[TC11] Technic Contest Battle Bots - Discussion Topic

[Appie]

Why is positioning stuff diagonally cheating?

Because Jim and Milan said no on page 2 of this topic? It is that simple for why the diagonal stuff is not allowed. Now you can throw images in my face and talk about idle and in battle mode all you want as if I didn't read that stuff in the first place. Fact is, it is not allowed. Therefore trying to pursue this loophole is "cheating".

13 minutes ago, Rennuh said:

I think making use of the available size is quite important actually, even though they will not actually fight like you say, a bots size does factor in to it's effectiveness

If the size was actually used to provide additional features besides the signature move, I would agree, but they aren't there. And effectiveness is nice and all, but fact is that they are not fighting. So all I see is alot of wasted parts on something that could have been build smaller and have the same result for these fake fights where I expect people to look at functions and form over size. And another thing: I am not saying they should be 15x15x15 studs. The entries mentioned would lose absolutely nothing in looks or function if they were simply 5 studs smaller in every dimension, yet they would prevent pages upon pages of discussion in this topic about the size rules. I look at rules as a way to challenge myself, not go on ages about them, especially when the model(s) in question could easily be build to meet the rules.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Appie

[Rennuh]

1 minute ago, Appie said:

Because Jim and Milan said no on page 2 of this topic? It is that simple for why the diagonal stuff is not allowed. Now you can throw images in my face and talk about idle and in battle mode all you want as if I didn't read that stuff in the first place. Fact is, it is not allowed. Therefore trying to pursue this loophole is "cheating".

But that is just the thing, why is it not allowed? It certainly isn't in the rules as stated at the beginning, in fact they conflict with each other and haven't been appended or changed to reflect these additions. The thing I want is just for it to be explained, because as it stands it's not clear at all. However many times you say the rules are simple or say the rules are the rules are not going to clear that up. So if Jim or Milan could please explain for my example above why one is allowed and the other isn't, it would all be fine. (My bot wouldn't have this issue anyway so it's fine for me regardless but still  )

1 minute ago, Appie said:

If the size was actually used to provide additional features besides the signature move, I would agree, but they aren't there. And effectiveness is nice and all, but fact is that they are not fighting. So all I see is alot of wasted parts on something that could have been build smaller and have the same result for these fake fights where I expect people to look at functions and form over size. And another thing: I am not saying they should be 15x15x15 studs. The entries mentioned would lose absolutely nothing in looks or function if they were simply 5 studs smaller in every dimension, yet they would prevent pages upon pages of discussion in this topic about the size rules. I look at rules as a way to challenge myself, not go on ages about them, especially when the model(s) in question could easily be build to meet the rules.

Again, I think any length you can gain with a blade for example is going to help you. If you have two spinners against each other and one has a blade that is 2 studs larger than the other one, it's going to have the advantage. Either way, judging bots for how they could have been designed differently is something everyone can take into consideration for their vote if they want to. I don't think it should matter in ruling of the size limits of an entry really (as long as it's within the rules of course).

[Appie]

10 minutes ago, Rennuh said:

But that is just the thing, why is it not allowed? It certainly isn't in the rules as stated at the beginning,

Let's see...

1) Eurbricks contest

2) Eurobricks staff says no on page 2. Now here's the key: wether they (Jim and Milan) "argue" or not does not matter at this point, because as we can see Milan is actively enforcing the rule in topics with an image just like yours provided by Erik Leppen long ago.

3) They can make rules as they see fit. This doesn't mean they aren't open for discussion, but sometimes it simply boils down to: because they said so.

 

As for the size, again, fine make it 2 studs longer if you think it helps for fake battles with proof of concepts. Just don't go over 45 studs in the 3 dimensions of a cube, not that freakin hard.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Appie

[Rennuh]

34 minutes ago, Appie said:

Let's see...

