Cheesecake: How far is too far?

[FIMAlumni]

Love it? Hate it? or only in moderation? No matter what your feelings are on the subject, it is happening on the field and nothing in the spotlight was illegal or bullying of any team involved. I'm creating this poll simply to gauge public opinion and here are the explanations of each level.

No cheesecake: The original answer to Q&A 461 discussed here. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135836&highlight=dangerous) AKA Nothing assembled even partially by another team is allowed.

Replacements/spare parts: Allowing identical or assembled cots to be given. AKA assembled gear boxes, cut to length replacement parts, ect by another team.

Small Upgrades: Allowing small assemblies (<10lbs) built by another team to be attached. AKA Ramps and Canburglars attached to another team

Large Upgrades: Allowing large assemblies (10-30lbs) built by another team to be attached. AKA Team 900 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=136945) at worlds.

New Component: Allowing entire mechanisms (>30lbs) that were built and bagged by one team and bolted onto an existing light robot. AKA bolting a full stacking system onto an existing drive train.

New Robot: Allowing an entire robot bagged by one team, to play as another team. AKA bagging two robots and giving the second one to another team.

As I currently understand the rules, all of the following are legal. If you don't believe this should be the case, I'm also curious how you would write this new rule.

[Lil' Lavery]

This thread seems pretty darn similar to this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=136919

[Jared Russell]

IMO, we should just limit it to parts that enter the venue as COTS. Easy to understand and enforce, still allows for many useful types of cheesecake, but it kills the "we build a mechanism and you bring a chassis to fit it" meta-game.

[FIMAlumni]

This thread seems pretty darn similar to this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=136919

I agreed but it did not include a poll, I've seen a few individuals argue one way or another on multiple threads. This is a rather large community (and CD isn't even close to the size of FIRST) and I'm curious where the majority of people reside on this issue. We all have our opinions and I hope anonymous voting will help more people voice their's.

[marshall]

IMO, we should just limit it to parts that enter the venue as COTS. Easy to understand and enforce, still allows for many useful types of cheesecake, but it kills the "we build a mechanism and you bring a chassis to fit it" meta-game.

Do you think that is enough though? Most of the canburgling mechanisms and truthfully, even the harpoons, could probably have been built with COTS at the event with enough pre-planning. I'm not sure that is the right limit unless the game design discourages it as well.

[JaneYoung]

I agreed but it did not include a poll, I've seen a few individuals argue one way or another on multiple threads. This is a rather large community (and CD isn't even close to the size of FIRST) and I'm curious where the majority of people reside on this issue. We all have our opinions and I hope anonymous voting will help more people voice their's.

Agreed. I also think this thread offers the opportunity for clarifying the different aspects.

For example, I understand how cheesecake came about as a term but how does the actual term apply? It just makes me hungry and want a cup of coffee. I could weigh 5000 pounds before this discussion is over.

Jane

Edit: Found the reasoning behind the term.

[Donut]

IMO, we should just limit it to parts that enter the venue as COTS. Easy to understand and enforce, still allows for many useful types of cheesecake, but it kills the "we build a mechanism and you bring a chassis to fit it" meta-game.

This, mostly. If you can build an entire new mechanism from parts while at the competition I think you should reap the benefits, as that is no small task even for a powerhouse. Plus that still allows robots to be built collaboratively at the competition (due to theft, shipping issues, total robot destruction, etc).

The only gray area to me is the withholding allowance. For those who do not want pre-built mechanisms at all it would be cumbersome to enforce that withholding allowance parts only make it onto the robot of the team that brought them. I'm fine with withholding parts going wherever but can understand that 35 lbs is a lot of weight to work with.

[Chris Hibner]

I'm donning my fire proof suit as I write this...

As I mentioned on FRC GameSense last week, I'm not a big fan of "Cheesecaking". I actually have what I think is a better word for it, but that's beside the point.

If it's a small upgrade, or "this mechanism would work better if you made this improvement", then I think that's great as long as the team gets to keep the improvement. When it becomes adding entire pre-planned mechanisms or completely rebuilding large portions of a robot, I'm not a fan.

There are many reasons that I feel the way I do, but I don't want this post to become a novel.

For now I'll only give one reason: There are good teams with good robots that get left out of eliminations as a result. I have been to more than one event in which I saw teams that were definitely in the top 24 robots at the competition sit on the sidelines during eliminations because it was easier to throw a bolt-on mechanism on a box-on wheels.

I've long had the opinion that the best robots should advance and win (yes - I rooted heavily for 469 in 2010) so the efforts of those teams can be rewarded. When a team that should be rewarded sits on the sidelines while a lesser team is rewarded, I have a feeling that the team that is sitting out has a problem with that - and I do too.

[GreyingJay]

If it's a small upgrade, or "this mechanism would work better if you made this improvement", then I think that's great as long as the team gets to keep the improvement. When it becomes adding entire pre-planned mechanisms or completely rebuilding large portions of a robot, I'm not a fan.


Maybe that should be a key part of all this. The recipient gets to keep whatever mods are made. That should reduce the incentive for a team to get cheesecaked primarily for the benefit of another team (especially if it's an expensive add-on), and encourage mods that help the recipient perform better on their own merit so they can positively contribute to the alliance.

[aashay2035]

At Seneca (Mar Week 4 Event) there was a team 5640 (Pegasus) who needed help to improve their robot. We and 87 scraped up parts to make them a ramp. On Sunday they were not there just before their first match. So we were planning to go on the field with their robot and no one on there team. But they came on time just 2 mins before their match. If we were allowed to go on the field with someone elses robot then cheesecaking has to be allowed.

[twetherbee]

Maybe that should be a key part of all this. The recipient gets to keep whatever mods are made. That should reduce the incentive for a team to get cheesecaked primarily for the benefit of another team (especially if it's an expensive add-on), and encourage mods that help the recipient perform better on their own merit so they can positively contribute to the alliance.

The can grabbers we added to 2512 went home with them. They earned them. Awesome contributing alliance members and great group of people to work with.

I was not a fan of the level to which "cheesecaking" was done this year, either. But it had to be done to stay competitive in this year's game. One more reason to dislike Recycle Rush.

[piersklein]

I think that the biggest thing to remember when talking about cheecaking is that Winning is inspirational.

Every team in FRC wants to win. That is why it is a competition. And the reason of FIRST is inspiration, so we should be honor bound to do anything to inspire students. Cheesecaking, being cheesecaked, or even watching a cheesecake from 2000 miles away can be inspirational. I know even just sitting at home, I was inspired by some of the cheesecaking done by 1114 and company (and the secret 4488 cheesecake), engineering on that scale and in that timeframe is inspiring no matter what. That being said it must still be approached with caution. If the following rules were enforced (not by FIRST but by the community) I think cheesecaking would become an integral and inspiring part of every FRC season:
1. Never pressure a team into changing their robot
2. The Cheesecaking team may help with mentors, parts, tools, and students, but the cheesecakee must lead modifications.
3. Cheesecakee's should be allowed to keep modifications within reason (anything under a few hundred dollars)
4. Make sure the modifications are a learning experience for all involved.
5. Make it awesome

[Caleb Sykes]

For now I'll only give one reason: There are good teams with good robots that get left out of eliminations as a result. I have been to more than one event in which I saw teams that were definitely in the top 24 robots at the competition sit on the sidelines during eliminations because it was easier to throw a bolt-on mechanism on a box-on wheels.

