On <G3> and its Applicability in Greenville, Texas

Pascal, the point is that tipping the platform via the base or hinge is NOT an SG3 violation. The GDC clearly thinks it’s a violation, but the wording of SG3 doesn’t make it illegal per that rule. The GDC should provide a rule and a rationale.


To further clarify this point, given the, erm, rather laconic wording of the GDC response we know it’s a violation of some rule, but given SG3 as written does not make it a violation we are left to speculate exactly which rule. We could of course assume, but you know what they say about assuming…


I agree the 1-word response is fairly unprofessional. I do think that we, the internet community, may be parsing things far more literally than the GDC may have expected.

That said, SG3, in part, reads:

One could make a reasonable argument on the GDC’s behalf that while contact with the Hinge (which is no longer defined as part of the Platform) in an effort to destabilize the Platform “directly inhibit[s]” the ability to use the Platform.

We already have plenty of logical inconsistencies w/r/t the Platform all over the place:

A literal interpretation of SG3 may ask why a Goal under a Platform is a violation, but a Goal on top of the Platform at one end (also causing it not to be Balanced) is not a violation. The GDC clarifies, essentially with “because I said so”.

Anyone looking for a logically consistent game this year is going to be disappointed.


GDC Q&A answer:

Because contacting the opponents platform base and double hinge aren’t prohibited in the final 30 seconds, is it legal to cause the oppositions platform to tip in the final 30 seconds by only contacting the platform base or double hinge, intentionally or accidentally?


If we rewrite the GDC’s answer for this Q&A in a sentence makes it a bit more clear, but raises more questions. yay

If you write the answer like:

It is illegal to cause the oppositions platform to tip in the final 30 seconds by only contacting the platform base or double hinge, intentionally or accidentally.

Putting the clarification in a readable form allows us to more clearly look at what rules that this might violate. If written like this only applies if the opponents platform actually tips. So making contact with it is still legal. So it just makes it more difficult to ref the match. There is the whole transitive thing but all the definitions of transitive don’t include the field objects.


Hi! I wrote the Q&A in question, and would like to clarify why I posted it and why I’ve posted other questions like it.

In game manual 2.3 and before, some white screens weren’t eligible for replays because of how the game manual defined a white screen. We all know even with this discrepancy that it would be within the intent of the rule to consider a replay, but that’s not what the manual said. Because of this, Kalahari followed the manual and didn’t consider replays for white screens that didn’t fit the description in G20, (I think none of them fit).

I had the same response when asking if scorekeeper referees could review video, which I believe was along the same lines. Another example here where I pointed out a contradiction in some SG3/platform stuff.

The intent of all of these Q&A’s are the same, and there’s many more that follow. There’s a believed issue with the manual and we want to see it fixed. I don’t see why some of these people should be seen as ‘smart-alecks’ and others are giving ‘serious inquiries’ when the intent of the person appears to be the same.

The responses to 1017 and 893 were a little demotivating for me. Yes they do solve the issues, and I’m happy for that. I was hoping for something along the lines of

The Platform has been redefined to include the hinge.

Contact with the Platform base in the final 30 (thirty) seconds shouldn’t cause the Platform state to change. Contact that changes the state of the Platform would be a violation of G16 by causing the Field Elements to detach or move beyond normal tolerances.

I’m confident that the GDC discussed this Q&A to the same extent they do any other and came to the conclusion that the above response doesn’t work. But, I was hoping for something along those lines.

The community is harsh on the manual and Q&A’s because we believe in this, and want to see it become the best it can possibly be by helping as much as we’re able to. To the members of the GDC, thank you.


I think we, the internet community, do need to take some responsibility for this situation (though, too, the GDC is not exactly covering themselves in glory). For example:

  • Internet audience asks (fairly legitimately) “What about those old single-roller 2.75 omni wheels that everyone wants for odometry?”
  • GDC responds (again, fairly legitimately), “nope, those are discontinued and no longer legal”.
  • Internet audience (somewhat legitimately) “OMG! What about green gears now since vex is only selling V2 red ones!”

