Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations [Archive]

dlavery

28-12-2004, 23:05

Just to bring everyone up to speed, I am quite interested in any discussion in response to this post

It's illegal. But I want to protest the "Illegal! The Magnolia Regional should put an * next to the Bluateam win" option. I think that is too limiting. I want an option that says "Illegal! Bluateam is staffed with a bunch of cheaters! They should be stripped of their title from the Magnolia Regional, cast out into the public square, shackled for a fortnight in the stocks while being forced to listen to Anthony Newley records over and over again, and then given forty lashes with the Cat-o-nine-tails before ever being allowed to set foot into a competition venue again."

OK, maybe not. But this does bring up one point that has been completely glossed over in the YMTC discussions. We have all been discussing various ways to split hairs to determine if "Action XX" violates "Rule YY" or not. But what happens when it is determined that a team HAS violated the rules? We all understand that one of the basic precepts of FIRST is to inspire students by exposing them to professional [engineering] practices and behavior. In the real world - and in the real engineering profession - there are consequences when you violate the rules, and those consequences are sometimes severe.

FIRST has usually specified what happens when you violate a game play rule during a match (i.e. a penalty flag is thrown, your robot is disabled, etc.). But what about the rules that impact our behavior OFF the field? If a team builds their robot in an prohibited location, or keeps working on robot parts after the robot ship date, or engages in just plain unsportsmanlike conduct in the stadium stands, or builds the robot with an illegal part and intentionally disguises it so that it won't be found by inspectors, what should happen to the team? Is it enough for all the other teams to stand around and express their disapproval and say that they didn't behave with gracious professionalism? Or is something more concrete required? Should the engineers involved (for the moment, I am considering violations where most or all of the team were involved or at least aware of the situation) have to publicly acknowledge a lapse in ethics and their failure to provide appropriate examples for the students on the team? Should the team have to sit out one season of competition (or their next planned competition event)? Should they return any awards that may have been won as a result of the violation? Is there an appropirate consequence that is not a meaningless slap on the wrist, but also not so draconian that it drives a team away from the competition. Ideally, it is a consequence that is turned into a learning experience for the team, and ultimately it becomes a demonstration of ethical behavior (i.e. "we violated the rules; we have to acknowledge the violation; accept and serve any penalties; then recover, become better and wiser, and move on"). But what possible penalties are appropriate and suitable?

What do you think?

(no matter what, I still think that they should have to listen to the Anthony Newley recordings)

-dave

which was posted as part of this YMTC thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31975&page=1&pp=15). Your thoughtful comments will be most appreciated.

-dave

Melissa Nute

28-12-2004, 23:08

Just moving it to the right thread:

If the team performing these actions has more regionals or championship to attend on top of the given regional, they should be barred from receiving any awards or taking apart in the final rounds. Their actions do not merit any positive recognition during that competition year or perhaps the next also; however, they should be allowed to at least participate in the qualifying rounds so that the individuals not involved in these violations will not become punished and the students may become inspired by watching the rounds.

I also feel that FIRST should explain in writing to the team that is such an action was to be performed by them again, they would not be able to participate in any FIRST competition in the future.

Arefin Bari

28-12-2004, 23:10

Personally I think, FIRST is all year around. I like to work with designs and prototypes through out the whole year. The veteran teams always gets the chance to work on something since they all know what the previous games has been. they make prototypes, student comes up with crazy cool stuff, for example, Tkwetzel chopper (very nice work). Every month when i go through the picture galleries on Chiefdelphi, i find bunch of inventor/cad work that are done by mentors, students which is awesome.

I dont think there is anything wrong working with designs and making prototypes, As long as you make new parts and a whole new robot during those 6 weeks of build season.

I look at it this way, A singer always sings to get his/her voice better, a football team always practices to get better, so what is wrong with a FIRST team practicing making new designs and building them. Aren't the students in FIRST getting inspired and aren't they all learning something. The past 3 years that i have been in FIRST, i have learned a lot (it does include all the 3 season's 18 weeks but other than those 6 weeks in each season, i have done other projects to keep myself busy throughout the year.) i just think its wrong, if teams are allowed to use parts at the competition, which they built before the season. How should it be enforeced? well, i am not sure how we can tell, what team has built what before the season, that is where Honesty comes in play.

Edit- (thanks to jaine for pointing this out). If you want to penalize a team for making parts and using them on the robot (which was build before season), Wouldn't you have to find out what they have built and what they are using? how would you do that? isnt that where the honestly will come in play? and if there was a way to find out what a team has done, and if they have broken the rules, i think they should be penalize for the particular season (not compete).

-Arefin.

sanddrag

28-12-2004, 23:19

At least in the regional (or championship) events, this is the way I see it. Each team is a show, a performance with all the other teams as the audience. It is the implied duty of each show to impress it's audience (both on and off the field) and that they do because the hosts of the show do not want any tomatoes thrown.

Swampdude

28-12-2004, 23:37

Considering the "rules" get muddy every year when all the lawyers break into full swing, usually because they hadn't been thought through enough for 1000's of people to poke holes in. It gets very easy to find yourself somewhere you shouldn't be. Also with the on the fly Q&A board developing things independent of the original documentation again you find yourself with justifiable circumstances in soooo many Grey's. I just don't think FIRST has covered itself well in the past. I've been guilty of treading uncertain ground because frankly I didn't "know" what the rules were. So in that respect I can't see hanging a whole team because someone goofed, or even made a bad or wrong decision. I would think like Sandrag said, we're dealing with a good element of folks. The better side of people will prevail in all this, along with a conscience. After you have companies investing some big bucks into this endeavor only to find someone threw wrench in the works and caused the donation to be void. I think that would be a HUGE mistake on FIRST's part. I do think the rules need teeth, but definitely go light on the team as a whole. I could go along with playing Dave's favorite albums or something, also making public announcements, like "so and so did this and we informed them of the infraction, please do not make this mistake". I dunno...

MikeDubreuil

28-12-2004, 23:53

First Offense:
Found during seeding rounds:

Team is not allowed to compete in elemination rounds.
It is publicly announced before alliance picking which team is not allowed to compete and for what reason.
The team is put on probation.
Found during eliminations/after the event:

It is publicly announced via FIRST email blast or similar mechanism the situation in question.
The next competition season the team will not be allowed to compete in the eliminations rounds at one regional event or nationals, their choice.
The team is put on probation.
Probation

A two competion year period, following the current competiton year.
Upon completion of the time period the team is off probation.
If a team is not on probation, it is considered a First Offense.
Second Offense During Probation

If at a competion, the team is asked to pack up their stuff immediately and leave the venue.
They will be banned from any FIRST competiton for the current and next two competiton seasons. After this period of time, they may come back to FIRST.

Bharat Nain

29-12-2004, 00:00

I was thinking of a situation. Lets suppose that Team X has a bot and their arm mechanism which weighs a lot goes haywire and keeps breaking on the field. Lets say in match 123 they finally hang successfully and they're all happy about it. When they try to get their robot off the bar it breaks and falls on one of the kids/referees/someone around and breaks their head. I feel in a situation as such the teams should be allowed to work on their robot in the hotels or so because more than anything else this means safety. We are not at a corporate level thing as yet, and shouldn't fear penalties for such things. Since we are high school kids I think we should be allowed for situations like above.

However, to level the playing field, I don't think its ok to work on the robot after the ship date. For a penalty I would suggest not letting them participate in a few rounds rather than just stop them from going to a regional. I say this because maybe not all the kids on the team were for it and the other half of the team were filled with junk heads and evil minds who could only care about winning a competition(If you just wanted to play, enjoy and learn then I am sure you wouldn't go crazy and build past the 6 weeks). And then, I think the embarrassment that they've violated a rule is by itself a punishment. I also think they should be punished or such only if the rules state so clearly.

If you have the resources, then its good to practice and experiment making new parts. And if its something good, you can use it on the robot(of course re-make it at the competition, but now since you have it drawn and stuff and you know how to make it it should not be a hard to make it). By making new parts and experimenting with parts kids on the team learn more and in turn inspires them more, which is the goal of FIRST.

Ben Lauer

29-12-2004, 00:01

I must say that I agree with Meli. I don't think these teams should be able to receive any acknowledgment from FIRST and competition sponsors. I must also like to add that I think the teams should be put on "probation." This probation includes consequences like limiting the number of competitions they may attends, and prohibiting them from attending nationals. In order to have this probation lifted, these teams must submit an "application," which is basically a formal apology and insurance against future illegal actions.

I have a few problems with my own thoughts though:
- We cannot take away the experience of the students. It is vital that we don't limit their exposure to robotics and the experience they would have that would be threatened by probation. Because honestly, in my opinion, most infringement on these rules was cause not because the students decided to break the rules knowledgeably, but either they didn't know the rules, or the mentors and engineers on their team committed the offense.
- I know I sound like I am trying to blame this on the adults, and I am not, I have the greatest respect for these individuals that not only have full time jobs, but also give up their entire life for six weeks just to help some students realize their purpose in life.
- Probation just sounds dirty, like we are making black marks in the record of a otherwise great team. There will never be a good way of handling rule breakers, but we must come to a consensus on the "best way", and that way will never be perfect.