Honestly, if my team had one of the top 24 robots at a regional or district event and a purely cheesecaked team made it into playoffs over us. I would be pretty annoyed. But I wouldn't be annoyed at the cheesecake giver or the cheesecake recipient, I would be annoyed with myself and my team.

This event would clearly show me that my team either needs to work harder, or analyze the game better. If another team can build a bolt-on mechanism with their withholding allowance that is better than my mechanism that does the same task, I don't believe that my team is working hard enough to deserve a spot in playoffs. If there are no alliances that have any use for our mechanism, that means we mis-analyzed the game, and that we shouldn't be in playoffs anyway because we would not be able to be the most valuable contributor.

If every team would build within their means and analyze the game well, then I bet most of the "issues" surrounding cheesecake would vanish.

[JaneYoung]

...

If every team would build within their means and analyze the game well, then I bet most of the "issues" surrounding cheesecake would vanish.

I don't think it will ever vanish. In this case, I think there have been teams who enjoyed challenging themselves and pushing the envelop.

Jane

[Alan Anderson]

I'm fine with teams giving out as much sugar and eggs and cream cheese as they want, and even helping a receiving team to bake it into a wheel of delicious dessert. But I've reached a position where I think giving an entire homemade cheesecake is something that should be discouraged.

(A standardized commercial cheesecake is another matter. If every team has the opportunity to buy -- or be given -- one, then I have no problem with it. But the analogy terminology shorthand we're using here starts to break down when trying to discuss "COTS cheesecake".)

[Josh Fox]

I was not a fan of the level to which "cheesecaking" was done this year, either. But it had to be done to stay competitive in this year's game. One more reason to dislike Recycle Rush.

Emphasis mine. I think this is the most concrete thing to take away from the discussion.

I'm a fan of cheesecake. If a "better" team can work with a "lesser" team (purely in terms of mechanical ability of their robot) to improve it, I'm all for it. If that happens to be with a relatively simple mechanism? So be it.

I'm very against bad game mechanics.

Last year, cheesecake would have generally meant putting some sort of guide, and often a passive one at that, onto a partner robot. This was necessary because of a poor set of rules that dictated a robot must "control" a ball to complete a pass, which was a fundamental and essential component of the game, instead of simply pushing it or touching it momentarily.

This year, matches were decided in fractions of a second because of an insane amount of importance placed on controlling the cans, and the inability to recover cans once the opposing alliance had them on their side of the field. Obviously allowing teams to recover them once they crossed to the other side would entirely change the dynamic of the game as a whole, but at the root of the issue is that same game dynamic.

If you don't want teams coming in with pre-fabbed mechanisms, maybe don't design tasks that are essential to the game that can be completed with something so simple, or find another way for teams that may have more difficulty accomplishing complex tasks a way to positively contribute (see: defense, pushing game pieces into a lower goal, etc.).

tl;dr don't hate the player, hate the game design

[Richard Wallace]

... I was not a fan of the level to which "cheesecaking" was done this year, either. But it had to be done to stay competitive in this year's game. One more reason to dislike Recycle Rush.This. ^

The issue is choke holds in the game, not whether teams should help each other.

987 and several other top-caliber teams got it right, played by the rules, and made this game look as good as it could. RR has many aspects I really like, including the emphasis on consistency and scoring capability.* But the choke hold opportunity created by step cans should have been foreseen and corrected. I think the IRI committee will find a way to do that.

-----
*That said, I am not a fan of the "one bad match kills your seed" impact of straight average ranking, nor of the ranking bias due to relative strength of qualification alliance partners. Not sure if W-L-T (with tiebreakers) would have fixed these or not -- maybe someone will analyze and make constructive recommendations to the GDC.

[xman206]

What do people considered small/large components? 1678 can theft auto proved to be useful for them considering they were in the cheesecake factory.

[Mrcope9]

In general, I'd say i'm pro-cheesecake. Mainly because I think it embodies (to a degree) what FIRST is all about. In doing this, it is an opportunity to learn from top-caliber teams in a competition environment. In the instances I saw, it wasn't about a powerhouse number one seed saying "your robot belongs to us, hand it over and let us do this our way." It was about using what an alliance partner can bring to the table and working together to make a new creative strategy, even if it was just strapping on a pole that kicked a can over. From my perspective, the takeaways were great. In the teams we worked with, we got to learn about how they work, and got a few tips on making quick parts. I am definitely interested in seeing how next years game could incorporate things like this.

[waialua359]

I miss the 6 week build season.



Where the challenge was designing, building, and testing robots in such a short time period.
Examples such as cheesecaking and the 30 lb allowance no longer makes a 6 week build season worth anything meaningful. The allowance initially started, IIRC, due to teams not having access to their shops (not able to work) due to weather conditions. It seems to have just continued since that time.

FRC is looking more and more like the VEX challenge. If that's the case, I hope FIRST makes some changes in the near future, so that I can eat right, sleep right, and not put my personal life on hold for 2 months not including the competitions we attend.
The time we gave up to be competitively ready for a week 1 event, went out the door 3 weeks later.

[connor.worley]

I miss the 6 week build season.



Where the challenge was designing, building, and testing robots in such a short time period.
Examples such as cheesecaking and the 30 lb allowance no longer makes a 6 week build season worth anything meaningful. The allowance initially started, IIRC, due to teams not having access to their shops (not able to work) due to weather conditions. It seems to have just continued since that time.

FRC is looking more and more like the VEX challenge. If that's the case, I hope FIRST makes some changes in the near future, so that I can eat right, sleep right, and not put my personal life on hold for 2 months not including the competitions we attend.
The time we gave up to be competitively ready for a week 1 event, went out the door 3 weeks later.

What are your thoughts on FIRST adopting a much longer build term or even going year round like VEX?

[AdamHeard]

This year incentivized it more than previous years, but now that the cat's out of the bag it could really get out of hand.

Typically 3rd picks at many regions aren't that capable, so providing them a mechanism can be very overpowered.

30 lbs of custom part, plus unlimited COTS, is plenty to make meaningful systems for some years that could be installed quickly.

[marshall]

What are your thoughts on FIRST adopting a much longer build term or even going year round like VEX?

Do it. Get rid of bag and tag. Teams already build multiple robots to subvert bag and tag. By removing it, you enable lower resource teams to compete at higher levels easier.

[RacerX]

It has been an interesting few days following the Championships….. Many thoughts and emotions, and reading these threads has, I can only guess, caused many of us, me included, to start writing responses, and then just deleting them…..

Well, for good or bad, here goes one that did not get deleted.

A couple points of clarification;

- I am new to the program, this being the second year of involvement for our daughter. From the first event that we attended a couple of years ago during a school field trip with our youngest, I was hooked. I think it is a great program. I only have perspective from my limited involvement.
- If it comes across that I am saying anything negative about the Teams that collaborated in this ‘Cheesecake Factory’ event, please note, I am not blaming Teams, I am only expressing my opinion about the structure that allowed such activity.

Also, let me state that this is only my opinion, not the opinion of the Team I am associated with, or anyone else, just mine….

Witnessing this activity reminded me of some experiences I had with another sport, and there are some similarities, and feelings. I just thought I would share my past experience. You can take it for what it is worth….

I have been involved with a race team and as a Team we worked very hard to compete, and with some luck and A LOT of hard, hard work and dedication by every member of our Team, we were able to compete at the highest level in our sport. Vying for the World Championship in a year-long battle that involved racing all over this great country of ours. It was an amazing experience, and one I will remember forever for the good and the not so good, for it all contributes in making experiences what they are.

