There’s already a thread about the GDC’s nonsensical Q&A answers, but most people don’t read the Vex U Q&As, so I thought this topic deserved some extra attention.
A few months ago I asked a Q&A that resulted in COTS (commercial off the shelf) bearings, linear sliders, and ball and socket hinges becoming legal in Vex U. VUR7 Bushings and Similar Components : Robot Events Ostensibly these parts are all considered “fasteners.” Weird, but a welcome change nevertheless.
I decided to ask more Q&As about the definition of a raw material. (In Vex U, raw materials are categorically legal.) I hoped the GDC would continue to broaden the category of legal Vex U parts. To begin, I asked a question about the legality of sheet metal and metal billets- components that are raw materials by most dictionary definitions. VUR3 And VUR4 Clarification : Robot Events I noticed that sheet metal and metal billets undergo some of the manufacturing processes that should make them illegal according to rule VUR3. I was confident the GDC would lawyer their own rules again to keep sheet metal and metal billets legal, and then we could apply their new standard to other parts to get them legalized too.
As expected, the GDC again lawyered their own rules to legalize billets and sheet metal. They are (apparently) considered raw materials because they undergo a finishing process listed in VUR4, even though they also undergo illegal primary fabrication processes listed in VUR3. This is an interpretation of the rule that directly contradicts the written rule, but it is a useful interpretation, because it should mean all anodized or heat-treated parts are legal. So, I asked a third Q&A to make sure we were understanding the new rule correctly. VUR3 and VUR4 Follow Up (COTS Gears) : Robot Events I asked about the legality of COTS gears that have undergone heat treating.
The GDC decided that COTS gears are not legal. To justify this, they lawyered their own rule yet again, saying that the real test of a part’s legality is whether the manufacturer intended for it to be used as a raw material or a prefabricated part. This is an interpretation of the rule that:
a.) has no basis anywhere in the game manual
b.) directly contradicts the GDC’s ruling on other “raw” materials (T slot aluminum extrusion, etc.)
c.) is impossible to apply consistently, since we cannot read the minds of the manufacturers
d.) is circular- your definition of “raw material” can’t include the phrase “raw material”
The GDC has obfuscated their own rules at every opportunity. Instead of applying and refining a consistent set of rules to all parts, they make up a new standard whenever they want, even if the standard is not based in the game manual, contradicts existing standards, cannot be enforced, and is fallacious. As such, I asked my final Q&A, pointing out the inconsistencies between their many different standards and asking when to apply each standard.
VUR3 and VUR4 Differing Standards : Robot Events I submitted this Q&A on November 16. I was careful to be respectful to the GDC, sympathize with the difficult job they have, and follow the Q&A guidelines strictly.
It is now December 20. The Q&A is still “pending review,” even though 4 different Q&As asked after it have been let through. It obviously does not break any rules, and even if it did, it shouldn’t take over a month of review for the GDC to figure that out. Instead of taking accountability for and cleaning up their inconsistent standards, the GDC is trying to censor the discussion around those standards. (And if you’re on this forum, you know that Vex has lots of experience censoring the discussion around something, rather than taking accountability for it…)
I’m so tired of these Q&A answers. Many of the VRC responses in the last few months have been better, but the Vex U responses have continued to be nonsense. Here’s to hoping it gets better : /
