Print version

MAGIC 2010: Super-smart robots wanted for international challenge

The rules posted on this website are the official governing set of regulations and guidelines of the Joint US-Australian Autonomous UVS Challenge 2010. At any time prior to the event, requests for rules clarifications should be sent to [MAGIC2010@dsto.defence.gov.au]. In general, these clarifications will be placed on the website. However, organisers will hold confidential any questions that are designated as team-proprietary.

The chairman of the judges is the final authority on all rules and mission execution of MAGIC 2010. The chairman of the judges has the authority to change aspects of the mission execution and provide interpretation of the rules at any time and in any manner that is required. The chairman will ensure that all interpretations are made available to all teams to maximum extent possible under the team-proprietary guidelines. The MAGIC 2010 organizing IPT retains the decision-making authority on all prize and contract awards pending recommendations of the chairman of the judges. The chairman’s decisions regarding the rules are expected to be based on a number of factors including: safety, compliance, fairness, challenge goals, environmental protection and efficiency.

17.1 Complaints Process

All complaints will be investigated by a committee of judges, which must include at least three judges who are not involved with the specific issue or any persons in any complaint.

Teams raising legitimate complaints will not be disadvantaged in any way. However, teams falsely or deliberately fabricating a complaint may be penalised or disqualified.

There are three approaches available when a team has firmly established in its mind that it has reason to complain. These are:

• Direct approach which, if unresolved, can lead to an informal complaint which, if
  unresolved, can lead to a formal complaint, or
• An informal complaint which, if unresolved, can lead to a formal complaint.
• A formal complaint.

The direct approach, which is from one team leader to another, is preferred. However, if either party is not comfortable with this approach for any reason, then it may seek to have the matter addressed by either of the other two approaches.

An informal complaint may be made by any of the team leaders to any of the judges. It is the responsibility of the judge on the receipt of the complaint to discuss the concerns and issues involving the incident(s) and explore possible options with both parties for resolving the complaint informally. If informed that a team wishes to make an informal complaint, the judge should make brief notes of the following:

• Date and time
• Name of team lodging complaint
• Names of the team or person(s) alleged to be offending
• Brief points relating to the alleged incident

If, after mediation, the team that has complained determines the outcome to be acceptable and indicates that the complaint will not progress any further the judge’s notes are to be kept confidential and retained until the end of the competition. In the event that the complaint proceeds, the judge and the notes may be called upon as evidence.

If the above process fails to satisfy the team which has made the complaint and the problem remains unresolved, then the team lodging the complaint should be informed that they may lodge a formal complaint [and has a further 24 hours to decide whether to proceed with that complaint].

A formal complaint may only be made by a team leader to the chairman of the judging committee in writing. The chairman of the judges must then decide whether the matter is one for investigation. The formal complaint should outline:

• Particulars relating to date, time, place, etc
• Names and individuals involved, judge who conducted mediation, etc
• Nature of the incident(s), preferably in chronological order
• Any witnesses, supporting evidence, other matters, etc

The chairman of the judges will then

• Convene a suitable panel of judges
• Collate all material pertinent to the complaint
• Disseminate all this information to all parties
• Arrange and liaise with all parties to arrange a suitable meeting time/location

Only the complaints committee, the team that is alleging the offence has occurred and the parties alleged to have committed the offence may attend the hearing.

The investigation by the committee of judges will establish whether the complaint is:

• Substantiated (i.e. the event did happen)
• Unsubstantiated (i.e. insufficient evidence for a determination)
• Proven false (i.e. the event did not happen)

Depending upon the outcome of the investigation the chairman of the judges may choose to disqualify, penalise or counsel the parties involved. Any penalty imposed is entirely at the discretion of the chairman and should be based on the recommendation of the committee.

** Please note: Neutralise - does not imply weaponise