We had resources, ie. $$$’s and a dedicated crew. We had the burning desire to be the best, and we did everything we could to make our Team as good as it could be. We did not have the same $$$’s as the top Teams, and we had not been in the sport as long as some of them, but we had desire and determination….. You cannot just make those things, or buy them…..

We had been steadily building our program, getting more competitive. We decided that we would make a run at seeing what we could do, and set out to compete as if we were running for the World Championship, to see how we stacked up against the best of the best. We started out the year reaching the Finals our first seven races, winning three of them. We were on a roll…… As the year progressed, we were leading the points chase, staying ahead of our competition….. People started talking about ‘upsets’ as we could be in a position to unseat a 4-time Champion..... We just kept our heads down and worked hard. Then, interesting things started to happen…….

Similarly to FIRST, we had an Eliminations format when it came to race day. Depending on the event, there were either 8 or 16 Qualifiers who raced on Sunday. It was true eliminations, you lost, you were on the trailer, no averages, no best of two or three, nothing….. Just two race teams, a race track and +/- 5.30 seconds to decide who was moving on…..

Now to the interesting things…… As the season began to wind down, we were still leading the points chase. We started seeing the Crew Chief from the rival Team talking with other Teams, especially the Teams that were in the lower qualified positions. Hmmmm……. Here we are qualified #1 or #2, and he is talking to the two lowest qualified Teams, the ones we would likely be racing 1st Round. If we were to lose early in Eliminations, our points total would take a hit. We worked harder….. Then it became more than just talking, it became replacement of key components, first a supercharger, then a complete motor, a tune-up…… Teams that barely qualified are now having another Team replace their complete drive-train and being told how to run their car, with the sole purpose to beat us…..

It was all within the rules…… Teams would help other teams with parts and crew when they needed it, that was something I always enjoyed, was helping others. But, when it got to the point that a Team was taking over another Team, in an effort to beat someone else, I thought that crossed a line. In the middle of all of this were all the other teams. Teams that worked hard, put everything they had into their operations and they competed at their best. They might have been a mid to high placed Team, but they got run over by the steam rollers of the Top Teams, and the newly created bottom Team with a bunch of new go-fast parts, and knowledge that was only given on a need to know basis……

So, how did it all end? We ended up losing the World Championship by one Round of racing. We crisscrossed the country, went to 23 different races, had the highest of highs and the lowest of lows…… It was fantastic, and I will remember it forever…… Likewise, I will remember experiencing activities that I thought were a detriment to the sport that I loved…..

When Mega-teams could out spend, and out work all of the others, it was one thing. We worked hard and did what we could with what we had to compete with them. But when it started to become Mega-team 1, and Mega-team 1 creating Mega-team Jr., it was dang, how many times do we have to beat them???? Often times Mega-team Jr. was extatic at given the shot to compete at a higher level. When it worked, they ran quicker and faster than they had ever gone, and often quicker and faster than they would ever go. Once the parts were taken back, they were where they were….. Maybe it was a good experience for them? They got to run with the big dogs…… Maybe it will fuel them to work harder, to dig deep, and figure out how to make their Team better, figure out how to become a Top Team…… Who knows…..

What I do know is, there was no shortage of Teams who were willing to scrap their program, yank their motor out and try to covet the attention of those who had the go-fast parts, and the knowledge……

Was there any redeeming value in all this activity? That can be debated for all eternity…… I am not claiming to know the answers…… But in my opinion, the redeeming value benefitted a very few, and not the program as a whole.

The cheesecake activity that we witnessed this weekend reminded me of what we experienced that year with our race Team, and our quest to see how we stacked up against the best of the best…… The memories were not the good ones, and I would hope that similar memories are few and far between as we continue this great journey in FIRST…..

[waialua359]

What are your thoughts on FIRST adopting a much longer build term or even going year round like VEX?

Our program is heavily involved in both VEX and FRC as you know.
We enjoy both very very much.
My wish is that FIRST either completely do one or the other and get rid of the in-between. The rules as it exists benefit some and not all. Without getting into details, it puts us at a disadvantage because of the traveling we need to do in order to compete. It also puts teams that only have the time to do just 1 robot at a huge disadvantage as well, if your robot is stuck in a bag, crated away from home once shipped to the initial event.

The old argument to not extending the build season was not to burnout mentors.
To me, that no longer holds valid.
The intensity of the program is now almost 4 months, if you expect to be competitive at the level of the elite teams that consistently make Einstein, generally speaking.

[Citrus Dad]

Do it. Get rid of bag and tag. Teams already build multiple robots to subvert bag and tag. By removing it, you enable lower resource teams to compete at higher levels easier.

Interesting thought. Many (most?) teams compete at multiple regionals and districts (particularly the latter). So extending the build season won't really give late competing teams an advantage--the teams competing earlier will get an opportunity to learn from their experience.

Look at the average scores and OPRs this season. Some teams had remarkable turnarounds in the season. 195 and 1671 are excellent examples of teams that went to the elite level by working after their first regional. Shouldn't we encourage students to learn from their experiences and then apply those lessons?

[The Lucas]

Perhaps we need more transparency in regards to what constitutes every team's ROBOT and WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE. We could achieve this by having a website available to all teams with pictures of all robots with all configuration parts (like they are at weigh in) and possibly the withholding allowance as well.

A short anecdote: At an early competition, this year a team started installing using their own can burglar arms late in competition (prior to that they had kept them off so they wouldn't get in the way). Many people approached me (an RI) and the rest of the inspection crew about the that team changing their robot without getting reinspected. We told them that yes they did get weighed with those arms and it wasn't really a problem. However, now I think about those countless people that noticed the change but didn't ask a RI for clarification. Are they suspicious that the team was breaking the rules? In absence of any simple tools to gather better info, are they saying things that damage that team's reputation behind their back when that team followed proper procedure? They probably have similar questions about the RIs.

There are already tools in place to manage all these pictures. If you went to events in MAR, California, or North Carolina, you may have seen volunteers using the GMS (Game Management System) Android app (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pejaver.gms) to manage inspection, queuing, judging, etc... In MAR inspections, the basic procedure is to take a picture of the robot at weigh in. This picture is accessible to other volunteers in the Team Notes. It would not be hard to extend this functionality to designate a Current Robot Pic to for public sharing on the website that GMS already runs. For those events not ready to deploy a broad solution like GMS, simply take pictures and upload them automatically or at the end of the day to a photo sharing site.

The withholding allowance is a little more difficult since pretty much the only requirements under R17 is it is under 30lbs and loaded in initially. It is a set of items in different places (in or out of bag, attached to a robot or held off until necessary). A change in the inspection process would be needed. Perhaps by the end of the first qualification day, teams should collect all off robot FABRICATED ITEMS (whether they came from the bag, withholding allowance, or fabricated from COTS at the event) for inspection and picture.

An additional benefit of public pictures of robots is that teams will not have to devote resources to taking pictures of robots during pit scouting and teams without these resources will get the info for free. This can improve traffic flow in the pits since getting a good picture in the crowded pits can cause traffic jams.


This game is ending, but there will be future games where multiple configurations to fit different strategies will be very beneficial. Teams will continue to reconfigure their robot and their partners. With rulings like this Q&A 440 (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), the incentives for reconfiguration are even greater. Consider the possibility of a team building 2 nearly full weight configurations that complement each other strategically. They move their control system between the 2 configs to fit qualifying match pairings, getting reinspected each time. For the playoffs they pick a configuration for their robot and have a partner plug their control system into the other config. If we are going to allow this level of reconfiguration, at the very least, the public should be informed at every step of the process.

