Re: Mission Possible C
Posted: May 19th, 2018, 1:09 pm
Does anyone know the Nationals target time?
I've heard that it was 98 seconds, but I think that this is probably useless to you at this point.Tesel wrote:Does anyone know the Nationals target time?
Actually that helps, I'm nowhere near nats, I just want to compare scores with the right target time.PM2017 wrote:I've heard that it was 98 seconds, but I think that this is probably useless to you at this point.Tesel wrote:Does anyone know the Nationals target time?
Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.ScottMaurer19 wrote:omitted for brevity
If people are interested, I can go more in depth into how we appealed and what arguments/thought process was but I figured I'd leave out the gory details.Unome wrote:Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.ScottMaurer19 wrote:omitted for brevity
*raises hand*ScottMaurer19 wrote:If people are interested, I can go more in depth into how we appealed and what arguments/thought process was but I figured I'd leave out the gory details.Unome wrote:Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.ScottMaurer19 wrote:omitted for brevity
Maybe tomorrowUnome wrote:*raises hand*ScottMaurer19 wrote:If people are interested, I can go more in depth into how we appealed and what arguments/thought process was but I figured I'd leave out the gory details.Unome wrote: Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.
The core of the argument was that the competitors knew from the folding of the balloon that it could not successfully trigger the next action even given infinite time. Therefore, the action had failed, triggering 4.h. Furthermore, we argued that preventing a competitor from touching their device violated the intent of 4.h. and created an excessive penalty in violation of general rule 5. After all, 4.h. is silent on who declares an action to have stopped/jammed/failed and presumably competitors are better able to make an informed decision than supervisors.Unome wrote:*raises hand*ScottMaurer19 wrote:If people are interested, I can go more in depth into how we appealed and what arguments/thought process was but I figured I'd leave out the gory details.Unome wrote: Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.