Jaine Perotti

29-12-2004, 00:06

If a team builds their robot in an prohibited location, or keeps working on robot parts after the robot ship date, or engages in just plain unsportsmanlike conduct in the stadium stands, or builds the robot with an illegal part and intentionally disguises it so that it won't be found by inspectors, what should happen to the team?
First, I think it is really up to FIRST to decide what the punishments should be for an infraction upon the rules. Nonetheless, I will share my opinions...

I think that the degree of the penalty should correlate to the degree of the infraction. I also think that FIRST should implement a rule system that allows for teams to fix what they have done wrong, depending on the infraction.

I think that teams should be given more than one chance to rectify their behavior. The team might not have known that they were in violation of the rules, and it would be unfair to punish then too severely for something that they might not have even known about. This should be applicable to most infractions.

For example, if a team builds a part that is illegal and uses it in a match, I think they should have the chance to remove the illegal part and receive a minor penalty. However, if they were discovered to be using the illegal part again, then they should receive a larger punishment, such as disqualification.

Giving people a chance to recognize that their actions were unacceptable …and then letting them graciously fix their mistakes… will teach a better lesson than enforcing a more severe punishment. If a team were to be DQed right away after making a mistake, they would walk away feeling frustrated and resentful, and way less open to changing their attitude about the competition.

And an aside on honesty:
Arefin brings up a very good point here:
If you want to penalize a team for making parts and using them on the robot (which was build before season), Wouldn't you have to find out what they have built and what they are using? how would you do that? For some infractions of the rules, it may be just plain impossible to tell who broke them, and who didn't. How do you look at a robot and say... "oh that part was prebuilt. ...and that one wasn't"? As Arefin said, this is where honesty comes into play... unfortunately, I don’t think FIRST will ever be able to come up with a way to accurately decide what was and was not prebuilt… all you can rely on is hearsay.
Hearsay is not acceptable in competition. I think that as long as human nature exists, there will always be dishonesty. I think that FIRST should do the best it can to prevent this, however, there is a limit to exactly how nitpicky FIRST will be. I think it is ludicrous to attempt to mete perfect justice to all competitors. However, it is important that we try our best.

-- Jaine

Billfred

29-12-2004, 00:17

I've been stewing on this for a while, so first I figure some questions should be asked. I came up with a few parameters for these solutions...

No team will be banned from FIRST. Ever.
The integrity of the competition will be kept.
Every attempt should be made to make the team eligible for competition.
Other than the team in question, no team should be affected.
Whenever possible, use the problem as a teachable moment.
Then come the questions, and how to handle them:

For robot problems (costs, time, locations):
a) Can the team redo or reassemble it at the competition (thus making it legal)? If so, fix it. If not, go on.
b) Can anything be changed to bring the robot into compliance? If so, do it. Otherwise, move on.
c) If there is no way that the robot can be brought into compliance, is the robot otherwise legal to compete? If so (and nobody objects), let it onto the field, but disqualify it each match, and bar it from the finals. (This avoids giving the other alliance member(s) that team would compete with the short end of the stick, and it allows the team to at least have some measure of the experience). Otherwise, move on.
d) If the robot isn't otherwise legal, bring it into compliance. And if that still gets you nowhere...
e) Start building from scratch. 1396's One-Day Wonder took ten hours.

For people problems (bad sportsmanship, sabotage, etc.):
a) Is it one or more people acting independently of the team, or the team?

For non-team units:
b) Prevent the person(s) from doing more harm.
c) Contact a teacher or other leader of the team, and make sure they know about it. Teams have handbooks, districts have behavior codes. I believe that 99% of the time, one will deal with the person(s). Assuming that everyone concerned is satisfied, move on.
d) If this person happens to be in that 1%, sit them in the stands and have a responsible adult keep an eye on them. They stay there except for food, bathroom, and going home/to the hotel.

For teams:
b) Can the problem be rectified? Fix it, with apologies.
c) Will allowing the team to continue to compete, even while disqualified, cause further harm to teams or other individuals? If not, let them keep going. If it will, read on.
d) If nothing can be done but bar the entire team from continuing, then bar them. Recruit teams to compete as placebos.

Note that I'm not going to comment on awards. These judges are smart people; they can tell whether a team is deserving or not of an award for whatever reason. I'll defer to them.

Steve W

29-12-2004, 00:19

Since I started the thread I guess that I should contribute. Mike has some good ideas. What I would like to see is a form signed before each competition that states that the team has conformed to all of the build rules and the spirit of FIRST. The form should also state that the team will continue to follow the rules through out the competition weekend. If the team is found to be in violation of the rules that the lead mentor (the one that signs the form) must meet with the competition organizers and address the violation. At that time the organizers can follow Mikes suggestions or another result could be that the lead mentor can be given a 1 week - 3 year expulsion from FIRST.

Why would I do that to the lead mentor? He/She is to be in control of their team. They should also make sure that the members and the mentors follow the rules. The person at the top is responsible for the actions of their team. It may seem harsh but as has been said, Why should the whole team suffer.

Ted Boucher

29-12-2004, 00:22

A penalty of this kind is very hard to make and it would probably have to be one of the harshest penalties in FIRST.

If you bar a team from a years worth of competition, this would be the exact opposite some of the principles of FIRST. The team might lose their sponsorship, and the kids would leave the team since they would not be inspired of the FIRST competition.

An appropriate penalty would be disqualifying the team from that particular event. This would only be blocking the team’s robot from competing from the event and they could still be inspired by the action of the competition. They would be ranked at that competition as dead last with a record of no rounds completed at all. Though the awards that do not relate to how the robot competes, i.e. the website and animation awards, should be allowed to compete for an award. This would still give the team some pride in what they have accomplished and keeping them inspired in FIRST. This team should then be allowed to attend any other competitions if they want to. During these competitions they should be kept under close watch so they do not break the rule again. If they do so, then they should be banned for the rest of the season and receiving absolutely no awards for that competition. They then would be given a “Homework Assignment” of reflecting on what they did wrong and what they should not do next year.

I would really hate to see this happen to any team, even knowing what they did wrong. FIRST should also focus on prevention of this happening by making a stricter inspection at the robot check in and FIRST officials sealing the pits off at the end of the day so only people can get out without any robot parts with them.

Madison

29-12-2004, 00:26

I was under the impression that FIRST acts in response to situations wherein rules not related to gameplay are violated at its sole discretion. However, my perspective may be erroneous as the team involved in my experience with such matters was not being deceptive and given every opportunity to make necessary corrections. FIRST's action was to their benefit, ultimately.

I can think more about a specific system for dealing with rule transgressions, but I can't help but wonder if this is really a problem worth worrying over. If it is, I think that such behavior is probably a symptom of a larger problem in the organization than the root problem itself.

Karthik

29-12-2004, 00:49

For years, I've been hearing the story of a team who showed up to inspection with a hollowed out battery. Does anyone know what happened to this team? I'd be interested to see what sort of precedent was set.

This is the type of act that need a severe type of punishment. If a team is only given a slap on the wrist for this type of action, it only serves to insult all the teams who were honest and rule abiding. It becomes very frustrating to see other teams get away with major infractions, especially if they walk away with trophies. It creates the attitude among some of the "good" teams of "well if they did it and got away with it, why shouldn't we". Now most "good" teams will respond by saying "cheaters never prosper". Unfortunately as some cheaters gain short term success (because in the long run, these cheaters do lose), others may join them. It's easy to fall into the trap of jumping at short term rewards.

Types of punishment? I still need to think that over. There are a lot of factors to mull. We don't want a punishment too harsh, that it forces teams out of FIRST. (Remember, chances are the whole team wouldn't be in on the cheating) On the other hand, the punishment needs to be severe enough teams who are considering breaking the rules think twice.

Phil 33

29-12-2004, 00:57

There are two different threads here discussing very similar topics. I'm going to (attempt to) answer the question in this thread, which was essentially - "Or is something more concrete required?" - and use the hypothetical situation presented in the original thread - about Bluateam - to address this question.

The way I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) is that in this thread we're already assuming that said team has DEFINATELY, without question, violated the rules. Before we determine what penalties should be given, I suppose it's important to first look at why Bluateam broke the rules and took robot parts out of the pit to work on in the first place. Suppose Bluateam has always obeyed the rules before. Suppose they did eveything by the book. They didn't build anything until after kickoff, they did everything legally, and after the ship date, they stopped working on everything. When they get to their first competition, they just can't get something to work, no matter how hard they try. If it doesn't work, their team won't be able to compete at all. Just imagine what the team's mentors must be thinking "we didn't spend thousands of dollars and six weeks of our lives building a robot and traveling to a competition only to arrive and not be able to compete." The team's mentors are in a tough situation - they don't want to let their students, team, sponsors, or themselves down. So for the first time ever, they break a rule, out of sheer desperation. They take the faulty part back to their hotel, work on it through the night, and finally get it to work properly. Now they can finally compete. They don't have to suffer the humiliation/shame of telling their students, school, team parents and sponsors that they are unable to compete.