[AGPapa]

This game is ending, but there will be future games where multiple configurations to fit different strategies will be very beneficial. Teams will continue to reconfigure their robot and their partners. With rulings like this Q&A 440 (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), the incentives for reconfiguration are even greater. Consider the possibility of a team building 2 nearly full weight configurations that complement each other strategically. They move their control system between the 2 configs to fit qualifying match pairings, getting reinspected each time. For the playoffs they pick a configuration for their robot and have a partner plug their control system into the other config. If we are going to allow this level of reconfiguration, at the very least, the public should be informed at every step of the process.

Interestingly enough, a team tried this in the past.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65363

In 2008 1519 has two different configurations (which, together, weighed inside the 120lb limit, so no need for re-inspection). It was designed so the control system could be taken out of one config and put into another. They were ruled illegal as the rules state that "Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition" and the inspectors considered each configuration a separate robot.

[Mastonevich]

Many times has been mentioned the 30 lb keep back limit in addition to any COTS.

What stops a team from bagging more than 120lbs?

Teams come in over weight at every regional. They reduce their weight and get inspected at 120 lbs. I think I have seen as much as 20lbs for some teams. What is the limit?

10, 20, 50, ?, ? lbs

[Scott Morgan]

What are your thoughts on FIRST adopting a much longer build term or even going year round like VEX?
As far as I'm concerned the build season has already grown to cover the entire competition season. I'd probably be okay with a slightly longer build, or eliminating bag and tag, but a full year build season is out of the question for me as it would drastically lower my life expectancy.

[Jared Russell]

We should probably take the discussion of build season length to its own thread. As is tradition this time of year.

[Ben Martin]

A short anecdote: At an early competition, this year a team started installing using their own can burglar arms late in competition (prior to that they had kept them off so they wouldn't get in the way). Many people approached me (an RI) and the rest of the inspection crew about the that team changing their robot without getting reinspected. We told them that yes they did get weighed with those arms and it wasn't really a problem. However, now I think about those countless people that noticed the change but didn't ask a RI for clarification. Are they suspicious that the team was breaking the rules? In absence of any simple tools to gather better info, are they saying things that damage that team's reputation behind their back when that team followed proper procedure? They probably have similar questions about the RIs.


I remember thinking it was weird when we were asked to reinspect in the middle of playoffs after we had just reinspected 2 hours prior and hadn't changed anything.

As we've improved, we know that we must endure extra scrutiny, and our recent improvement increases the likelihood that we will be negatively judged for every action we take. Early this year, I made some mistakes in alliance negotiations by being a little forceful and had to tone down my insistence a little. I know not every team has the 'do what it takes to win' (while keeping your GP) paradigm as we do, and us partaking in actions like giving cheesecake hasn't sat well with some others and occasionally builds a negative perception, regardless of how the recipient team feels about it. I remember having negative perceptions of teams back when I was in high school -- 'that team's robot was totally built by mentors because they win all the time', etc, and being jealous of teams for doing particularly well -- and now we fight back that same perception locally. It's been an interesting shift. We're not going to try any less hard to win (if anything, we're going to continue to try even harder), but our awareness of others' perception has been heightened.

[Doug G]

This year incentivized it more than previous years, but now that the cat's out of the bag it could really get out of hand.

Typically 3rd picks at many regions aren't that capable, so providing them a mechanism can be very overpowered.

Yep, for those that keep up with this community (and the elite teams do), the cat is definitely out of the bag (and scratching up my nice furniture!) We built 3 robots this year (a prototype style robot during weeks 1-3, and two competition ready robots). Looking back, that prototype robot could have been just as competitive as the lower half of teams at many competitions. Maybe next year we bag that robot also and bring it to competition for our 3rd alliance member. I know this is a bit extreme... but it is just a matter of time if the rules stay as is.


The old argument to not extending the build season was not to burnout mentors.
To me, that no longer holds valid.
The intensity of the program is now almost 4 months, if you expect to be competitive at the level of the elite teams that consistently make Einstein, generally speaking.

I'm having a really tough time meeting the demands of the FRC season... The season is 4 months... Students grades suffer also during these times, especially those taking several AP classes. One of my students (currently on track to be valedictorian) told me how she has gotten used to watching her grades fall while at competitions...

I Kind of miss those 6 week build seasons!

[FrankJ]

So when the robot inspectors & teams help rookie teams get their robot inspected & on the field... Is that Cheesecaking or Teaching a team to fish?

[billbo911]

Looking back at what turned out to be a fantastic and tasty piece of Cheesecake, or should I say "Cheesey-poof-cake", from last year, Cheesy Vision, you can easily see that FIRST can put rules in place to stop certain aspects of Cheesecakeing. Granted, the Poofs shared that Cheesecake with every team worldwide that wanted it. This year the rule explicitly stopped that specific flavor of cheesecake from being baked up.

As much as I support teams helping out alliance partners and non-alliance partners to be competitive, I honestly believe there should be some constraints on the practice. Canburglers are 2015's Cheesy Vision. Both were well within the rules for their time period, thus I fully agree with their specific use and application. Should that type of "cheesecake" be allowed in the future? As long as it is withing the rules governing that year's game, absolutely!
Just don't get used to the rules that allow them. Cheesey Vision was ruled against, Canburglers MAY be next.

[ArtemusMaximus]

What is the "Cheesecake"?

[FrankJ]

Cheesy Vision is a great example of a team using GP to level the playing field. Also it was completely up a team to incorporate it in their system or not. GDC didn't really make it or the concept of releasing useful software against the rules. They just defined autonomous to really be autonomous. You would be free to use cheesy vision for teleop mode.

[FrankJ]

What is the "Cheesecake"?

Cheesecake (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1458711&postcount=81) or Cheesecake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheesecake)

[billbo911]

Cheesy Vision is a great example of a team using GP to level the playing field. Also it was completely up a team to incorporate it in their system or not. GDC didn't really make it or the concept of releasing useful software against the rules. They just defined autonomous to really be autonomous. You would be free to use cheesy vision for teleop mode.

True, that is a better interpretation.

[Foster]

I'm fine with teams giving out as much sugar and eggs and cream cheese as they want, and even helping a receiving team to bake it into a wheel of delicious dessert. But I've reached a position where I think giving an entire homemade cheesecake is something that should be discouraged.

I agree with this position. Some of my most memorable events were when teams showed up after the six week build with something that really wasn't going work or in a few cases even roll. A number of the 3 digit teams arrived with people, worked with the "to be cheesecaked team" worked out a plan. They would then search all the teams "allowances" in the pit area, and in a few hours help build a robot. I'd like to see some way for this to continue.

But I don't want to see teams "find a box" and rip it down to install full items. I think Alan's line of help you get parts and assemble, but it's not a bolt on thing. I think the COTS line may be good, but will a point get reached that VexPro makes the "VexProBurglar" (tm)?

But the concept of going to an event, seeing something cool and adding it in should always be there.

I miss the 6 week build season.
FRC is looking more and more like the VEX challenge. If that's the case, I hope FIRST makes some changes in the near future, so that I can eat right, sleep right, and not put my personal life on hold for 2 months not including the competitions we attend.

*cough*FTC*cough*

But to be fair one of the things I like about VEX is the design/build/compete/get crushed/redesign//build/compete/get crushed/redesign ... cycle. It's the way the world works (cough*iPhone6*cough) but it's a shame that designs will converge to just a few dozen. If you saw the VEX Worlds, there were lots of variations, but lots of similar designs.

