Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams

[Cory]

A Q&A was posted as a spinoff from the ramps thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=135644) to clarify whether it would be legal to give other teams fabricated parts/assemblies that were 1) bagged with the giving team's robot at a previous event 2) brought into the event as part of the giving team's witholding allowance, or 3) fabricated at the event by the giving team.

That Q&A has been answered (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org//Question/461/are-any-of-the-following-situations-legal-a-team-gives-loans-a-component-or-mechanism-to-a-team-that-was-1-brought-in-to-the-event-in-the-giving-teams-robot-bag-2-brought-in-to-the-event-as-pa) and seems to set a dangerous precedent that is contrary to FIRST's goals.

Things that are now seemingly illegal:


Providing a battery to another team with leads installed (maybe not...the rules state that such assemblies do not have to be part of a witholding allowance and can be made prior to the start of the 6 week build season...but there is no specific exemption that says they do not count as ASSEMBLIES made by a giving team, per the Q&A response).

Loaning an assembled COTS transmission to another team (versaplanetary, AM planetary, toughbox, etc)

Loaning any motor with leads soldered to it or terminals attached to integral leads

Loaning a speed controller with terminals attached to the output side

Loaning a speed controller which has had the leads shortened

Loaning any COTS item that has been modified (gear, sprocket, spacer, etc)

Loaning a pneumatic cylinder with fittings attached

Any part fabricated solely by the FIRST provided machine shop at the event (yeah, that sounds alarmist, but that Q&A specifically states that any fabricated part at the event that goes on their ROBOT must be fabricated by that team)

Any part made by a giving team that brings portable drill presses/bandsaws/sanders/lathes/mills in their pit


That's just the list of things I could think of in about a minute. I'm sure there's countless other things you could add to it. Examples from previous years would include premade bumper segments for use by teams with non-compliant bumpers, or as Karthik has pointed out, making bumpers entirely for another team at the event.

It seems really hard to believe FIRST actually wants to be as harsh as they have indicated they will be. The easy answer is "stop lawyering the rules, clearly FIRST doesn't want to ban teams from loaning out the reasonable things listed above", but unfortunately the blanket statement as applied in the Q&A ruling makes that necessary.

Last year Team 1678 had an inbounder assist device they worked to modify many partners with to increase their ability to contribute to an alliance. They were widely (and rightfully) hailed for helping teams be competitive on the field. Other teams loaned spare shot blockers to their third partners in eliminations. In 2013 teams loaned out full court shooter blockers. There are plenty of other examples of teams loaning assemblies or fabricated parts to their partners (who can later become their opponents) going back to the beginning of FIRST.

I can understand if FIRST wanted to avoid a situation where a third partner on an eliminations alliance is asked to sit in a corner with a ramp tethered to them...but the answer they gave seems far too draconian and will only serve to further widen the gap between struggling teams and high performing teams. At the same time, FIRST also should not have created a game which basically encourages two high performing teams to either turn their third partner into a paperweight or take them off the field entirely.

[notmattlythgoe]

The easy answer is "stop lawyering the rules..."

This, this, and so much more this. All it does is lead to a very confusing and super strict ruleset.

[wireties]

Providing a battery to another team with leads installed

Yikes, the team behind us in the pits played with our batteries all weekend! And we recharged batteries between matches for them.

[mwmac]

Could not agree more. What happened to the notion of no robot left behind? RIPBumpbox! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofefwcw56Ow

[Cory]

This, this, and so much more this. All it does is lead to a very confusing and super strict ruleset.

So do you intend to lend any of the items I've listed to other teams? If so, please explain how you feel your team will not be breaking the rules, as written?

[Andrew Schreiber]

I can understand if FIRST wanted to avoid a situation where a third partner on an eliminations alliance is asked to sit in a corner with a ramp tethered to them...but the answer they gave seems far too draconian and will only serve to further widen the gap between struggling teams and high performing teams. At the same time, FIRST also should not have created a game which basically encourages two high performing teams to either turn their third partner into a paperweight or take them off the field entirely.

Not only is it mildly draconian, I'd argue that the Q&A response is BARELY supported by the rules. Saying it's a violation of R1 is pretty much invoking the "I'll know it when I see it" defense.

What draws the line? — "Well, the other team's student put in a rivet on this part, so they helped build it AT the event." It's unenforceable and can only lead to more stupid calls.

If FIRST doesn't like the fact that their game encourages bad behavior like that... well, I hope they learn their lesson for next year.



Edit: How will I lend those items to other teams without breaking the rule? I won't, I'll just break the rule and clear it with the LRI prior doing it.

[Thad House]

This could get ugly real quick. That seems like a catch all that has much higher implementations then FIRST expected.

Also, the thing about lawyering the rules is that it kind of has to be done, especially with the way Q&A likes to answer. If they would give straightforward answers, maybe there would be less lawyering.

[Brandon Holley]

Some of the most inspirational in-competition moments have occurred from loaning parts/assemblies. I know we personally have helped dozens of our elimination alliance partners in the past enhance capability, whether it be through speeding up intake mechanisms, autonomous changes, added structural support or even sometimes completely new mechanisms.

What I do not understand is the ridiculous emphasis on mechanical components. This is why I feel the ruling is not promoting the intent/underlying message of the rule it is trying to enforce. If we essentially didn't want other team's intellectual property on another teams robot- then this rule would also apply to software, or sensor integration. Instead its focused purely on spare parts and components?

I feel that sometimes the baby is tossed with the bath water in these rulings. Everyone jumps to the powerhouses of the world trying to add to their alliances firepower. What about the rookie team who arrives with nothing but a box of parts? Well if we followed the letter of the rule, this team may have a tough time gathering the components necessary to take the field.

Why is it an issue for a team with additional resources to try to enhance the capability of their potential partners (or even opponents)?


This is just a big departure from what I've come to expect from FRC teams at events. The collaboration sometimes is the best part.

[Kris Verdeyen]

This, this, and so much more this. All it does is lead to a very confusing and super strict ruleset.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

This is something we've done for years. Encouraging well-established and -funded teams to help struggling teams has been called out as the point of, among other things: the alliance system, the serpentine draft, and the chairman's award. It's not "lawyering" to wonder if this is what FRC wants us to stop.

Maybe this goes hand in hand with a game that makes it hard for an alliance's merely mobile third member to contribute meaningfully? If a robot that doesn't move is more valuable than one that does, are the established teams off the hook?

[Libby K]

The best stories that come out of FIRST events are teams helping each other succeed. Looks (from this Q&A) like FIRST wants to squash that?! I don't like this one at all. Teams that, as Cory said, were previously hailed for being so helpful are now risking getting in trouble for their incredible work within their community.

I really, sincerely hope they revisit the intent behind this wording.

[FrankJ]

I see you point but it is a little alarmist.



Batteries are not part of the robot.

Assembled transmissions. Technically correct. Hopefully inspectors will be rational.

leads on motor controllers/motors are allowed while maintaining their cots status.

Nasa machine shop /team shops would presumably working with team input: legal parts.


Without the rule being like it is... A far sited mega team could bring in 2 40 lb ramp manipulators complete with can motor controllers in their bagged allotment in addition to their 120 lb robot. Strip the 2nd pick donor bot add the ramps, connect the canbus and power to the donor bot, load new software in the RoboRio & have a ramp bot that the 3rd team had nothing to do with. Probably not GP. I am not suggesting that a team would do this.

Teams helping other teams are so ingrained in First culture I don't see this as being aimed at that.

[Jon Stratis]

Apparently I don't read the ruling at all the way you did. Let's break it down...

A. R1 (R15, R17 & T7 may also apply) is specific that the ROBOT that a team uses in competition was built by that team.

This seems like a rather obvious statement that in no way changes how anything is ruled.


R1 A Team must submit their ROBOT for Inspection. The ROBOT must be built by the FRC Team to perform specific tasks when competing in RECYCLE RUSH. The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game – power, communications, control, and movement. The ROBOT implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play RECYCLE RUSH (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD, or a ROBOT designed to play a different game does not satisfy this definition).

This is just a restatement of R1, nothing new or earth shattering here.


We strongly encourage you to provide support to all teams (especially those with limited resources) at your events, whether that is helping fabricate elements, assisting in construction, assisting in writing software or development of game strategy.

Clearly stated that you can help teams at events, no big surprise - this is something we actively encourage just to get everyone on the field and moving!

As always, teams may work on their ROBOT while at events during the time that the pits are open per R15. Withholding allowance is determined at the time that team loads in per R17. No other FABRICATED PARTS may be brought into the venue after that time.

This makes sense, and I hope everyone recognizes that this has always been the case.

Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above.

This might be where you have a problem with the answer. What they're saying here is that my team can't build something, hand it to your team and say "put this on your robot so you can now do X." It's easy to take that to extremes... But combined with the previous statement about helping teams it's clear that it shouldn't be taken to extremes. I can help you by giving you a COTS part, even if there may have been a slight modification or two (like attaching connectors, assembling a gearbox in the standard, intended way, etc). In that case I'm not building anything, I'm giving you a COTS part that may be slightly used. But I can't build a ramp and give it to you to attach to your robot. I can't give you a specially designed winch to use to lift totes. That's going way, WAY beyond helping by supplying a few COTS pieces.


Please remember that the addition of any item to any ROBOT requires re-Inspection prior to any MATCH in which that ROBOT competes per T10. That re-Inspection also requires an update to the team's BOM reflecting the the change in ROBOT parts.

Reinspection is a well known aspect of competition, even if teams sometimes forget about it.

So, to answer your questions by number: 1) No. 2) No. 3) No, but you may certainly assist another team in building new parts for their ROBOT at the event, and we encourage that.

Please note that, per this year's rules (for batteries) and last year's (for bumpers), batteries and bumpers are not part of the robot. That exempts them from a lot of rules, like being included in the withholding allowance or needing to be constructed after kickoff.

Keep in mind that it's ALWAYS been legal to have others machine stuff for you - you can give a CAD file to a machine shop during the season and collect parts later for use in the robot. How is that different than utilizing a machine shop at an event, or a team's tabletop bandsaw?

[Nate Laverdure]

Nasa machine shop /team shops would presumably working with team input: legal parts.
Just recognize all teams as sponsors of all other teams. <R11>, baby.

[SenorZ]

I see this being a correct ruling for the following example:

Team A is a high seeded alliance, and picks team B to be their 3rd alliance partner in the elims. Team A then sends their pit crew to team B's pit and adds components that team A built, so that team B can do what team A wants.

I've seen this happen, and I think THAT is against the spirit of FIRST. Essentially it is one team making a second robot on top of another team's chassis. This is very RARE, but I feel it is wrong.

[Brandon Holley]

This might be where you have a problem with the answer. What they're saying here is that my team can't build something, hand it to your team and say "put this on your robot so you can now do X." It's easy to take that to extremes... But combined with the previous statement about helping teams it's clear that it shouldn't be taken to extremes. I can help you by giving you a COTS part, even if there may have been a slight modification or two (like attaching connectors, assembling a gearbox in the standard, intended way, etc). In that case I'm not building anything, I'm giving you a COTS part that may be slightly used. But I can't build a ramp and give it to you to attach to your robot. I can't give you a specially designed winch to use to lift totes. That's going way, WAY beyond helping by supplying a few COTS pieces.


I guess this is where the debate will diverge for people. To me, you've made a lot of assumptions in here about COTS parts, slightly modified COTS parts that are not outlined by a rule somewhere.

Why is the mechanical structure the end all be all? A can hook could be as simple as a tube with a bent piece of sheet metal on it. What about the software to control it in both teleop and autonomous? There is often a lot more work than 'here put this on' even if a team was given a complete mechanical solution.

I'm not condoning the above action, I just think the trivialization of integrating even the most simple mechanisms is a little much.

-Brando

[marshall]

Just recognize all teams as sponsors of all other teams. <R11>, baby.

That's awesome. Loopholes FTW.

[Lil' Lavery]

On one hand, I don't want the alarmist behaviors to continue. The intent of this rule is straightforward, and Q&A rulings are not actual rules. This holds no precedent over the manual, and inspectors have common sense.

On the other hand, 708 machined hubs for our Colson wheels this year (during build season). Are they illegal for us to use because another team helped manufacture them? Are they legal because we broached them? Do we have to list 708 as a sponsor? Is FIRST asking us to move away from this behavior?

Btw, I would have no issue listing 708 as a sponsor. They're awesome.

[Michael Corsetto]

My two favorite quotes from the Q/A Response:

Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above

and

you may certainly assist another team in building new parts for their ROBOT at the event, and we encourage that

...what?

Two new potential strategies:

1. Work "with" the 5 worst teams at an event on 5 sets of RC grabbers at the beginning of the week to guarantee one of the 5 is available as a second pick. Take back the parts from the other 4 teams before elims (or don't work "with" them to install key component until after alliance selection).

2. Change our RC grabber from a 2 day build to a 2 hour build. Still pull our 3rd robot off the field for Quarters and Semis, and hopefully we can build an RC grabber "with" them in 2 hours. We will now only picked the most competent, experienced team that will guarantee inspectors know we were helping them, not the other way around. Heaven forbid we pick a rookie team that will need more help than is allowed within the rules!!

Kris said it well. Don't hate the player, hate the game. And boy do I hate this game!

-Mike

[Jared]

I understand why this was written. It wouldn't be right for a team to throw two robots in the bag, and add 30 pounds of a third robot to their bag at each competition, and give away two complete robots to their alliance partners.

However, that's not really what's happening. This is similar to the sharing of the minibots of 2011, the bridge stingers of 2012, the 10 point hangs and full court blocks of 2013, and the inbounder modifications of 2014.

This year, the third alliance partners seem to have a smaller role than ever before, so I don't think it's right to prevent great teams from planning ahead and giving these teams meaningful tasks. It's sad to watch a team dominate in the finals while a member of their alliance doesn't attempt to score or move.

[Cory]

Batteries are not part of the robot.

Not according to R1. They are a required component of the ROBOT

leads on motor controllers/motors are allowed while maintaining their cots status.
R12-C says that the FABRICATED assembly consisting of a COTS (motor) plus connector is exempt from the requirement to be fabricated during the 6 week build period. It does not say that it does not count as a FABRICATED assembly when given from team A to team B. Normally one would not lawyer this wording and would just go ahead and do it...this Q&A is so specifically harsh that you have to wonder whether R12 applies to inter-team distribution of normally compliant FABRICATED assemblies.

Nasa machine shop /team shops would presumably working with team input: legal parts.

And here we arrive at the crux of the problem...how would Team A integrate a COMPONENT/ASSEMBLY in scenario 1, 2, or 3 (as defined in the Q&A), without working with Team B's input?

Without the rule being like it is... A far sited mega team could bring in 2 40 lb ramp manipulators complete with can motor controllers in their bagged allotment in addition to their 120 lb robot. Strip the 2nd pick donor bot add the ramps, connect the canbus and power to the donor bot, load new software in the RoboRio & have a ramp bot that the 3rd team had nothing to do with. Probably not GP. I am not suggesting that a team would do this.

Depending on how the scenario you've laid out occurs I would argue it could be quite inspiring. Do you really think the third team would have nothing to do with the addition of this functionality? Why couldn't the act of refurbishing their robot with a team that is motivated to help make them better not be inspiring?

[Mr. Van]

Glad this thread got started. It seems clear to me that the intent of the rule clarification (which is what Q&A is supposed to be) is to prevent teams from building game solutions that are simply passed on to teams in order to specifically help the "giving" team.

The worst case example of this would be a "giving" team providing a mechanism to a team for a match and then taking that component back after that match so that it could be provided to the next alliance partner of the "giving" team.

If a team is helping other teams in general - in such a way that the "giving" team is not benefiting any more than any other at the event, I don't think there would be any specific problem. Helping a team build bumpers should still be fine. So should helping a team build a mechanism that they use going forward.

If a team is bringing a mechanism with the intent of only giving it to their alliance partner (or any other specific team) then there is a problem - for a host of reasons.

If you've brought a ramp (or any other mechanism) and are going to make it available to another team - it must be available to ALL teams.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Ben Martin]

Who is to say what is a meaningful role?

We installed a 610-style ramp on 204, who has never won an event, which tripled the average point throughput of 1218. We had no weight left. 1218 had no weight left. The road to the victory would have been much more difficult without them. With that logic, I could attribute ~30 points per match to their efforts.

They thanked us immensely that they now have a season ahead of them--they had the whole elimination rounds to work on their pickup mechanism, so they can hopefully play a strong role on an alliance in the future.

[Nate Laverdure]

If a team is bringing a mechanism with the intent of only giving it to their alliance partner (or any other specific team) then there is a problem - for a host of reasons.
Please go on.

[NotInControl]

This might be where you have a problem with the answer. What they're saying here is that my team can't build something, hand it to your team and say "put this on your robot so you can now do X." It's easy to take that to extremes... But combined with the previous statement about helping teams it's clear that it shouldn't be taken to extremes. I can help you by giving you a COTS part, even if there may have been a slight modification or two (like attaching connectors, assembling a gearbox in the standard, intended way, etc). In that case I'm not building anything, I'm giving you a COTS part that may be slightly used. But I can't build a ramp and give it to you to attach to your robot. I can't give you a specially designed winch to use to lift totes. That's going way, WAY beyond helping by supplying a few COTS pieces.


While I think you broke down the Q/A correctly, it is indeed this part where the problem lies. In the past, teams were building complete assemblies and placing it on other robots. And that was considered all apart of the FIRST experience.

in 2011 it was minibots. I can't even count how many minibots teams were using that they had no hand in fabricating.

In 2012 it was ramp manipulators, and stingers to help balance.

In 2013, it was Full court shooter blockers

In 2014, it was intake devices to get triple assists.

In all of these cases the receiving team had little to no involvement with the fabrication, but had involvement with the modification of their Robot. And I never saw a problem with this.

The Q/A makes it such that now, you can no longer accept anything that your team didn't have a hand in fabricating, and whether or not Cory's fears are realized, I am not sure if FIRST really wants this to be the case. It makes sense in theory, but not in practice, as most things do.

Come competition time, this rule will fall apart, and most past practices, whether correct or incorrect will take precedence.

I can't count how many Robots I helped wired at competition, physically crimping/soldering, and programming. We would add connectors to our own COTS components (i.e motors / motor controllers) in our pits for that team, then go back to their pits and install it. I am not on their team, if the GDC says I can no longer do that, but must instead instruct their team members to do it, while it does make sense in theory, the job will never get done, and they will never compete.

What's more important? The team completing their robot all on their own, or being able to see it in action with the help of other on the field. I personally think the latter. Accomplishments, no matter how small keep people interested.

GDC needs to revisit this in my book. Yes, you could take it to extremes, and while we all think we know what the GDC meant, it is not what they wrote. What they wrote is ALL items fabricated, where extreme or not, must be done by the sole team competing. And there lies the problem.

Just my two cents. This hurt the rookies more than anything.

[Chris is me]

In an attempt to limit a really small, specific set of behaviors, FIRST has effectively made it illegal to help other teams with mechanisms. I get it, FIRST doesn't want it to be okay for Team B to bring in 20 pounds of parts that were always intended to be used by Team A (already at max withholding). But this is just the worst way to go about it. Cory's concerns are valid and completely accurate. Saying "inspectors are rational" and "people will apply common sense" isn't good enough. I'm not ready to bet my season on that. We need clear rules that err on the side of letting the teams play.

Chasing and distilling rulings to have such a remarkably narrow focus, because of small edge cases (practice robots in your trailer, teams trying to cheat the withholding allowance) is just hurting the teams that DO follow the rules. The cheaters are going to cheat regardless of what the rule is, but now on top of penalizing any team that has ever forgotten a robot part when initially unloading, they're penalizing *any team seeking help from another team at competition*. I know the GDC has a tough job, and I understand how frustrating these edge cases must be, but these rulings hurt all of us in an ultimately futile attempt to stop the very few.

One thing to add, with the minibot example - FIRST *made an award* for lending out fabricated assemblies to other teams in 2011, and now it's illegal. Not just "technically illegal" - clearly, unambiguously illegal. Think about that for a minute.

[Michael Corsetto]

The only thing I am learning from this thread is the difference between who is arrogant enough to objectify their own interpretations and who is wise enough to question their own interpretations.

-Mike

[iVanDuzer]

While I think you broke down the Q/A correctly, it is indeed this part where the problem lies. In the past, teams were building complete assemblies and placing it on other robots. And that was considered all apart of the FIRST experience.

in 2011 it was minibots. I can't even count how many minibots teams were using that they had no hand in fabricating.

