Fwd: Incident 2nd round of final

[Markus Peltsarszky]

------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ------
Von: Raymond Sheh <raymo...@gmail.com>
Datum: Sa. 19. Juli 2025 um 18:18
Betreff: Re: Incident 2nd round of final
An: Markus Peltsarszky <markus.pe...@gmail.com>, <ray...@raymondsheh.org>

Hi Markus,

Congratulations on your team's performance thus far!

Please email either oar...@googlegroups.com (for things appropriate to
the wider community) or in...@rrl-rmrc.org (for things intended for the
committee) so that it becomes part of the record.


Cheers!

- Raymond

On 2025-07-19 4:43 PM, Markus Peltsarszky wrote:
> Dear Raymond,
> On behalf of the CJTec team, I am writing to you regarding the
> incident in the second round of the final. I am sure you have already
> read the email from Nathan that we are referring to.
> We are of the opinion that Team Helloverse has received unjustified
> autonomy points. We follow Nathan's reasoning regarding the “Pick and
> Drop - Linear Rail”. However, in the case of the “Inspect - Linear
> Rail” task, Nathan is of the opinion that the points were scored in
> accordance with the rules. We do not agree with this view, as you can
> clearly see from the video that the robot has no sensors (other than a
> camera) to solve the task. In the “Inspect - Linear Rail” task,
> however, I still think it is possible to get the points with just one
> camera. However, this is not possible with the speed and movement of
> the arm that can be seen in the video.
> However, we would like to make the following suggestion if team
> Helloverse does not recieve the autonomous points for the „Pick and
> Drop – Linear Rail“ task. Both teams, CJTec and Helloverse, put in
> very strong and comparable performances in the final, as can be seen
> from the points. Furthermore, the difference in points is, as far as
> we can tell, far less than 5%. The rules have a clear and unambiguous
> solution for this. "Scores that are very close, generally within 5%,
> are considered ties, in acknowledgement of the inherent uncertainty of
> performance measurement. (Line 25 - Line 26;
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ta6XHinzvNRzbZgfzwVR5Y_7ua4NhY6w_eBW9HcW3d0/edit?tab=t.0)".
> We would therefore like to propose that both teams share 1st place.
> This is in line with the performance of both teams and offers a fair
> solution for all involved (teams, judges and management), where
> everyone can be proud of themselves. In this case, we would ignore the
> inconsistencies in “Inspect - Linear Rail” to do justice to everyone's
> reputation and performance. This also takes into account that the
> rulebook has often caused confusion or inconsistencies. We do not wish
> to accuse Team Helloverse, as we are not accusing Team Helloverse of
> intent, but of negligence, and are only complaining about the scoring.
> How do you feel about this proposal, as it would make the process and
> organization easier for everyone and would probably be fine for everyone.
>
> Best regards
> CJTec - Markus Peltsarszky
>
> https://www.marpelt.github.com
> +4915204619812


--
https://raymondsheh.org

[Raymond Sheh]

Hi Markus, 

This is one of the things we are currently investigating, including the relevant math. I notice that the sheet has been unlocked and math is being checked. Please don't read anything into the intermediate numbers until we have come to a conclusion.

I remind everyone to remain respectful and professional in their communications and conduct, and to let the competition leads do their work.

Cheers!

- Raymond

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Academic Robot Kit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oarkit+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oarkit/CAC_2PFF7U1C13trB3GDYCk3reihwZbiB0ftH1YKVGS%3DLtBNcug%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
https://raymondsheh.org