While it's a little out of context: Newton: If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. We do that all the time, RI3D, VexPro / AM / etc COTS parts, years of cycle engineering drive trains, etc.

[waialua359]

I'm having a really tough time meeting the demands of the FRC season... The season is 4 months... Students grades suffer also during these times, especially those taking several AP classes. One of my students (currently on track to be valedictorian) told me how she has gotten used to watching her grades fall while at competitions...

I Kind of miss those 6 week build seasons!
Thats very unfortunate and it has happened to my 5 year driver as well.
He was valedictorian all through high school until the end of 3rd quarter when he got two B's. It ends our streak of 7 straight years of having a valedictorian from
our program, not being able to get #8.

[Bertman]

I personally think the build season is a very large strain on the students, mentors , and coaches. It is very difficult to keep kids focused on school when the build season keeps expanding blob-like. A six week build season was much easier to recover academically from and getting and keeping mentors would be easier if we could clearly define the time commitment to new and potential mentors. I think the FIRST widows would appreciate it also. Of course this barely touches the time frame used in FTC

[The Lucas]

Interestingly enough, a team tried this in the past.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65363

In 2008 1519 has two different configurations (which, together, weighed inside the 120lb limit, so no need for re-inspection). It was designed so the control system could be taken out of one config and put into another. They were ruled illegal as the rules state that "Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition" and the inspectors considered each configuration a separate robot.

It is like you read my mind, I was thinking of the perils of Speed Racer when I was posting this. The rules have changed significantly since then. With the new Q&A it would seem you could have a 120lb Fezzik and get reinpected as Speed Racer as needed instead of inspecting them together and changing the power pathways (which was part of the 2 Robot ruling issue). 900 went from swerve drive arm bot to kit drive harpoon bot with a reinspection, and could possibly change back with a reinspect.
I only had experience with one team that used the frequent reinspect Q&A. They had different parts for landfill and human player stacking that they couldn't get them combined under the weight limit so they got reinspected when they changed. Personally, I wanted to switch out one canburglar arm for a stage can swatter to speed up a staked tote set auto (essentially mutually exclusive auto tasks). The Q&A happened during the season, so teams only had the Withholding Allowance weight limit to make fabricated parts for different config. I wonder what teams will do if this is still the ruling before Bag Day next year (essentially unlimited weight for different configs).

[FIMAlumni]

Well this poll didn't do what I thought would happen. I thought at least 50% of people would converge on a single answer. Instead we find that FRC is very divided on this. It will be very interesting to see what/if the GDC does about this.

[waialua359]

If you saw the VEX Worlds, there were lots of variations, but lots of similar designs.

Actually, I did get a chance to see it.
As a coach in the HS World Finals matches.
"oh so close.":ahh:

[Wayne TenBrink]

In my opinion, "too far" is when a robot shows up for playoffs that wasn't there for qualification rounds, and nobody else had a chance to select it.

If cheesecake is to be limited by new rules, I hope they strike a reasonable balance that still allows/encourages stronger teams to help struggling teams, and still allows teams in playoffs to keep their machines in top form. I like the idea of unrestricted upgrades during the qualification matches (with the required re-inspections), but with some sort of design/configuration freeze after that. Perhaps a total freeze with no changes allowed that meet the criteria for re-inspection. Perhaps a partial freeze with some nominal allowance (a couple of pounds?) for upgraded parts. No restrictions on repairs, maintenance, or software (as currently allowed without re-inspection). In summary, no significant mechanisms in playoffs that were not present in at least one qualification match.

Another thing I think would be interesting - something that would reduce the incentive for cheesecake at championship - would be to go back to three team alliances for division playoffs, with backup bots drawn from unpicked robots as needed. Then, after the division winners have been decided, let them pick their "backup bot" from any of the teams in their division. This would create "super alliances" that truly represent the best that their division had to offer, and make Einstein matches the best they could be.

[Mr. Van]

What would be the problem with the following rule? (Yes, I've brought this up in another thread, but it seems relevant here.)

"FABRICATED ITEMS/MECHANISMS/COMPONENTS brought into an event (including those on their ROBOT) must be used on the ROBOT of the team that brought them. Teams are encouraged to bring in raw materials and COTS items to assist other teams at the event. COMPONENTS/MECHANISMS that are on a ROBOT that competes in a match become part of that team's ROBOT for the remainder of the event."

In addition, what would happen if alliance selection at regionals took place AFTER lunch, and the elimination/playoffs started after a short "figure out your strategy" session?

This would allow all sorts of alterations, improvements and teams working together, but would prevent a team from bringing in a pre-built component and putting it on another team's robot. They could build something to help any team they wished, but that "cheesecaked" team would be available for any alliance to select.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[MegaAlberto]

Team 4063 is well known for helping team with their robots between matches when they are in need, whether it be donating spare parts, lending tools, etc. Once in a while, we'll see a team that comes to a regional with no robot built in the entire season (for reasons unknown to us because we consider it rude to ask why that's the case), and those teams are usually the ones we prioritize helping, so we'll help them build a robot from the ground up. So the question is, would this be considered cheesecaking or not? Last year we helped a team build a defensive robot so they will at least have the opportunity to compete, but we did it for no strategic reason whatsoever, just good ol' Gracious Professionalism. So a concern for us is, indeed, how far is too far? In a sense we are building an entire robot for them (with the team's actual support and help, of course, and usually that team will tell us what their robot should contain) and if any restrictions were made, we would no longer be able to do this. Also people could try to bend the rules by saying they're doing something like what we do, but who knows? It's hard to even take this poll baring our team's philosophy in mind. It's a shame to see something like cheesecaking in a program that aspires for professionalism, which only means we still have ways to go.

[GreyingJay]

Team 4063 is well known for helping team with their robots between matches when they are in need, whether it be donating spare parts, lending tools, etc. Once in a while, we'll see a team that comes to a regional with no robot built in the entire season (for reasons unknown to us because we consider it rude to ask why that's the case), and those teams are usually the ones we prioritize helping, so we'll help them build a robot from the ground up. So the question is, would this be considered cheesecaking or not? Last year we helped a team build a defensive robot so they will at least have the opportunity to compete, but we did it for no strategic reason whatsoever, just good ol' Gracious Professionalism. So a concern for us is, indeed, how far is too far? In a sense we are building an entire robot for them (with the team's actual support and help, of course, and usually that team will tell us what their robot should contain) and if any restrictions were made, we would no longer be able to do this. Also people could try to bend the rules by saying they're doing something like what we do, but who knows? It's hard to even take this poll baring our team's philosophy in mind. It's a shame to see something like cheesecaking in a program that aspires for professionalism, which only means we still have ways to go.

I always got the sense that cheesecaking implied that the help you give to the other team has some sort of quid pro quo attached to it, e.g. "I'll help you modify your robot / I'll choose you for my alliance if those modifications do what I want/need". If your motivation is simply "I'll help you because I want to help / I feel bad you have no robot / it's the right thing to do" then I don't consider that cheesecaking.