Heck, in 2011 you got bonus points for giving away your minibot! That's how you won the Coopertition Award - you literally gave your minibot to other teams to use and get them points.

[Michael Hill]

In an attempt to limit a really small, specific set of behaviors, FIRST has effectively made it illegal to help other teams with mechanisms. I get it, FIRST doesn't want it to be okay for Team B to bring in 20 pounds of parts that were always intended to be used by Team A (already at max withholding). But this is just the worst way to go about it. Cory's concerns are valid and completely accurate. Saying "inspectors are rational" and "people will apply common sense" isn't good enough. I'm not ready to bet my season on that. We need clear rules that err on the side of letting the teams play.

Chasing and distilling rulings to have such a remarkably narrow focus, because of small edge cases (practice robots in your trailer, teams trying to cheat the withholding allowance) is just hurting the teams that DO follow the rules. The cheaters are going to cheat regardless of what the rule is, but now on top of penalizing any team that has ever forgotten a robot part when initially unloading, they're penalizing *any team seeking help from another team at competition*. I know the GDC has a tough job, and I understand how frustrating these edge cases must be, but these rulings hurt all of us in an ultimately futile attempt to stop the very few.

If they were wanting to change it, I wish they would have changed it to something specifying a maximum weight excluding items that are generally considered "COTS" parts (Batteries, motors, motor controllers, etc.). Say, for example, 5 pounds that can be given to any one team. It's heavy enough that full assemblies like gearboxes can be shared, but there aren't too many assemblies that are that light to be of strategic advantage if shared [I will be proven wrong by this]. But something along those lines.

[hrench]

2. Change our RC grabber from a 2 day build to a 2 hour build. Still pull our 3rd robot off the field for Quarters and Semis, and hopefully we can build an RC grabber "with" them in 2 hours.

Saw this at GKC this weekend where one of the finals teams --high team number--had exactly the same RC grabbers as one of the lead teams that chose them.

I don't who 'built' them or where, but I assume they worked together. I sorta thought it was nice and helpful to the younger team.

So if the "old" team sends kids or mentors over to the pit of the "younger" team with COTS parts and the kids from that team 'build' it, I guess that's okay, but not if the "old" team members actually do any work? There can't be anything built to start with (except the exceptions listed) either?

This is going to be really hard to enforce. Because my team tries for Chairman's by focusing on helping younger teams (No Robot Left Behind program), it will really limit the things we can provide for younger teams.

I can certainly see the reasoning behind this, but I'm pretty mixed on the answer.

That 'younger' team I saw at GKC is going to Champs because of this help.

[Thad House]

If they were wanting to change it, I wish they would have changed it to something specifying a maximum weight excluding items that are generally considered "COTS" parts (Batteries, motors, motor controllers, etc.). Say, for example, 5 pounds that can be given to any one team. It's heavy enough that full assemblies like gearboxes can be shared, but there aren't too many assemblies that are that light to be of strategic advantage if shared [I will be proven wrong by this]. But something along those lines.

Oh I can do alot with 5 lbs. Its easily possible to build a can grabber or a ramp under 5 lbs, if you exclude COTS parts.

[FIMAlumni]

I foresee many teams creating step by step instructions for can-burglars and ramps made from Cots. 1114 stated in a previous thread that they were prepared to make a second ramp entirely from COTs if their ramp was deemed illegal.* It would not have been very hard to include a member of 1547 in the build. If these rules are intended to teach the students of 3rd robot rather than just letting the more experienced team move in and modify the robot like magic I'm all for it. Anything to get students more involved and inspired is a good change in my book. Teams are com

*citation needed

[pwnageNick]

I think this might be one of the most game-changing rule-changes/Q&A rulings since 2012 when they changed the definition of the bridge.

[hrench]

Oh I can do alot with 5 lbs. Its easily possible to build a can grabber or a ramp under 5 lbs, if you exclude COTS parts.

Our can-grabber was under 4 lbs fully built.

[Lil' Lavery]

in 2011 it was minibots. I can't even count how many minibots teams were using that they had no hand in fabricating.

One thing to add, with the minibot example - FIRST *made an award* for lending out fabricated assemblies to other teams in 2011, and now it's illegal. Not just "technically illegal" - clearly, unambiguously illegal. Think about that for a minute.

Do keep in mind the intent of the minibots in 2011. It was expressively permitted, and awarded, to share minibots in LogoMotion. Woodie made comments about a "minibot economy." Beyond that, minibots were not necessarily even meant to be built by FRC teams. Tetrix parts were required for a reason, and they stressed that minibots were about integrating FRC and FTC together during kickoff.

The minibot was very much a distinct item from the rest of the robot in 2011. It wasn't simply an "assembly."

[AllenGregoryIV]

This is a very interesting problem. Q440 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/440/is-there-a-limit-to-the-number-of-t10-reinspections-for-example-robot-exceeds-120-with-part-a-and-part-b-but-only-a-or-b-is-used-but-not-both-at-the-same-time-robot-passes-inspection-with-part-a) reversed some long standing precedents about what it meant to be a robot, and now this Q&A reverses precedents about how we can help other teams.

Currently I believe teams can build two robots and inspect which ever one they want prior to a match, but they can't loan an assembled gearbox to another team. This isn't the FRC I know and I don't like the changes. Maybe all of this is part of this crazy year they are putting us through, but I sure hope it all goes back to normal next year.

I can only assume the answer Q461 is to prevent teams from installing super fast can burgler mechanisms on their 3rd/4th picks at champs. If it is to prevent ramps, it's clearly an over correction.

Even for the can burgler mechanisms it doesn't help that much. Champs elimination alliances have from 8:30am to 2:30pm to build a world class can burgler on their 3rd or 4th pick before they play on Einstein, that seems doable.

[FrankJ]

Depending on how the scenario you've laid out occurs I would argue it could be quite inspiring. Do you really think the third team would have nothing to do with the addition of this functionality? Why couldn't the act of refurbishing their robot with a team that is motivated to help make them better not be inspiring?

It was an hypothetical. Branch it any way you want. But no I don't think using a third robot as a only ramp anchor and nothing else is inspiring. Not to suggest that any team has done or going to do that.

I suspect that the time you (hopefully we) get to Einstein the winning alliances are going to have to depend on all their robots functioning together.

[Justin Ridley]

I see this being a correct ruling for the following example:

Team A is a high seeded alliance, and picks team B to be their 3rd alliance partner in the elims. Team A then sends their pit crew to team B's pit and adds components that team A built, so that team B can do what team A wants.

I've seen this happen, and I think THAT is against the spirit of FIRST. Essentially it is one team making a second robot on top of another team's chassis. This is very RARE, but I feel it is wrong.

Why is this against the spirit of FIRST? 118 has been team A several times in your above example, and in each and every case team B has been incredibly happy to work with us on improving their robot, many times expressing how inspirational the experience was. Sometimes this helps the team be more competitive in future events. (I remember leaving our mini-bot deploy system with a team who went on to use it at Worlds with much success.)

In fact FIRST encouraged this type of practice back in 2011. Since then I see this type of thing happening quite frequently, with varying degrees of how complex the added components may be. Every year we talk about what types of things we could do to help other robots in our alliance, or even the opponents when co-op points come into play. Ideas this year included devices which allow teams with no tote manipulation to be able to put yellow totes on the step, allowing for co-op bonus in matches where it may not have been possible. I think this type of thing adds another level of creativity and is very much in the spirit of "coopertition" that FIRST feels so strongly about.

This Q&A response really limits some creative things teams can do to work together to be more successful. This years rules allowing for tethered robots has maybe opened up how "drastic" this practice can be, but I'm still not sure it's wrong, and the ruling is a disappointing precedent to set for future years.

[Thad House]

It was an hypothetical. Branch it any way you want. But no I don't think using a third robot as a only ramp anchor and nothing else is inspiring. Not to suggest that any team has done or going to do that.

I suspect that the time you (hopefully we) get to Einstein the winning alliances are going to have to depend on all their robots functioning together.

Depending on the alliances on Einstein, it is entirely possible to not need a 3rd robot, because of how low the points ceiling is this year. You just have to look at 2011 Einstein to see this. You only had 2 robots scoring usually, and had the 3rd one playing defense, because there was a point of diminishing returns that was easily possible at that level. It will be the same thing this year. If you can grab the 4 cans, 2 robots should easily be able to hit the ceiling.

[Gregor]

I suspect that the time you (hopefully we) get to Einstein the winning alliances are going to have to depend on all their robots functioning together.

I predict there will be at least two (probably more) Einstein alliances that are able to score more points with two fully mobile robots than with three.

[Mr. Van]

Two new potential strategies:

1. Work "with" the 5 worst teams at an event on 5 sets of RC grabbers at the beginning of the week to guarantee one of the 5 is available as a second pick.
...


Why not work with them regardless of whether or not they are available as a pick?

This is what I believe the intent of the ruling is about. They want to discourage selective "helping" that only benefits the "giving" team. Now, having said that, it seems that the Q&A response has indeed driven this needle in with a sledge and that he ruling brings up the host of problems that Cory and others have pointed out.

As to why it is a problem for team X to bring a component that they have specifically fabricated for team Y, it effectively increases team Y's witholding allowance as others have pointed out. It also seems to indicate that there are teams that the "givers" find worthy of helping and those who are not.

Regardless, I hope this gets cleared up FAST. I think the Q&A answer most definitely throws out the baby with the bathwater.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[jee7s]

Just to point it out in the event this Q&A isn't changed between now and an event:

Q359 says deploying code to the RoboRio doesn't intrinsically change it from COTS to FABRICATED. So, you can write code for other teams.

...well, you can write code for other teams, if the RoboRio is still in or returns to a COTS state after you deploy the code.

Interesting juxtaposition that further highlights the earlier points about Q461 being so mechanically focused.

Oh...and I received a battery shipment for a team that visited the Alamo Regional. I'm sure glad I didn't assemble their batteries and verify the charge, even though I was asked to do so and felt it was the GP and just downright friendly thing to do.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Glad this thread got started. It seems clear to me that the intent of the rule clarification (which is what Q&A is supposed to be) is to prevent teams from building game solutions that are simply passed on to teams in order to specifically help the "giving" team.


Intent is what gets us situations like the Dallas DQ, the Orlando Incident, and other such issues over the years. Intent is what gets us "students cannot bring controlled substances to school" and someone get's expelled for taking an aspirin.

There's a lot of good intent in a lot of rulings. And then there's folks who apply policy without any common sense. I'm worried about the latter.

[Michael Corsetto]

Why not work with them regardless of whether or not they are available as a pick?

This is what I believe the intent of the ruling is about. They want to discourage selective "helping" that only benefits the "giving" team. Now, having said that, it seems that the Q&A response has indeed driven this needle in with a sledge and that he ruling brings up the host of problems that Cory and others have pointed out.

As to why it is a problem for team X to bring a component that they have specifically fabricated for team Y, it effectively increases team Y's witholding allowance as others have pointed out. It also seems to indicate that there are teams that the "givers" find worthy of helping and those who are not.

Regardless, I hope this gets cleared up FAST. I think the Q&A answer most definitely throws out the baby with the bathwater.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

This is simply a theoretical method of satisfying the Q/A's precedent, while still getting to build a 2 day mechanism for use in the eliminations. Key is "for use in the eliminations".

However, taking mechanisms back because we didn't pick that certain team is a pretty jerk move, all things considered, and we wouldn't do it. Not to say another team couldn't though.

Very likely, we will go with Option 2 this coming weekend, and see how it plays out.

-Mike

[Siri]

Do keep in mind the intent of the minibots in 2011. It was expressively permitted, and awarded, to share minibots in LogoMotion. Woodie made comments about a "minibot economy." Beyond that, minibots were not necessarily even meant to be built by FRC teams. Tetrix parts were required for a reason, and they stressed that minibots were about integrating FRC and FTC together during kickoff.

The minibot was very much a distinct item from the rest of the robot in 2011. It wasn't simply an "assembly."I think this example is really the crux of the issue. The GDC had an intent in 2011, and they designed the game to make it strategically beneficial to teams to execute on that intent. Or...they thought they did. I don't know how common trading minibots or collaborating with FTC was elsewhere, but it was certainly a universal truth that fewer Tetrix parts meant higher scores. The ability to clone also left the top tier teams who'd done all the R&D with a very bad taste in their mouth (and way less money in their wallets).

This year, the bad taste is coming from the 'boat anchor' robots for other team's ramps. I'm not arguing that this is or isn't inspirational or GP or in the spirit of FIRST: what a team gets out of that experience must be very much its own. (And related to hopefully well-meaning but functionally unregulatable Alliance professionalism.) But if the GDC wanted to avoid this, they shouldn't've made a game that had, from the start, clearly, painfully, obviously, 'here, we'll even make it easier to get four extra points if you take them off the field'-style diminishing returns for a 2nd pick of a dual powerhouse alliance.

Now that the GDC has set the game design--and I don't even really blame them for not foreseeing this if they didn't--stop with the over-legislating. (2013 G27 anyone?) This is a community concern now. And FIRST HQ has fostered a good one, in my humble opinion. Let the game play. You will make mistakes in life that you can't save people from. Luck be with you if this turns out to be the worst of them.

[pandamonium]

This is awkward and I hope that Frank will clarify this and give us more than we have right now. If I have a printer at the event and print team numbers for other teams this is now frowned upon?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

If the GDC doesn't want better teams to strap components on to other robots, they should design a game that doesn't require better teams to strap components on to other robots to win.

[pandamonium]

What about parts that my team has already machined for other teams? DO we request them back? Do we ask them not to use them? Dow we notify robot inspectors?

[Mr. Lim]

My reading of this Q&A is pretty straightforward:

They want the team associated with the robot to be the ones primarily working on the robot - not any other team.

They want teams to be able to help each other, but not build entire mechanisms for another team.

I think this is fair and 100% within my interpretation of what FRC is about.

Why this thread even exists is because it's nearly impossible to come up with a rule that distinguishes between helping another team vs building an entire mechanism for them. I don't envy the GDC/Q&A responders, because I couldn't come up with a ruling that effectively distinguishes between the two myself.

But, I believe in the spirit of this response, and intend to respect it.

In hindsight, I'll be the first to admit that we broke this rule at GTRC. Our tote-based ramp was constructed from COTS materials at the event, but it was designed, constructed and tested only by members of our team. Because the ramp had to be completed and tested before alliance selections began, we wouldn't have known who our 3rd alliance partner was in order to involve them.

However, I honestly believe it would have been a better experience for everyone if teams who included the ramp as part of their robot were also the ones who constructed it. Now we're being asked to ensure that this happens, and I think that's pretty reasonable.

Does this ruling eliminate the possibility of ramps entirely?

No. But you have to go about the process differently now. Release your ramp designs (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1455135) publicly, and see if there are any teams who are willing to construct them. Truthfully, this is probably what we should have done at GTRC, and had we done so, I think it would've been a pretty awesome experience. It's too bad our ramp didn't come together until Saturday late morning, but I guess we'll have another chance to do it right in Hawai'i next weekend.

[Monochron]

I think I have found a way to circumvent the Q&A ruling a bit. As mentioned earlier in this thread, rule R11 specifies that a team may consider machinists to be "members" of their team "solely through the donation of fabrication labor":

It is in the best interests of the Teams and FIRST to form relationships with as many organizations as possible. Teams are encouraged to be expansive in recruiting and including organizations in their team, as that exposes more people and organizations to FIRST. Recognizing supporting companies as Sponsors of, and members in, the Team is encouraged, even if the involvement of the Sponsor is solely through the donation of fabrication labor.

I don't think anyone could argue that many teams are non-profit companies. Many have 501(c)3 status's of their own, sell merchandise, pay employees, etc. Therefore, as long as members of a given team provide labor to the receiving team, they may be counted as members of the receiving team. FIRST made the rule intentionally flexible. Therefore the section of R1:
The ROBOT must be built by the FRC Team to perform specific tasks when competing in RECYCLE RUSH is easily satisfied.


Clearly, this line of thinking is lawyering the rules. I think we all have a general idea of what the GDC was going for and I think we probably agree that the Q&A appears to be more restrictive than the GDC intended. But if we take the above idea seriously, I don't see much of an issue with it. FIRST encourages teams to make connections with organizations that have capabilities greater than the team. I can't imagine FIRST would disallow the "machinists" mentioned in R11 to fabricate something for a team in that team's own pit. Why should that not extend to other teams wanting to fabricate things?

[magnets]

This is a confusing update. It is also not clear what is meant by elements and assemblies.

Assemblies are things like gearboxes, assembled ramps..., but what are elements? Are they parts, software, ideas, tools, giveaways, buttons, pins, hats, chemical elements :rolleyes: , or something else?


Possible Intent 1: Prevent ramp anchors or one time use container grabbers that 'ruin' the experience of a third partner.

The intent would be to prevent what happened to 1114's alliance with 1547 (robot was a stationary ramp anchor) or 254's alliance (1323 failed to show up for many elim matches, attempted to grab containers, failed, and didn't move significantly in teleop).

The merit of preventing these situations is up for debate, but it's clear that this rule update won't solve the problem.

Partners can (and will) still do nothing in finals matches. If we were lucky enough to be the third partner of 148, and I knew that I was likely to get in the way, I know our team would hold our robot off of the field if necessary. It's too late to correct the flawed game dynamics.

Possible Intent 2: Prevent a team from bringing another entire robot and giving it away. This is the situation where one team carries the other team to the point where they aren't involved in their robot any more.

The argument can be made that donating a can burglar or a clever mechanism and adapting it to an existing robot can be a very inspiring process for a newer team, but it's very hard to make the case that replacing an entire robot would be 'inspiring'.

FIRST has happened for a long time, and this situation has never happened. There is no reason to think that it will happen this year, but common sense tells us that the happy, Graciously Professional tradition of lending assembled gearboxes, batteries, pneumatic cylinders..., will happen quite a few times.

Possible Intent 3: Prevent 2011 style minibot collaboration that helps both teams.

Why? I don't get it.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Possible Intent 2:
FIRST has happened for a long time, and this situation has never happened. There is no reason to think that it will happen this year, but common sense tells us that the happy, Graciously Professional tradition of lending assembled gearboxes, batteries, pneumatic cylinders..., will happen quite a few times.


I had to prevent this situation in 2012, so it may have happened some where else. It actually took quite a bit of arguing on my part to make sure the loaned robot never saw the field.

[Rachel Lim]

I believe that this ruling was not intended to hurt teams, and that their intention was good. The way I read it, they want teams to do well at competition, but they want them to do well and feel ownership of their robot, and be inspired by what they accomplished.

Where I feel that this ruling made its error is the line it drew between having other teams help, and being inspired. I'm glad they remembered to keep the section about allowing teams to help other teams with their robot, as long as the original team is activity working on it and the second is just advising, but I don't see why a better team can't help other teams more. As long as both are happy with the balance, and both teams agree on it, I don't see why FIRST shouldn't.

I think that the real issue here is once again how people are inspired. It is in many ways like the question of what role mentors play (which I am not trying to start a debate on, so please don't...). The balance will always vary by person and by team.

Some teams will prefer to keep their own robot, work on it by themselves, and compete with a robot they can completely claim. Others welcome the help better teams can give them, enjoy working with and learning from others and find the improvements outweigh the fact that they release some of their ownership (arguably--I'd say as long as it's their choice to work together, it's their robot).

Overall, I understand what FIRST is trying to aim for, and avoid, but I don't think this is the way they should try to do it. They're trying to bring back the idea that inspiration, not winning, is their higher goal, but in doing so forget that learning from others--and success--is its own type of inspiration.

The ruling was also extremely confusing to read, which is something they should try to change in my opinion. I wish they could just say what their intention is and skip the overly complicated details, but they we'd probably be in a debate of what fits their intention and what doesn't...

[Andrew Lawrence]

It also seems to indicate that there are teams that the "givers" find worthy of helping and those who are not.

This is a little out there, but maybe - what if - not all robots are compatible with all alliances? It's crazy, I know, to think that some teams would choose specific robots because they fit with their strategies, but it could happen.

Sarcasm aside, regardless of what the pickers' intentions are (provided the pickers know what they're doing), no team is chosen at random. Every team is chosen for a reason to play a specific role on an alliance. Now if a team is chosen with an intended role in mind, their alliance partners can help them better perform in this role, and the team is willing to improve their play to better contribute to the alliance, I see no reason why those partners shouldn't be allowed to help the team.