Now suppose Bluateam is caught. Everyone sees that they are sneeking robot parts back into the competition. They admit it, and acknowledge they have broken the rules - they plead no contest. Now here's the hard part. There were a dozen other teams at the competition who probably would have had to do the same thing, but they didn't. Why? These teams fabricated parts before the build season began. By the time kickoff arrived, they were already weeks ahead. Sure they cheated, but nobody can EVER prove it. Now here's Bluateam, about to face consequences breaking a single rule - the only rule they have ever broken.

Now the original question was about what consequences would be appropriate for Bluateam. My answer: it doesn't matter what consequences they decide to impose on Bluateam. That's right, it doesn't matter. No matter what penalties you impose, you haven't taught Bluateam the intended lesson. All you've taught Bluateam is to be more sneaky when they do cheat. Here's a team that did everything by the book, in the spirit of gracious professionalism, and out of the virtues of integrity and honesty. Now they've been penalized for the only rule they've ever broken. They know (and everyone knows, but nobody can prove it) that a dozen other teams at the competition cheated MUCH more than Bluateam. They built parts - including their entire drive train - before the build season even began. Now Bluateam asks themselves why they have been so gracious, honest and rule-abiding the entire time. What has it gotten them? Absolutely nothing. Now they're bitter. They haven't gotten justice. The system has failed them, and the entire FIRST community. Now they have no incentive to follow the rules ever again. Sure, next year they won't sneak parts out of the pits. They'll just have a running drive train build before the season begins to save themselves the trouble. After all, what has following the rules ever gotten them? You can issue Bluateam any penalty you want, but you haven't solved the problem, you've only made it worse. Now one of the league's most virtuous teams is turning away from the values (GP, honesty, integrity) it used to hold. A good team has become a bad one. The problem multiplies. The good are punished as the guilty walk free. Now teams ask themselves, why be good? Teams will now be reluctant to put themselves in a situation like Bluateam was in (they know they would probably do the same thing.) Now they'll cheat before the season begins. No one will ever be able to prove a thing.

Think this situation is too hypothetical? Think again. This kind of cheating happens all the time in FIRST.

The way I see it there are a few ways FIRST can go from here...

1. At kickoff, FIRST will issue a list of all the rules as well as a list of penalties for violating each rule. Since every team has been forewarned of the risks of cheating, everybody's on a level field. The previously determined penalties will be given indiscriminately to any team caught cheating. They will be issued by a majority vote of a committee of referees. This still doesn't address some of the fundamental problems:
A) There are some kinds of cheating, such as building before the season begins. That are impossible to prove.
B) I quote here, "The strictest justice is sometimes the greatest injustice." Refer to the above example. You can give penalties, but they don't teach the intended lesson. It often makes the problem worse.

2. Rely on the gracious professionalism of every team to obey the rules. As FIRST grows, and becomes less of a tight knit community, I'm sad to say that this will be close to impossible to achieve. People inevitably will try to get that head start, or that unfair advantage. Nobody wants to break rules, but people also want to win. It's human nature to convince yourself that the ends justify the means. It happens. It has happened. It will always happen.

3. Deregulate. Depending on how much is deregulated, many of these problems will disappear. Although we will inevitably see the rise of new problems we don't expect today.

4. Try some combination of the above three. Do the best you can. People will cheat. People will complain. It may be impossible to stop. But hopefully we can minimize it to the point where we can all enjoy the FIRST experience. I don't expect FIRST to be perfect. If you think FIRST (or any human institution) can be perfect, you're in for a let down.

After that long response, you may have noticed I didn’t really answer the question:

what should happen to the team? Is it enough for all the other teams to stand around and express their disapproval and say that they didn't behave with gracious professionalism? Or is something more concrete required? …Is there an appropirate consequence that is not a meaningless slap on the wrist, but also not so draconian that it drives a team away from the competition

Searching for what is truly just? Good luck. There’s no good answer here. The search for justice is older than civilization itself, and it will not be resolved in this thread. Like I said, FIRST should do the best they can (whatever that means). Focus primarily on making the entire FIRST experience the best it can be. We can have a good FIRST experience even if there is unresolved cheating out there.

Mike Ciance

29-12-2004, 01:33

i think it's wrong to have a concrete penalty for each type of illegal action. there are undeniably situations in which a rule is broken, but little or no penalty should be given, and some in which action should be taken. there are different degrees of breaking rules, and some situations which technically break rules, but clearly should be considered exceptions. even when action is taken, like dave said, this is a learning experience, we don't want a stupid penalty to hinder that. if a problem is fixed, i don't see the reason for serious action, unless there is a constant problem with a particular team.

as far as bringing pre-assembled parts to the competition, anyone can see that there is a wide range of how this can happen. a team would simply be bringing in a pre-assembled, slightly altered gearbox to replace an old one, or a team could bring in half a robot with totally different function. sometimes a needed custom part cannot be made with the equipment at a competition, and must be made on very heavy mechinery. i know many of our metal parts are custom-machined, and while we always have a few extra, i'm sure some teams make the mistake of not doing so.

as for illegal parts or functions, nobody should pretend this is a rarity. i have seen many robots in the past who used illegal techniques. some of these are unintentional and detected, and some are clearly intentional but excused. i have seen robots with parts specifically made to penetrate the ramp mesh (2003). i have seen wedge designs, clearly made for getting under other bots, but excused to the judges as ball/box plows. now on the other hand, i have seen several teams put zipties on their worn-down tires - an obvious rule-breaking to the veteran rule-knowers, but a common mistake among rookies. if this went by unnoticed a few times, and then an issue was brought up, should the team be disqualified? all their hard work for naught? absolutely not! the degree also needs to count in the severity of the penalty - there is a big difference between a hidden fuse and a hidden nuclear fission reactor.

these issues should clearly be judged by two factors: whether or not the break was intentional, and how much trouble the thing actually caused or potentially could cause. i have seen things that don't break any rules but are far more trouble than things that do. far too many teams have loose batteries that are exposed to impact. i have even seen batteries pulled out of robots, and i have even seen a couple just plain FALL out of robots. thats not good. FIRST spends too much time banning things that have a 0.01% chance of causing problems, when they are allowing things that have a 10% chance.

with that, i say that before we worry about how we should punish illegal things, we should worry about examining what we consider "illegal".

Cory

29-12-2004, 02:45

I don't feel that any penalties are necessary because I couldn't imagine that any of the fine teams in this program would even consider such a thing.

You'd be very surprised at how often such violations, and other similar ones occur.

The team might not have known that they were in violation of the rules, and it would be unfair to punish then too severely for something that they might not have even known about. This should be applicable to most infractions.

Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it.

If I were FIRST, I'd announce to all teams that Team xxx has been caught breaking rules off the field to give their team an advantage. Everyone is going to find out anyways, you can just magically say "hey quess what guys, team xxx can't be picked for the finals, but we're not telling you why. Don't go around thinking that they did something wrong though, because that's not very nice"

Yes, this may not sound like much of a punishment, but Im guessing it's likely that no other teams are going to want to be associated with this team in any way, so they probably won't get picked for the finals (Now if they're in the top 8, you've got a problem. They shouldn't be in the finals, so here's where a ban on that comes in).

You've now got to deal with the other 30+ teams at the event all knowing you cheated. That's gotta suck, and I imagine the embarrassment and shame you would feel by knowing that everyone is looking down on you would be pretty effective at deterring you (and anyone else) from doing it again.

I agree that teams should not receieve any awards related to the offending action. But if Team xxx takes their drivetrain home and works on it, they shouldnt be banned from receiving an animation award. However, Engineering Inspiration, and Chairman's, which aren't directly related to the offending action, should not be attainable for such a team, as what they did goes against everything these awards stand for.

In addition, FIRST should write some sort of admonishing letter to the teachers, mentors, and sponsors of the team telling them what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and what will happen if they do it again. I think this is particularly effective because what company is going to want to be affiliated with a known cheater? Odds are they'll be dropped on the spot, or told to clean up their act immediately so it never happens again. Either way, the same effect is achieved.

The problem with all this is that the majority of any given team probably had nothing to do with the offending action, or possibly did not even know of it's occurrence. Most teams have a small group of members that act as the pit crew. These are probably the ones that would say, remove a part and work on it. Yes, the entire team is accountable, but a way needs to be found that adequately gets the message across that cheating will not be tolerated in FIRST, punishes the offending team, but does not ruin the FIRST experience for all those that had absolutely nothing to do with the occurance.