[FIMAlumni]

Team 4063 is well known for helping team with their robots between matches when they are in need, whether it be donating spare parts, lending tools, etc. Once in a while, we'll see a team that comes to a regional with no robot built in the entire season (for reasons unknown to us because we consider it rude to ask why that's the case), and those teams are usually the ones we prioritize helping, so we'll help them build a robot from the ground up. So the question is, would this be considered cheesecaking or not? Last year we helped a team build a defensive robot so they will at least have the opportunity to compete, but we did it for no strategic reason whatsoever, just good ol' Gracious Professionalism. So a concern for us is, indeed, how far is too far? In a sense we are building an entire robot for them (with the team's actual support and help, of course, and usually that team will tell us what their robot should contain) and if any restrictions were made, we would no longer be able to do this. Also people could try to bend the rules by saying they're doing something like what we do, but who knows? It's hard to even take this poll baring our team's philosophy in mind. It's a shame to see something like cheesecaking in a program that aspires for professionalism, which only means we still have ways to go.

I wrote the poll with the following definition of cheesecake in mind:

Cheesecake: Adding parts, components, mechanisms, or structures brought by one team onto another teams robot to enhance that robots ability.

Helping all teams compete at their best, whether it improves your own chances at winning or not, is at the heart of GP. Even if a team isn't on your alliance, where do we draw the line? Einstein had Canburglars from a FIM team that was knocked out at the divisional level. Clearly this was GP, but it also was cheesecake.

[Mr. Van]

I don't believe that anyone is talking about limiting a team's ability to help another team.

Perhaps we can make four distinctions:

1. Team A brings COTS and stock and helps team B with their robot. Team B competes with and against team A throughout the competition.

2. Team A brings components/mechanisms and puts them on team B's robot (most likely with team B's help). Team B competes with and against team A throughout the competition.

3. Team A brings COTS and stock and modifies/rebuilds team B's robot only because team B is (or is expected to be) part of team A's alliance.

4. Team A brings components/mechanisms and puts them on team B's robot (with team B's help) only because team B is (or is expected to be) part of team A's alliance.

I strongly encourage scenario 1, and I would be surprised if anyone would object to it. I believe that all of the positive elements of "cheesecaking" can be found in this scenario.

Things get a little (or indeed a lot) less clear in the other situations.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[scca229]

In my opinion, "too far" is when a robot shows up for playoffs that wasn't there for qualification rounds, and nobody else had a chance to select it.

I love this quote. My thoughts exactly.

Another thing I think would be interesting - something that would reduce the incentive for cheesecake at championship - would be to go back to three team alliances for division playoffs, with backup bots drawn from unpicked robots as needed. Then, after the division winners have been decided, let them pick their "backup bot" from any of the teams in their division. This would create "super alliances" that truly represent the best that their division had to offer, and make Einstein matches the best they could be.

I like how this would definitely reduce the huge redesigns unless the alliance is going to field 2 bots for the first few matches. The only problem I see is that the 3rd bot for the Division win is then most likely going to be sat out for the Einstein matches in favor of the "backup".

[Tungrus]

...create any number of rules...someone will find a loop hole.

[Rachel Lim]

...create any number of rules...someone will find a loop hole.

Design a game that requires cheesecaking to win, and it will happen no matter what rules are created to try and prevent it.
Design a game that doesn't require cheesecaking to win, and it won't happen even if there aren't rules created to try and prevent it.

As long as cheesecaking is required to win, it will happen. The chokehold strategy requiring a complex mechanism, limited game pieces, cluttered field, and lack of defense in Recycle Rush required it, and it happened.

Ban the ingredients for cheesecake, and stores will find substitutes. Remove the market for them, and stores have no reason to make them.

[AdamHeard]

Design a game that requires cheesecaking to win, and it will happen no matter what rules are created to try and prevent it.
Design a game that doesn't require cheesecaking to win, and it won't happen even if there aren't rules created to try and prevent it.



Eh. Cat is out of the bag now.

973 is likely going to regionals next year with 3rd picks that in an average game won't contribute much.

We will likely be able to make a sub 30 pound mechanism that allows our 3rd to be statistically far better than the other teams available in the draft.

If the rules don't change, we must assume that others are doing this as well. If we assume others are doing it, we must do it to remain competitive.

[Jared]

Everybody blames this on the game design, but I'd argue that cheesecaking has always been a viable strategy for teams who are extremely competitive.

In 2014, your third pick could become an autonomous shot blocker.
In 2013, your third pick could get a 50 point climb and dump mechanism, or a full court shooter.
In 2012, your third pick could get a bridge stinger to help balance or a simple shooter to throw balls to your side.
In 2011, your third pick could get a minibot deployment and minibot.
In 2010, your third pick could get a climber.
In 2008, your third pick could become a 30 pound lap bot.

Cheesecaking is also deceptively difficult.

[techtiger1]

At this point you might as well let teams bring their practice bots and enter those in the competition too. :rolleyes:

[Rachel Lim]

Eh. Cat is out of the bag now.

973 is likely going to regionals next year with 3rd picks that in an average game won't contribute much.

We will likely be able to make a sub 30 pound mechanism that allows our 3rd to be statistically far better than the other teams available in the draft.

If the rules don't change, we must assume that others are doing this as well. If we assume others are doing it, we must do it to remain competitive.

I've only been in FRC for two years, but from what I saw last year, 2nd picks (assuming that was what you meant) weren't on average that much better than this year in terms of individual scoring capability. Yet I didn't see cheesecaking to this extent. Maybe I just didn't pay as much attention, but I don't remember this debate at regionals or on CD.

Would cheesecaking robots from 2014 help alliances? Yes. Why wasn't it done then? Was the idea really not thought of until this year?

I guess a better question would be:
If we replayed Aerial Assist, would we see cheesecaking to the extent that we saw it in Recycle Rush?

[Richard Wallace]

Eh. Cat is out of the bag now.
So we might need a new name for this kind of help. "Cheesecake" suggests a delicious, possibly unplanned dessert.

The arms race Adam's post anticipates is not about dessert, it is about supplements. Where is FIRST's boundary between wheat germ and steroids?

[Mr. Van]

Eh. Cat is out of the bag now.

973 is likely going to regionals next year with 3rd picks that in an average game won't contribute much.

We will likely be able to make a sub 30 pound mechanism that allows our 3rd to be statistically far better than the other teams available in the draft.

If the rules don't change, we must assume that others are doing this as well. If we assume others are doing it, we must do it to remain competitive.

I believe you are right about this. This puts struggling teams who actually attempt to accomplish the game challenge at a competitive disadvantage compared to those teams who anticipate "cheesecaking" and simply provide a "cheesecake pan".

Is this what we want?

- Mr. Van

[AdamHeard]

I believe you are right about this. This puts struggling teams who actually attempt to accomplish the game challenge at a competitive disadvantage compared to those teams who anticipate "cheesecaking" and simply provide a "cheesecake pan".

Is this what we want?

- Mr. Van

I don't think it is, and the rules should be modified to rule this out (while fully maintaining the ability to help others with gearboxes, etc...).

That being said, if it's legal we will likely do it.

[Jasmine Zhou]

Would cheesecaking robots from 2014 help alliances? Yes. Why wasn't it done then? Was the idea really not thought of until this year?

I guess a better question would be:
If we replayed Aerial Assist, would we see cheesecaking to the extent that we saw it in Recycle Rush?

Cheesecaking in 2014 (in the form of modifying/adding mechanisms to alliance members) definitely happened, at least from 1678. Mike mentioned this in the original uproar when he popularized the term cheesecake. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1458711&postcount=81
By the time we left the Sacramento regional (and possibly earlier, my memory is already fuzzy on this), we went to competitions knowing we'd be adding passive mechanisms to many robots in qualifications in order to maximize assist points in an attempt to seed first.