I know why this decision was made, and while I wouldn't break the rule if they enforced it, to paraphrase Nick Fury from The Avengers: "I recognize that the Q&A has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid decision, I've elected to ignore it."

[EricH]

I expect--given the furor currently brewing--and given the number of teams that may or may not be on CD that may or may not be considering this sort of thing--that there will likely be a message in tomorrow's update giving some sort of reasoning/intent. If not in an update, on the blog.

Remember, Frank and the GDC do read CD. A thread like this is all but certain to have their full and undivided attention.



Actually, if I was going to "fix" the rule, I wouldn't touch the rule itself. Instead, I would utilize a Blue Box and note that teams building items for other teams WITHOUT the involvement of said other teams would be counted as a violation, while teams assisting other teams to build such items would not be generally considered a violation, and additionally COTS parts or reasonable modifications to same (e.g. batteries with leads, charged) would not be a violation particularly if recipient had such COTS part on their robot already. (OR whatever the actual intent of the GDC happens to be.) That blue box should be enough to clarify to all concerned what the intent of the rule is and put this issue to rest.

[themccannman]

Last year Team 1678 had an inbounder assist device they worked to modify many partners with to increase their ability to contribute to an alliance. They were widely (and rightfully) hailed for helping teams be competitive on the field. Other teams loaned spare shot blockers to their third partners in eliminations. In 2013 teams loaned out full court shooter blockers. There are plenty of other examples of teams loaning assemblies or fabricated parts to their partners (who can later become their opponents) going back to the beginning of FIRST.

This is what worried us the most. We know many teams including ourselves have made parts for other teams before and no one gave it a second thought. We read R17 very carefully this year though and the section about only placing parts on your robot that were either in your bag, in your withholding, or manufactured at the event seemed to imply that this was no longer legal unless a team manufactured the part themselves at the event. This would mean that a large portion of teams at events up through week 3 should have been disqualified (ourselves included for making a part for another team). Is this is the case or am I misinterpreting it?

[Tungrus]

"The meaning and origin of the expression: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." - Chinese proverb

One team can teach another everything they know, show them how to do it and give them the resources, others will learn. Second guessing GDC's intentions are futile...end of the day every team wants to play a fair game and help others.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Second guessing GDC's intentions are futile...

I agree with everything except that, of course we have to evaluate their decisions. How do you think we get things changed from year to year. We still have to follow their rules, but we better be very vocal about the things we don't like. We are their customers and part of their goal is to keep us moderately happy.

[PayneTrain]

As a team who has spent their withholding allowance the past four years making assemblies for struggling teams and having judges cite that as a key in our winning Chairman's bid last year, I find this clarification disappointing and concerning.

That being said, we have been flummoxed as to how to do something like that for this game but it's great to see the GDC eliminated that problem for us.

[Alyssa]

This rule update seems as if it is going to end up causing teams to ultimately, not be able to help each other and thus getting rid of one of the things that people and I personally love the most about FIRST: the fact that we are a loving community where we help anyone, even if we have a match against them coming up.

[Chief Hedgehog]

I completely understand the element of FRC to aid another team to develop a portion of the robot to work better in the game itself. However, to 'loan out' ramps, claws, grabbers, etc. - that goes against all things FRC.

As a coach, I would have severe hesitation to allow another team to 'loan' an element of their allotment so that we can satisfy their needs. If my team is drafted, I would expect that you do so knowing my robot's limitations. However, if we do have the allotments necessary in our own arsenal, then so be it.

Yes, it is great to win a competition. It is also heartbreaking to lose it. However, to draft a 2nd team just because they are the best fit for your own allotments, that is wrong. Not just against the ubiquitous 'GP' - but plain wrong.

There is both positives and negatives in finishing in the top positions... you get the first pick. However, it also means that the top teams must look deep into the field to get a team that can work with them. If the top tier teams are drafting their 2nd picks because they can 'remake' the 2nd pick - that is wrong. Then why even pick them? Find a robot that can truly aid them 'as-is' with little manipulation (and no lent elements).

Why? Well, ask the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. alliances that have worked their butts off to build their robots. - and then for the alliance captain's scouting team working to no end to create the best alliance for their chances. Do they think adding a completely non-COTS element to the 3rd team on the first alliance is acceptable?

I saw 2526 draft two robots in Duluth that were better than them in scoring from the tote chutes. Not ranked higher, but better robots that could do what 2526 could not. Team 93 (rank 15) and 4818 (Rank 62) were great Tote Chute Bots that secured the win against an incredible alliance built by 2052. No shenanigans on either side - but 2526 won the Lake Superior Regional because they drafted robots that could complement their strengths - or in other words, played on 2526's weaknesses.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Yes, it is great to win a competition. It is also heartbreaking to lose it. However, to draft a 2nd team just because they are the best fit for your own allotments, that is wrong. Not just against the ubiquitous 'GP' - but plain wrong.

Slow down a bit their. It's okay to have your opinion but you're questioning the morals of a lot of very reputable people in our community. We've worked with teams to improve their robots for qualification matches, let alone elimination matches. In 2012 we helped our partners so they wouldn't fall off the bridge, we did this by putting rough top tread on their belly pan so when their front wheels fell off their robot didn't go with them. We've add weight to teams, asked them to remove things and much more. We've never been in the position to add a full mechanism but given the opportunity I would definitely offer it up to the team if I thought it would help our alliance win. (Not now that it is against the rules). I don't know of any team to ever complain about an alliance asking them to make modifications to improve their overall chance of winning.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Slow down a bit their. It's okay to have your opinion but you're questioning the morals of a lot of very reputable people in our community. We've worked with teams to improve their robots for qualification matches, let alone elimination matches. In 2012 we helped our partners so they wouldn't fall off the bridge, we did this by putting rough top tread on their belly pan so when their front wheels fell off their robot didn't go with them. We've add weight to teams, asked them to remove things and much more. We've never been in the position to add a full mechanism but given the opportunity I would definitely offer it up to the team if I thought it would help our alliance win. (Not now that it is against the rules). I don't know of any team to ever complain about an alliance asking them to make modifications to improve their overall chance of winning.

Sorry - not questioning any teams. I don't like the way my statement came off after reading it either. I love having teams helping other teams. In hind-sight I should have stated "complete elements" that changed the initial intent of the robot.

Yes, aiding another team with COTS is great. We have done the same in the past. We pride ourselves in lending out motors, gears, etc. Also, we have been the recipients of COTS items as well to keep our robot running.

Sorry for any misunderstanding!

[Paul Copioli]

Wow. I stop paying attention for one day and this happens.

This ruling is interesting. Very interesting. There are a couple of issues here:

1. This is only a Q & A ruling and I bet barely 40% of all teams even will have even read it let alone understand all of the implications.

2. People who have read this Q&A and follow it by its letter will be at a distinct disadvantage because several modified COTS items can now not be loaned out if they were assembled. At the same time, several teams will be in violation and not even know it.

3. Following up on #2 (like Cory pointed out), there are several, "well, they couldn't have meant this" items that are illegal to loan: any VersaPlanetary that is assembled, any WCP, AndyMark, or VEXpro gearbox that is assembled, any VEXpro Versaframe that is cut prior to the event, etc. While I assume the GDC didn't mean to make these items illegal for loaning, the Q&A response is pretty clear they are illegal.


With all of that said, what concerns me is the following scenario:

Team A is a team who has "violated" the new interpretation and has some modified COTS they put on their third alliance partner prior to eliminations.

Team C, on a different elimination alliance, alerts the lead inspector of this violation bringing the Q&A with them.

What happens then?

I can tell you this: we will definitely be team C if we feel that we are at a disadvantage by following the rules and someone else is breaking them (per the Q&A response) and I hate that I feel compelled to be Team C in this scenario.


My personal feeling on the "let's just put our [insert cool subsystem here] on team B", is that some of the things that have happened at competitions this year just don't feel right to me. Our team has a can grabber subsystem that could easily be put on almost any robot. We have plenty of spares on our practice robot and we have contemplated bringing an even full set of these grabbers if we make it to Champs. Obviously, this ruling makes that clearly illegal; but to be honest, it never really felt right to me in the first place.

I don't know exactly what I would do in this situation if I were on the GDC, but I definitely would NOT just leave this as a Q&A. This needs to be included in a Team Update as a blue box clarification at a minimum.

[Louisiana Jones]

Sorry - not questioning any teams. I don't like the way my statement came off after reading it either. I love having teams helping other teams. In hind-sight I should have stated "complete elements" that changed the initial intent of the robot.

Yes, aiding another team with COTS is great. We have done the same in the past. We pride ourselves in lending out motors, gears, etc. Also, we have been the recipients of COTS items as well to keep our robot running.

Sorry for any misunderstanding!


This past weekend at The Greater Kansas City regional S.W.A.T. 1806 seems to have broken the rules several times. In the first instance we loaned a team our backup ramp that they then used for 6 matches of the qualification rounds. We did check with inspectors before, and they told us that they didn't see a problem with what we were doing. In the second instance we were part of alliance that drafted a team with the intent of adding a pair of RC grabbers and a noodle sweep. We took a lot of heat from the inspectors because the team we drafted was less involved then they would have liked in the outfitting process. I'd say we certainly changed the intent of their robot as we completely removed their lift mechanism to make weight. Right or wrong the ruling will certainly make us more cautious in how we deal with other teams, and who we pick for alliance selections.

[Joe Johnson]

First off, I want to salute us all here because I love that this community is able to talk through difficult issues without things getting nasty. At least in this corner of the internet, we've managed to keep Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) at bay.

Second, like so many others in this thread, I blame the Game Design Committee for this rule. I won't name names, but I can tell you that the "problem" this Q&A is addressing was foreseen by a number of well known, experienced mentors I spoke within hours of the kickoff. With empathy and imagination, these kind of things can and should be foreseen and avoided. I really believe that.

This is the evil fruit of the evil seed planted in to the fertile soil of the game design itself.

There are so many things about this game that make me feel just awful. From incentivizing Alliance Captains to chain their 2nd Draft to a tote ramp to encouraging ~90% of the audience watching the Quarter Finals to cheer every screw up and groan at every successful, this game is a Petri dish for growing unhealthy behaviors.

I really don't like how this game makes me feel. I hope that FIRST learns from this experience.

Calling 'em how I see 'em.

Dr. Joe J.

[marshall]

First off, I want to salute us all here because I love that this community is able to talk through difficult issues without things getting nasty. At least in this corner of the internet, we've managed to keep Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) at bay.

Second, like so many others in this thread, I blame the Game Design Committee for this rule. I won't name names, but I can tell you that the "problem" this Q&A is addressing was foreseen by a number of well known, experienced mentors I spoke within hours of the kickoff. With empathy and imagination, these kind of things can and should be foreseen and avoided. I really believe that.

This is the evil fruit of the evil seed planted in to the fertile soil of the game design itself.

There are so many things about this game that make me feel just awful. From incentivizing Alliance Captains to chain their 2nd Draft to a tote ramp to encouraging ~90% of the audience watching the Quarter Finals to cheer every screw up and groan at every successful, this game is a Petri dish for growing unhealthy behaviors.

I really don't like how this game makes me feel. I hope that FIRST learns from this experience.

Calling 'em how I see 'em.

Dr. Joe J.

But... but... but there aren't any winners or losers this year... this game should make everyone feel egalitarian and happy.

On a more serious note, this game has some challenges to overcome... I found myself wanting stacks to topple as well in the final rounds I was watching and then I realized what I was wanting to happen... it's not a happy feeling.

[George Nishimura]

the "problem" this Q&A is addressing was foreseen by a number of well known, experienced mentors I spoke within hours of the kickoff. With empathy and imagination, these kind of things can and should be foreseen and avoided.

Was it not possible to highlight the problems then, or is there an issue that there is no means of communicating or highlighting these problems? Or did they ignore any communication?

There are six weeks of team updates to the rules addressing any edge cases, mis-wordings and misinterpretations left in the manual. I haven't followed everything so closely this season, but we know Frank reads CD, the GDC reads the Q&A and they're both probably reachable through email.

I like to think of the manual being in beta during build season. As users, we can contribute by filing bugs/issues. If that's not possible, then I think we should think hard about making that possible. The GDC aren't ominiscient.

If they ignored any warnings, then I would feel more compelled to blame GDC.

I realize there are some issues that cannot be solved post-reveal, but I don't believe the ramp/cangrabber loan issue the original question was addressing is one of them. It's regretful that this discussion is only happening now, and seems to be a point of confusion still.

Side point: I agree wholeheartedly with your points about the unhealthy behaviour.

[RonnieS]

I completely understand the element of FRC to aid another team to develop a portion of the robot to work better in the game itself. However, to 'loan out' ramps, claws, grabbers, etc. - that goes against all things FRC.

As a coach, I would have severe hesitation to allow another team to 'loan' an element of their allotment so that we can satisfy their needs. If my team is drafted, I would expect that you do so knowing my robot's limitations. However, if we do have the allotments necessary in our own arsenal, then so be it.

Yes, it is great to win a competition. It is also heartbreaking to lose it. However, to draft a 2nd team just because they are the best fit for your own allotments, that is wrong. Not just against the ubiquitous 'GP' - but plain wrong.

There is both positives and negatives in finishing in the top positions... you get the first pick. However, it also means that the top teams must look deep into the field to get a team that can work with them. If the top tier teams are drafting their 2nd picks because they can 'remake' the 2nd pick - that is wrong. Then why even pick them? Find a robot that can truly aid them 'as-is' with little manipulation (and no lent elements).

Why? Well, ask the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. alliances that have worked their butts off to build their robots. - and then for the alliance captain's scouting team working to no end to create the best alliance for their chances. Do they think adding a completely non-COTS element to the 3rd team on the first alliance is acceptable?

I saw 2526 draft two robots in Duluth that were better than them in scoring from the tote chutes. Not ranked higher, but better robots that could do what 2526 could not. Team 93 (rank 15) and 4818 (Rank 62) were great Tote Chute Bots that secured the win against an incredible alliance built by 2052. No shenanigans on either side - but 2526 won the Lake Superior Regional because they drafted robots that could complement their strengths - or in other words, played on 2526's weaknesses.

Perhaps it is easier to pick your 3rd bot at an event with more than 50 teams. It is a lot easier at district champs and worlds to find the robots that do fit with your strategy; the ones you don't have to modify. When you are at a district event with more than 20 rookie teams...it becomes very very difficult.

It becomes more about how you approach that team about your intentions. In all of my experiences, when we told a team that we had some ideas on how to make their robot more competitive and win...they love it and want to help. It is then our job to make sure they are involved in the process and learn from it.

We are competing this week, we now will be bringing a ton more raw materials to the comp in order to help our teams. There will be over 25 rookie teams once again and I am sure a ton of them will need assistance...this rule just scares me. I don't know if I will be able to tell a team, " No I cant help you get your robot on the field because we are not allowed to give you this per the rules"...that is something FIRST has to help with.
-Ronnie

[Taylor]

encouraging ~90% of the audience watching the Quarter Finals to cheer every screw up and groan at every successful

Would you be willing to explain what you mean by this?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Was it not possible to highlight the problems then, or is there an issue that there is no means of communicating or highlighting these problems? Or did they ignore any communication?

There are six weeks of team updates to the rules addressing any edge cases, mis-wordings and misinterpretations left in the manual. I haven't followed everything so closely this season, but we know Frank reads CD, the GDC reads the Q&A and they're both probably reachable through email.

I like to think of the manual being in beta during build season. As users, we can contribute by filing bugs/issues. If that's not possible, then I think we should think hard about making that possible. The GDC aren't ominiscient.

If they ignored any warnings, then I would feel more compelled to blame GDC.

I realize there are some issues that cannot be solved post-reveal, but I don't believe the ramp/cangrabber loan issue the original question was addressing is one of them. It's regretful that this discussion is only happening now, and seems to be a point of confusion still.

Side point: I agree wholeheartedly with your points about the unhealthy behaviour.

The issues are with core portions of the game. Can't be fixed post reveal.

[Michael Corsetto]

Would you be willing to explain what you mean by this?

In the 2015 playoff format, it is free for all in QF and SF. Meaning, you have the best shot of advancing if a) you don't screw up and b) every other alliance does.

When the audience begins to understand this, they (regrettably) begin to celebrate other teams' failures.

I believe this is what Joe J meant in that portion of his post.

-Mike

[Michael Hill]

In the 2015 playoff format, it is free for all in QF and SF. Meaning, you have the best shot of advancing if a) you don't screw up and b) every other alliance does.

When the audience begins to understand this, they (regrettably) begin to celebrate other teams' failures.

I believe this is what Joe J meant in that portion of his post.

-Mike

When has that not been the case?

[notmattlythgoe]

When has that not been the case?

A screw up in one match can basically eliminate you. Previously you could screw up one match and still win the other two to advance.

[Gregor]

When has that not been the case?

It's much more prominent this year because you are rooting for failures even in matches that your team isn't in. I found myself guilty of this at our first event.

[Michael Hill]

A screw up in one match can basically eliminate you. Previously you could screw up one match and still win the other two to advance.

It's much more prominent this year because you are rooting for failures even in matches that your team isn't in. I found myself guilty of this at our first event.

Yeah, I guess that's true.

[Joe Johnson]

Was it not possible to highlight the problems then, or is there an issue that there is no means of communicating or highlighting these problems? Or did they ignore any communication?

There are six weeks of team updates to the rules addressing any edge cases, mis-wordings and misinterpretations left in the manual. I haven't followed everything so closely this season, but we know Frank reads CD, the GDC reads the Q&A and they're both probably reachable through email.

I like to think of the manual being in beta during build season. As users, we can contribute by filing bugs/issues. If that's not possible, then I think we should think hard about making that possible. The GDC aren't ominiscient.

If they ignored any warnings, then I would feel more compelled to blame GDC.

I realize there are some issues that cannot be solved post-reveal, but I don't believe the ramp/cangrabber loan issue the original question was addressing is one of them. It's regretful that this discussion is only happening now, and seems to be a point of confusion still.

Side point: I agree wholeheartedly with your points about the unhealthy behaviour.

Without putting too fine a point on things, the mentors I'm talking about are just tired when it comes to trying to influencing the GDC.

For the most part, they have come to the conclusion that there is little to be gained by complaining publicly about this or that feature of the game design, preferring back channel communications or suffering in silence depending on how strongly they feel about the problem and whether or not they think FIRST is open to hearing their input.

One mentor has actually started a tradition of writing a "Dear Frank" letter shortly after the kickoff with specific predictions of how things are going to play out during the season, hoping to gain some street cred for influencing future years.

For my part, I take comfort in the observation that the FIRST community (you and me) are robust to occasional bad games. We've survived terrible game designs and even worse Q&A decisions. It's all going to be fine. We'll get through this. Together.

Dr. Joe J.

[Libby K]

When the audience begins to understand this, they (regrettably) begin to celebrate other teams' failures.


It's much more prominent this year because you are rooting for failures even in matches that your team isn't in. I found myself guilty of this at our first event.

Same. I'm always one of the first people to get upset when teams cheer for others' failures, but I caught myself in quarterfinals with our team thinking "We'll advance if they knock that stack over... Please knock your own stack over".

That's really ugly. It didn't feel good at all. I wanted to slap myself for even thinking it - so why is that a part of this game?

[George Nishimura]

Without putting too fine a point on things, the mentors I'm talking about are just tired when it comes to trying to influencing the GDC.

For the most part, they have come to the conclusion that there is little to be gained by complaining publicly about this or that feature of the game design, preferring back channel communications or suffering in silence depending on how strongly they feel about the problem and whether or not they think FIRST is open to hearing their input.


That's so sad to read. I only asked because I was envious of having the foresight and experience to make those predictions, but consequently I haven't had to suffer the weariness of constantly being ignored.

The issues are with core portions of the game. Can't be fixed post reveal.

I will echo any calls for pre-reveal consultation with experienced mentors. I also agree that there are issues with this year's game that cannot be fixed now.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think most of the manual could be changed, especially early on. For example, a (perhaps unpopular) fix could have been changing the value of the bins respective to totes. Unfortunately it's too late for that now.

Other issues (such as this loaning one) can still be fixed, and would be better fixed if there was more community involvement (such as this thread) earlier on*.