Is it possible to find such a median? probably not. Not to mention the fact that probably 99% of all cheating goes unnoticed, and there is a good percent (manufacturing before the 6 weeks begin) that just can't be detected.

Bharat Nain

29-12-2004, 03:23

If I were FIRST, I'd announce to all teams that Team xxx has been caught breaking rules off the field to give their team an advantage.
That by itself is enough to make the team hate FIRST and go around making bad comments about everything. Announcing things just makes it worse. As I pointed out in my earlier post, who knows if the whole team was for it. What if half the team was totally against it, those kids would probably feel like killing themselves the moment they hear something like that announced. I know this because its happen to me many times in other sports. Putting down teams verbally is not the way to go, it just causes more problems, especially at a competition. Yes, eventually it'll become "the talk" in the whole of FIRST if a team was caught violating a rule, and its not good. And then as Mike Ciance and Phil 33 pointed out, we need to know the degree of the violation more than anything else. And also made clear what is a violating and whats not.

If we're talking about leveling the playing field, maybe taking a part to the hotel and working on it is fine(maybe FIRST decides to say its ok). You're still leveling the playing field if every team is allowed to take one or two parts to the hotel and working on them because all teams get about the same time to work in hotels. It has its own problems though.

phrontist

29-12-2004, 08:42

Violation of rules should be punished swiftly with immediate expulsion from whatever competition it occurred at for it's duration. Every round that a cheating team competes in is illegitimate, and deprives all involved parties of an accurate comparison of robots. No one would get caught if they knew the consequences, and if no one gets caught, everyone except the cheater goes home happy. Which is, of course, the desired outcome.

That being said, the rules should be extremely clear, with no room for interpretation. The must also be justifiable as rules that maintain either "Saftey" or "A Level Playing Field." If rules don't immedeatly make sense to competitors, they are more likely to break them.

Aignam

29-12-2004, 08:42

That by itself is enough to make the team hate FIRST and go around making bad comments about everything. Announcing things just makes it worse. As I pointed out in my earlier post, who knows if the whole team was for it. What if half the team was totally against it, those kids would probably feel like killing themselves the moment they hear something like that announced. I know this because its happen to me many times in other sports. Putting down teams verbally is not the way to go, it just causes more problems, especially at a competition. Yes, eventually it'll become "the talk" in the whole of FIRST if a team was caught violating a rule, and its not good. And then as Mike Ciance and Phil 33 pointed out, we need to know the degree of the violation more than anything else. And also made clear what is a violating and whats not.

If we're talking about leveling the playing field, maybe taking a part to the hotel and working on it is fine(maybe FIRST decides to say its ok). You're still leveling the playing field if every team is allowed to take one or two parts to the hotel and working on them because all teams get about the same time to work in hotels. It has its own problems though.FIRST would never make it policy to allow teams to work on their robots at their hotels---hotels would hate that, and when you're a nonprofit organization, bad publicity is the last thing you need.

And this may sound harsh, but if there's a team with teachers and mentors who tolerate extreme rule-breaking, and students who do nothing to provoke some sort of change, I'm not sure I want any of them in my organization, much less as the scientist or engineer who will be developing the technologies of the future. There isn't anything inspirational about cheating, and it obviously doesn't display gracious professionalism, so why should cheaters waste both our time and their time by participating in FIRST. This goes a bit beyond hurting people's feelings and bad reputations...

That being said, the rules should be extremely clear, with no room for interpretation.When the rules are extremely clear, people try their hardest to find loopholes. Last year, we were told that common sense and gracious profressionalism would prevail. FIRST shouldn't have to make ironclad rules and regulations in order to function safely and without cheating.

Swampdude

29-12-2004, 10:14

Here's some ideas:

the inspection takes care of all your mechanical infractions.
the referee's take care of all your on field infractions

so the only uncontrolled matter is the parts right?

If so, how about we have all the teams submit a digital image of all "spare parts" on ship day to FIRST. A digital image team scrapbook will be created and given to the pit judge. On pit opening teams can bring in the items shown in the digital image scrapbook, say each team can have up to 10 items. The pit judge checks off on the items coming into the pit (once for each item) i.e. each item has a check mark next to it. So say on Friday afternoon bluateam comes strolling in with a shiny new transmission thats already been checked off he simply gets turned at the door. This would only apply to assembled items. Loose parts would still be uncontrolled as this would be unmanageable. Plus assembling loose parts in the pit isn't a violation anyway.

So there you have a controlled environment, and eliminated the need for this concern. If this isn't a good plan maybe we could work up a better one, instead of leaving it open for problems.
I could see a traffic jam of people getting spares inspected, so maybe before pits open the judges would come out in the lobby and put approved inspection stickers on the items. Of coarse this also requires container inspection for spares, but they've already been doing container inspections anyway. So just have them send any technical assemblies to the pit inspector to check-off.
We already have to submit digital images of our robots for FIRST to display, so the technical requirement for a digital image already exists. So FIRST should just setup an email address that receives these images and forward them on to each events host. Then after each each event, teams may have assembled new spares in their pit, so a new image is in order Taken their at the event, maybe the pit judge could setup a photo set and organize the image into the check box format and send the image to their next event, superseding the original image.
This would require 1 checkpoint for all pit related items. At UCF many of us found a back door to get into our outdoor tent pits, this created an entry point for uncontrolled items. I guess my biggest problem with this is people traffic. But as a team mentor, I could go along with the technical aspects of this pretty easily.

*edit* maybe for the traffic problem you could just spot check, especially the people carrying a big load of items.

MissInformation

29-12-2004, 10:16

Now, to answer the original question, if I had to pick a penalty that I felt was most appropriate, I would choose disqualification. Which should be enforced by FIRST Officials. As far as limits to the penalties go, I'm still stuck on that issue, but surprisingly (to me at least) I'm leaning more toward the penalties being unlimited.

One of my first thoughts when I considered this topic was that there should be some leniency for Rookie teams, after all, they're new and all that. But then I thought, why should that matter? Every team out there has a responsibility to learn the rules every year, regardless of how many years their team has existed.

Let's take a solid example of rule breaking that cannot be disputed, something like modifying a part that FIRST rules state absolutely cannot be modified. If a team does this, should they get off with just a warning? Should they be allowed to make excuses?

Which then makes me think should leniency even be a factor or should there be one consequence across the board for any violation of the rules? The advantage of this is that it would make it a lot easier on the person(s) who would have to decide if a team has broken a rule, plus it may deter someone from breaking what they consider a minor rule. Or should there be a system set up with different consequences for different violations? I like the idea of that, because I really do think some violations are not as bad as others, however, this could be a very time-consuming venture for FIRST Officials (freaky enough, I had a dream once that there was a FIRST Court, complete with judge and jury, that reviewed game violations).

Should a team be kicked out of FIRST? I would think that would be too extreme, however, I can think of plenty of instances where it would be perfectly acceptable to kick a student off of a team. Maybe a team that is a repeat offender in breaking the rules should have to take a year off. And maybe that team should have to come back as a Rookie team... but then, maybe that's too extreme as well.

There will probably always be someone who wants to deliberately bend or break the rules, but if appropriate penalties are created and enforced (enforcement is key here because without enforcement making a penalty is useless), maybe it will get rid of the "accidental" breaking of rules because more time will be spent learning and understanding the rules.

Heidi

Andrew

29-12-2004, 11:36

How does kicking teams out of FIRST or out of a FIRST Regional (for which they've paid good money) contribute to FIRST's mission?

I agree that when mentors openly cheat, it sends a poor message to their students. This can be seen in the behavior of the whole team, especially the young-uns.

Regarding cheating in FIRST... any system of probation or severe penalties is going to hurt FIRST more than it helps. Why? If FIRST has to impose a severe penalty, it must perform a thorough investigation (such as might hold up in a court of law). Otherwise, it might find itself sued for Breach of Contract and face punitive damages in addition to refund of entry fees.

FIRST does not have the resources to perform such investigations.

FIRST would also have to make sure that its rule-book was air-tight and that it did not violate any of its own promises. For instance, FIRST promises that it will provide "random" matches in qualification rounds. Has it ever fulfilled this promise?

If you look at the situation that started this thread, Bluabot tweaked a gearbox in the hotel and is being threatened with team dissolution! Talk about an "out of proportion" response!

That having been said, the current "honor system" needs some tweaks.

So, what requirements should a punishment system meet?
1. It must be open to public scrutiny.
2. Its scope should be limited to the event at which the infraction(s) occurred.
3. The penalties should be mild enough that the disagreement between the team and FIRST will not escalate. The penalties should be severe enough so that they are not lightly imposed.
4. The system should be designed to move the infraction towards rectification, rather than repaying an injury with an injury.
5. It should not be so resource intensive or distracting that the Punishment System detracts from the Competition.