1) Eurbricks contest

2) Eurobricks staff says no on page 2. Now here's the key: wether they (Jim and Milan) "argue" or not does not matter at this point, because as we can see Milan is actively enforcing the rule in topics with an image just like yours provided by Erik Leppen long ago.

3) They can make rules as they see fit. This doesn't mean they aren't open for discussion, but sometimes it simply boils down to: because they said so.

Which is all fine, but it still leaves the unclarity and for someone building to just have to hope it's within the rules when they first present it, is not what you want I think. Anyway as you said yourself discussing this any further is kind of pointless as long as there is no ruling from the judges. 

[aminnich]

I will post pictures proving that my bot is within the very strict restrictions. I think all of this discussion on the topic is uncalled for and some people get irritated when the rules are understood to be one thing when it is really something totally different. 

When the contest was first announced, I did not see a problem with using the diagonal measurement, but now that it has been talked about over the course of the entire time that the contest has been live and talked about more than any of the bots combined, I think that we are focusing on the strictness of the rules more than anything else. 

I have not been apart of a lot of contests when there is a size limit, was it a "fit it how ever it fits" kind of a thing? 

I will post better pictures of the bot fitting the 45x45x45 size restriction and go from there. 

This contest has been more of a problem than any other one I have seen and I think it is a bit ridiculous, after all, it is for fun. 

Good luck to all the contestants, we have some awesome entries coming in everyday! 

[Aventador2004]

Did anyone put their bot in the entry topic and then realize they can still mod? I just realized that and gave a sign of relief. I thought of adding a spinner on top near the lifter and went, well I can't because it is in the entry topic. Then I reread the rules and realized I can still mod. 

Relief is real!!!

[msk6003]

On ‎2017‎년 ‎3‎월 ‎28‎일 at 11:41 PM, roppie11 said:

no matter if it is upright, or facing backwards, bottom of the thing till the top is still 45 studs. and by putting it backwards i don't gain mor lengt.

 Maybe i can set it diagonal like this but thats for later. 

 

Allow this diagonal,

Not allow this diagonal? What is different both robot? hammer and spiner?

And this? Diagonal blade not allowed?

[Jim]

The thing is....I don't even want to be in this place.....endless debates about rules. I know I have enforced these rules myself, so I will take some of the blame. However, we enforce some simple rules to avoid getting massive robots, but somehow, every contest turns out the be a "rules debate fest". 

And yes....the rules might not be as simple as I thought, they are prone to interpretation. But some of you seem to be more concerned about the rules than about the results. We are trying to have fun here.

Another thing; why do some people always tend to seek the boundaries. You get 45x45x45 and you still manage to make it bigger, why?! Why not make it 35x35x35 and make sure it fits the box?!

You run a PF contest....can we use custom electronics? You run a Pneumatic contest....can we make our own pneumatic cylinders? You run a helicopter contest....can we make a plane? 

To be honest; I'm getting tired of it. I see three possible solutions:

1. Stop doing contests all together
2. Stop limiting contests (every contest will result in the same models)
3. Stop the endless whining about rules and things not being fair and stuff

[/RANT]

PS Respect for the people who don't complain, build a MOC that just fits the rules and actually do have fun! 

[Erik Leppen]

The reason I'm so wound up about this is NOT that I think the box is too small, or that I want to "stop limiting", or that I "complain" or whatever. (Brushing off critique as "complaints" is just not correct, really. Do whatever you want with it, but it's not a complaint. It's feedback.) If you look at my own bot, its body is about 35x35, so I have no problems of even coming close to the limit, and if the box were 35x35, I would have probably made something smaller. I certainly know that contests are for fun and rules are there to follow by everyone. So that's not the point (so please don't accuse me of doing that).