*And FIRST/GDC listened to it

[billbo911]

As in every year, the rules are the rules.
Not once have we been required to like them. We are only required to follow them. If you aren't willing to follow them, then why have them at all?

Quite often teams take the rules and use them to their advantage, sometimes the advantage(s) are overlooked and missed. Sometimes they are exploited. One perfect example of both this year is the tethered robot and tethered ramp.

Here is how I describe the rules to my students when they start complaining about them. When company "A" approaches company "B" to have "B" design and build a widget for them, "A" provides the design parameters. Now "B" can follow the design parameters and build a product that "A" will pay them for. Now if "B" doesn't like the parameters, "B" can choose to not build according to them and thus not be paid by "A" and not gain the profits that could have been made.

Play by the rules. Exploit them if you can, but play honestly and fairly.

Nobody ever said you had to like it.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Nobody ever said you had to like it.

True, however as a customer buying the product of FRC that FIRST is selling (because that is what this whole situation is - buyers and products), it would be a smart decision for FIRST to take customer feedback and improve their product, lest we switch over to a competitor who gives a better experience for less money.

[Michael Corsetto]

I'm going to put this whole discussion into a more palatable context: Cheesecake.

Brandon from 125 mentioned on GameSense S02E03 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7P_Bei_hw) (check around minute 42) that they internally referred to assisting other teams with mechanism modification or addition as "Cheesecaking".

But why cheesecakes, you may ask?

Because everybody LOVES cheesecakes.

We haven't cheesecaked a team that wasn't thankful, grateful, and better off by the cheesecake we gave them. We have cheesecaked rookie teams, veteran teams, you name it. Just in 2014, I estimate we cheesecaked over 20 robots. Arguably, there isn't a team out there that cheesecakes harder than 1678. We're proud of how much effort we put into our cheesecakes, because we know the more we cheesecake, the better everyone gets.

Common, who doesn't love cheesecake?

I have first hand seen how inspired a rookie team can be working with our students and mentors to put cheesecake on their robot, and the thrill they get watching their cheesecaked machine succeed on the field. Just this past weekend, we started cheesecaking with 5529, a rookie team, to make their stacker robot more effective. I wish everyone could have seen the joy, excitement and inspiration on each of their students and mentor's faces seeing their cheesecaked robot make its first successful co-op stack.

In fact, 1678 got its first Blue Banner on the receiving end of cheesecaking. In 2011 we selected 1868, who had a wicked fast mini-bot that was just asking to be cheesecaked. We cheesecaked that little cheesecake onto our robot in the 45 minute cheesecake-break between cheesecake selection and our first cheesecake match, and it ended up being the fastest cheesecake in the cheesecake race.

For teams hating on the cheesecake, consider this: Everybody LOVES cheesecake.

When it comes to cheesecake, everyone's a winner.

I thought of some cheesecake hashtags for those of you who would like to cheer for cheesecakes at your future events:

#teamcheesecake
#nosleeptillcheesecake
#cheesecakesohard
#omgcheesecake
#tehchezykayke
#cheesecakecheesecakecheesecake
#westcoastcheesecakecoast
#sunsoutcheesecakesout

Cheesecake? Yes, Cheesecake.

-Mike

[techhelpbb]

I don't think telling students they have to silently comply with circumstances they weren't aware of until someone let's them know is really the message I want to send them into the world with. Especially when someone actually knows the circumstances and conceals them.

If someone did that to my business under the guise of contract law - perhaps I wouldn't care to make anything for them in the future because the contract seemingly means very little to them.

There's such a thing as constructive criticism.
I'd like to think FIRST can encourage some reasoned debate.
Perhaps educate in how to reasonably debate.
I don't always expect FIRST will respond to criticism.

I do expect FIRST will strive to be, well, first? :rolleyes:
That, of course, means sometimes FIRST will have an off year.

Keep in mind that I don't care who wins. So that changes my threshold for annoyance when it comes to game time shenanigans.

[FrankJ]

I think Jon's post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1458350&postcount=12) is a reasonable interpretation of the Q&A. He is a LRI & has been an LRI at worlds. If you have a question at your competition on how the rule is interpreted ask your LRI. Have your robot reinspected (required by 2015 rules) making sure the added components & source are documented.

[jee7s]

I think Jon's post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1458350&postcount=12) is a reasonable interpretation of the Q&A. He is a LRI & has been an LRI at worlds. If you have a question at your competition on how the rule is interpreted ask your LRI. Have your robot reinspected (required by 2015 rules) making sure the added components & source are documented.

Frankly (and that's not meant to be a pun, FrankJ), if things are enforced as Jon suggests, it's a problem since it's not in line with this Q&A response. If Jon reads this, I agree with your interpretation at a moral and common sense level, but the Q&A response explicitly disallows a lot of what you say you would allow. To me, Jon's interpretation is UNreasonable given the text of the Q&A.

I vehemently disagree with the Q&A response, but the response is also pretty darned clear cut and explicit. Having various volunteers at various events "interpret" the response with the "intent" of fostering a positive experience is just as bad as volunteers "interpreting" the rules in the strictest manner possible a la Dallas. We don't need interpretation of bad rules to make a good event, we need the rules to be good in the first place.

The path to hell is paved with the best of intentions. While I don't think anyone is trying to make things evil here, I'd suggest it is more righteous to consistently enforce the letter of a bad rule everywhere than to create a scenario of mixed or muddled expectations from event to event.

IMHO.

[FrankJ]

Same. I'm always one of the first people to get upset when teams cheer for others' failures, but I caught myself in quarterfinals with our team thinking "We'll advance if they knock that stack over... Please knock your own stack over".

That's really ugly. It didn't feel good at all. I wanted to slap myself for even thinking it - so why is that a part of this game?

One of the things I most about the First community is how we celebrate our & others successes rather than failures. But in the end it is a competition. In games past did you ever hope that an alliance would lose because it would help your teams ranking? Not really different. Even the angst you feel when that happens is a good thing.

[Alan Anderson]

But why cheesecakes, you may ask?

Because everybody LOVES cheesecakes...

Common, who doesn't love cheesecake?

Perhaps the GDC is lactose intolerant.

[Kevin Leonard]

I'm going to put this whole discussion into a more palatable context: Cheesecake.

Because everybody LOVES cheesecakes.

For teams hating on the cheesecake, consider this: Everybody LOVES cheesecake.

When it comes to cheesecake, everyone's a winner.

I thought of some cheesecake hashtags for those of you who would like to cheer for cheesecakes at your future events:

#teamcheesecake
#nosleeptillcheesecake
#cheesecakesohard
#omgcheesecake
#tehchezykayke
#cheesecakecheesecakecheesecake
#westcoastcheesecakecoast
#sunsoutcheesecakesout

Cheesecake? Yes, Cheesecake.

-Mike

You're a fantastic human being.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Even through all this discussion, I still have some serious questions.

Parts given away during build season
We regularly give away sheet metal parts we make during build season after we have iterated on them or no longer need them for our robot. In these cases the teams that receive them had no hand in their design or manufacturer. Are these parts no illegal, even through all the transactions happened during build season?

I'm not sure how to handle this situation as a Robot Inspector, do I get to choose where to place this imaginary line between a team building something and helping another team build something?

The Q&A doesn't outlaw any form of penalties so I can only assume that the main penalty would be for the receiving team's robot to not pass inspection. So as the lending team what is our responsibility?

Additions to the BOM
I was LRI at Alamo last weekend. Teams regularly modified their robot and added things through out the event, as all teams do. Not once did I ask them for an update BOM. The BOM is barely glanced over as it is and asking teams to add every square inch of lexan they add to their robot is just a waste of everyone's time. I don't remember having ever been told to recheck a BOM at any event or LRI training I have been to but now the Q&A is asking us to do this for all modifications.

I'm glad my LRI duties are over for the season, I'll let other people decide what is and isn't legal under this new rule interpretation. Hopefully we get a lot more clarification from HQ on this.

[Jon Stratis]

Frankly (and that's not meant to be a pun, FrankJ), if things are enforced as Jon suggests, it's a problem since it's not in line with this Q&A response. If Jon reads this, I agree with your interpretation at a moral and common sense level, but the Q&A response explicitly disallows a lot of what you say you would allow. To me, Jon's interpretation is UNreasonable given the text of the Q&A.

I vehemently disagree with the Q&A response, but the response is also pretty darned clear cut and explicit. Having various volunteers at various events "interpret" the response with the "intent" of fostering a positive experience is just as bad as volunteers "interpreting" the rules in the strictest manner possible a la Dallas. We don't need interpretation of bad rules to make a good event, we need the rules to be good in the first place.

The path to hell is paved with the best of intentions. While I don't think anyone is trying to make things evil here, I'd suggest it is more righteous to consistently enforce the letter of a bad rule everywhere than to create a scenario of mixed or muddledexpectations from event to event.

IMHO.

If you were on the GDC and had to answer the question, how would you answer it in order to allow teams to help each other but not do something like taking a second pick, handing them a ramp on a string, and saying "your going to add this now"? How do you, in a short and concise way, draw a line between what is acceptable and what isn't, while staying consistent with R1 and requiring that the robot be built by the team?

At some point, you have to rely on your trained key volunteers to interpret the rules correctly. There are many examples of rules we could list where some level of interpretation comes into play.

[MrForbes]

When it comes to cheesecake, everyone's a winner.

Yes....if you serve it to every alliance, not just your own.

[Michael Corsetto]

Yes....if you serve it to every alliance, not just your own.

What if you served some too? ;)

-Mike

[cmrnpizzo14]

To me it sounds like FIRST just wants teams to at least have some sort of influence on what goes on their own robot. They specifically say that "assisting" is allowed which to me seems to indicate that as long as your team had a student helping to construct it, it can go on your robot. Shouldn't really change anything with the ramps, just have someone on both teams go and help make it.

[marshall]

If you were on the GDC and had to answer the question, how would you answer it in order to allow teams to help each other but not do something like taking a second pick, handing them a ramp on a string, and saying "your going to add this now"? How do you, in a short and concise way, draw a line between what is acceptable and what isn't, while staying consistent with R1 and requiring that the robot be built by the team?

At some point, you have to rely on your trained key volunteers to interpret the rules correctly. There are many examples of rules we could list where some level of interpretation comes into play.

For me personally, if I were on the GDC then I'd stop adding more rules and let teams do as they have done in the past and allow them to add components to other robots freely provided the newly formed amalgamations pass inspection. I don't see the harm in it. Strapping last minute mechanisms to robots to try to improve them has become a tradition of sorts in recent years and I don't understand the reasons for limiting it.

You know, the GDC could help themselves and us by providing explanations of intent when answering Q&A questions. Establishing intent with the rules helps to make "common sense" rulings easier... it's not a perfect solution but I think it might help.

[notmattlythgoe]

You know, the GDC could help themselves and us by providing explanations of intent when answering Q&A questions. Establishing intent with the rules helps to make "common sense" rulings easier... it's not a perfect solution but I think it might help.

I agree with this.

[MrJohnston]

Wow... This is quite the emotional thread.

I just can't seem to get too upset about the answer to the Q&A after having read is several times. To me, it basically says, "Yes, keep helping other teams to fix and improve their robots. However, if you are helping the to construct new parts at a competition, the team with the receiving robot needs to be taking the lead in the process and, unless the receiving robot's team brought in the parts, they need to be COTS. So, if you have a brilliant idea for a can-grabbing mechanism that you'd like to have your alliance members sport, you should bring in all the pieces as COTS parts and show your alliance members how to build it themselves."

I'm good with this. Clearly, it's not okay to construct a second robot at home and bring it to competition with the idea of "loaning" it to an alliance member. So, how much robot is it okay to "loan" or "gift"? 50% of a robot? 20%? The line must be drawn somewhere and the Q&A is attempting to draw that line at "If it is on your robot, your team needs to be the one that built it - though accepting assistance is certainly encouraged."

From my perspective, there just seems to be something wrong with seeking out that third alliance member who is so inept that it would be willing to play dead (as a ramp) or sit on the sidelines during matches so that the other members of the alliance can reap the glories of victory. Instead of focusing on the aspect of helping other teams to "win," this rules seems to be push us more in the direction of "helping other teams to "learn" by insisting that those other teams are intimately involved in the construction of all aspects of their own robot. This is a good thing. After all, if a team is so inept that an alliance would do better if they were not on the field at all, is it not clear that that team has some things it needs to learn in order to have a better experience in the future?

From another perspective, if I am going to build robot parts in my shop before a competition with the idea of finding a robot to which I could attach them to help my "alliance" to win, am I really trying to help other teams, or am I attempting to use other teams to help myself to win? However, if I am scouting the robots at a competition for a second alliance pick, but not finding the "right" pick, asking a team with a potential robot if they can make a couple of modifications (with help, if needed) seems very different.

Could the Answer be clarified? Yes, it does seem to be a little restrictive for smaller items (assembled gearboxes, for instance). However, I do think it's on the right track.

As for the game itself, I've grown rather fond of it. Yes, I like throwing things at targets better and I agree that it may not be the most spectator-friendly and I do think that thrown pool-noodles weigh too heavily in lower-level events. However, it is a fantastic engineering challenge. Having gone through a build seasons and recognizing just how difficult the tasks are, I really appreciate seeing any team finding success.

As for some of the knocks:
* It encourages you to root for toppling stacks. I disagree. It does not encourage you to root for a stack of toes to fall any more than Ultimate Ascent encouraged you to root for robots to fail to make the 30pt. climb or Rebound Rumble to root against the triple-balance being attempted by the other alliance. We are competitive people. Rooting against the other team is a part of our nature. We use Gracious Professionalism as a tool to learn to be better sports.
* It encourages strong teams to sideline weak robots. Perhaps. I look at it like this: An alliance consists of three robots. All three are supposed to be on the field. Part of being a great robot is the ability to work with weaker partners and helping them to maximize their potential. It is not GP to ask them to sit on the sideline so that you can score more points. Get them on the field and help them to find a way to be actively useful.
* The points for recycling containers are too high when compared with totes. I disagree. The value for the RC's is awarded for having the ability to manipulate a second, very different object. RC's only score if placed on top of a tote on teh scoring platform. If an alliance can only manipulate one items, they've missed the point of the game.
* Coopertition is annoying. I really like it. It sets a related, but different, standard for qualification and elimination matches. Teams must be able to perform in both games in order to win a competition. Yes, it's hard. That's the point.

[jee7s]

If you were on the GDC and had to answer the question, how would you answer it in order to allow teams to help each other but not do something like taking a second pick, handing them a ramp on a string, and saying "your going to add this now"? How do you, in a short and concise way, draw a line between what is acceptable and what isn't, while staying consistent with R1 and requiring that the robot be built by the team?

At some point, you have to rely on your trained key volunteers to interpret the rules correctly. There are many examples of rules we could list where some level of interpretation comes into play.

Personally, I'd answer it in the opposite way from how GDC answered it. I would not have been as draconian as they are. Probably, I would say that the initial inspection needs to be the robot in the bag plus the withholding allowance, but in the interest of fostering teamwork at the event, teams can collaborate on modifications at the event. This idea of strapping a substantial mechanism onto a partner robot isn't new. It's happened a bunch of times. One that stands out in my mind was Gatorzilla's frisbee dumper, which they attached to their second pick in elims in 2013. I had no qualms about that. Frankly, I thought it was a sound strategy to make a stronger alliance and better that alliance's chances at victory.

And, I'm not saying that interpretation is inappropriate. It's when "interpretation" goes beyond simply "what is the rule and how do I apply it to this situation" that I have a problem with. Respectfully, I feel that your interpretation exceeds those boundaries.

I read the text of the response to Q461 and come to the conclusion that, in perhaps an oversimplified sense, teams can't help other teams with any non-COTS item. So, as has been pointed out, that spare gear that a team broached, that miscut gusset, that shaft trimmed to length, speed controller with terminals attached, etc are all disallowed as a result of Q461. Period.

So, your comment here:

I can help you by giving you a COTS part, even if there may have been a slight modification or two (like attaching connectors, assembling a gearbox in the standard, intended way, etc). In that case I'm not building anything, I'm giving you a COTS part that may be slightly used.

Is in direct opposition with GDC's answer of "no" in response to a team giving a component to another team that was brought into the event as part of the withholding allowance. The part you describe cannot be a COTS part since it has been modified from the COTS state. Ergo, that part must have been part of the giving team's withholding allowance (not COTS, not a raw material, therefore it must be a fabricated item). Making this exception for a "slight modification" is nowhere in the rules and goes beyond "interpretation" and into "rewriting". Very respectfully submitted, my humble opinion.

[Michael Corsetto]

It encourages strong teams to sideline weak robots. Perhaps. I look at it like this: An alliance consists of three robots. All three are supposed to be on the field. Part of being a great robot is the ability to work with weaker partners and helping them to maximize their potential. It is not GP to ask them to sit on the sideline so that you can score more points. Get them on the field and help them to find a way to be actively useful.

The most useful thing for our second pick to do at CVR was sit out the quarters and semi's and get that cheesecake on in time for finals.

I could go into the game theory as to WHY it was the most useful thing for them to do to guarantee our victory at CVR.

I guess that's not the way you personally envision the game being played, so it's not GP? That is how your statement comes across, apologies if I misunderstood.

#teamcheesecake

-Mike

[efoote868]

What if you served some too? ;)

-Mike

Should a team in the future be allowed to show up at a regional with just a functioning drive base, be completely non-competitive the entire regional then expect to be the last pick of the #1 alliance because the overall #1 team can outfit them with all the parts needed to be the niche player they need?

Or keeping with the analogy, is showing up with a spring-form pan and having someone else bake your cheesecake at the last minute and then winning the baking competition because the best chef was able to put their pre-made dessert in your pan exactly how they wanted, in the spirit of competition?


Seems it is unfair to any other participant, and is exactly why FIRST has to try so hard to define what a VENDOR is.

[MrJohnston]

The most useful thing for our second pick to do at CVR was sit out the quarters and semi's and get that cheesecake on in time for finals.

I could go into the game theory as to WHY it was the most useful thing for them to do to guarantee our victory at CVR.

I guess that's not the way you personally envision the game being played, so it's not GP? That is how your statement comes across, apologies if I misunderstood.

#teamcheesecake

-Mike


I would suggest that there is a huge difference between having a robot sit on the sideline for an upgrade/modification (as long as that team is doing the uprgrading and modifying) and having a robot sitting on the sit to simply watch. With the first, I have no issue. With with the second, I do.

[PayneTrain]

I would suggest that there is a huge difference between having a robot sit on the sideline for an upgrade/modification (as long as that team is doing the uprgrading and modifying) and having a robot sitting on the sit to simply watch. With the first, I have no issue. With with the second, I do.

Are you blaming the teams or alliance captains that execute the strategy or the GDC that designed a game that passively encourages this and provides the loophole to do it?

[Taylor]

Given the answer to Q461, would 1396's 2004 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27919&highlight=1396) experience be legal now?

[Andrew Schreiber]

I would suggest that there is a huge difference between having a robot sit on the sideline for an upgrade/modification (as long as that team is doing the uprgrading and modifying) and having a robot sitting on the sit to simply watch. With the first, I have no issue. With with the second, I do.

The GDC gave us a game in which it benefits us to, if our third bot is bad enough, simply have them sidelined for the duration of the event. Take issue with the GDC if this statement bothers you. It's a function of the game.

[MrJohnston]

Are you blaming the teams or alliance captains that execute the strategy or the GDC that designed a game that passively encourages this and provides the loophole to do it?

No game is perfect the first time written. Or the second. Whether we like it or not, the mere fact that we have a different game every year guarantees imperfections in the rules.

Our first objective as members of FIRST is not to win a competition, rather to demonstrate Grace and Professionalism while competing. If a team ever knowingly sacrifices GP in order to win, I blame the team - even if it seems to be allowed under the rules. A difficulty arises because GP cannot be perfectly defined for all potential human actions and different folks are going to have different interpretations of GP. To me, "Welcome to my alliance, don't put your robot on the field" seems rather un-GP. Heck, if you can do that during eliminations, you could do it during qualification matches, too. In half or more of our qualification matches in our first event, we would have done far better had we asked the "weaker" robots to simply sit and stay out of the way. We wouldn't, however, dream of doing that.

[iVanDuzer]

Yes....if you serve it to every alliance, not just your own.

What if you had an idea for a new flavour of cheesecake while you were at the event?