In the case of severe penalties (such a Disqualification), all teams at the Event are affected. Therefore, they should be involved in the decision to punish as well. For instance, the team being considered for DQ might be your alliance partner in an upcoming match. Or, they might be the opponent of a team ranked above you and the DQ might give that team an automatic win.

Perhaps a jury pool pulled from the team leaders of teams at a competition could listen to the pros and cons of the complaint and render a verdict.

For minor offenses, a system of fines or fouls might do the trick. Similar to fouls in basketball or hockey.

For instance, your team might be barred from its pits for an hour if it is caught bringing in illegal parts (and the parts themselves are impounded). Note: if the parts themselves are your drive system, impounding them would effectively be a Disqualification offense and should be reviewed.

Or, a team might have to pay a $50 fine to FIRST for "cheating" (subject to review by a "jury"). Such fines would have to be paid before the team could register for the next competition season.

Mike Ciance

29-12-2004, 11:51

Steve W

29-12-2004, 12:02

it's a proven principle that strict rule encourages rebellion. if FIRST is reasonable people will obey the rules out of morals, not fear

Unfortunately I don't subscribe to that idea. Can you back up your statement with facts?

I will use speeding as an example. There is a posted speed limit. If there is not strict enforcement of the limit and there are no penalties for breaking the law then you will find that over time a majority of drivers will exceed the limit. You can see it on the highways all the time. Even with enforcement people try to find ways around it. Radios, cell phones and radar detectors are all used to help one break the law. I believe that rebellion comes when unfair and unwarranted rules are imposed without consideration of the individual or mass. They are usually self serving rules as well.

Mike Ciance

29-12-2004, 12:47

Unfortunately I don't subscribe to that idea. Can you back up your statement with facts?

I will use speeding as an example. There is a posted speed limit. If there is not strict enforcement of the limit and there are no penalties for breaking the law then you will find that over time a majority of drivers will exceed the limit. You can see it on the highways all the time. Even with enforcement people try to find ways around it. Radios, cell phones and radar detectors are all used to help one break the law. I believe that rebellion comes when unfair and unwarranted rules are imposed without consideration of the individual or mass. They are usually self serving rules as well.you also must consider the group of people that are on the road vs the group of people involved in FIRST, and the difference in situation and objective.

on the road, people speeding is life-threatening, and any accident, even minor, has a bad impact on the experience of everybody else on the road because it slows traffic, crippling the objective of driving, which is to get places faster. in FIRST, a team getting a slight advantage is not life-threatening. it may have an impact on how the placement of teams in the outcome, but that is not the true objective of FIRST. FIRST is about learning. i have yet to see a situation where one team cheating has significantly hindered the learning of another. as long as some form of disaproval is shown from FIRST, and some action is taken to counter the advantage, such as point deduction or a late start during subsequent rounds, the main objective of FIRST is still being very much achieved. in fact, everybody will learn a little from one team's mistake. in the end, everybody can still compete, the team who commited the foul goes home with some shame little animosity towards FIRST, and most importantly everybody has had the valuable learning experience. we need to get rid of all the hostility and concentrate on what why joined FIRST to begin with.

Aignam

29-12-2004, 13:00

you also must consider the group of people that are on the road vs the group of people involved in FIRST, and the difference in situation and objective.

on the road, people speeding is life-threatening, and any accident, even minor, has a bad impact on the experience of everybody else on the road because it slows traffic, crippling the objective of driving, which is to get places faster. in FIRST, a team getting a slight advantage is not life-threatening. it may have an impact on how the placement of teams in the outcome, but that is not the true objective of FIRST. FIRST is about learning. i have yet to see a situation where one team cheating has significantly hindered the learning of another. as long as some form of disaproval is shown from FIRST, and some action is taken to counter the advantage, such as point deduction or a late start during subsequent rounds, the main objective of FIRST is still being very much achieved. in fact, everybody will learn a little from one team's mistake. in the end, everybody can still compete, the team who commited the foul goes home with some shame little animosity towards FIRST, and most importantly everybody has had the valuable learning experience. we need to get rid of all the hostility and concentrate on what why joined FIRST to begin with.
Lest we forget that some joined FIRST to experience something unlike anything else---a competition without that brutal contact sport-esque competetiveness. Cheating undermines the entire concept of FIRST. How can you defend cheaters---the antithesis of this organization? There's nothing inspirational about cheating, there's nothing gracious about cheating...Sure, extremely harsh penalties may seem out of place in FIRST...but we're all about preparation for the real world, aren't we? And in the real world, real cheating has bigger, harsher consequences. I think getting disqualified would be a better lesson than learning that you can get away with anything if you play your cards right. We're fostering science and technology, not white-collar crimes.

Arefin Bari

29-12-2004, 13:14

Lest we forget that some joined FIRST to experience something unlike anything else---a competition without that brutal contact sport-esque competetiveness. Cheating undermines the entire concept of FIRST. How can you defend cheaters---the antithesis of this organization? There's nothing inspirational about cheating, there's nothing gracious about cheating...Sure, extremely harsh penalties may seem out of place in FIRST...but we're all about preparation for the real world, aren't we? And in the real world, real cheating has bigger, harsher consequences. I think getting disqualified would be a better lesson than learning that you can get away with anything if you play your cards right. We're fostering science and technology, not white-collar crimes.

We all have been saying what the penalties might be for the cheaters and also what is our opinion in general. now lets state the problem...

"What do you feel is appropriate and how should this be enforced? Who who do the enforcing and should there be any limits to the penalties." - Steve W.

few respective members said that we should penalize teams, and few other respective members said that we should just let it go, because we dont want to lose teams. most of us said that FIRST should be enforcing these and few said that there should be limits (they posted the limits that we should have). (PLEASE correct me if i am wrong).

Here is a question for all of you (it was mentioned before, but i didnt see any response)..

"How would you know if a team is cheating? and if you do know, how would you prove it?"

as I mentioned earlier in my other post, that is when "Honesty" comes into play.

-Arefin

Steve W

29-12-2004, 13:16

Aignam

29-12-2004, 13:25

Al Skierkiewicz

29-12-2004, 14:00

I am encouraged that the majority of the responses thus far tend to be lenient. No one is calling for the public block and whipping. I agree with the majority that FIRST and GP requires a different remedy than general cheaters are subject to in similar life situations. I have witnessed team dynamics and find that when a team discusses a rule violation, the final decision is usually one person or a very small group pressing the rest to follow along. Those teams that get GP use it regularly as a valid argument in these types of discussions. Each year, as I meet more people from more teams, I am encouraged to find teams that I would trust to do right. Occasionally, a newcomer will briefly express a desire to skirt the rules and will receive heavy opposition from the rest of the team.
As to retribution, I lean towards the offenders being given a chance to right the wrong. Some of you have suggested a period of time when the team may not enter the pit area, removal of the offending system etc. I like these alternatives as it allows the team to make a correction, it allows other teams to make their own decisions under their interpretation of GP and it doesn't beat the team members so badly that they want to leave the program.
I believe we need to reward the hard GP decisions as much as the teams that easily follow rules and succeed in competition. Should a team still refuse to take one of these GP alternatives, then it is their own decision. I am an optimist, but I don't think there is a team, now or in the future, in this organization that would choose the wrong path.

Mike Ciance

29-12-2004, 14:06

Lest we forget that some joined FIRST to experience something unlike anything else---a competition without that brutal contact sport-esque competetiveness. Cheating undermines the entire concept of FIRST. How can you defend cheaters---the antithesis of this organization? There's nothing inspirational about cheating, there's nothing gracious about cheating...Sure, extremely harsh penalties may seem out of place in FIRST...but we're all about preparation for the real world, aren't we? And in the real world, real cheating has bigger, harsher consequences. I think getting disqualified would be a better lesson than learning that you can get away with anything if you play your cards right. We're fostering science and technology, not white-collar crimes.well as i said in an earlier post, teams who often break rules should recieve stricter penalties. mild punishments dont encourage cheating, but hars punishments discourage participation and learning. if a team learns it's lesson from a mild punishment, i see no reason why any more action should be taken. i am sure that for most teams the sheer loss of pride that a discovered rulebreaking would cause would be enough in itself to encourage reform. like a few have said, there are some situations in which a minor rule-breaking can make the difference between a team having a normal season and a team not having a season at all. surely no more than a chastizement should be given for situations such as these. like i said, we need to consider how much of a problem the cheating actually causes.

Arefin Bari

29-12-2004, 14:08

More rigorous inspections---

You'd be surprised at how dramatically the results of each year's games might've changed had there been a device to test a robot's current, and I don't think it would be incredibly difficult to enforce bringing illegal parts into the pit area, as has been previously mentioned. If someone were to monitor what goes in and out of the pit, surely the game would be made significantly fairer. Of course, if this were to be enforced, we should institute some more lenient rules relating to such, as it would be a shame to have a team which was incapable of competing due to such a strict rule.

mind pointing out how you are going to keep track of 1000 teams who are involved in FIRST? like someone in this thread said before that, We are family and we have to work together.

