panic because you have your final robot design completely built and won’t make any changes until worlds, you can’t be serious.
A reminder that the in person Event Partners Meeting is this Tuesday and Wednesday. The online coaches meeting is also this week.
If you have a view about Screwgate then get that view to your Event Partner / Coach to bring this up as a discussion point.
I will be promoting the point that at 7-8 cents each, screws are very low cost. Special screws (made of a different material - nylon, aluminum) ones with different shoulder heights and come in long lengths (I’m a big proponent of allowing just threaded rod) do not offer an overly expensive robotic advantage when compared to the overly expensive pneumatic system.
I’m looking for the two RECF people on the GDC to describe this unfair competitive advantage. With 300 screws on a robot and these special screws costing 1-2 cents over the basic cost, there is an increased cost of $6-7 dollars per robot, this is not a big expense when compared to VEX pneumatics, GPS sensor / strips / etc.
I’m looking for backup from other Event Partners and Mentors / Coaches. Which I’m looking to most of you to reach out to your Event Partners, Mentor and Coaches and tell them what you want.
Get your voices here. Worst thing that happens is all the other people at the meeting go “meh, this is a non issue, just ship our more expensive parts that we struggle to fund”
This screwgate is just one of the many little droplets which combined with other little stuff including a new field control system being sprung, the always lagging releases of TM including differences between Win and Mac release dates, out of sync app release, not to mention the VEX AI stuff, and as you said GPS strips and sensors and the perpetual out of stock part issues and then removing helpful and responsible resellers may just be one to many droplets to let the bucket overflow and being kicked away and make one rethink what is this all worth? I have not even started about the not in US issues…for another day. So YES be loud and forceful about all of this, not that it will make much difference, it did not in the past.
Can you explain what you mean by this? We always release both Windows and macOS TM at the same time. It’s possible there was a random exception to this that I’m forgetting but the vast majority of time they should have been released together.
I will be at both events and will be happy to discuss this topic with anyone who is interested, especially since my posting style seems to have a habit of just digging a deeper hole for myself…
You appeared to be carefully making a very fine distinction between your personal preference and the official position of the GDC in post #46. Unfortunately this distinction does not appear to have been understood as clearly as was intended…
What is interesting is that aluminum and nylon screws tend to be cheaper than the default screws sold on the VEX website. We can very easily go to a screw store and find very similar screws in different materials. Honestly, I do not care if screws offer a competitive advantage or not. Any team should be able to afford these screws of different material without breaking the bank.
I do not understand the logic of the GDC when it comes to these decisions. Sure, nylon and aluminum screws can possibly provide a competitive advantage, but who cares when everyone can afford them for extremely cheap? Why not allow teams to have at least some leniency when it comes to developing robots, as compared to just shoving everyone in a box and telling them that it’s “for the sake of an even playing field.”
Honestly, I appreciate the response by all of the moderators, but I genuinely feel like the GDC nitpicking high school rules with nothing but a personal motive is sort of cringe. Sometimes, allowing teams to research and “figure out” ways to have a competitive edge, if the price is reasonable, allows teams to grow their intelligence and knowledge. But by nerfing the game to unbearable levels makes VEX feel more and more boring, with a game that feels evermore linear, repetitive, and one-dimensional.
Grant talked about the screw issue and it isn’t “screws” its about “things that have a threaded end” (my words not his). It turns out that across the years teams have asked about things being screws.
The example he gave was a ball that had a threaded rod from it, teams wanted to know if that counted as a screw since it was threaded (check), was the right diameter (check) and had a head on it (umm the ball). They wanted to use it as a glide to run along the floor.
That device I wouldn’t consider to be a screw, since it has clear added functionality. And that was is / was what the GDC is trying to cut down. So not a screw to hold two or more parts together, but something with additional functionality.
So this is a case of where past roboteers were pushing the envelope on parts descriptions and got the line drawn where we didn’t want it to.
Thanks Grant for taking the time to discuss this today.
Thanks for asking the tough questions. Unfortunately, some skulls are too thick to break through.
This is like outlawing paint because some people are huffing paint to get high. Idiotic.
I will follow up that in the years prior to the update, teams never did that. This wasn’t an issue. People might of asked about doing it but they didnt. Clarifying the rule would have been trivial, the intent is screws are for screwing…