Some robots are Lactose Intolerant (unable to accept your cheesecake)
Some robots are on a diet (don't want to accept your cheesecake)
FRC teams are not Cheesecake Factories (it's unrealistic to expect teams to bring 8 easily upgradeable mechanisms to supe-up other robots with when they have their own robot to look after)

STORY TIME: In 2014, one of our team's mentors came up with an idea for an "easy assist" ramp. Basically, just a passive ramp that, if a ball was dropped on the top of the robot and the robot drove forward, would count as an assist.

Knowing that we were going to seed in the 2nd or 3rd spot, and after looking over our scouting data, we knew that our third robot was going to have difficulty assisting. So we started combing the pits for robots we could add our ramp to.

We found a team with a GIANT arm on top of their robot that could be easily removed with a couple disconnected wires and some bolts. We talked to that team before elims and pitched them our ramp idea. Everyone was excited about the idea, and we picked them. An hour later, they were on the field and their beautifully machined arm was in the pits. Three hours later we all had silver medals. An hour after that, the arm was back on.

Some takeaways:


We knew that some teams had mechanisms that would make the addition of our ramp impossible (lactose intolerant robots)
We asked several teams if they were willing to modify their robots, and only one said yes (teams on a diet)
We built the ramp completely during the lunch break after alliance selections and we were unable to build 7 more ramps (we're not a cheesecake factory)


In the end, our team was happy we got an effective second pic. The cheesecaked team was happy they got a chance to play Saturday afternoon. Our pit got the experience of quickly building a mechanism from scratch. Their team got practice dismantling / reassembling their robot. Everyone was happy! #teamcheesecake

[Cory]

Should a team in the future be allowed to show up at a regional with just a functioning drive base, be completely non-competitive the entire regional then expect to be the last pick of the #1 alliance because the overall #1 team can outfit them with all the parts needed to be the niche player they need?

Or keeping with the analogy, is showing up with a spring-form pan and having someone else bake your cheesecake at the last minute and then winning the baking competition because the best chef was able to put their pre-made dessert in your pan exactly how they wanted, in the spirit of competition?


Seems it is unfair to any other participant, and is exactly why FIRST has to try so hard to define what a VENDOR is.

Both of those things are huge gambles, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I do not think that's the most likely scenario though.

There are teams we've worked with before that we know are very willing to do whatever is needed for them to help better the alliance, even if that means removing scoring mechanisms so they can focus on defense, or making other additions to their robot to become a role player on the alliance. Those aren't hopelessly incompetent teams that we've picked because we know we can railroad them into making whatever changes we want...those are teams with solid drivetrains, good coaching, and an ability to communicate well with our driveteam on the field...that may not have been able to score effectively.

[Brandon Holley]

Or keeping with the analogy, is showing up with a spring-form pan and having someone else bake your cheesecake at the last minute and then winning the baking competition because the best chef was able to put their pre-made dessert in your pan exactly how they wanted, in the spirit of competition?


Seems it is unfair to any other participant, and is exactly why FIRST has to try so hard to define what a VENDOR is.

...keeping the analogy going...

Is inspiring and teaching a baker, who is in a very competitive baking competition, by showing them how to integrate mechanisms, play strategically and take a step forward in competitiveness in the spirit of the competition (the FIRST competition)??? - I have a hard time saying no to that question.

This discussion has grown from a singular example of the 2015 competition, to a fundamental discussion to its role in FRC as a whole. I want to continue reiterating the point, that a cheesecaking event is NOT a one-way, wham-bam-done type of event. Every cheesecake I've been apart of or have witnessed has been a very inspirational, very unique activity of two or more teams coming together to do something great.

It appears there are a lot of arguments being made to the 'spirit of competition' while completely ignoring the fact that this could be one of the most inspirational moments for a student.


-Brando

[Wayne Doenges]

Every team, at a Regional or District event, paid their entry fee to compete, so they should NOT be asked to "Stay out of the way or Don't move."

*just mt $.02*

[jvriezen]

To me, "Welcome to my alliance, don't put your robot on the field" seems rather un-GP.

I also think of the webcast spectators, particularly the lesser involved parents, school students not on the team, and others who might be inspired by watching the home town team playing. They go from "We just got picked by the #1 Alliance" excitement to "Why are they not on the field/not moving? Something must be very wrong" and lots of other confusion.

Then the team has to try to explain to everyone when they get back home.

I would agree that it is generally ungracious to pick a robot that you don't intend to use for its basic capabilities. In prior years, power house alliances always at least had the option to choose the beefiest remaining robot to play defense. That's not the case this year, and it introduces a new dynamic that we are still trying to adjust to.

[Kevin Leonard]

Everyone in this thread needs to take a deep breath and relax.

The rule update is frustrating and vague, and hopefully this situation will be addressed in a coming update.

As for the "GP" debate over sidelining Alliance members, I don't think any single Alliance picked a third partner without the intent of having that partner contribute.

The third partner of all these Alliances have been essential to their victory. And both the teams picking and the teams being picked know that.

Without their ramp/can stealer/smart driving when the main robots are unable to take the field, many of these powerful Alliances wouldn't have been as successful as they were.

And with whatever this new Q&A entails, I'm sure the #cheesecake will continue, and it should. #cheesecake is an important part of FRC, and I've seen teams receive cheesecake one year, only to be inspired and give cheesecake the next year.

Team 20 has been one of those. In 2012 we were awful, not getting picked at our first event. But at our second, Teams 195 and 181 helped us add an autonomous mode to feed balls to a partner. We went on to win the Connecticut Regional with them, and the next year we picked 195, and gave out some cheesecake of our own to other teams.

[MrJohnston]

The GDC gave us a game in which it benefits us to, if our third bot is bad enough, simply have them sidelined for the duration of the event. Take issue with the GDC if this statement bothers you. It's a function of the game.

Perhaps it is best to ask the question, which is a higher priority:

Winning a game or treating our fellow FRC teams with Grace and Professionalism?

There will always be loopholes in game rules... Just because we are "technically" allowed to so something, doesn't mean that we should.

I would suggest: If your third robot is "bad enough,' either you should have picked a better robot (yes, I have played in some very weak district fields with a lot of weak robots) or you should spend your lunch getting that robot to a point where it can take one tote (either shoved out of the feeder station or scratched out of the landfill) and push it onto a scoring platform.

[Qcom]

This is a concern, I'd agree. While I enjoyed the direction the game design took this year in respect to encouraging coopertition, these rules will make teams a lot more cautious about loaning or asking for parts. That makes one wonder why there is an announcer calling out needed parts in the pits at all.

[IronicDeadBird]

I mean no disrespect to anyone who does supply other teams with said cheese or cake, but what I find interesting is that this action is primarily a competition day thing. 5 1/2 weeks ago someone started a thread asking what people were up to and most teams were secretive about designs and such. If you want true synergy between teams these lines of communication need to opened up far before the bag gets put on the robot. I would be behind cheesing if it was done consistently throughout the season but generally speaking (and maybe I am just deaf to the noise) the most I hear help wise is when a team runs out of a set of wheels and another team pitches in. You get a little chitter here and there about "has anyone tested out x,y,z against this game element" but in the end as long as the games are team based we would all do better if we all supported each other.
I don't mean to cast shade on any helping other teams. These actions are amazing, in times of stress you go and help another team. It is truly beautiful to see it happen in competition to see a team help another team get on their feet.
So why doesn't it happen more in the build season?

[Anupam Goli]

So why doesn't it happen more in the build season?

Teams do it. We loaned some mentors and students for a couple of days a week to a rookie team we started. Many other teams help each other physically, but only the teams with the resources to do so, can and will. It's hard enough to continue to iterate and improve your team's robot in the build season. I can't mentor two teams in build season without losing my sanity, and I'm sure many others feel the same way. Online communication only goes so far; you can't do much other than make some general recommendations unless you have seen a team's prototype working, or a CAD. After stop build, it's easier to bake cheesecakes and bring them to competition since more resources are freed up.

[AllenGregoryIV]

So why doesn't it happen more in the build season?

It happens a ton during build season, it's just not as public. It's the same way it is at the event, from one team to another team. Most veterans teams mentor young teams through out the season and help guide them through the process. Like I said earlier we regularly give away parts that we don't need to other teams. This year we gave away battery boxes, tote hook things, etc. In the past we have been the receiver of parts made by teams across the country. In 2013, our friends Skunkworks, in Washington, sent us a few custom Versaplanetary plates to help pilot the BB550, we didn't even ask for it. We've had teams send us custom hex couplers. We've given and received cheesecake plenty of times during the build season and at competitions. If you aren't seeing the help that happens during the season please go talk to more teams and find out all the things they are doing.

118 was going to help us with a problem we were having but because of this ruling, I'm not even going to risk it since it would be parts we didn't design.

[Brandon Holley]

I mean no disrespect to anyone who does supply other teams with said cheese or cake, but what I find interesting is that this action is primarily a competition day thing. 5 1/2 weeks ago someone started a thread asking what people were up to and most teams were secretive about designs and such. If you want true synergy between teams these lines of communication need to opened up far before the bag gets put on the robot. I would be behind cheesing if it was done consistently throughout the season but generally speaking (and maybe I am just deaf to the noise) the most I hear help wise is when a team runs out of a set of wheels and another team pitches in. You get a little chitter here and there about "has anyone tested out x,y,z against this game element" but in the end as long as the games are team based we would all do better if we all supported each other.
I don't mean to cast shade on any helping other teams. These actions are amazing, in times of stress you go and help another team. It is truly beautiful to see it happen in competition to see a team help another team get on their feet.
So why doesn't it happen more in the build season?


You answered your own question. We annually host 4-5 teams in our own (very small) shop to help them get through build season. We collaborate on mechanisms, strategy, design approaches, software implementation, awards writing, pit layout- everything and anything. Come snoop around New England, and you will find 125 members at the heart of collaboration, seminars, open lab days and everything in between all year long.

Just because a team isn't publicly posting an entire design to copy doesn't mean they aren't CheesecakingTheOffseasonTM. To me, it further drives home the point that the Cheesecake is about the magic of collaboration that happens on the path from point A to point B.

You don't hear about this because its not happening in the spotlight of a competition, or in the competition season. Plain and simple.

-Brando

[AdamHeard]

You often don't hear about teams helping other teams because... gasp... some teams help others because it is the right thing to do, and not to later brag about it.

[cmrnpizzo14]

*snip*
STORY TIME: In 2014, one of our team's mentors came up with an idea for an "easy assist" ramp. Basically, just a passive ramp that, if a ball was dropped on the top of the robot and the robot drove forward, would count as an assist.

Knowing that we were going to seed in the 2nd or 3rd spot, and after looking over our scouting data, we knew that our third robot was going to have difficulty assisting. So we started combing the pits for robots we could add our ramp to.

We found a team with a GIANT arm on top of their robot that could be easily removed with a couple disconnected wires and some bolts. We talked to that team before elims and pitched them our ramp idea. Everyone was excited about the idea, and we picked them. An hour later, they were on the field and their beautifully machined arm was in the pits. Three hours later we all had silver medals. An hour after that, the arm was back on.

*snip*

In the end, our team was happy we got an effective second pic. The cheesecaked team was happy they got a chance to play Saturday afternoon. Our pit got the experience of quickly building a mechanism from scratch. Their team got practice dismantling / reassembling their robot. Everyone was happy! #teamcheesecake

As a former student and mentor for the team who got picked, I can confirm that most people were happy. Students were overall very disappointed with how the robot performed before that. To be kind, we were more of a liability for most of that regional. Everyone was slightly disappointed that the claw didn't work but was also very happy that we were finally contributing. It was a very positive experience for the team overall, everyone left happy, thank you to 3710 and 1241!

[IronicDeadBird]

Teams do it. We loaned some mentors and students for a couple of days a week to a rookie team we started. Many other teams help each other physically, but only the teams with the resources to do so, can and will. It's hard enough to continue to iterate and improve your team's robot in the build season. I can't mentor two teams in build season without losing my sanity, and I'm sure many others feel the same way. Online communication only goes so far; you can't do much other than make some general recommendations unless you have seen a team's prototype working, or a CAD. After stop build, it's easier to bake cheesecakes and bring them to competition since more resources are freed up.

It happens a ton during build season, it's just not as public. It's the same way it is at the event, from one team to another team. Most veterans teams mentor young teams through out the season and help guide them through the process. Like I said earlier we regularly give away parts that we don't need to other teams. This year we gave away battery boxes, tote hook things, etc. In the past we have been the receiver of parts made by teams across the country. In 2013, our friends Skunkworks, in Washington, sent us a few custom Versaplanetary plates to help pilot the BB550, we didn't even ask for it. We've had teams send us custom hex couplers. We've given and received cheesecake plenty of times during the build season and at competitions. If you aren't seeing the help that happens during the season please go talk to more teams and find out all the things they are doing.

It is good to hear that I am just not seeing it happen and its just me not having success opening up channels with teams. I have always had issues trying to get details out of people during build season (wow I make it sound like a mafia shake down 'nice auto you got there nyah!')
Either way helping teams is something that needs to be done delicately, its a delicate situation walking in on another teams robot and seeing a flaw and trying to help. You want them to be aware of a mistake but you don't want it to be personal. You want to help but you don't want to hurt people after they spend so much time working on it.
It might not be true at every kickoff but at the one I go to once the reveal is over teams go their separate ways to discuss and design. I guess I just look forward to the day where that doesn't happen and teams don't immediately go into secretive mode.
It would be a lot easier then the current process I do of searching every tag related to the years game on youtube and sort by upload date. Either way I can't think of much more I can say without a a phrase ringing in my head.
"If only complaining would yield some sort of instant gratification and solution to the problem I am faced with!"
This is where the planning begins.

Shout out to Anupams 1000th post!

[Steven Smith]

I mean no disrespect to anyone who does supply other teams with said cheese or cake, but what I find interesting is that this action is primarily a competition day thing. 5 1/2 weeks ago someone started a thread asking what people were up to and most teams were secretive about designs and such. If you want true synergy between teams these lines of communication need to opened up far before the bag gets put on the robot. I would be behind cheesing if it was done consistently throughout the season but generally speaking (and maybe I am just deaf to the noise) the most I hear help wise is when a team runs out of a set of wheels and another team pitches in. You get a little chitter here and there about "has anyone tested out x,y,z against this game element" but in the end as long as the games are team based we would all do better if we all supported each other.
I don't mean to cast shade on any helping other teams. These actions are amazing, in times of stress you go and help another team. It is truly beautiful to see it happen in competition to see a team help another team get on their feet.
So why doesn't it happen more in the build season?

Resources?

I know my team had grand plans in December of doing more of this. We were able to field a number of presentations at our kickoff event and build a lot of kit-bots with rookie teams, but frankly, this game was a pretty tough challenge. We spent so much time trying to solve it, we were lucky to answer ~20-25 emails from teams in the area needing input in the last few weeks of build season.

I know at Dallas, I worked with a few mentors from 148 on 2613s bot on Friday. They had a rough year, showed up without any working mechanisms (loss of mentors, new head teacher). They did have an installed pneumatics system complete with a 5 gallon air tank and not a single piston used on the robot. I worked with them on a basic design for a tote pusher, but we also told them that a can-burgler would probably be their best bet to catch heads for elims and drew out a design for them. About half of their team wanted to go the route of a canburgler, the other half wanted to continue designing a vertical lift with parts from Home Depot. I didn't have the resources to help them develop a fully functional lift, and moved to helping other teams with more fixable problems (broken mechanisms, etc).

118 ended up picking them up and adding a canburgler, 2613 got a blue banner, and as far as I could see were quite happy for the experience. They struggled through build season and the first couple days of competition, but with 118s help... found a way to be a part of the winning alliance.

So... I guess I agree that it could happen more? I'd love to be in a situation where in week 5 and 6 of build season, all I need to do is go around to other teams fixing their problems... but I can understand why it isn't practical. There are lots of resources in FIRST to help teams, but those resources get stretched extra thin in build season. People give what they can, and it mostly happens under the radar.

I also like to think that in my short experience in FRC, I have seen more examples of good teams helping weaker teams at competitions for the receiving teams' benefit moreso than the giving teams'. Does it often pay off and benefit the giver? Sure? Do the top tier teams really play with a "win at all costs" mentality? I don't see it that way...

[Nuttyman54]

The issue that most of us have is that the literal intepretation of the rules is at odds with common practice and how we feel Gracious Professionalism should work at competition. Unfortunately, it appears that the GDC intends something closer to to the literal interpretation, based on their response. There's a bit of a grey area with COTS parts in terms of assemblies of all COTS items being considered FABRICATED ITEMS, but some small changes are explicity no longer legal:

-Custom versions of VersaChassis style tubing (stock tube with holes drilled in at at equal spacing). Some teams make this themselves with holes on all sides, or with a different spacing. They can't loan this to other teams at events.

-Slightly modified COTS parts, eg Banebots wheels or sprockets which have been lightened or broached. I have broached 1/2" round or plain bores out to essentially make parts that are equivalent to out-of-stock COTS parts, but they are still a FABRICATED ITEM.

As far as the legality of one team fabbing parts for other teams before or at competition, I would make the argument that if Team A makes parts for Team B, as long as Team B was involved in deciding what parts needed to be made and Team B installs it on their robot, they are sufficiently involved in the process to satisfy the Q&A. The other solution is to consider Team A a sponsor of Team B.

Ultimately, extremely literal interpretations of the materials useage rules are going to cause problems, because there's a spectrum from COTS all the way to billet hogout. Drawing a line anywhere in there is bound to have exceptions.

What most people seem to agree on here is that it's not right to arrive at competition with a pre-built, bolt-on solution to a game objective, and simply finding a robot to slap it on to. This sounds an AWFUL LOT like what's in the huge blue box in 4.1 that defines what kinds of COTS assembiles are and aren't legal. It seems to me that a better solution rather than the strict interpretation presented by the Q&A would a blue box like EricH described, which explains that the intent is not to have other teams provide bolt-on mechanisms to partners and gives some examples. Now, this does mean that some common practices would be considered illegal (eg, bolting on spare intakes), however that is more easily remedied by coming up with ways to build versions at competition with teams, without limiting the small parts sharing and slightly modified COTS items that are extremely common. Don't try to codify what is and isn't a pre-made assembly in the rules. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


This issue is rearing its ugly head this year because of the incentives provided within the game rules to maximize the utility of late round picks in a game with diminishing retuns for high level alliances and the resource and space limiations. These robots are being turned into "enablers" for their alliance partners. Think about it this way: If I'm picked for elims, and I refuse to be cheesecaked, force my alliance members to let me try to stack totes and end up getting in the way or knocking over a stack, I may have just cost my alliance the event. I guarantee you that feels worse than letting them modify my robot to help my alliance win.

On a lighter note, last season the food item was Corndogs, which GameSense ate at the end of our Season Finale show. This year seems to be Cheesecake, so I won't complain about doing that again. Can we make it Steak and Lobster next year?

[AllenGregoryIV]

Do the top tier teams really play with a "win at all costs" mentality? I don't see it that way...

That is what I think a lot of teams are missing. At least in Texas I know that if any team walked up to 118, 148, 624, 1477, etc and asked for help building a can burgler on Thursday morning their pit would have 3-4 people in it with in minutes working towards that goal. Once a team is on your alliance you take a little more ownership of them and work with them to make themselves better but most of the time all a team has to do is ask and they will get plenty of cheesecake.

[efoote868]

Both of those things are huge gambles, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I do not think that's the most likely scenario though.
I'd like to expand the example to future years too, since it seems we're debating FRC game policy.


Continuing the hypothetical, a top seeding team is able to build two separate robots that perfectly compliment each other for a particular game. They're able to engineer their 2nd robot so that it weighs under the withholding allowance, and that assembly with COTS components is very quick (such as, install robot controller here, speed controllers here, and these motors here, here and here and with this software your new robot is ready to go).

After qualification, they gift their 2nd robot to their 3rd alliance member, so that the 3rd alliance member competes in eliminations with a completely different robot than they did in qualifications. Does this follow the spirit of FRC?

[AdamHeard]

After qualification, they gift their 2nd robot to their 3rd alliance member, so that the 3rd alliance member competes in eliminations with a completely different robot than they did in qualifications. Does this follow the spirit of FRC?

No it doesn't. It seems like just about everyone agrees that is too far.

The same rule that outlaws the above shouldn't outlaw help.