Aignam

29-12-2004, 14:55

mind pointing out how you are going to keep track of 1000 teams who are involved in FIRST? like someone in this thread said before that, We are family and we have to work together.
Every team goes through an inspection...make it a tad bit lengthier, a tad bit more rigorous, and a tad bit more inclusive. Cheaters are still FIRST students, so you can be sure that when/if they cheat, it's going to be creative and well-concealed. Make it harder to cheat and kill the problem at the source. I don't really see the problem...

Arefin Bari

29-12-2004, 15:00

Every team goes through an inspection...make it a tad bit lengthier, a tad bit more rigorous, and a tad bit more inclusive. Cheaters are still FIRST students, so you can be sure that when/if they cheat, it's going to be creative and well-concealed. Make it harder to cheat and kill the problem at the source. I don't really see the problem...

So are you saying that you can just look at a part of the robot and say when it was manufactured? during inspection, whatever a team takes to the table and lets the inspector inspect the it and if they pass the inspection, you cant do anything about it. like i said before, that is when Honesty comes in play. there is NOTHING in this world which is perfect.

Aignam

29-12-2004, 15:10

So are you saying that you can just look at a part of the robot and say when it was manufactured? during inspection, whatever a team takes to the table and lets the inspector inspect the it and if they pass the inspection, you cant do anything about it. like i said before, that is when Honesty comes in play. there is NOTHING in this world which is perfect.
That's not the only way to break the rules. Just because one rule is unenforceable does not mean that we should stop trying to perfect the system. If that were the case, we wouldn't need referees, because the teams could decide the calls on their own, and who needs judges---whomever really deserves the award would step forwards and the other teams wouldn't even attempt to receive it...

You can't settle for trust and honesty because there will always be untrustworthy and dishonest people, and we can't let them ruin FIRST.

Swampdude

29-12-2004, 15:13

I just gave a suggestion on how to control this matter here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=311252&postcount=23)

Also my wife suggested we just require everyone to put all spares in your shipping container. Then the only thing allowed into pits is raw materials and standard products. No assemblies. But shipping would be a little more.

Anyhow, I don't see the need for this whole discussion unless your dealing with a flagrant in your face violator. Which I just can't fathom. I think it makes a lot more sense to put a system in place to check the wrongs before they happen. It's in place in every other aspect except this spare parts rule. So I think it's actually a simple answer. Provide the check and balance. And as far as the scale of the effort, I think it could be manageable if made a spot check system. Like Aerfin said, you can't prove anything unless you've got a system in place. It's not good to have a tattle tail system instead.

MissInformation

29-12-2004, 15:24

A lot of these posts are focusing on rules that level the playing field, such as the amount of money spent on a robot, but don't forget the rules that address safety concerns, such as modifying certain parts. If FIRST says do not modify the thing-a-ma-bob and a team says but if I cut this away and play with this, the thing-a-ma-bob will be so much more powerful and faster so let's ignore that rule and they they do so, then they have just endangered not only themselves but others. The people who inspect the robots for safety do a great job but as humans they are fallible.

A team cheating may or may not hinder another team's learning, but I think FIRST would be less inspiring if cheating was treated as lightly as just deducting a few points. Heck, if the advantage was great enough, losing a few points or starting late wouldn't matter at all to the team that cheated. And a team cheating can have more consequences than placement. A team cheating could win awards it doesn't deserve along with scholarships that a team that didn't cheat could have won.

This past fall we had a little mini-bot competition (pieces of plywood with wheels, powered by drills). One of the objects in this game was to remove a soda can from a cinder block. Now, seeing as how the cinder block could damage things if it was knocked over, a rule was made stating that teams would lose points if they knocked the block over. One of the teams, mistakenly thinking I'm such a cool adult that I would find it funny, told me that they were planning on knocking the cinder block over anyhow, just to show how strong they could make their mini-bot. Personally, I think it would have been funny to see, but I really wanted the kids to get the idea that during the game, they couldn't bend or break the rules that way, so I conferred with some of the adults and we made a new rule up that stated that any team that intentionally knocked over the cinder block would have to clean up the meeting room by themselves for the rest of the pre-season meetings. Needless to say, the cinder block remained upright. If the penalty had been too harsh, such as scrubbing the entire shop down with toothbrushes, I have no doubt that block would have tumbled. So there's a good example of finding a penalty that was not too lenient and not too severe. If only FIRST's problems were this easy to solve...

I think everyone is doing a great job in this thread in pointing out the different sides. I think I've changed my mind quite a few times today because of the points made. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I've been amazed by the people who can't believe anyone in FIRST would cheat. I may not be an expert in human nature, but I have enough experience with different groups (girl scouts, little league, ice-skating, Relay for Life, etc.) to know that competition can bring out the worse in some people.

Heidi

Arefin Bari

29-12-2004, 15:26

Phil 33

29-12-2004, 15:29

Make it harder to cheat and kill the problem at the source. I don't really see the problem...

If you make it harder to cheat, people will still cheat. They'll just have to go about it in a more clever way.

For instance:
1. Instead of sneaking parts out of the pit during a competition to work on them - a team will fabricate parts before the season even begins. Try to stop them.

2. If you inspect everything that comes into the pits - then teams will simply sneak the parts into the pits. There are always multiple ways to get into the pits. Plus FIRST just doen't have the resources to inspect everything. If a team brings in two carts loaded with bins and toolboxes to a competition, it would be very easy to bury something in the bottom of one of those bins.

In order to kill the problem at the source, you have to stop it from happening in the first place. How to go about this is anyone's guess. If you simply set up a system to catch cheaters, you're not stopping cheating. Sure you'll catch a few cheaters, but it's not going to end. If cheating is happening at all, there will be people getting away with it, becasue you can't design a perfect system to catch cheaters.

Stoping cheating from happening in the first place is the only way to stop cheating. Like Arefin said, I guess this is where honesty comes into play. But how do you keep people honest? I suppose you could set up a system to catch cheaters that would theoretically deter people from cheating. Wait, didn't I just say that such a system wouldn't stop cheaters? Looks like we're in a catch-22 situation....

Ben Lauer

29-12-2004, 15:51

nparikh

29-12-2004, 16:42

Wow, it seems that this thread is spreading into so many different directions that I don't really know which issue to respond to. I just wanted to note on something brought up earlier; the punishments. I don't think that we can have concrete punishments for something like cheating. I agree with Mike in that the circumstances and the extent to which the cheating occurs matters. If we always give out the same punishment to all cheaters is that really fair? Like what was said before; is a rookie team putting ties on worn down tires as bad as a team who purposely and knowingly does something like bringing in a new robot for competition? Not to say that a team is bad, but the extent of what has happened is completely different. My suggestion to FIRST is why not form some kind of "official" board that handles it all on a case by case basis; and after reviewing the facts, makes a decision. That way, appropriate punishment, in my belief, is delivered.

Aignam

29-12-2004, 16:45

Like what was said before; is a rookie team putting ties on worn down tires as bad as a team who purposely and knowingly does something like bringing in a new robot for competition?There should definitely be a graduated system of penalties---but the fact that a team is a rookie team should not exempt them from any rules. We're all responsible for knowing and following the rules in order to compete.

Ted Boucher

29-12-2004, 17:07

We all have been saying what the penalties might be for the cheaters and also what is our opinion in general. now lets state the problem...

"What do you feel is appropriate and how should this be enforced? Who who do the enforcing and should there be any limits to the penalties." - Steve W.

few respective members said that we should penalize teams, and few other respective members said that we should just let it go, because we dont want to lose teams. most of us said that FIRST should be enforcing these and few said that there should be limits (they posted the limits that we should have). (PLEASE correct me if i am wrong).

Here is a question for all of you (it was mentioned before, but i didnt see any response)..

"How would you know if a team is cheating? and if you do know, how would you prove it?"

as I mentioned earlier in my other post, that is when "Honesty" comes into play.

-Arefin

For pre-fabricating parts before 6 weeks beings:

Honestly, I don’t think that there is any way for a FIRST official to judge this at a competition with the current rules. Unless someone for their team turned them in, which it very unlikely. What FIRST could do is have each FIRST team submit time stamped pictures of the build process of all of their major components. This way you would know when the parts was made and assembled to a limited point. If you make these pictures required to every event, then it would be a way of showing that the team did not cheat. If the dates are wrong, then we would know that they cheated. Another thing FIRST could do is making changes the KOP every year, to a point so that a team would be unable to pre-fabricate parts.