The problem - the only problem - I have with the size rule - and only the size rule - is that it is simply not consistent with itself. That's all I said, and if I read through the topic, that's what most of the discussion about this rule is about. I don't care if it's 35 or 45 or 20 or 90. I care that it's a cube in one position, and suddenly a diagonal in another. A 40x40 square is allowed, but its own diagonal isn't. That's just not logical. And the main problem with a rule that isn't logical, is that people can't know for sure whether their own construction is allowed, and they'll have to ask. As a result, you get all those seemingly stupid questions - from people wanting to follow the rules, but not knowing their details. If the rule is simple and consistent, people can judge for themselves and no one has to ask.

To be honest, I was already surprised on page 2 when I asked about the diagonal when the answer was no, because I thought: of course it's allowed. It fits! Apparently, suddently there was an additional rule, that I thought I understood until many weeks later when what I thought was obviously allowed, suddenly wasn't, again. See what happens? I make a mental model of a rule and it turns out to be wrong multiple times. The problem is: the rule is not consitent with itself. That's not me being a dickhead, that's a rule that contradicts itself. And yes, I'm a mathematician, so I am likely to spot inconsistencies. And yes, I'm autistic, so I have an urge to make things consistent. If you want to prevent discussion, make a rule that's unambiguous. Most of the rules are unambiguous, so good job on those, but this one single rule isn't (at least, not in its execution), so I'm making a point on this rule hoping that staff will clear things out and formulate a consistent rule next time. If you (Jim) don't want to do this, let someone else work this out. It's really not hard, and it's really not more work. The rule is "it fits a 45x45x45 cube with the front facing a side", and as a logical consequence, diagonals are allowed. That's a logical conclusion. If you don't want that, reformulate the rule to say it must fit in a circle, and you would have been done with it with a single line of text.

I understand you get tired of this discussion, but be glad that I'm posting this now, before the deadline, and you don't have to disqualify contestants that interpreted the rule as "fits a 45x45x45 cube" withouts ifs and buts, and made something with a 53L diagonal, and then have to have a discussion after they posted their finished work, about this allegedly being disallowed. And, if you read my post on the previous page again, you will see that I said "next time". I don't expect you to change the rules for this compo, I simply urge you to think about this really carefully for upcoming competitions, so that this discussion doesn't have to be repeated again.

So, my offer still stands that I can post examples of why this rule isn't logical. (But Rennuh has done that already, I see). But I hope I have explained myself well enough now.

The silent, and false, assumption I sense in Jims post just above thise one seems to be that you can't discuss this and at the same time still have fun. Because i'm having a lot of fun building my 'bot and following all the others. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right. I think this has been a magnificent contest so far, with a great theme (!), some really cool entries already, and will be great all the way to the end, and I'm really curious to what's coming and what the votes will do. So I say: rock on, and happy building everyone, in the last, but most exciting, days of the battle!

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Erik Leppen

[PKW]

1 hour ago, Jim said:

Another thing; why do some people always tend to seek the boundaries. You get 45x45x45 and you still manage to make it bigger, why?! Why not make it 35x35x35 and make sure it fits the box?!

I usually debate ruled for what they looks not to rule at all and instead is limited (ex: there was nothing about the dummy bot on the initial rule, and it was required to make a new decision to rule that)

What I can say here "just to help debugging" is that lots of bots like brickwave do fit in the 45×45 square with a really high space but wasn't accepted due to the "ghost rule" of "nothing can be longer than 45 stud at its maximum extension" so what I think is that lot of people were first afraid that building a bot inside the square wouldn't guarantee it to be accepted, then due to misinformation and will to defeat this topic became a defeat fest, a more simple solution will be to ask everyone (and not only some builders with big bots) to measure bots with the 45L distantiometer used by amnich and assist them in the measuring/uploading photos on their entry topic, that will be athe least equal solution, maybe it requires more work from you moderators? Maybe yes but you are moderators right i think you can survive this.