[IronicDeadBird]

I guess what I should emphasize is that I would like to see a growth in resources available to all levels of teams starting at Day 1. Not necessarily that teams are doing it for the wrong reasons.
The care and compassion I see in the pits I just would like to hear about more throughout the entire year as this would be a reflection of good community health. Of course saying all this if Cheesecake theater becomes a thing I will be thoroughly upset...

[AdamHeard]

I guess what I should emphasize is that I would like to see a growth in resources available to all levels of teams starting at Day 1. Not necessarily that teams are doing it for the wrong reasons.
The care and compassion I see in the pits I just would like to hear about more throughout the entire year as this would be a reflection of good community health. Of course saying all this if Cheesecake theater becomes a thing I will be thoroughly upset...

The teams that are helping others the most in pits, are also likely helping others the most long term.

Everyone needs to get off their high horse, you can't demand others to help.

It's also comical to read in this thread posts from some claiming others should help more, help all teams, etc... The people making these posts have likely helped less teams in total, than some of the teams they are referring to have helped in a single season.

[dodar]

I'd like to expand the example to future years too, since it seems we're debating FRC game policy.


Continuing the hypothetical, a top seeding team is able to build two separate robots that perfectly compliment each other for a particular game. They're able to engineer their 2nd robot so that it weighs under the withholding allowance, and that assembly with COTS components is very quick (such as, install robot controller here, speed controllers here, and these motors here, here and here and with this software your new robot is ready to go).

After qualification, they gift their 2nd robot to their 3rd alliance member, so that the 3rd alliance member competes in eliminations with a completely different robot than they did in qualifications. Does this follow the spirit of FRC?

I am pretty sure everyone would say no to that instance. But I think everyone is in agreement that completely altering a robot in elims to fit a strategy is bad; but in the same breathe, adding to a robot to increase its worth and capabilities in an elimination, or maybe even qualification, alliance is something FIRST has always been ok with, as long as the team getting the upgrades believe in them.

[efoote868]

No it doesn't. It seems like just about everyone agrees that is too far.

The same rule that outlaws the above shouldn't outlaw help.

I would argue that the 2nd example is very close to the 1st example.

What would make the 1st example OK in my mind is if the mentor team helps them build the robot throughout the entire competition ... not just at the end and after they've been picked. That is to say, the robot that gets picked before elimination is the same robot that is competing during elimination.

[connor.worley]

Applying this ruling to software help is a nightmare...

[JesseK]

Does the concept of 'Cheesecake' extend to other competition programs as well? I haven't been part of VA FTC in a while, but I wonder about other FTC and VRC competitions.

Personally I think 'cheesecake' is a bit too far - but I don't think it should be banned at the expense of loaning another team pre-assembled items, like a cylinder with fittings, or stock that has a few holes in it, etc. I'm all for showing teams how to fish rather than just giving them the fish. If we give the teams the necessary materials and help them built it themselves from scratch, then it's pretty much the same thing anyways while simultaneously being more like a mentorship rather than a competitive giveaway.

[FrankJ]

Given the answer to Q461, would 1396's 2004 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27919&highlight=1396) experience be legal now?

By the strict letter of the Q&A. Maybe not if prefabbed parts where used. But remember First is more than a robot competition. Exceptions are made for corner cases. That would be one of them.

[kjohnson]

I'm going to put this whole discussion into a more palatable context: Cheesecake.
...
Cheesecake? Yes, Cheesecake.

-Mike

Can I spotlight this entire post? Please?

[AdamHeard]

I would argue that the 2nd example is very close to the 1st example.

What would make the 1st example OK in my mind is if the mentor team helps them build the robot throughout the entire competition ... not just at the end and after they've been picked. That is to say, the robot that gets picked before elimination is the same robot that is competing during elimination.

No, that's outrageous.

I don't want to brag, but there is no way to make the point below without.

A few people from my team (kids, mentors, whatever) in 10 minutes can solve more problems for many teams than they can solve all weekend. This isn't because we're smarter, it's just a different culture. We live this stuff and spend a lot of time on it. The teams we pick often are just an afterschool program 10 hours a week. They just aren't on the same level as us.

But if you let us work with them for a two hour elims window... Fix their little problems, add features, help them see the world differently... It will change their team.

Why should that be illegal? Why shouldn't we be allowed to inspire and mentor the teams we work with on a more personal level than all 65 at the event? It's simply not possible to give all 65 teams that same experience, but it CERTAINLY means a lot to that one team.

Separately, we help all darn weekend with teams for all sorts of issues. We'd have done the same for the team before elims if they asked for it, but many don't.

This isn't always the case obviously, we have picked teams plenty of times in the past that knew their stuff. Even with them though we do whatever we can to raise their game while we're together.

[Andrew Y.]

Sometimes...you cheesecake yourself. We sure had to at Alamo.....

[Pauline Tasci]

Does the concept of 'Cheesecake' extend to other competition programs as well? I haven't been part of VA FTC in a while, but I wonder about other FTC and VRC competitions.

Personally I volunteer at countless FTC events every year and work with 2 teams closely.
Cheescaking happens at the FTC level, but not as often and usually at higher level events, kind of like division champs for FTC.

[Brandon Holley]

Does the concept of 'Cheesecake' extend to other competition programs as well? I haven't been part of VA FTC in a while, but I wonder about other FTC and VRC competitions.

Personally I think 'cheesecake' is a bit too far - but I don't think it should be banned at the expense of loaning another team pre-assembled items, like a cylinder with fittings, or stock that has a few holes in it, etc. I'm all for showing teams how to fish rather than just giving them the fish. If we give the teams the necessary materials and help them built it themselves from scratch, then it's pretty much the same thing anyways while simultaneously being more like a mentorship rather than a competitive giveaway.

Bold emphasis mine.

What I've been continuing to try and emphasize is that handing someone an arm with a hook at the end of it is NOT the inspirational, hard part about a cheesecake. That hook is good for the 2015 game and that game only. The part that will teach them to fish is how you integrate, how you implement, even on the fly. There is not a single team in FRC history who has taken their robot out of a bag/crate, put it on the field and stampeded the competition.

You need to Cheesecake yourself constantly. Showing someone else how to cheesecake IS how you teach them to fish, just in a condensed format where the time to iterate as expired.

#AlwaysBeCheesecaking

[efoote868]

A few people from my team (kids, mentors, whatever) in 10 minutes can solve more problems for many teams than they can solve all weekend. This isn't because we're smarter, it's just a different culture. We live this stuff and spend a lot of time on it. The teams we pick often are just an afterschool program 10 hours a week. They just aren't on the same level as us.

What I'm driving at is that pre-selection and during qualifications, go wild, help each other out as much as you can. Post selection I don't think a team should be allowed to strip out large parts of their alliance's robot and then bolt on their own solution to the game; but they should be allowed to help work to improve the other team's robot.

[Steven Smith]

What I'm driving at is that pre-selection and during qualifications, go wild, help each other out as much as you can. Post selection I don't think a team should be allowed to strip out large parts of their alliance's robot and then bolt on their own solution to the game; but they should be allowed to help work to improve the other team's robot.

Yea, I think this is the grey area that makes me cringe... as I'm not sure how to write a rule for it.

There is a very important distinction to me about an attitude in post alliance selection, saying "I am looking at your robot, and I am going to work with you to make you as effective as possible for our alliance, even if it means drastic changes or a limited role". That has value as a teaching/inspirational moment.

If you have brought a pre-built mechanism/passive element that can be bolted onto almost any donor robot, and their only thing that third partner brings to the table is a donor robot and ability to hit a button (or run an auton routine)... the intent of bringing said mechanism in on Thursday really seems much more stilted towards providing your elimination alliance with an advantage, not general goodwill. I also know that we are all quite competitive, and as teams continue to make more modular designs and get better at integration... without a rule prohibiting it, it is tempting to bring these bolt on solutions.

I actually like the idea of doing whatever you want in qualification matches, or maybe even cutting it off Friday evening. If you want to bring a pre-built mechanism in your bag or withholding to help another donor robot succeed... knock yourself out. Make them awesome. However, other teams can scout what you did... and pick up that now awesome robot.

If you want to modify a robot on Saturday, it needs to be from raw materials or unmodified COTS parts.

I'm sure that has 1000 issues wrong with it, but it feels alot better?

[bduddy]

One of the things I most about the First community is how we celebrate our & others successes rather than failures. But in the end it is a competition. In games past did you ever hope that an alliance would lose because it would help your teams ranking? Not really different. Even the angst you feel when that happens is a good thing.I think the difference with this year is that, if there's an alliance on the other side with better potential than you, you can't come up with some clever strategy or play amazing defense to beat them. You just have to hope they fail to meet their potential. Not exactly a feel-good moment.

[thrystan]

The most useful thing for our second pick to do at CVR was sit out the quarters and semi's and get that cheesecake on in time for finals.

I could go into the game theory as to WHY it was the most useful thing for them to do to guarantee our victory at CVR.

I guess that's not the way you personally envision the game being played, so it's not GP? That is how your statement comes across, apologies if I misunderstood.

#teamcheesecake

-Mike

What would happen if, a rookie team came to you, or one of the other high ranked teams, on the first day of the competition, and said. We only have a drive base, what can we add to it to help you in the finals. We would like to build a can burglar, create an auto that helps score the robot team points, and build a ramp or two that will help your team in the finals. Will you help us do it.

I think this is a perfect opportunity for a team with no hopes of winning, and no plans on going past one or two districts or regionals, to have a much better event that they could have realistically planned on having with another game.

I agree with many people that it seems wrong to grab a low ranked team and turn them into a ramp anchor. But is it different if that team takes the initiative and does it themselves. Especially if they start on it on the first day and instead of just being a ramp anchor, they can also grab a couple of cans in auto, and then move to the auto zone, before being driven to sit in a safe out of the way place. At least they are doing something then.

[philso]

Some robots are on a diet (don't want to accept your cheesecake)



I guess what I should emphasize is that I would like to see a growth in resources available to all levels of teams starting at Day 1. Not necessarily that teams are doing it for the wrong reasons.
The care and compassion I see in the pits I just would like to hear about more throughout the entire year as this would be a reflection of good community health. Of course saying all this if Cheesecake theater becomes a thing I will be thoroughly upset...

I have been on some teams that "were on a diet" throughout the build season and competition season. It was not fun nor was it inspiring for anyone on the team. Perhaps, there are more opportunities to give and receive cheesecake at the competitions because some of the teams that had been on a diet finally see the futility of their diet and decide to accept cheesecake.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Perhaps it is best to ask the question, which is a higher priority:

Winning a game or treating our fellow FRC teams with Grace and Professionalism?

There will always be loopholes in game rules... Just because we are "technically" allowed to so something, doesn't mean that we should.

I would suggest: If your third robot is "bad enough,' either you should have picked a better robot (yes, I have played in some very weak district fields with a lot of weak robots) or you should spend your lunch getting that robot to a point where it can take one tote (either shoved out of the feeder station or scratched out of the landfill) and push it onto a scoring platform.

There's a 6 week build season and 2 days prior that I'm more than willing to spend helping teams build their robots. As Brando mentioned above, we host numerous teams in our already crowded lab. As well as outright help 10+ teams build their drives week 2 of build each year. And spend the event helping teams (in fact that's a good chunk of my job at Rhode Island this weekend).

Sorry, if with all that our pick still can't move, I don't think we should have to put them on the field. And in a lot of cases, it's not a function of pick a better robot. (27 event district, more than 3 didn't move or show up to numerous matches).

And if you want the most blunt response you'll likely get in this thread - Sometimes the nicest thing you could do for the team is to not make them play. Just let them observe how an alliance communicates, the stresses of elimination play, and what decisions go into it. I think we're awfully focused on the robot being out there, but less focused on the more important issue of what teams take away from playing with strong teams.

[Brandon Holley]

I agree with many people that it seems wrong to grab a low ranked team and turn them into a ramp anchor. But is it different if that team takes the initiative and does it themselves. Especially if they start on it on the first day and instead of just being a ramp anchor, they can also grab a couple of cans in auto, and then move to the auto zone, before being driven to sit in a safe out of the way place. At least they are doing something then.

For many of these such teams- especially newer/young ones- the concept of coopertition, where another team is coming to help them is foreign. They may not know the willingness of some teams to help. I've seen this firsthand numerous times.

-Brando

[AllenGregoryIV]

And if you want the most blunt response you'll likely get in this thread - Sometimes the nicest thing you could do for the team is to not make them play. Just let them observe how an alliance communicates, the stresses of elimination play, and what decisions go into it. I think we're awfully focused on the robot being out there, but less focused on the more important issue of what teams take away from playing with strong teams.

Also we forget sometimes that the other teams have input in to this. I know if I was on a team that couldn't contribute I'd be working to make it contribute and I'd keep it off the field. Hurting your alliance no matter what the intentions doesn't really help anyone.

We sat out our first few matches at Rock City while rebuilding our robot. We could have driven in all those matches but nothing else. It didn't make sense for us to get in our partners way, we asked most of our partners if they were okay with that decision or did they want us to drive. None of them choose drive.

Going back to last year we played with teams who were happy to just sit and inbound the ball, and at times we played matches where we were happy to sit and inbound the ball. Strategy decisions should be left up the alliance.

[George Nishimura]

The FRC GDC have to take responsibility for designing a game where theoretically, the winning alliance on Einstein can:
- have two robots
- "win" the game in the first two seconds

Whether or not that will transpire is mainly irrelevant, but what is up for discussion is what we do from here.

If you asked me (note: not my team, me personally) whether I would be willing to win a district/regional/district championship where my robot was:

a) not on the field
b) on the field did not move/tethering a cheesecake
c) only moved in the first 5 seconds using cheesecake

I would still be happy when we won, because I enjoy winning, and it would be a ticket/aid for getting to World's.

I honestly don't know how I would feel if it was actually at World's. I imagine bittersweet, especially for scenarios a and b. But I don't know if my team would feel the same, and it is apparent people in this thread would have different answers. It would after all be a valuable learning experience, and an opportunity we wouldn't have otherwise.

Ultimately, as has been said in previous years, GDC needs a means of designing better games, especially avoiding those that unwittingly put GP and winning in conflict. For this year, I think any "ruling"will be difficult to enforce, and it should be left to individual teams to accept or deny a certain role. This specific cheesecake rule is also ambiguous and requires further explanation.

Also while cheesecake is delicious, it's also very unhealthy. I'm not sure if that makes the metaphor more or less apt.

[Citrus Dad]

Some of the most inspirational in-competition moments have occurred from loaning parts/assemblies. I know we personally have helped dozens of our elimination alliance partners in the past enhance capability, whether it be through speeding up intake mechanisms, autonomous changes, added structural support or even sometimes completely new mechanisms.

Ironically, the story I've heard several times from FIRST officials at various events is the story of how a robot failed to arrive at a competition and all of the other teams contributed to build a new robot in one day so the team could compete. That single act of the best "coopertition" would now be illegal. What stories will FIRST be able to tell now?

[dodar]

What I'm driving at is that pre-selection and during qualifications, go wild, help each other out as much as you can. Post selection I don't think a team should be allowed to strip out large parts of their alliance's robot and then bolt on their own solution to the game; but they should be allowed to help work to improve the other team's robot.

So you want to tell every alliance captain at every event this year that they are only allowed to play a strategy that their event will allow them to? That is extremely disheartening.

[Nuttyman54]

I honestly don't know how I would feel if it was actually at World's. I imagine bittersweet, especially for scenarios a and b. But I don't know if my team would feel the same, and it is apparent people in this thread would have different answers. It would after all be a valuable learning experience, and an opportunity we wouldn't have otherwise.

I can tell you from personal experience, it's awesome. In 2006, my senior year of HS, I attended Worlds with 971 as an "unqualified" team (aka, pre-registered). We didn't play in elims at our one regional (SVR) and we placed 80th out of 83rd in the division. Our robot could barely move, and we only won one match. It was still one of the most inspirational experiences I've ever had, and the same was true for the rest of the team. We made friends with teams from around the world, and that experience of observing and being awestruck by the best teams in the world was a catalyst for 971's rise to one of California's top teams.

Any way you qualify for Worlds, go. It's incredible.

[efoote868]

So you want to tell every alliance captain at every event this year that they are only allowed to play a strategy that their event will allow them to? That is extremely disheartening.

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

[marshall]

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

Ohh yes... the help everyone or help no one gambit... always a favorite strategy of mine.

[efoote868]

Ohh yes... the help everyone or help no one gambit... always a favorite strategy of mine.

If you truly have another team's best interest at heart, you want them to do their best regardless of what alliance they compete with.

I'm arguing that team ZZZZ shouldn't get to compete with 2 team ZZZZ robots instead of 1 team ZZZZ and a third bot.

[connor.worley]

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

Forgetting what the C in FRC stands for?

[efoote868]

Forgetting what the C in FRC stands for?

What is your opinion on the two scenarios I presented earlier?

[Abhishek R]

"Hey guys, we need (blank) because we smoked/bent/broke/otherwise destroyed a system on our robot, we couldn't afford to bring spares, would you happen to have one we can use?"

Common situation.

Is our reply going to be the following now?

"We have several but we can't give you any due to the rules, sorry."

[marshall]

I'm arguing that team ZZZZ shouldn't get to compete with 2 team ZZZZ robots instead of 1 team ZZZZ and a third bot.

I have no idea what you are arguing about but...

If you truly have another team's best interest at heart, you want them to do their best regardless of what alliance they compete with.

I think we all want every team to compete at the highest levels but sadly reality dictates to me that I have a finite number of resources with which to impact the teams at an event and you better believe I'm going to put all of them into my alliance for eliminations. Don't get me wrong, I'll go out of my way to help an opposing alliance to give them extra time to repair things by using a timeout or by loaning them parts or expertise but that C still stands for Competition.

[Citrus Dad]

What would happen if, a rookie team came to you, or one of the other high ranked teams, on the first day of the competition, and said. We only have a drive base, what can we add to it to help you in the finals. We would like to build a can burglar, create an auto that helps score the robot team points, and build a ramp or two that will help your team in the finals. Will you help us do it.

I think this is a perfect opportunity for a team with no hopes of winning, and no plans on going past one or two districts or regionals, to have a much better event that they could have realistically planned on having with another game.

I agree with many people that it seems wrong to grab a low ranked team and turn them into a ramp anchor. But is it different if that team takes the initiative and does it themselves. Especially if they start on it on the first day and instead of just being a ramp anchor, they can also grab a couple of cans in auto, and then move to the auto zone, before being driven to sit in a safe out of the way place. At least they are doing something then.

This is almost the model that we used last year at Champs. The difference is that we approached two rookie teams that we had seen in video review and we offered to help them create a mechanism that would make them a strong contributor to their alliances and even put them in place to be on an alliance. We gave each of the teams extra parts that we had brought along. Those teams improved from their regionals to 5-5 and 4-6 in the Newton Division--at one point one of them was 5-1 and was in contention for highest ranked rookie up to the 9th match. It was perhaps the single most satisfying effort we had last year. We would do it in a heartbeat again. (I personally donated $1,000 to one of the teams this year.)

[connor.worley]

What is your opinion on the two scenarios I presented earlier?

So long as the team receiving modifications consents to them, I don't see a problem. That means no "hey, do this or we won't pick you / make you sit out" situations.

I would frown upon swapping out so much of a robot that it no longer belongs to its team, but it's hard to define ownership. If FIRST wants to write a rule around this, I think it's going to have to have some "to a reasonably astute observer" clauses in it.

[efoote868]

So long as the team receiving modifications consents to them, I don't see a problem. That means no "hey, do this or we won't pick you / make you sit out" situations.

I would frown upon swapping out so much of a robot that it no longer belongs to its team, but it's hard to define ownership. If FIRST wants to write a rule around this, I think it's going to have to have some "to a reasonably astute observer" clauses in it.


My interpretation of the Q&A is to prevent either scenario, but I disagree with how they did it.

[dodar]

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

No, in eliminations, I want my 3rd robot to fit into the strategy that the ALLIANCE deemed necessary to win the regional/district.

[Citrus Dad]

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

That's asking the impossible, to help the entire universe of other teams at an event. All teams have to pick and choose who they can help and with what resources. You haven't proposed a feasible alternative criteria for how to narrow that resource deployment. Since this is a "competition" the first one is helping better one's own competitive position. What's the next one?

This gets to another point I make frequently: Do NOT count on the "goodness" of the community to achieve an overall goal. "Social norming" where the community develops behavioral expectations can be helpful, but they will never be sufficiently effective to achieve the overall goal. The goal can only be achieved through effective and holistic design of the rules, mechanisms and incentives.