For fixing robot parts at an official FIRST Robotics Event at a hotel or such:

As I said earlier, just by watching the pits and make sure only people are leaving and entering is the simple and easy solution to the anwser. This ensures that you are not letting a team bring parts in and out of the competition that were done off building time or competition time. There would be no need for a penalty phase and everyone would be on a fair playing field. You could even seal the pit with tape after a team leaves at night. Then in the morning, a judge could make sure that they are not bringing any parts in with them and unseal the pit.

Swampdude

29-12-2004, 18:09

I think we are straying from the purpose of the thread.

We were asked to discuss different penalties for teams caught breaking the off field rules. Assuming that we can catch these violations, What should the consequences be? Consider what others have said about probation, restricting envolvement in finals, etc. Do you agree with this? Disagree? and what would you like to suggest.

I understand your point, but general psychology says to treat the cause not the symptoms. We are dealing with people here? I don't like the idea of waving the gavel. The FIRST ideal is wonderful in respect to the fact that we make the best or worst of it. I'm sorry to say that business isn't free of cheats and loopholers - far from it. But I think if we put obstacles in the path of the would be cheaters, they're going to think twice before taking that risk that wasn't there before. Hence avoiding this whole punishment thing. It's not like your going to correct deviant behaviour with this program, nor should it be about that. Just like our society says, "it's the parents fault". I agree with that, it's up to parents to keep their kids from drugs and all the bad stuff. I don't want the government raising my kids - it just doesn't work. In the same regards let the mentors handle it, and when they screw up, then yes think up something - but don't go whacking a team at the knees over this stuff, it's not worth it. I guess my point is, fix the source issues first - if that doesn't curb the infractions, then go easy on the punishments, it's related...

Steve W

29-12-2004, 20:30

Billfred

29-12-2004, 21:16

I'm still curious, is a punishment the way to go?

As far as I've heard, the world of work goes like this: I give someone a list of requirements for my super-special tin can. If their cans are out of whack, do I charge them fifty bucks and tell them to go home?

Nope. I don't buy their cans (or, in FIRST, let them onto the field) until their cans meet my requirements. Then I buy them.

(this is, of course, I have one source for such a tin can...you know what I mean)

I still think the solution that leaves the most room for teachable moments and the least room for hurt feelings is to identify the problem, then fix the problem (even if it means starting a new robot--it has been done), then move along.

jimfortytwo

29-12-2004, 21:42

One fear I have is that by codifying punishments for things that simply should_not_happen, you might in effect make them part of the game. In many sports, for instance (I play lacrosse), penalties are assumed to be part of the game, and calculated risk is part of the strategy. No one wants to see first head down that path. I think that if punishments are spelled out at all they should be brief and simple, and give discretion to the event supervisors. I don't personally see a need for further regulations cluttering the books, though. In my experience with FIRST I have never encountered a situations like this that I didn't feel was properly handled.

MikeDubreuil

29-12-2004, 22:06

For years, I've been hearing the story of a team who showed up to inspection with a hollowed out battery. Does anyone know what happened to this team? I'd be interested to see what sort of precedent was set. This is a story that I've heard for about 4 years now. Since this is more like a rumor than fact, I heard that the team was just repremanded once it was realized that the controller would not turn on. Then they were required to lose weight. That's what I've heard anyway :confused:
I'm still curious, is a punishment the way to go?
...
I still think the solution that leaves the most room for teachable moments and the least room for hurt feelings is to identify the problem, then fix the problem (even if it means starting a new robot--it has been done), then move along.
100% ABSOLUTELY, is punishment the way to go. It does no one any good if we find that team 12345 won the Championship illegally and are required to fix a problem on their robot after the fact.

A punishment is meant to deter you from doing an illegal act. A team is a team- if they cheat together, they get punished together. We're not talking about executions! Just enough of a punishment so that is acts as a hinderence so people think twice before they knowingly cheat.

Some people are concerned about the cheating team getting too harsh a punishment and wanting to leave FIRST. Ever think about the honest teams in FIRST who might leave because the competition turns into a sham?

Koko Ed

29-12-2004, 22:38

To believe that this isn't happening is hiding your head in the sand. Things have been caught and when brought forward, FIRST hid their head in the sand. In 2002 and 2003 there were teams that broke the rules and when confronted argued the point so tough that FIRST allowed the transgression. THIS is one of the worst things that could have happened. FIRST is basically not enforcing the rules because, in my humble opinion, they don't want to discourage teams or ban them from a competition. All this has done is lower the GP for everyone.

Well with expansion does come some unfortunate side effects. Not every company who joins FIRST sees the opportunities provided to youth, the life lessons learned from the experience and the fun everyone involved has.
All they see is trophies and for the amount of money they put into such and such a team they want to see a return for their investment and they could care less how they go about getting it.
FIRST is just not big enough an organization to watchdog every single thing every single team does and if they start tackling who is cheating or not I'm afraid it's going to devolve into what is or isn't cheating (is building a robot strictly for the students or can the robot be mentor built, ect.) and next thing you know FIRST is bogged down in endless debate about the rules and then no one is having fun anymore.
The only answer I can possibly think of is an exclusive team of mentors from each and every team who preside over the rules and regualtions of FIRST and police the teams autonoumous from their own team and other teams influences and thus can pass just decsions on such matters without fear of retaliation.

Swampdude

29-12-2004, 22:56

The fear of the unknown is an asset. Let's choose a team number that never existed and start some folklore about the severe punishment that befell them after they did a no no (did they skip 666?). I like how Dave insinuated some drastic abuse (being a FIRST representative). But in reality I think we need to loosen up. If you spell it out, like these guys are saying, your going to get an adverse effect. But I still stand by the fact that you need a system in place to provide immediate resistance to infractions. As soon as people realize there's a "good" possibility they'll get caught (regardless of the punishment) they'll quickly reconsider.

"did you guys hear about that team last year that had to blow up all the balls by mouth? :ahh: "

Billfred

29-12-2004, 23:17

100% ABSOLUTELY, is punishment the way to go. It does no one any good if we find that team 12345 won the Championship illegally and are required to fix a problem on their robot after the fact.
Alright, touché. Then again, it's not like we could take back a Super Bowl title from a team that somehow cheated, either. Sometimes the bad guys win, and the only thing you can do at that point is make sure it never happens again.

The solution to your problem, Mike, is to keep it from becoming a problem. Inspecting everything would solve the problem, but that takes manpower and time. The easiest, and probably best, way to do it is to work on the honor system...sort of.

Consider back in my elementary school days. I was on an Odyssey of the Mind team. And every year at the competition, every student on the team would have to sign some piece of paper that said my team did not receive any outside assistance from non-team members (which was prohibited under the rules). Surely some sort of document could be fashioned for FIRST, where every team member signs to affirm that they were not party to any cheating. If all else fails, you're teaching an important lesson--read everything you sign!

Marc P.

29-12-2004, 23:42

Any team who breaks any rule should be reprimanded. As tough as it is, it's necessary to preserve the integrity of the program as a whole, from team to team, competition to competition, season to season. Now, before I get jumped on for that, I'll say there shouldn't be any "one size fits all" punishment to be handed out whenever anyone cries foul. I'm of the firm belief the punishment should befit the crime.

There are already well documented rules and policies (http://www2.usfirst.org/2004comp/4-TheGame-RevC-incorporated.pdf) in place regarding on-field competition, and the referee crew does a great job of enforcing and distributing punishments for infractions. For those who don't know, most penalties during a match incur flags to be thrown. The number of flags depends on the offense, and by the 2004 rules, each flag is a 10 point penalty. More severe penalties will merit disqualification and/or disabling of the offending team's robot. Rule G32 in particular showcases perhaps the most severe documented FIRST penalty- disqualification from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event.

Realistically, it's only on-field where any potentially cheating team has the highest chance of getting caught. Not only are there well qualified volunteers on the field, but various FIRST officials, Innovation First staff, and any number of eyes which could spy some mechanism or part which is obviously illegal, should a team try to pull a fast one after successfully competing inspection.

Outside of that, the only proof of any other types of cheating would be here-say or testimony of other teams/individuals, which unless accompanied by a significant multi-team backing or documented/photo proof, isn't necessarily viable evidence.

Now, for the real meat. I'd brand any (off field/not otherwise documented) offense as one of three possible categories- minor, major, severe. Examples of minor offenses would be smuggling small/non critical post-ship fabricated parts into competition, working on parts in a hotel room, essentially things generally seen as wrong, but not large enough scale to modify the outcome of the competition. Minor infractions should incur a minor penalty, say 5 or 10% off ranking points, or score, or whatever method of determining rank is.

Major offenses would modify the outcome of a match, but in a rectifiable manor. This would include using known illegal parts post-inspection. If incurred during the qualification rounds, the team would automatically be disqualified from it's next 2 matches, or if in eliminations, automatically dropped from it's 3 team alliance (where the other 2 members can pick another 3rd partner).