For future contest, just limit electronics, that was in tc6 and bigger buildings has to be unique in order to work good with restricted electronics: 1 battery box and 4 motor limit (as an sbrick, with only one per channel) would limit bots to a really smaller size than 45x45x45  and if someone want to go big then that will be hard and require really great skill not only a lot of pieces

PS I have nothing against the size rules of this contest, but i don't like the difference between how rules are written and applied and this happened also in a lot of those topics (like almost copied build or not new ones being accepted and so on) 

[Rennuh]

2 hours ago, Jim said:

The thing is....I don't even want to be in this place.....endless debates about rules. I know I have enforced these rules myself, so I will take some of the blame. However, we enforce some simple rules to avoid getting massive robots, but somehow, every contest turns out the be a "rules debate fest". 

And yes....the rules might not be as simple as I thought, they are prone to interpretation. But some of you seem to be more concerned about the rules than about the results. We are trying to have fun here.

Another thing; why do some people always tend to seek the boundaries. You get 45x45x45 and you still manage to make it bigger, why?! Why not make it 35x35x35 and make sure it fits the box?!

You run a PF contest....can we use custom electronics? You run a Pneumatic contest....can we make our own pneumatic cylinders? You run a helicopter contest....can we make a plane? 

To be honest; I'm getting tired of it. I see three possible solutions:

1. Stop doing contests all together
2. Stop limiting contests (every contest will result in the same models)
3. Stop the endless whining about rules and things not being fair and stuff

I think this discussion keeps on going on because there has been no answer to the seemingly arbitrary rulings on the size limit as pointed out by msk6003 above you. Everytime the answer just deflects from the actual problem making it about people looking for the limits or people trying to cheat. Which is not happening at all, nobody asks for a larger size limit, nobody's saying it's not fair, nobody has made a bot that doesn't fit the 45x45x45 limit and nobody is purposely trying to cheat. This 'discussion' has been going on now for a couple of pages not because people complain or try to irritate you, but because there is some legitimate concern about the rules, which even with this answer hasn't been handled. It seems that you don't want to backtrack on the decision that was made on page two about diagonals but it's not helping to make things clearer (explained in detail by Erik Leppen post above and numerous times previously).

I would like to add a fourth option to your list: 4. Stop holding on to small mistakes or oversights in the rules and handle them properly, append or change them if necessary

2 hours ago, Jim said:

PS Respect for the people who don't complain, build a MOC that just fits the rules and actually do have fun! 

I'm having a lot of fun building and this is a great contest. And again I haven't seen any bot that doesn't fit the rules, unless you take into account the 45 between any two points, because in that case half of the bots in the entry topic would be disqualified. Also I'm very sorry to have dared to ask a question about the rules here...

Finally I would like to say thank you for organizing these contests, I know a lot of effort must go into it and stuff like this can take away the fun in that. But please don't see this as critique on that effort, I don't think anyone is trying to do that and in the end everyone just want to build something great (and have fun while doing that).

[Jim]

1 hour ago, PKW said:

PS I have nothing against the size rules of this contest, but i don't like the difference between how rules are written and applied and this happened also in a lot of those topics (like almost copied build or not new ones being accepted and so on) 

I agree this is the hard part. We like to be as friendly and accommodating as possible, but when we post rules, they need to be followed. I agree that we are sometimes lacking in that department.

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

The rule is "it fits a 45x45x45 cube with the front facing a side", and as a logical consequence, diagonals are allowed.

That would have been better!

@All Like I said, it's partially my own fault. So please don't take the rant personal.

[Appie]

16 hours ago, Rennuh said:

Which is all fine, but it still leaves the unclarity and for someone building to just have to hope it's within the rules when they first present it, is not what you want I think. Anyway as you said yourself discussing this any further is kind of pointless as long as there is no ruling from the judges.

I never said it was pointless until there was a ruling from the judges. As I pointed out multiple times now: there has been a ruling from Milan and Jim. It's obivously a ruling people don't like or want, hence the multiple pages in this topic only about this (very generous!!!) size limit instead of running off and building something that clearly fits within the 45x45x45 cube and just having fun with that.