[FrankJ]

I think the difference with this year is that, if there's an alliance on the other side with better potential than you, you can't come up with some clever strategy or play amazing defense to beat them. You just have to hope they fail to meet their potential. Not exactly a feel-good moment.
I was thinking more of matches not against you where their loss would move you up in the rankings.

[Citrus Dad]

That is what I think a lot of teams are missing. At least in Texas I know that if any team walked up to 118, 148, 624, 1477, etc and asked for help building a can burgler on Thursday morning their pit would have 3-4 people in it with in minutes working towards that goal. Once a team is on your alliance you take a little more ownership of them and work with them to make themselves better but most of the time all a team has to do is ask and they will get plenty of cheesecake.

Ditto from 1678. See my other post about last year's Champs.

Also, 254 probably would do the same based on their outreach in the Curie Division last year.

I know that 971 is often going from pit to pit to help at their events. We've benefited much in the past.

In short, I can give clear examples of how top tier teams have given virtually unbidden assistance to teams that ask (or sometimes don't know to ask.) That's one of the things I love about this competitive model--it can cost your team to withhold help from another team.

Unfortunately this year's game has created a situation where the required level of help still may not make a team a truly effective alliance member. (See posts in other threads on this issue.) So alternative strategies are necessary to make third-tier robots effective alliance members, which includes technology transfer.

The GDC should have thought this through when they designed a game that is technically equivalent to climbing to the 2nd pyramid rung (or higher) in 2013 or balancing two robots in 2012, but with no alternative meaningful scoring method or other role available.

[efoote868]

No, in eliminations, I want my 3rd robot to fit into the strategy that the ALLIANCE deemed necessary to win the regional/district.
That's asking the impossible, to help the entire universe of other teams at an event. All teams have to pick and choose who they can help and with what resources. You haven't proposed a feasible alternative criteria for how to narrow that resource deployment. Since this is a "competition" the first one is helping better one's own competitive position. What's the next one?

Then the question is, how are you going to get the 3rd bot to accomplish your ALLIANCE strategy. Are you going to gift them a complete mechanism which completes the task, or are you going to work with them to create a new mechanism which completes the task?

In my opinion, the former violates the spirit of the competition (you are only allowed to field one robot). The latter is to be encouraged.

[dodar]

Then the question is, how are you going to get the 3rd bot to accomplish your ALLIANCE strategy. Are you going to gift them a complete mechanism which completes the task, or are you going to work with them to create a new mechanism which completes the task?

In my opinion, the former violates the spirit of the competition (you are only allowed to field one robot). The latter is to be encouraged.

If the 3rd robot is ok with either, both are fine. If, as an alliance, it is determined that the 3rd robot needs a 2-bin grabber and we have a spare version of another, how would it be detrimental to anyone to put it on that 3rd robot? In the same instance, if the alliance members can come together and build a 2-bin grabber before elims and put it on the 3rd robot, how would that be detrimental to anyone?

[Citrus Dad]

Yes....if you serve it to every alliance, not just your own.

We've served cheesecake to as many teams as we could, but there's only so much to go around. See my other "non cheesecake" post on the limitations of who you can help, and further on considering appropriate incentive design in games to really achieve overall FIRST goals.

[efoote868]

If the 3rd robot is ok with either, both are fine. If, as an alliance, it is determined that the 3rd robot needs a 2-bin grabber and we have a spare version of another, how would it be detrimental to anyone to put it on that 3rd robot? In the same instance, if the alliance members can come together and build a 2-bin grabber before elims and put it on the 3rd robot, how would that be detrimental to anyone?

Where is the line between providing them with a mechanism and with an entire robot?

[Citrus Dad]

For me personally, if I were on the GDC then I'd stop adding more rules and let teams do as they have done in the past and allow them to add components to other robots freely provided the newly formed amalgamations pass inspection.

Perhaps an even better response from the GDC would be to step up and take responsibility for unintended consequences that they've created this year. I gave them full credit last year for what I thought was a great overall concept that got more teams involved than ever. But that also means that they should express their mea culpas rather than trying to prohibit an informal process that has been one of the most fruitful means of teams helping each other. As others have said its probably too late to save the game this year, but the GDC should take to heart an important lesson about future games.

[dodar]

Where is the line between providing them with a mechanism and with an entire robot?

The definition of "robot" in the rules?

I mean, if you have ever heard of one team completely giving a robot to another team for use in elimination matches I'd love to see it. Because it really seems like you want this to be either 0 or 100.

[Citrus Dad]

Should a team in the future be allowed to show up at a regional with just a functioning drive base, be completely non-competitive the entire regional then expect to be the last pick of the #1 alliance because the overall #1 team can outfit them with all the parts needed to be the niche player they need?

Seems it is unfair to any other participant, and is exactly why FIRST has to try so hard to define what a VENDOR is.

Important point: in past year's games this was basically an infeasible strategy. Teams had to bring something useful to the table before they could be considered for an alliance. This year is VERY different and it can be prevented in the future by keeping that in mind in the game design without ANY special rules about assistance.

That said, Mike has listed several examples of how adding cheesecake to what was otherwise a complete meal of a robot has made a team a more attractive alliance partner. Are you saying that the robots that show up a competition MUST be a complete menu with no dessert provided by other teams? That's way beyond the tradition of FRC.

[Citrus Dad]

Then the question is, how are you going to get the 3rd bot to accomplish your ALLIANCE strategy. Are you going to gift them a complete mechanism which completes the task, or are you going to work with them to create a new mechanism which completes the task?

In my opinion, the former violates the spirit of the competition (you are only allowed to field one robot). The latter is to be encouraged.

The new rule interpretation does not allow a team to do either of these approaches. That's the point of this thread.

[MrJohnston]

There's a 6 week build season and 2 days prior that I'm more than willing to spend helping teams build their robots. As Brando mentioned above, we host numerous teams in our already crowded lab. As well as outright help 10+ teams build their drives week 2 of build each year. And spend the event helping teams (in fact that's a good chunk of my job at Rhode Island this weekend).

This isn't about the six week build season and, to my knowledge, this isn't about you, specifically. It is about how strong teams should treat weak ones in elimination matches.

Sorry, if with all that our pick still can't move, I don't think we should have to put them on the field. And in a lot of cases, it's not a function of pick a better robot. (27 event district, more than 3 didn't move or show up to numerous matches).

Personally, I am yet to be at an event where there were no mobile robots available as the last pick. And, most immobile robots, generally just need a little help. Of course, in the extremely rare situation when there are no robots that can be chosen aside from those that are broken beyond a reasonably quick repair, I would expect them to be left off the field. It just seems to be at FIRST events, by the time we get to the end, those robots have had so much help that they are all moving.


And if you want the most blunt response you'll likely get in this thread - Sometimes the nicest thing you could do for the team is to not make them play. Just let them observe how an alliance communicates, the stresses of elimination play, and what decisions go into it. I think we're awfully focused on the robot being out there, but less focused on the more important issue of what teams take away from playing with strong teams.

I so disagree with this. The kids came to play. Help them to find something to do. With only two other robots on an alliance, certainly you can send this weaker one to one corner of either a feeder station or the landfill to work on dragging a single tote to a scoring platform. Yes, for some teams, putting up 2 points will be a victory. I'm yet to see a mobile robot that is not worthy of attempting this.

[MrJohnston]

The new rule interpretation does not allow a team to do either of these approaches. That's the point of this thread.

I disagree. The rule interpretation does not at all disallow bringing in COTS parts and a design for a device, going to a different team and suggesting they install the device. You can even help them to build/install the device. What you can't do is build it yourself and deliver it to them, already created.

[Citrus Dad]

This is a concern, I'd agree. While I enjoyed the direction the game design took this year in respect to encouraging coopertition, these rules will make teams a lot more cautious about loaning or asking for parts. That makes one wonder why there is an announcer calling out needed parts in the pits at all.

I cannot disagree more. The GDC completely reversed the gains it made last year along these lines. The failures to encourage the use of the 3rd robot in the alliance were obvious to us from day one.

And loaning parts (and the associated expertise that often comes with it) is one of the greatest ways for teams to interact and for students to learn outside of their own team organization.

[efoote868]

The definition of "robot" in the rules?

I mean, if you have ever heard of one team completely giving a robot to another team for use in elimination matches I'd love to see it. Because it really seems like you want this to be either 0 or 100.
Having been on a team whose strategy was to build a complete robot around a specific role to make ourselves an attractive alliance pick, it hits close to home.
Back in 2004, my team created a robot solely around hanging on and defending the bar. With today's teams, I have no doubt that an elite team today could design a mechanism to install on a 3rd bot that could mimic our robot's ability to move on the bar; installing this singular ability would make the least competitive team a perfect fit to the most competitive team.

[Citrus Dad]

I mean no disrespect to anyone who does supply other teams with said cheese or cake, but what I find interesting is that this action is primarily a competition day thing. 5 1/2 weeks ago someone started a thread asking what people were up to and most teams were secretive about designs and such. If you want true synergy between teams these lines of communication need to opened up far before the bag gets put on the robot. I would be behind cheesing if it was done consistently throughout the season but generally speaking (and maybe I am just deaf to the noise) the most I hear help wise is when a team runs out of a set of wheels and another team pitches in. You get a little chitter here and there about "has anyone tested out x,y,z against this game element" but in the end as long as the games are team based we would all do better if we all supported each other.
I don't mean to cast shade on any helping other teams. These actions are amazing, in times of stress you go and help another team. It is truly beautiful to see it happen in competition to see a team help another team get on their feet.
So why doesn't it happen more in the build season?

I have two answers to that question:

1) For this year, there is a premium on surprise in the game because the outcome is likely to be determined in less than a second--in the opening auto period. Do the math and you'll see the answer. Any revelations could spoil that strategy. That's a problem particular to this year's GD.

2) After what I thought was a successful GD last year, I called for the GDC to announce in September if the game would require teams to interact on the field to increase scores. You can find my posts on this on CD. As I've said above on this thread above, I don't believe that we can rely on the "goodness of our hearts" to achieve our goals. We need carrots and sticks, mostly through GD. And beyond that the GDC should be taking actions prior to build season to encourage teams interaction.

[Citrus Dad]

I disagree. The rule interpretation does not at all disallow bringing in COTS parts and a design for a device, going to a different team and suggesting they install the device. You can even help them to build/install the device. What you can't do is build it yourself and deliver it to them, already created.

What we did at Champs last year would be prohibited this year. That is fundamentally wrong because those teams would not have had the great experience that they did.

[dodar]

Having been on a team whose strategy was to build a complete robot around a specific role to make ourselves an attractive alliance pick, it hits close to home.
Back in 2004, my team created a robot solely around hanging on and defending the bar. With today's teams, I have no doubt that an elite team today could design a mechanism to install on a 3rd bot that could mimic our robot's ability to move on the bar; installing this singular ability would make the least competitive team a perfect fit to the most competitive team.

So? That means there were negatives that that "elite team" saw in picking your team vs the other team. Just because your team made that strategy, doesnt give you the stranglehold on anyone else using that same strategy.

[Akash Rastogi]

Some of the responses and questions in this thread are so preachy it's a little absurd.

Having been on the receiving end of cheesecaking before, I can assure people that it is one of the most inspirational aspects of FRC that your mentors and students can witness. That first blue banner or medal sparks much more than a single trip to a championship event. Witnessing a captain be SO GOOD that they can fine tune their alliance and strategy to knock out wins is the best example of a role model team ever. Have all the cheesecake you want, I say.

[MrJohnston]

What we did at Champs last year would be prohibited this year. That is fundamentally wrong because those teams would not have had the great experience that they did.

If the parts you contributed to the rookies teams were COTS, it would be just fine. The Q&A interpretation encourages you to help other teams build new devices. It only prohibits building things for them.

From the Q&A:
"3) No, but you may certainly assist another team in building new parts for their ROBOT at the event, and we encourage that."

[efoote868]

So? That means there were negatives that that "elite team" saw in picking your team vs the other team. Just because your team made that strategy, doesnt give you the stranglehold on anyone else using that same strategy.

You need a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous, and nothing more. I have a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous. Instead of picking my robot, you pick a robot that can't do anything, (which includes driving), then install your extra mechanism which can grab 2 cans in autonomous.

How does making your alliance more competitive hurt anyone else? You skipped over my robot in favor of your extra mechanism.

[dodar]

You need a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous, and nothing more. I have a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous. Instead of picking my robot, you pick a robot that can't do anything, (which includes driving), then install your extra mechanism which can grab 2 cans in autonomous.

How does making your alliance more competitive hurt anyone else? You skipped over my robot in favor of your extra mechanism.

Now you are assuming they cannot drive. Show me a regional and/or district where a robot was picked as a 3rd alliance member that could literally do nothing.

[Akash Rastogi]

You need a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous, and nothing more. I have a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous. Instead of picking my robot, you pick a robot that can't do anything, (which includes driving), then install your extra mechanism which can grab 2 cans in autonomous.

How does making your alliance more competitive hurt anyone else? You skipped over my robot in favor of your extra mechanism.

The team picked probably works better with the captain, either historically, or because they are friends.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here...?

[efoote868]

The team picked probably works better with the captain, either historically, or because they are friends.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here...?

How could helping my alliance in eliminations possibly hurt anyone else?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

You need a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous, and nothing more. I have a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous. Instead of picking my robot, you pick a robot that can't do anything, (which includes driving), then install your extra mechanism which can grab 2 cans in autonomous.

How does making your alliance more competitive hurt anyone else? You skipped over my robot in favor of your extra mechanism.
When there is a chokehold strategy that relies on getting game pieces and our mechanism is faster than your already completed and difficult to modify mechanism, the incentive would be to take the "blank slate".

[efoote868]

When there is a chokehold strategy that relies on getting game pieces and our mechanism is faster than your already completed and difficult to modify mechanism, the incentive would be to take the "blank slate".

In my humble opinion I think that gives the wrong incentives.

[AllenGregoryIV]

In my humble opinion I think that gives the wrong incentives.

I agree with you, and I strongly believe we shouldn't have a game that drives those incentives but it does. Flat out it does. Toms post assumes all things being equal, but in real life there are things like relationships between teams, competency of the drive teams, mentors, pit crews, etc. that would go into a decision about which team to pick.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

In my humble opinion I think that gives the wrong incentives.
I agree, this isn't a fun aspect of this year's challenge. I think I can safely say that no one likes this, but we play the game we are given.

Unfortunately, this year, sometimes the robot role that fits the winning alliance strategy is not "inbound the ball/shoot a few frisbees and play shutdown defense" but rather "be sized, willing, and able to receive a mechanism that gives us a better chance of not getting eliminated due to lack of game pieces."

[ASmith1675]

The point I think that's being missed in most of this discussion (excuse me if I missed it in the 13+ pages) is that no one is being FORCED to add things to their robot.

Maybe you find it more inspiring to find and correct that flaw that has been holding back your design. Great! Do that! Maybe you could even ask one of these "elite teams" to help you (I know that many will, having had some interaction with them). Also great!

I'm willing to bet that most of the "cheesecaked" (more on this later) teams started in this way. With members of the "elite" team trying to make their robot work. At this point said "elite" team finds that "Hey this team is pretty good, and are easy to work with, maybe we could suggest a relatively easy change that would make our elimination alliance stronger"

It is at this point that the team to be cheesecaked can say yes or no. "Sorry, we're comfortable with our now-working mechanism and will take our chances at getting picked" Or even, "Our students would prefer to continue working on our mechanism than spend the time adding the cheesecake". Great! Awesome! More power to you! However, this team to be cheesecaked could just as easily say "We've had a lot of fun and learned a ton from working with you so far! We'd be happy to do whatever is needed to help win."

I very much doubt that any of the "powerhouse" teams have randomly chosen a robot from the field without talking to them, and steamrolled their student and mentors in to changing their robot against their will. I also very much doubt that any of the cheesecaked had no discussions with the "elite" before alliances were selected.

We can't make broad generalizations (in either direction) about what is inspiring for a particular team. Some may be inspired by seeing their design come to life, and others may be inspired by doing whatever it takes to win. Neither view is wrong, they are just different.



As a side note: Isn't cheesecake really more of a pie? And isn't Boston cream pie really more of a cake? I propose making this trade.

[Citrus Dad]

In my humble opinion I think that gives the wrong incentives.

You are absolutely right. Go straight to the GDC and demand that they never design a game like this again that so diminishes the role of the 3rd robot. But don't expect teams in a competitive environment to act solely out of the "goodness of their hearts."

Look at the posts from individuals on teams that are being quite successful this year. None are saying "leave us alone because we're perfectly happy with the status quo." They are universally saying "we're stuck with the cards we've been dealt. Why cut off the best way that we can help other teams just because the deck came out so stacked and the no one is willing to look at how to really reshuffle the deck?"

[Citrus Dad]

You need a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous, and nothing more. I have a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous. Instead of picking my robot, you pick a robot that can't do anything, (which includes driving), then install your extra mechanism which can grab 2 cans in autonomous.

I have yet to see a robot that could only grab 2 cans in autonomous and wasn't already competent enough that it would be picked up in the first round of the draft. You're describing a pretty technically challenging task that is way beyond most teams this year (which is another point of this thread.) (I've watched quite a few webcasts.) The choices have always been between robots that might at most be able to put up 2 tote stacks.

[Brandon_L]

If the intent of this Q&A is actually targeted at stopping ramps being passed between teams, I'm not sure what the wording of it is actually accomplishing. A COTS ramp can be built with two items, one if which is the string/tether.

It's doing more harm then good, and it doesn't even accomplish it's intent.

Seems like week 4 q&a controversy is becoming an annual event.

[efoote868]

But don't expect teams in a competitive environment to act solely out of the "goodness of their hearts."

I don't, but that's why there is a need for this type of rule.

I have yet to see a robot that could only grab 2 cans in autonomous and wasn't already competent enough that it would be picked up in the first round of the draft. You're describing a pretty technically challenging task that is way beyond most teams this year (which is another point of this thread.) (I've watched quite a few webcasts.) The choices have always been between robots that might at most be able to put up 2 tote stacks.

I'm describing a hypothetical example, although my team from 2004 would be a good example from a different game.
There are teams that build a robot around their technical capabilities, specifically dissecting the game to determine how to maximize their utility to a high ranking team.

I don't like the idea of high ranking teams creating extra mechanisms to fit their needs of an alliance and then picking a robot based on its adaptability to add (read - easiest to bolt on) that mechanism, instead of picking another robot based on its present ability or future ability after a little help.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I don't like the idea of high ranking teams creating extra mechanisms to fit their needs of an alliance and then picking a robot based on its adaptability to add (read - easiest to bolt on) that mechanism, instead of picking another robot based on its present ability or future ability after a little help.

The problem is that in this game the present and future abilities don't exist. When we are talking about canburgling, the race is going to be sub .2 seconds at the high levels of play. Trying to improve a mechanism to that speed isn't likely possible. In other years it would definitely make sense to take a team that already has a mechanism, (collector, launcher, etc). This year not so much. If the team's established mechanism this year can get an RC in .5 seconds it won't matter since the RCs will be long gone at the highest levels of play. At that point you don't have abilities even if you think you do, it's the nature of this game. As many people have said, nobody really likes this idea, but that is the game we have been given.

[jvriezen]

Just as an anecdotal example, I had first hand experience in a case where an alliance captain (Team A) made a first pick of Team B which had a pretty reliable mechanism to accomplish a key specific game task.

Team A thought their mechanism was superior to Team B's and realized that due to the great similarity in a portion of the mechanism, they could 'transplant' Team A's solution onto Team B's bot, by only drilling a couple holes and attaching a couple very trivial parts. Team B was not asked about this plan prior to picking or after picking. Team A simply arrived at Team B's pit after alliance selections and basically said, "we are going to do this." and proceeded to do the work in Team B's pit.

In the quarter finals the transplanted mechanism failed, twice, the second time with magic smoke, but both matches were still won due to the overall strength of the alliance. Team B decided to revert back to its own solution, and in a later match, Team B's original mechanism outperformed Team A's mechanism.

Team A was a well respected and routinely highly ranked team.

So it is not in all cases that the 3rd bot's team will be consulted or given a chance to accept a suggestion for change.