TBH, I don’t know what the solution is. The GDC’s view of “common sense” and the internet community’s view of “common sense” seem to diverge tremendously. When the GDC responds with very precise definitions, that precision often comes back to rear the law-of-unintended consequences. When the GDC responds with “guiding principals” and “intent” and “we cannot foresee every possible situation”, the internet audience responds with what-aboutisms.


I see a large part of the issue as being rules that are both in the worst way.

SG3 is incredibly draconian in its application. If you touch a ring that touches a ring that touches a ring that touches the platform in the last 30 seconds, it’s been made very clear, no room for interpretation, penalty. If you get dragged to the platform after your battery falls out, no room for interpretation, penalty. So in this case we need to be very very literal about the rules, if it’s a violation, intention doesn’t matter, match affecting doesn’t matter (OK technically it does, penalty vs DQ, but you get the point), The Rules Are The Rules.

But if a team violates the spirit of the rules if not the letter, suddenly The Intent Is What Matters. Sure it’s not technically violating the rules, but they’re definitely interfering with the platform, which is the point of the rule (even if the point of the rule is ignored for loopholes that allow teams to force DQs)

The GDC rapidly alternates between taking literalism to an absurd extreme and relying on the intent of the rules to cover for glaring loopholes. Add to this the sheer antagonism they show in some Q&A responses and it’s little wonder we get to the situation we’re in.


This wording, and the various comments/interpretations around it, remind me of how the “C&R’s” in my subddivision with total lawyer doubletalk had to be written: “the homeowner, nor his/her agent, shall not erect, nor cause to be erected, any fence exceeding 6’ tall”…

(btw: C&Rs are “covenants and restrictions” which you have to follow when you buy a house in a subdivision)


To be fair, I think the internet community (myself included) in asking many of these questions / looking for loopholes wants-but-abhors the GDC to write in “total lawyer doubletalk” (as @kmmohn aptly describes) and both delights and decries when it leads to absurd implications or violates how they think the game should work.

It would be interesting to know if any members of the GDC are lawyers. If not, would the community want a lawyer on the GDC? At least a few members, to my knowledge, are former competitors and/or mentors, which you would think would afford them the perspective of future competitors.


I would like to re-focus some attention on to the parts legality topic. I find it seriously concerning the way this is still unclear.


Ultimately, imo VRC is going to need a legal parts appendix like IQ has.


So, I’m the one who actually had the QNA be made, jess just submitted and wrote it. The same logic was what I was thinking while actually thinking of it. I hope the GDC elaborates on it or updates the manual in a coming-up update.

The thing is the current manual isn’t a version prior to 2.0 and is the one that matters.

Well, This is a inconsistency in the rules and any team could have shook the platform from the wedge and descored, the GDC’s intent is not relevant here. By how the manual is written this was legal. The GDC should also take every QNA seriously and not assume it’s a “smart-aleck” team.



I suspect this is in response to the number of people seeking the old narrow omnis for odometry.

RECF appears to work hard to avoid an arms race (having some unobtainium part gives a team a strategic advantage).

Before you reply, I admit there have been multiple rollouts that fell into the above trap, but I think that is their intent.


As much as this might be the intent, the way the Q&A answers are worded gives them much more effect than this.


This pretty much sums it up.

I’m not sure if you all think we’re enjoying SG3 any more than you are, or what…


Poseidon emerged from a lake in Greenville with a tablet on which was inscribed SG3 and proclaimed, ‘GDC, this is the rule, it must be this way’, and the GDC had no say in the matter.


Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!




no shot omni wheels are illegal now :skull:


On the bright side, maybe we’re getting Omnidirectional Wheels V2?


Technically they’re not illegal yet because they’re still listed, but these being discontinued is not a great thing in the middle of the season.