The key word there is probably "qualifications". We didn't pick robots for eliminations specifically for the ease with which we could add an assist mechanism to them- the second pick was often defense and driving, not how easy it would be to modify their robot. Because defense was still a thing.
I think that the cheesecake-ability affecting alliance selections seems to be what people are objecting to, not cheesecaking teams throughout the event.

I think we'd also see more cheesecake passed around if we replayed Aerial Assist in the current climate, just because more people have realized that it's an option.

[George Nishimura]

2014 is interesting because there was a pretty low-barrier for 3rd robots. Kitbot + intake was the minimum viable robot.

Even then there was still some 'cheesecaking'. Didn't 254/2056 modify 865 at Waterloo?

[Chris is me]

I think it's really important to remember that 2014 was also an anomalous year, where including all three robots in every instance of scoring was crucial for success. Even in other games where scoring was the best option, you could have a weaker third robot.

I think the better question to ask would be if we replayed 2013, what extent would we see cheesecaking? I would argue that we would see almost none with the exception of 84" blockers. These usually weren't pre built, and if they were the blocker was still extremely simple / something that could be done on the spot.

I think discouraging the *general* practice of captains and first picks working with the second pick to modify and improve their robot would be doing a disservice. Quite honestly these situations have been some of the most inspiring parts of FRC for many of us. I get that maybe we shouldn't be letting teams compete with brand new robots for elims in the future, but I am FAR more concerned about an overly broad rule restricting teams from doing other tasks than I am about that. I'm even more concerned about a vaguely worded rule being interpreted by event staff as a ban on robot modifications of any sort.

[Andrew Lawrence]

I think the better question to ask would be if we replayed 2013, what extent would we see cheesecaking? I would argue that we would see almost none with the exception of 84" blockers. These usually weren't pre built.

I would make sure to bring simple 10 pt. hanging devices that could be attached to an alliance partner who may not have one (or as good of one). While you're right that most tall blockers were made at competition, I would prepare my team with either the ability to make an effective one quickly or have an effective design brought with me. Some games can be played all by yourself, and others require all alliance partners to be functioning at their best. If it's to your advantage to have all of your alliance partners able to contribute as many points possible to the alliance (which could be vital to winning some of the close matches for W-L-T games, or for average scoring ranking like this year), doing anything you can to gain points for your alliance or deny your opponents points would be helpful.

[Kevin Sheridan]

2014 is interesting because there was a pretty low-barrier for 3rd robots. Kitbot + intake was the minimum viable robot.

Even then there was still some 'cheesecaking'. Didn't 254/2056 modify 865 at Waterloo?

We cheesecaked 2135 at CVR last year by adding some pex tubing to make it easier to inbound through their robot. We "cheesecaked" 865 by zip-tieing their intakes in place to make a ball tunnel for inbounding. Both these robots competed at champs with our modifications still on their robots.

We were also preparing to cheesecake a goalie pole onto our 3rd or 4th robot at champs but the pole was never completed (we had it in our pits though) and it was unnecessary once we knew we were picking 469.

[Citrus Dad]

I think the concern this year is over the level of cheesecake that we saw. I will reiterate a point made by several people: This is entirely in response to this year's game and rules. The best way to limit the amount of cheesecake is create a game in which the least experienced teams can make an effective contribution to the game at all levels. I and other have pointed out that the GDC did not accomplish this objective in this year's game, and statistical analysis of the OPR distribution supports this contention. This was obvious to us on the day of Kick-off; the GDC should have seen that as well. (I would like to know the composition of the GDC, but I urge that it have a number of non-engineers involved in game development.)

I've pointed out in earlier threads that an absolute prohibition would have prevented us from working with two rookie teams on Newton last year that greatly improved their games in qualifications. FIRST wants strong interaction across teams at the Championship (see the justification for going to 2 Championships.) Why remove one of the frequently used means of facilitating that interaction? Remember that competition really is only a secondary objective of FIRST; this is not the NFL. Promoting cultural change is the primary focus.

[Rachel Lim]

I guess I should have said that in 2014, I didn't see cheesecaking define the game or the strategy the way I've seen it happen in 2015. I don't think modifying robots to make them more competitive, either in quals or elims, was the major issue this year. I believe (from what I've heard) that it was that those teams were basically just their cheesecake, so being an easy platter was more desirable than trying to contribute individually. Then again, it could have just simply been that I had nothing else to compare 2014 to until this year.

It seems that we needed Recycle Rush to really figure out just how large a role cheesecaking can play.
It seems that we needed the modified response to Q461 to figure out that maybe the original response had its advantages.

I still believe that if we replayed Recycle Rush with the original Q461 response (or something similar), teams would find a way around it because cheesecaking would still be necessary. There would be some other debate about this. I also believe that if we replayed another game where it wasn't as necessary, we would see it, but it wouldn't be as defining a factor.


This has been an interesting discussion, and one I've definitely learned from. If I was to rewrite my first post, it'd probably be:

Design a game that requires cheesecaking to win, put some rules in to try and prevent it, and it will still happen.
Design a game that doesn't require cheesecaking to win, put some rules in to try and prevent it, and it won't happen much.
Cheesecaking here used to refer to the need to put an entire mechanism on to win or something to that extent, not to smaller modifications

Rules define how far a strategy can be taken, but the game defines what strategy is needed.

[Citrus Dad]

Rules define how far a strategy can be taken, but the game defines what strategy is needed.

Well put.

[GreyingJay]

Great, so we'll see you all at regionals next year with our 2016 robot, "Tabula Rasa". Here's to the shortest build season ever!

[tcjinaz]

...create any number of rules...someone will find a loop hole.

The team with the best lawyers wins?

The teams with the most money will attract the best lawyers.

[zsnow]

There is a fundamental problem with attempting to define an explicit boundary between what is good and what is bad. For every clearly enforceable rule, there is some reasonable exception where most would agree the rule should not apply. This is true whether it is varying degrees of cheesecaking, or really any polemical question (even as far as questions of morality and ethics). Trying to define an unambiguous line which "thou shall not cross" is futile.

Cheesecaking in its current form appears to be more beneficial than otherwise. The GDC was wise in not trying to come up with some unequivocal ruleset to govern such complex issue that can only be judged on a case-by-case basis.

These views are my own and not necessarily those of my team. I'll go prepare the stake...

[Abhishek R]

Like Rachel has pointed out, I have to agree it's the game design that drives the extent of "cheesecaking" we saw this year.

In 2014, cheesecaking would be limited to assisting devices. These will not inherently make or break the game for an alliance; they aren't extremely necessary to be competitive at even the highest levels of play.

In 2013, cheesecaking would be limited to full-court blockers, or maybe more advanced, a 10 point hang. Again, neither of these were necessary at even the highest levels of play.

In either case, the cheesecaked robot still had to execute its role pretty well. In 2015, you install the system, they get the cans (which absolutely are necessary in order to win), and then they're done for the match. Furthermore, they are taken in autonomous, so the team itself doesn't really do a whole lot in terms of playing their role for the match. A higher resource team is going to be able to build a faster and better cheesecake than many teams can build for their own robot's system, and there's no way to win if you can't keep up. I think this is where a lot of the animosity towards the cheesecake in 2015 comes from.

[Qbot2640]

In my opinion, "too far" is when a robot shows up for playoffs that wasn't there for qualification rounds, and nobody else had a chance to select it.

In my opinion, this is a big part of it...but the bigger part is when a team makes some kind of deal with an "alliance captaining team" that removes other, arguably more qualified teams, from consideration. Alliance selection should be based upon the performance of a team throughout qualification rounds...not upon what kind of "backroom" deal can be made. In this "now infamous" case, no one has mentioned the other 44 teams on Curie who all started packing up after alliance selection ended. One of them lost an opportunity.