5 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

A 40x40 square is allowed, but its own diagonal isn't. That's just not logical.

It's perfectly logical. I am sure Jim and/or Milan already mentioned it in this topic, but I probably missed it:

1) A bot has to be in a 45x45x45 cube at the start

2) The bot can't have any of its "weapons" go beyond this cube in "idle" mode. Now here's the key that is perfectly logical: a spinner bot is not always going to stop 100% at the diagonal with its 45+ stud spinner to fit in the cube, therefore it is not allowed. It. is. that. freakin. simple.

But like Jim, I wonder why always the desire to push the limits. The only answer I got to that is "because size matters"...

[Rennuh]

As pointed out several times now, it's not the ruling that is upsetting people it's the conflicting of the ruling with another rule.

10 minutes ago, Appie said:

2) The bot can't have any of its "weapons" go beyond this cube in "idle" mode. Now here's the key that is perfectly logical: a spinner bot is not always going to stop 100% at the diagonal with its 45+ stud spinner to fit in the cube, therefore it is not allowed. It. is. that. freakin. simple.

This 'rule' isn't mentioned anywhere? But please correct me if it was. 

As to 'the desire to push limits', I don't think it's very surprising in a contest for battle bots to look for the limits considering that in the real battlebots/robotwars all competitors are practically at exactly the weight limit. Since this has a size limit instead of weight, naturally people are going to use whatever room they have at their disposal. 

[Appie]

2 minutes ago, Rennuh said:

As pointed out several times now, it's not the ruling that is upsetting people it's the conflicting of the ruling with another rule.

This 'rule' isn't mentioned anywhere? But please correct me if it was. 

As to 'the desire to push limits', I don't think it's very surprising in a contest for battle bots to look for the limits considering that in the real battlebots/robotwars all competitors are practically at exactly the weight limit. Since this has a size limit instead of weight, naturally people are going to use whatever room they have at their disposal. 

Sigh...

What other rule is it conflicting with? Or is this the "conflicting with itself" that Erik Leppen is on about? Which as I said is perfectly logical and also probably why it isn't explicitly mentioned by Jim or Milan (at least until the post on page 2 where they simply said: nope). I guess they thought it was so obvious that they didn't have to explicitly state why. I mean, when I first read that rule, I thought like Erik: gogo diagonal, but then they said nope. That resulted in my (logical) conclusion above. But this is all besides the most important (!!!) point. They said "nope, not allowed" on page 2, Now their logic for this could have been anything it would not have mattered, because it is their contest, their rules, suck it up and deal with it and just build something to meet those rules and have some fun. It is not that freakin hard.

Also about the size thing... back when I watched this stuff on BBC, flipper bots were king and those were as small and flat as possible. So yeah, size does not matter, but it won't be the first contest where people think it does and it won't be the last.

[allanp]

Ok, so a spinner is not allowed to rotate outside of the 45x45x45 cube but all other weapons like flippers, axes and hammers are allowed to do so. A diagonal brace can have have a side longer that 45 but a spinning bar cannot. As confusing as that might be, maybe the explanation is that it was simply a misjudgment. But that is the ruling that has been made and Jim has accepted partial responsibility for that. This close to the deadline it would be unfair to change it now and so it won't be changed. 

Right, now that that's settled once and for all, never to be mentioned again time to cause Jim another headache lol!

My hypnodisk bot is 90% new, only the outer skin of the disk is the same as the old one, the internal structure is new to make it stronger than the old prototype. is there not other battle bots that has constructions that may have appeared elsewhere before, like the connection of a pin to a liftarm? 

Of course i'm only joking Jim 

Edited April 12, 2017 by allanp

[Erik Leppen]

Appie,

You're interpreting. You came to a certain conclusion, and you're now telling us "it's that freaking simple". But given all the discussion by various people, it's apparently not simple. Where your thinking goes wrong is this: Your way of thinking isn't the only possible way of thinking. You interpreted the post on page 2 differently than I did. Why are you right and I wrong?

