Possession – A Robot / Triball status. A Robot is considered to be Possessing a Triball if a Robot’s change in direction would result in controlled movement of the Triball. This typically requires at least one of the following to be true:
- The Triball is fully supported by the Robot.
- The Robot is moving the Triball in a preferred direction with a concave face of the Robot (or inside of a concave angle formed by multiple mechanisms/faces of the Robot). The difference between Possession and Plowing is analogous to the difference between the terms “controlling” and “moving”.
The keyword within the first sentence is If not when.
This leads to an interpretation that a triball within a concavity is possessed regardless of if the concavity is affecting the control of the triball.
Some examples of the relevance of this A robot is possessing a triball, it additionally has a concavity on the front (U shape) such as in the second drawn robot image or first clawbot image. This robot would under this interpretation be in possession of two triballs and in violation if driving with no attempt to remove these triballs.
Would this be a violation if the robot drove forwards only - with the triball not interacting with the sides of the concavity? or does possession require multiple faces interacting with the triball to receive a violation.
Furthermore the second drawn image displays a robot with a concavity formed from two perpendicular components. If neither triball plowed by the front plate interact with the perpendicular bar is the existence of a concavity enough for a violation?
The last drawn robot contains two concavities with triballs within, a turn of the robot would control one triball but not the other- while a turn the other direction would control vice versa. Would this be a violation due to possession of two triballs. A second example is the clawbot with its claw separating each triball.