[magnets]

The problem is that in this game the present and future abilities don't exist. When we are talking about canburgling, the race is going to be sub .2 seconds at the high levels of play..

.2 seconds to engage the hook, sure, but the containers will likely still be on the step, unmoved, for some time after that.

.2 seconds is less than the amount of time it takes for an object to fall 8 inches in free fall. Pick up a pencil, and drop it from the height of a foot. That's not much time to move your hook 6+ feet, wait for the hook to engage/settle, and begin backing up the robot.

[Cory]

.2 seconds to engage the hook, sure, but the containers will likely still be on the step, unmoved, for some time after that.

.2 seconds is less than the amount of time it takes for an object to fall 8 inches in free fall. Pick up a pencil, and drop it from the height of a foot. That's not much time to move your hook 6+ feet, wait for the hook to engage/settle, and begin backing up the robot.

I hope you're not planning on building a can grabber then...prepare to be disappointed if you think you can win that arms race with a mechanism that takes more than .25s to secure the can.

[efoote868]

I hope you're not planning on building a can grabber then...prepare to be disappointed if you think you can win that arms race with a mechanism that takes more than .25s to secure the can.

Did you ever consider colliding with the cans just enough to make a precision grabber fail?

[Cash4587]

.2 seconds to engage the hook, sure, but the containers will likely still be on the step, unmoved, for some time after that.

.2 seconds is less than the amount of time it takes for an object to fall 8 inches in free fall. Pick up a pencil, and drop it from the height of a foot. That's not much time to move your hook 6+ feet, wait for the hook to engage/settle, and begin backing up the robot.

http://www.dallasfrc.org/videos (match 49 is a good angle)

I think it would be in your best interest to watch video of 3310 please.

[Hallry]

Looks like we can all enjoy our Cheesecake once again: (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/TeamUpdateBundle20150317.pdf)

Team Update 2015-03-17

General Updates

This note is from Frank Merrick, Director of FRC.

Hello teams. Yesterday we answered a question on the Q&A, Q461, related to sharing parts and mechanisms between teams, that has created a great deal of controversy. Seeing your concerns, and after significant additional discussion, we are reversing ourselves on our original answer, and making updates to the manual to support that reversal, bringing greater alignment between the manual and common practices at events. We want teams to provide very strong support to each other at events, and while reasonable, knowledgeable, caring people may disagree with ‘how much is too much’, and it’s hard to define a bright line, we don’t want to chill the tremendous spirit of mutual support that is an essential part of FIRST culture. We’re sorry for the issues our original answer caused, it was a mistake.


Game Manual

Section 4.2 - General ROBOT Design

R14 R1 requires that the ROBOT a Team uses in competition was built by that Team, but isn’t intended to prohibit assistance from other Teams (e.g. fabricating elements, supporting construction, writing software, developing game strategy, contributing COMPONENTS and/or MECHANISMS, etc.).


Section 4.6 - Material Utilization

R17 With permission from another Team, Teams may also have access to FABRICATED ITEMS that are part of that other Team’s WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT.

In addition, here is the updated Q&A 461 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/461/are-any-of-the-following-situations-legal-a-team-gives-loans-a-component-or-mechanism-to-a-team-that-was-1-brought-in-to-the-event-in-the-giving-teams-robot-bag-2-brought-in-to-the-event-as-pa):


Q. Are any of the following situations legal: A team gives/loans a Component or Mechanism, to a team, that was: 1. Brought in to the event in the giving team's robot bag? 2. Brought in to the event as part of the giving team's Withholding Allowance? (Does the ruling change if the receiving team has unallocated weight remaining in their own withholding allowance?) 3. Built at the event by the giving team?

A. Revised answer follows (for added information, please see Team Update 2015-03-17 (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/TeamUpdateBundle20150317.pdf)): R1 requires that the ROBOT a Team uses in competition was built by that Team, but isn't intended to prohibit assistance from other Teams (e.g. fabricating elements, supporting construction, writing software, developing game strategy, contributing COMPONENTS and/or MECHANISMS, etc.). Please remember that the addition of any item to any ROBOT requires re-Inspection prior to any MATCH in which that ROBOT competes per T10. That re-Inspection also requires an update to the Team's BOM reflecting the change in ROBOT parts. Given the feedback received since the first version of this response, internal discussion, and Game Manual changes described in Team Update 2015-03-17, the answers to your questions by number are as follows: 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes.

[Dunngeon]

Did you ever consider colliding with the cans just enough to make a precision grabber fail?

I would also invite you to watch Match 49 of the Dallas Regional that Cooper linked...

Your robot wouldn't move fast enough to "collide with it"

Edit:

It's been reversed!

[Evan W]

For anyone wondering, this seems to be the key phrase in the updated R17 rule.

With permission from another Team, Teams may also have access to FABRICATED ITEMS that are part of that other Team’s WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT.

Edit: oops, just realized this has already been posted above

[T^2]

Thanks for the change, Frank. Now I can build a complete robot out of the withholding allowances of 4 other teams.

[Cory]

Good guy Frank at it again. So refreshing to see FIRST actually listen to feedback from the community and take action on it!

As Paul Copioli pointed out in another thread, this would have been unheard of a few years ago. The change is night and day and very welcome.

[IronicDeadBird]

Next topic: Cannolis and water games...

[Joe Johnson]

Hats off to FIRST for listening to the community's concerns and for having the courage to reverse themselves.

There are troubling issues and situations no matter which way FIRST ruled here. I like that Frank acknowledged that in his message.

I respect this. Thanks Frank.

Dr. Joe J.

[Michael Corsetto]

This is a big win for #teamcheesecake

And when cheesecake wins, everybody wins.

Thanks Frank!

-Mike

[AllenGregoryIV]

Only issue I have is it specifically says withholding allowance and not all legal parts. If I made something during build season and bagged it, within the current rules I can't give it away. That's probably just an oversight but an annoying one.

Thanks Frank, and everyone else at FIRST that was involved in this decision. I'm sure there was a lot of debate and I feel like this is the right response.

[Siri]

I know we can each agree to disagree with either the original answer or the update or both if you so choose. But I'd wager that it's hard to argue against the process the GDC went through for this situation: listening (well, presumably mostly reading) the arguments in this controversy and discussing it with the humility to reverse themselves and the respectfulness to explain it. Whether or not you regard the reversal as an improvement, kudos to everyone in this thread and any other channels for the patience and passion you put towards this community's continuous improvement effort. I say we've got another excellence precedent.

#FrankforPresident #FrankAnswers

[Tom Bottiglieri]

1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes. (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/461/are-any-of-the-following-situations-legal-a-team-gives-loans-a-component-or-mechanism-to-a-team-that-was-1-brought-in-to-the-event-in-the-giving-teams-robot-bag-2-brought-in-to-the-event-as-pa)

[PayneTrain]

No! I demand peak absurdity!

[philso]

When there is a chokehold strategy that relies on getting game pieces and our mechanism is faster than your already completed and difficult to modify mechanism, the incentive would be to take the "blank slate".

It always harder to work around existing mechanisms than to start with a blank slate. Our first FRC experience was as an FLL team working with a "rudimentary" FRC team in Rebound Rumble. After the end of the build season and the robot was in it's crate, we managed to build a minibot that was much faster than the one the teams' original one (2.5 seconds). It took all the time between matches on Thursday and part of Friday to fabricate the parts needed to install our launching mechanism because the dimensions of the robot we were given were wildly inaccurate and we were not told about certain support structures. Their manipulator was ineffective and the installation would have been far easier if the team had totally removed it. The team probably would have scored more points by discarding their manipulator, playing defense and then launching our minibot. At an offseason event, we installed the same launcher on another robot with a clear top in about an hour.

[JesseK]

#CoryForGDCChair2016

[Karthik]

A sincere thank you to Frank Merrick and the GDC for taking the time to listen to the community's feedback on this issue. Whenever you make a rule change in a game as complicated as the ones we play in FRC, there will always be a long chain of consequences. It's impressive that the GDC took the time to consider the possibilities and reevaluated their initial answer. I am very impressed. Also, the wording in the Team Update was incredibly gracious. This is an organization that I'm very proud to be part of.

[Thad House]

2 major Q&A issues this year, both of which blew up CD, and both were fixed within a few days. I am very happy with how open FIRST has gotten in the last few years.

Now if only we can get the yellow card on G6-1 removed, It would remove pretty much all of my faults with this years rules.

[Lil' Lavery]

Lesson once again learned: Don't freak out about a Q&A until there's a team update

[maths222]

I considered suggesting people calm down until the team update today, but I figured that it probably would not be a productive comment. I should have had more faith in myself/Frank ::ouch:: (I predicted something would be commented on about it, to say the least.)

[EricH]

Lesson once again learned: Don't freak out about a Q&A until there's a team update

On the other hand, without the teams freaking out, how will the GDC know there's an issue?

And it looks like I thoroughly underestimated (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1458475&postcount=54) the GDC's thinking process. Again.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Lesson once again learned: Don't freak out about a Q&A until there's a team update

To the contrary - if Cory had not raised this question and this long thread not ensued with the considerable thought and debate put into it, I'm not sure if the GDC would know there was a problem that needed fixing. FIRST has a live and direct feedback system through Chief Delphi that many companies could only dream of having. Without the panic threads such as these, it may not be clear to the GDC that the general public has an issue with what's going on.

[marshall]

Thank you FIRST for listening to the community! As others have said, it's good to be a part of this.

[The other Gabe]

Revised answer follows (for added information, please see Team Update 2015-03-17): R1 requires that the ROBOT a Team uses in competition was built by that Team, but isn't intended to prohibit assistance from other Teams (e.g. fabricating elements, supporting construction, writing software, developing game strategy, contributing COMPONENTS and/or MECHANISMS, etc.)

~the Q&A

as far as I can tell, you're still fine to give out like, a claw arm or something, or at least help in building one... this rule leaves so much ambiguity though. a good example being that in 2011, my team made extra Minibots to give out because they were really good and easily deployed (one of them made it to Einstein, so I mean, technically 2046 is the first PNW team to make it to einstein :P). I don't know if that would be legal under these rules, which to me seems to be crushing the principles of FIRST

[EricH]

as far as I can tell, you're still fine to give out like, a claw arm or something, or at least help in building one... this rule leaves so much ambiguity though. ... I don't know if that would be legal under these rules, which to me seems to be crushing the principles of FIRST

I suggest that you take a closer look at the revised rules. Particularly the blue box in R1 and the text of R17.

[GreyingJay]

http://www.dallasfrc.org/videos (match 49 is a good angle)

I think it would be in your best interest to watch video of 3310 please.

WOW. :eek:

[themccannman]

Thanks for the change, Frank. Now I can build a complete robot out of the withholding allowances of 4 other teams.

gooooood... my co-opertition plan is falling perfectly into place.

[GeeTwo]

Honestly, the original GDC ruling was exactly in line with the rules. Not the tradition, but the rules. It sounds like now we need to figure out what the rules are, all over again, two days before competition. As I called out to one of our team members a week or so back as we made an adjustment that he wasn't prepared for: "Welcome to engineering!" When I got the (fully expected) blank stare, I followed up with "Rule 1: Requirements change!". That was completely spontaneous, but now I'm tempted to come up with the ten rules of engineering. Or do they already exist somewhere?

[Citrus Dad]

Thank you to the GDC as well. I'm very glad to see that they are hearing the community and responding. Very nice.

And another set of kudos to those who participated on this thread. While there were lots of strong opinions, they all stayed on point with no name calling. That's truly unheard of on the Internet!

[cglrcng]

Honestly, the original GDC ruling was exactly in line with the rules. Not the tradition, but the rules. It sounds like now we need to figure out what the rules are, all over again, two days before competition. As I called out to one of our team members a week or so back as we made an adjustment that he wasn't prepared for: "Welcome to engineering!" When I got the (fully expected) blank stare, I followed up with "Rule 1: Requirements change!". That was completely spontaneous, but now I'm tempted to come up with the ten rules of engineering. Or do they already exist somewhere?

___________________________
(Yes, I reposted what I posted at the Ramps thread here also, sry about the book).


Wow!...."Change is REALLY coming", in fact it is here all over again! (I'll remind some, that part of this years Game Reveal video was the FORMER FIRST FRC RULEBOOK being recycled ~actually thrown in the trash can or recycling can/bin)....Along with the much loved "NO Required Bumpers." (Yet many keep referring to previous years rules in arguments about the 2015 FRC Rules Interpretations).

We each, must take the things we like about that situation of "Change is Coming", and understand there will be changes we like, and changes we don't necessarily like. Games we like, and games we don't like as much necessarily. Rules we like, and rules we sometimes absolutely hate, usually because it does not fit our personal ideas of how we wish the game to be played, usually to our own personal design advantages.

I'm sry to have caused a crapstorm by asking a few honest questions about legality of play already completed w/ the existing 2015 ruleset a week ago on the RAMPS Thread, but, I'm not sorry with the actual ending results folks.

I spent the majority of my time since Game Release Day this year parsing the game researching what it is that "the elite winning teams do differently", than most other teams (my youngest Son graduated and headed off to college last summer, and I have taken a break from hands on mentoring this year),...So, I read/watched a lot of 1114 & 254 Mentor input out there too!),...And spent a ton of time just thinking of what I personally would do, to build a robot that would contribute highly to a winning Alliance in Recycle rush. Then I went and watched the game actually played.

What I saw and then read here on CD, happening in Weeks 1~3 (were what appeared to be massive unintentional published rules violations IMO only, and I could only see that it was going to continue, and possibly get even worse as the season progressed), as wins were often the result. So, I asked a few very detailed questions in "the RAMPS Thread."

It wasn't because I personally believed people or teams wanted to intentionally violate the "as published 2015 ruleset." It was IMO because FIRST FRC is a culture & has set traditions, the culture is to help themselves, and other teams WIN matches, titles, awards, and Championships and grow through the use of STEM together as a community, and change is also never easy for most people.

I am glad that, as of now, all teams that already played weeks 1~3, and those left to play Weeks 4~the last match at the Championships in 2015, will all be playing on the same level playing field now, due to the actual rule changes instituted by the rules jury (The GDC), today.

But, as Gee Two so eloquently put it in this thread (& quoted above), that (I think), helped the jury (GDC), reconsider the existing ruleset, and the original "No, No, No Answer" to Karthik's 1114 Team Q & A 3 part Question(s) posed to the GDC in Q461. And, with the GDC taking into account the CD/FRC community input, the revised answer of now "Yes, Yes, Yes (With specific limitations)", seems to be fairer to all....Actually levels the playing field throughout all the gameplay. (BTW, GDC gave you a ton of leeway today in this game, don't kick them in the face by attempting to get more).

My hat is off to all participants on CD, and the GDC and Frank.

Once the original Q & A Question(s) (Q461) were posed, I went about my daily work, checking in occasionally to see if it (they), was/were answered, got really busy, and actually missed the original Q461 answers, and the resulting mess (this thread), until tonight.

Tonight, I checked back in to CD (said WOW!), and had a lot of reading to catch up on (the balance of the RAMPS thread), the previous GDC A461 & the revised A461 answers, the recent UPDATES today, and the entire thread here. Then I thought a lot, before posting this input.

Nobody can say that FIRST, Frank and The GDC do not take input from the FRC & CD communites as a whole. They certainly do! (The Jury spoke, they marched the condemned robots to the gallows, & along the way, gears started grinding very loudly the closer to the gallows they got, and then all those grinding gears were greased heavily, and The Jury reconsidered & simply changed the 2015 rules to fit the very well & long fostered community culture & traditions in the FIRST FRC Community....The playing field was again leveled in 2015 for all.

Amazingly I find, some parties are still arguing about the (re-weigh/re-inspection), ruling (that has been the same year in/out lately, BTW), and those arguing "it is just a formality" are arguing (IMHO urinating), into the wind!....It is THE RULE, and is REQUIRED for many good reasons. Get over it. (Examples; You do not want to get caught unaware later overweight, do you?, Or, out of legal specs?...It could possibly invalidate all your matches that came before, or since that allowed robot change). That would not be good for anyone.

Like I said earlier...I like the changes made today (the rules are now more in line w/ the traditions and culture fostered greatly in the FIRST FRC Community), and wish all teams competing good luck!

3 major issues (major non-littering noodle agreements~solved before week 1, game pcs. both on/off field & robots touching them~solved before week 1, now major team contributions to other teams~solved after week 3), this year were solved by the GDC (w/ their very careful consideration, & much CD community input).

Let's hope no more serious ones are found in 2015. (Though, always thinking outside the box, will absolutely always do that to a community!)

Teams....Go have fun!

_____________________________________________
Everything I do or say here on CD (or elsewhere), represents only my personal opinions...Not any team whatsoever. The rules are what they are...work within them, or if you don't like them, work to get them changed (I can fully respect that).:D

[Tristan Lall]

Honestly, the original GDC ruling was exactly in line with the rules. Not the tradition, but the rules. It sounds like now we need to figure out what the rules are, all over again, two days before competition.
To be fair, R1 and the corresponding rules in numerous previous years have suffered from ambiguities about who is a member of the groups allowed to build robot parts for a team, and ambiguities about what it means to build a robot part. The GDC's original ruling was consistent with one plausible interpretation of those ambiguous constraints, and past practice was consistent with an alternative plausible interpretation. In fact, because of all those plausible interpretations floating around, you've always needed to be ready to figure out the rules all over again, because the officials at an event or the GDC might suddenly decide to clarify them in a way you hadn't anticipated.

Obviously, clearer rules make interpretations a simpler task, and I think (as always) that FIRST should strive for that. But I do acknowledge the possibility that FIRST might have been making an active decision not to regulate this quite so precisely, in the hope that something unforeseen and beneficial1 comes out of it. I'm not sure it's a bet I'd have been willing to make if I were the GDC of several years ago—but given FIRST's recent and much appreciated willingness to change course when good cause is shown, I would grant today's GDC more latitude in allowing ambiguities to be resolved in an evolutionary, rather than prescriptive way.

1 Like cheesecake, of course.

[cglrcng]

Special thanks beyond those already extended to FIRST, The GDC, & Frank, are also owed by the entire FRC community (IMHO), to both Karthik (and 1114), for his forthright answers to direct questions in the RAMPS thread and posting the Q&A Questions, and to Cory (and 254) for creating this thread, as it helped straighten out major ambiguities, and helped the rules makers and the entire community. Thanks also to all others that contributed along the way.

(Just too bad those litter bins & litter still exist, it sure noodles up the game, especially when it keeps the co-op stacks from happening in Q~Matches. Trading a possible 40 points for zero points, when they land inside the landfill opening 1~2 seconds or so into teleop, and a bot carrying 1 yellow tote or 3 just can't seem to safely get to the shelf.....LOL). Just kidding.:D

You guys made me hungry for cheesecake tonight!

[efoote868]

Thank you to the GDC as well. I'm very glad to see that they are hearing the community and responding. Very nice.

And another set of kudos to those who participated on this thread. While there were lots of strong opinions, they all stayed on point with no name calling. That's truly unheard of on the Internet!

Thanks as well, thought it was an interesting discussion.

[JB987]

Special thanks beyond those already extended to FIRST, The GDC, & Frank, are also owed by the entire FRC community (IMHO), to both Karthik (and 1114), for his forthright answers to direct questions in the RAMPS thread and posting the Q&A Questions, and to Cory (and 254) for creating this thread, as it helped straighten out major ambiguities, and helped the rules makers and the entire community. Thanks also to all others that contributed along the way.

(Just too bad those litter bins & litter still exist, it sure noodles up the game, especially when it keeps the co-op stacks from happening in Q~Matches. Trading a possible 40 points for zero points, when they land inside the landfill opening 1~2 seconds or so into teleop, and a bot carrying 1 yellow tote or 3 just can't seem to safely get to the shelf.....LOL). Just kidding.:D

You guys made me hungry for cheesecake tonight!

Communication with the opposing alliance can help keep the path clear for coop efforts. We had agreements in almost all of our quals to hold off on throwing noodles until the teams had attempted coop. Not a 100% but better than nothing:D

[mwmac]

Could not agree more. What happened to the notion of no robot left behind? RIPBumpbox! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofefwcw56Ow

Thanks to Frank and the powers that be the Bumpbox Lives! Let the cheesecaking recommence!

[Bob Steele]

Thanks to Frank and the powers that be the Bumpbox Lives! Let the cheesecaking recommence!

All power to the Bumpbox!!!
We miss you guys.... Hope we get to adopt you back next year.