I can elaborate more on this, but I don't want to derail the topic further than I already did. Sorry to all for disrupting the topic. Let this be my last post on this subject. Anyone who wants to know more or discuss size limits with me, please send me a PM (you can do so in Dutch if you want).

 

[Rennuh]

24 minutes ago, Appie said:

Sigh...

What other rule is it conflicting with? Or is this the "conflicting with itself" that Erik Leppen is on about? Which as I said is perfectly logical and also probably why it isn't explicitly mentioned by Jim or Milan (at least until the post on page 2 where they simply said: nope). I guess they thought it was so obvious that they didn't have to explicitly state why. I mean, when I first read that rule, I thought like Erik: gogo diagonal, but then they said nope. That resulted in my (logical) conclusion above. But this is all besides the most important (!!!) point. They said "nope, not allowed" on page 2, Now their logic for this could have been anything it would not have mattered, because it is their contest, their rules, suck it up and deal with it and just build something to meet those rules and have some fun. It is not that freakin hard.

Also about the size thing... back when I watched this stuff on BBC, flipper bots were king and those were as small and flat as possible. So yeah, size does not matter, but it won't be the first contest where people think it does and it won't be the last.

Yes this whole time its been about what Erik Leppen 'is on about'. It's plain mathematics, thus there is no other logical explanation, but I'll not repeat it again. You can keep trying to avoid this by saying the rule is the rule but that's not the discussion. Please stop insinuating that I or anyone else is asking for a larger size or that bringing up an issue with the rules is spoiling any fun.

And about the size thing, I never said that in the real competition size is important (it is to some degree), I said weight. Since there is no weight limit here but a size limit, yes size does matter. Some examples: A large flipper against a flipper half the size, the large one is going to win simply because the small one won't be able to flip the large one. Same with spinners, like I said before, the longer blade is going to hit before the shorter one gets close. Longer hammer or blade equals a higher tip speed with the same rotational speed, so more 'damage'. We're likely never going to find out for sure though since there won't be actual fights so let's agree to disagree.

Edit: Just saw Erik Leppen's post above after posting, I agree, let's stop this discussion here. It's going nowhere and there clearly isn't going to be a clarification of the ruling. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Rennuh

[Appie]

Now it's weight... seriously make up your mind man. First it's the size, now the weight. Then it's not the lack of a ruling but the conflicting of the ruling.

And I will say again, rules don't have to be logical, they just have to be followed. It's a natural desire for people to wish logical rules, because that will be easier on their minds, but they do not have to be, especially for a contest.

And to add on my example of a flipper then: a small flipper can flip a big flipper, it's called hydraulics, the good flippers use it to flip stuff easily 5 times their own weight.

 

26 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Appie,

You're interpreting. You came to a certain conclusion, and you're now telling us "it's that freaking simple". But given all the discussion by various people, it's apparently not simple. Where your thinking goes wrong is this: Your way of thinking isn't the only possible way of thinking. You interpreted the post on page 2 differently than I did. Why are you right and I wrong?

I can elaborate more on this, but I don't want to derail the topic further than I already did. Sorry to all for disrupting the topic. Let this be my last post on this subject. Anyone who wants to know more or discuss size limits with me, please send me a PM (you can do so in Dutch if you want).

 

Seriously, you want to bring up the fact there's discussion about a contest? On this forum? There's a discussion about something in every contest here, because people always read something in the rules that is not there (or ask for stuff that is clearly not allowed and already stated in the rules).