[Citrus Dad]

Great, so we'll see you all at regionals next year with our 2016 robot, "Tabula Rasa". Here's to the shortest build season ever!

So long as the GDC doesn't make the same fundamental mistake that they made this year, we shouldn't see anything like what occurred this year.

In my opinion, this is a big part of it...but the bigger part is when a team makes some kind of deal with an "alliance captaining team" that removes other, arguably more qualified teams, from consideration. Alliance selection should be based upon the performance of a team throughout qualification rounds...not upon what kind of "backroom" deal can be made. In this "now infamous" case, no one has mentioned the other 44 teams on Curie who all started packing up after alliance selection ended. One of them lost an opportunity.

In general alliance captains do not choose teams in order of their qualification rankings, or even with regard to the rankings at all. The alliances are put to together through a combination of strategic (which team is a bigger threat?) and functional (which team has best kiss passer or trusser?) assessment. Please don't expect that your qualification ranking will be rewarded with a high alliance pick unless you're an alliance captain.

[Qbot2640]

In general alliance captains do not choose teams in order of their qualification rankings....

I know how it works.

I'm saying choose the best available team for your strategy from what they can do...not for what they will do.

[Gregor]

I'm saying choose the best available team for your strategy from what they can do...not for what they will do.

Under the current FRC rules teams should absolutely not be doing that. Pick the team that provides you the best chance at winning, however that may be.

[efoote868]

While I didn't find this text in this year's manual, I believe R1 from 2014 is relevant:


4.1.1 R1
Each registered FRC team may enter only one (1) ROBOT (or ‘Robot’, which to a reasonably astute observer, is a
Robot built for FRC) into the 2014 FRC. The ROBOT must be built by the FRC Team to perform specific tasks when
competing in AERIAL ASSIST. The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant
in the game – power, communications, control, and mobility. The ROBOT implementation must obviously follow a
design approach intended to play AERIAL ASSIST (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD, or a
ROBOT designed to play a different game would not satisfy this definition)

[emphasis mine]
If a team A picks team B in elimination simply to utilize ONLY team A's prefabricated cheesecake parts, that violates the spirit of this rule. Teams get to enter one robot, not two.

[kgargiulo]

I believe the debate on the proper boundaries for cheesecake is ill-suited to a text-only discussion forum because the topic is emotional and contentious. We need months, not days or a week, of separation from Championship, and then a more in-person communication channel. No disrespect to CD or any of the folks posting on the topic who are authentically trying to get to an answer. I just think the evidence is clear that all the heat and light has generated some degree of animosity or at least misunderstandings and nothing close to a consensus even within the minority of FRC participants that are deeply engaged in CD.

For those reasons I’m not now posting and don’t plan to post a cheesecake opinion.

I am, however, making the observation that across many threads on this topic, there are as many different definitions of what is gracious and professional (or not) as applies to helping other teams and cheesecake as there are people writing posts. That’s an environment in which we’re all almost guaranteed to talk in circles. So I wanted to take a shot at that problem, and maybe by the time a dispassionate discussion can occur we’ll have somewhat of a common language to talk in.

I’m not arrogant enough to think that what I propose below is the be-all, end-all of how to interpret gracious professionalism as pertains to helping other teams (with or without cheesecake), but I’m offering a starting point.

I believe it is gracious to help another team to improve whenever you have the opportunity, without seeking or expecting thanks, recognition, or even acknowledgement. If there is recognition, it is gracious to be humble or even self-deprecating. Teams can be gracious with their help during or after build season, in the heat of head-to-head competition, or en masse such as posting code, design, or other tool for general use for teams you may never meet.

I believe it is professional to offer help to the best and full extent of your ability, regardless of the circumstances, in areas where you have a competency, skill, or differentiator that is applicable to another team’s need.

I believe it is not cheesecake to help a team get their robot working to the best extents of their design (or at least to the best you can given the parts and time available, even if it wasn't exactly what they had in mind) by sharing knowledge, expertise, student manpower, tools, and stock materials. That is both gracious and professional, but not cheesecake (I am so tired of this term). Helping a team turn their bag of parts into a moving chassis that performs the design intent of the team being helped, or if they didn’t have a game strategy helping them come up with the best possible use of their robot in the current game, fits this description. This kind of help is identifiable because it is general and will be reused in all matches, regardless of alliance partners. This behavior is simply the best part of the FIRST culture and a competitive differentiator against many other robotics competitions that are out there.

I believe it is cheesecake if the helping team is providing designs and/or complete mechanisms, functions, software, etc. that weren't part of the design, strategy, functionality, or plan of the team being helped. That is true even if the request for the new strategy/functions originates with the team being helped and if the team being helped collaborates on the work. That is true whether it is simple “drive forward” autonomous code or if it is on the scale of a robot rebuild. This kind of help is identifiable because it is specific, usually put into play for a Elimination alliance, and is often limited to a single function. That teams will do the work to plan for this and then the actual design, mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, fabrication, assembly, safety, and test work that is required in a very short time frame under high pressure is a testament to the kinds of students that FIRST creates.

A nuance in all this is to consider how altruism and the desire to win both affect how and to whom help is offered as regional, district, or worlds progress from Quals to Elims.

It is altruistic to offer gracious and professional help to another team (with or without cheesecake) when doing so could actually hurt your own team or at least could not benefit your team. A team can behave altruistically at any time, but in practice we see this between kick off and the start of Elims at an event (and it’s not linear). The boundary between how we help before Elims and how we help in Elims is easy to see from just one question. Does anyone on one Elim alliance offer cheesecake or (significant) gracious, professional help to a someone else’s alliance during Elims? When it comes to Elims, almost all efforts are focused internally on your own alliance. The one common exception I can think of is an alliance calling a time out to give the other alliance more time to solve a problem. That’s gracious and altruistic because the GP award has already been decided by that point. Team’s who are not in Elims may well still be helping out other teams, but for those competing head-to-head my experience is that we all turn inward to try and win. Gaining inspiration from competition, the joy of winning, and the lessons in losing are also an important part of FIRST to me (without seguing to a debate on championsplit).

I’m interested to see if this post generates a collective yawn, genuine interest, or maybe its own hate mail. Whichever won’t offend me. But I despair of ever hearing a conversation that could generate a real consensus on the OP's question if this disconnect on language isn’t fixed first.

My opinions are mine, not my company’s (which is a FIRST sponsor) and not my team’s.

[Ken Streeter]

Interestingly enough, a team tried this in the past.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65363

In 2008 1519 has two different configurations (which, together, weighed inside the 120lb limit, so no need for re-inspection). It was designed so the control system could be taken out of one config and put into another. They were ruled illegal as the rules state that "Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition" and the inspectors considered each configuration a separate robot.

It is like you read my mind, I was thinking of the perils of Speed Racer when I was posting this. The rules have changed significantly since then. With the new Q&A it would seem you could have a 120lb Fezzik and get reinspected as Speed Racer as needed instead of inspecting them together and changing the power pathways (which was part of the 2 Robot ruling issue).

In all honesty, we had considered going with a "two part robot" (somewhat like 148) this year, but with the Speed Racer / Fezzik fiasco as part of our history on 1519, we didn't want to take the risk of having an unconventional design ruled illegal again.

This year's rule interpretations sure seem like the "dual configuration robot" approach we had in 2008 would have been permitted this year.