Wow!
I get sick for a few days and come back to see that this thread has really taken off. This is awesome. I’m going to try replying to as much as I can, in the order that replies were posted in.
Thanks!!!
I think the right answer here is some.
IIRC (i am writing this without the rule in front of me), the Red Box for these rules says something to the affect of “it is impossible for referees or inspectors to have in depth knowledge of any and every possible robot design”.
I think the inspection interaction, alongside judging interactions, should be informative of a team’s knowledge of their robot. I don’t think we want or intend for referees to immediately bring into question a robot’s design because they already inspected a similar robot. However, if within the inspection and/or judging interactions, the team is struggling to answer questions, or cannot provide factual information regarding the robot and the design process they achieved to get there, we probably have an issue.
And I apologize for using the forum to reply. We both have eachother’s private contact information. Let’s try using them next time 
Ah – I see. I like it! Simple & Effective. As long as the inspector is comfortable using them, I like these.
I know that many folks had concerns and issues with us not requiring the same inspection tool for every event.
I’ll defend this with a few points:
-
using the VEX Sizing Tool as the “end all - be all” for every game limits our capabilities as game designers. The tool is old, it was not really intended to be “future-proof” when it was designed, and has some fatal flaws.
-
It is simply not feasible to get that tool at every event, anymore.
-
As long as the same tool is used at any given event, inspection is as fair as possible at that event. It doesn’t really matter if two events on the same weekend are using different tools to inspect the same thing.
And I agree that tape measures, alone, are less than ideal.
We agree here. Rapid Relay was immensely valuable to us as a committee, as we sort of took a leap, and learned a lot of hard lessons along the way. I apologize that this was somewhat at the expense of team experience for that season, but we have new binding constraints to our design process because of Rapid Relay.
Me too! I’m a former ES IQ Coach from my High School and College days, and I have also seen that the right group of ES Kids can really impress.
I think the issue is the apparent “skill gap” between students is just so much more apparent at the ES level. The students on some of the high-level ES teams truly just have a different skill set than those on other teams. That is nothing to be taken away from either set of teams, and how they operate or participate, it is just the reality of the situation.
Developing a competition that enables both groups to survive and thrive is proving to be one of the toughest challenges we currently face.
This is out of my direct purview, but I appreciate the perspective and the folks that need to hear this will be made aware.
Thank you for sticking with us as long as you have. I’ve long said the Event Partner role is the most thankless job of them all. Most of the work, none of the glory.
This is why we are trying to take G2/G4 more seriously. I think we’ve done a commendable job. Probably less than perfect, and there’s definitely areas to improve. G2/G4 is getting some amendments in next year’s game manuals for clarification and clearer intent/ And, as we stated when they were first implemented, I expect more changes to come as we continue to evolve with these rules.
Your sentiment is shared, and we are desperately working to find any way possible to eliminate these bad actors from our programs, and create a healthier environment for those that DO follow our rules.
Correct… 