And how is it not this "freakin simple"? The reason I am "right" is because my logic follows the rules, your logic doesn't. You try to force your (mathemetical) logic unto the rules and Jim and Milan are like: nope, we understand your logic, but we don't want that. The discussion should have ended there. Instead here we are 9 pages after the fact, still on about the same thing. I should stop here myself. I felt sorry for Jim and Milan and wanted to voice my opinion. Keep up the good work Jim and Milan, you guys handle it with far mor dignity than I ever could.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Appie

[agrof]

@Appie If your logic is so simple and evident, than why is there so many member, who misinterpreted it? Looking at the entries, I would say all the spinners should be disqualified because of this misinterpretation. Definitely this is not the way and not the time to do that, and also would taste bitter for the involved ones - but even for me, because there are great ones. I DO NOT want that.

Imagine, that the rules are set up by humans, and could happen that they were not set up perfectly and statements were contradictory - can happen, and so what? Sorry, but it looks You are arguing for sake of arguing, it is pointless to debate about who is right or who isn't. That issue is obviusly not clear for most of us, and without offense to the staff, we haven't got a clear detailed statement against our arguements, only referring back to the original rules.

I am sorry for the debate, as it was mentioned before by many: it was not about to try find ways to "cheat", but it was meant as (constructive) feedback.

Edited April 12, 2017 by agrof

[Rennuh]

12 minutes ago, Appie said:

Now it's weight... seriously make up your mind man. First it's the size, now the weight. Then it's not the lack of a ruling but the conflicting of the ruling.

And I will say again, rules don't have to be logical, they just have to be followed. It's a natural desire for people to wish logical rules, because that will be easier on their minds, but they do not have to be, especially for a contest.

And to add on my example of a flipper then: a small flipper can flip a big flipper, it's called hydraulics, the good flippers use it to flip stuff easily 5 times their own weight.

Please read my posts before you misrepresent my words again and then try to respond in a normal way. 

For the flipper, I don't recall having ever seen any actual lego hydraulics though so that's really a non-argument here. 

I'd rather not continue arguing like this when you are the only one who can be right, so unless you keep putting words in my mouth I won't.

[Milan]

Guys, lets ends this.

We are changing the rules:

Diagonal measurements are OK to be more than 45 studs.

Yes.

It is pretty late. Some entries are posted.

Yes.

I was the one who suggested NO to diagonal more than 45. Why? Because we did not want entries larger than 45 studs in any direction. Why? Because that is the limit stuff choose to be enough for motorized bot in idle mode.

Initial concern was that, once we allow diagonal measurements, bot could be built like a thin wall with more than 60 studs in length. In that case it would also be ok to built a thin wall-like bot with length of more than 75 studs, if you measure diagonal in 3d space, in 45x45x45 cube. All while in idle mode.

Not to mention that this 75+ studs bot could still have thick middle section.

Yes, we read the forum everyday, this topic also, and we see ideas of what we could have done instead.

[Appie]

8 minutes ago, agrof said:

If your logic is so simple and evident, than why is there so many member, who misinterpreted it?

You seriously want me to repeat something I said right in the post above yours to Erik Leppen why so many people read stuff that isn't there?

7 minutes ago, Rennuh said:

Please read my posts before you misrepresent my words again

I'll start once you do, deal? Same goes for the putting words in your mouth.

7 minutes ago, Rennuh said:

For the flipper, I don't recall having ever seen any actual lego hydraulics though so that's really a non-argument here. 

I specifically mentioned the BBC program when I talked about the flipper (hint: they didn't use Lego).

 

8 minutes ago, Rennuh said:

I'd rather not continue arguing like this when you are the only one who can be right,

I am not "only right", I just gave a reason for why the rule was as it is. And seeing Milan's post, my reasoning for the rule was not the same as his. His logic was even better.

[Erik Leppen]

What this shows, is that the staff are, above all, reasonable people who go lengths to give all of us a fun time, even a bunch of bickering grown-ups like us  My metaphorical hat goes off to them

[Rennuh]

Thank you for the clarification Milan!  

21 minutes ago, Appie said:

I specifically mentioned the BBC program when I talked about the flipper (hint: they didn't use Lego).

Sorry, I thought you were giving that example as a counter to my example about a large flipper against a small one (in lego).