We seem to be going no where so I'll make this my last post.
Sure?
I'm picking out only the parts that apply [...]
Fine, then I'll assume agreement on the parts you didn't pick out.
[...] where you once again take jabs at me and the country I live in.
Oh, for heavens sake, even if you don't get the point of examples taken to levels where they cannot be ignored, don't play the "you're insulting me" and the call for others support "don't insult my country", that's unworthy in a debate and a cheap substitute for debate (or perhaps just a lack of arguments).
Not to mention the outright wild examples to make your point.
When somebody have difficulties to get the point, examples have to go to the max, like it or not and your wavering to answer to them tells me you get them and don't like what they're telling you.
If there are 'expected' rules, what is the point of the written rules? Why not make them all 'expected'? That way whenever someone doesn't like the fact they lost they can claim the other team broke an 'expected' rule. The written rules are there to bound the different aspects of the competition. If they fail to bound some aspect you believe should be bounded, then that's your subjective opinion.
Oh get real... Life is full of unwritten rules - in a single day, you follow hundreds, if not thousands, of them.
We engineers work with what's on paper.
Well, if you only work with what you have on paper, you make a lousy engineer, but I assume this is just your very short career as an engineer speaking.
We engineers (here meaning "us engineers with a long standing") only consider paper as a bit of it all.
Can you image how hard it would be to use a PIC if the designers didn't write the spec sheets, and just 'expected' everyone to know how a PIC works? ( I can use wild examples too!)
Now you're shooting your own foot and against better knowledge!
Imagine any person with no training in digital electronics and micros, hand him a datasheet on a PIC (or any other controller) and ask for a running application... No go, there is too much unwritten that you are assumed to know.
You keep calling sensor jamming easy. It's not easy.
Yes it is. At least to seasoned EE's
Whatever noise you put out will also jam your own sensors.
Nonsense, there's lots of way around that - Just like the propellor synchroniced MG's of old fighter planes.
So if you want your robot to continue as well, then you have to design your own sensors from scratch that use encoded pulses to filter out the noise (one approach). That's not easy nor cowardly, that a significant technical challenge much like other aspects of a given competition.
No, it's a "10 minute job" and there's no reason to include "scratch".
You feel that if sensor jamming isn't explicitly allowed, that means it's banned. This is your subjective belief, I believe different. Neither of us is wrong or right because when it comes down to who wins, it's whoever did best following the rules objectively.
Did you ever read the rules through - usually it says something like "in case of doubts, judges have the final word"?
That's made to counter such things that are unwritten that somebody will try to explore, even if 99% of contestants know A Priori that it isn't right.
I bet there are many things a set of rules don't explicitly allow. If it doesn't say: You CAN use a motor, you CAN use wire, you CAN use plastic to build your frame, you CAN use an Atmel AVR, you CAN move in 4 direction; are you to assume it against the rules to use such devices/tactics?
Now you're ignoring the obvious - if it's a competition for electronic controlled robots, these ingredients are unavoidable - I think the rules usually are ment for persons able to figure that.
The OP said it's not in the rules. You can say you FEEL that it's wrong to do that, but the truth is that the only objective measure of wrong and right is the rules of the competition. So there is no objective reason why he shouldn't use sensor jamming you can give.
Actually, the judges opinions and "feelings" as you call it (probably to try and discard it as an emotional based reasoning), overrules written rules in most competitions.
I'd say if he doesn't want to look like a jerk, he could go to the competition organizers to make them aware of his intentions to see if they decide to add it to the rules.
Absolutely!
And with that, I assume you're admitting that, someone trying to jam sensors electronically, without letting it be know beforehand, looks like a jerk. Thanks for clearing that up