Severe infractions I'd rather not think about. They would undeniably affect the outcome of a match, and/or the competition, and would be so devoid of gracious professionalism and of such conduct I personally wouldn't care to see these teams in any future competition for the remainder of the season. Examples would be sabotage of an opposing alliance's robots, stealing parts/tools from other teams, and violence (fighting, excessive verbal abuse).

I know in each scenario there's the chance it may only be a few individuals, and may not necessarily reflect on the team as a whole, but I'll apply the general concept from these forums. People who post here (whether they disclaim it or not) do reflect where they're coming from, and do to an extent, represent their team. If 2 or 3 people smuggle some parts into competition, they're smuggling them on behalf of their team (if they didn't have a team, what would they be doing with parts in a hotel room?). Similarly, if a team member intentionally damages another team's robot, he/she does so as a member of his/her team, and it does reflect on the team as a whole, and as such, the punishment is reflected back.

I know people will say disqualification is not the answer, because it deprives teams of the chance to compete and be inspired and such, but there's no inspiration to be found in cheating. There may be a slight feeling of triumph for a while, taking the ski lift to the top of the mountain while others climb with ice-piks and rope. But there's no better feeling in the world than knowing you did your best, produced an amazing piece of technology, and learned more than you thought possible. All the while watching your growing potential take the field and pick up balls, cap goals, and hang from a bar taller than anyone out there. Shortcuts are just that- short, and I'd feel cheated if my robot won, but I knew it didn't deserve to.

Al Skierkiewicz

30-12-2004, 10:27

To believe that this isn't happening is hiding your head in the sand. Things have been caught and when brought forward, FIRST hid their head in the sand. In 2002 and 2003 there were teams that broke the rules and when confronted argued the point so tough that FIRST allowed the transgression. THIS is one of the worst things that could have happened. FIRST is basically not enforcing the rules because, in my humble opinion, they don't want to discourage teams or ban them from a competition. All this has done is lower the GP for everyone.

Steve,
As I have said before, I am an optimist and as such I believe strongly in GP and it's effects in this competition. Yes I may be hiding my head in the sand. But I can tell you that a team that knowingly cheated would not end up on my list of potential teams to pick for finals. I don't want to speak for the rest of my team, but I think (I would hope) that if a cheating team was in the finals, we would turn them down if asked join their alliance. If we all took that position (an ultimate GP sacrifice) then cheaters would self destruct.
I am not so naive to believe that cheating doesn't take place, anymore than I don't think every boy scout follows the Scout Law everyday. GP and the Scout Law are high ideals that only the best will achieve and live everyday. We must show by example how to conduct our teams in this organization, remember, my grandmother is watching.

Steve W

30-12-2004, 12:25

Steve,
As I have said before, I am an optimist and as such I believe strongly in GP and it's effects in this competition. Yes I may be hiding my head in the sand. But I can tell you that a team that knowingly cheated would not end up on my list of potential teams to pick for finals. I don't want to speak for the rest of my team, but I think (I would hope) that if a cheating team was in the finals, we would turn them down if asked join their alliance. If we all took that position (an ultimate GP sacrifice) then cheaters would self destruct.
I am not so naive to believe that cheating doesn't take place, anymore than I don't think every boy scout follows the Scout Law everyday. GP and the Scout Law are high ideals that only the best will achieve and live everyday. We must show by example how to conduct our teams in this organization, remember, my grandmother is watching.

The reason that I am in FIRST and believe in it is because it is a great eye opening experience AND because of GP. When I first encountered FIRST I was in the pit area and saw teams working together to help out those with problems. Teams sharing ideas, resources and manpower. A competition were everyone is a winner even when you have no trophies. This is something that drew me here and keeps me here. Does 1 or 2 teams breaking the GP code stop FIRST from being a great place? Not on your life. That doesn't mean that we should stop trying to teach others about all aspects of FIRST, including GP. Rules need to be enforced. There is a saying that I heard long ago that says "Locks keep honest people honest". I believe that the rules are like locks. There are always those that will try to do what is not right. We cannot stop except with rule enforcement. If we have rules (locks) that are not enforced (locked) then why do we bother to have them at all?

This is a great discussion and I believe that much has been brought out already. I see FIRST as moving forward and getting better every year. This can be only done when people care and this thread shows that, even with differing opinions, The people that make up FIRST do care. Boy do I love this program.

Andrew

31-12-2004, 10:24

Another possible "punishment" would be to have some respected person at FIRST sit down with a team which has been caught in a major rules violation and explain exactly what GP is, how this team's activities are moving counter to FIRST's mission and goals, and suggest how the team might improve in the future.

1. This would deprive the team of about 1 hour of competition time.
2. You might actually reach some of the team members (if not the team leaders).
3. The fact that the entire team disappeared for an hour would be fairly telling to the rest of the competition.

Another punishment...have the team members write out "I will not cheat again" 100 times and post the documents in a designated "hall of shame" area.

The only down-side to this punishment is that some engineer will design an "auto-pen" and have it do the writing for him.

Natchez

07-01-2005, 04:50

If I were queen for the day, the violation process would be

1. Person knowledgeable of a violation would document the violation and turn it into FIRST (FIRST Manchester if not during a regional & Regional Director during a regional).

2. The coach (team leader) from each team would be required to attend a meeting to resolve all alleged violations at 12:00 each day (Thursday, Friday, & Saturday) during the regionals.

3. If a violation could be substantiated, the coaches along with a FIRST official who was very knowledgeable of the rules would hash out a penalty or punishment.

Here are some comments regarding each step.

STEP #1

Writing down the violation of another team makes one think about exactly what rule is being violated and avoids the half-cocked statements that occur as people "grab the ear" of the regional director.
We actually implemented something like this at the South Texas FLL tournament with a Comments/Compliments/Concerns Form where people complain about anything from dirty bathrooms to a team breaking robot rules. It has worked very well.
If the violation occurred outside of a regional and thus the violation write-up is submitted to FIRST Manchester, the alleged violation would be sent to the next regional that the accused team was competing and addressed at the Thursday 12:00 meeting at that regional.
The accuser should not be anonymous. If someone is willing to accuse, then let them stand in front of the people when judging (figuratively of course). This will eliminate that one person that loves to make a bunch of groundless anonymous accusations.

STEP #2

Qualified personnel could be used to substantiate certain violations.
Having meetings everyday would bring a fairly swift resolution to issues and give the regional time to correct the problem instead of having it remain as a black eye on the regional.
Coaches would despise going to these meetings therefore they would want to keep them as short as possible.
At the Championships, there would need to be several of these meetings to reduce the number of coaches in the room. Maybe two meetings per division to reduce the number to less than 40 coaches in a room.

STEP #3

Head coaches would be the most likely to pass out fair and understandable punishments.
If the coach of the offending team does not agree to the punishment from his peers, the Regional Director would make the final binding decision.
As more of these meetings were held and documented and discussed, punishments for common violations would become standard around the country.

If implemented correctly, this process can address violations from all aspects of FIRST (Robot, Sportsmanship, Chairman's, etc.). This violation process needs a lot more work but hopefully I've gotten the gist across.

WARNING: This concludes my rational solution to the problem. Now, please allow me to rant a little.

In general, FIRST mirrors society more closely than we'd like to admit. In this post and others, we seem to be lobbing a great deal of "others-break-the-rules" bricks in our "we-don't-break-rules" glass house. I'll spare you from the boredom of my beliefs on society & rules (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=236029#post236029).

Our grandmothers and grandfathers didn't break rules because it was simply wrong, or from a fear of God, and those were the days that agreements could be sealed by a handshake. Today, it is difficult to find someone who does not break rules. In defense of this, see if you can get though the list below without having been a part of at least one "rules" violation. Feel free to flame me and fill up my inbox if you get all the way through the lists; most of all, please brag because you exhibit the highest standards for which FIRST stands.

Who has been a part of a team that saved seats?
Who went through a door at the Championships that they knew they should not to save the trouble of going "over the mountain of escalators?"
Who has brought food and drink into a stadium and knew it was wrong?
Who has not worn safety glasses in the pits at some point? Remember, safety never takes a break ... neither does flying parts.
Who has kept working on their robot in the pit after being called to the queuing area for the third time?
Who has sped to a FIRST practice?

I'm ashamed to say that I’ve been part of ALL of the above rule violations! Now, here are a few other rule violations that I've only witnessed.

Who has made a robot that damaged/buckled the carpet ... AND DID NOT CORRECT IT?
Who has repaired their robot in the pits knowing that the repair might have put it over 130 lbs. but chose not to check it and compete in a round.
Who has gone to the top of Reliant Stadium where they knew they should not be and put paper on the seats?
Who has made a MINOR modification to a spare part after the ship date and then use it on their competition robot.
Who has fudged the information on their Chairman’s Award submission or in the interview?
Who has brought artificial noise makers into a stadium where they were disallowed?

That's enough! Thanks for letting me vent for a few minutes.

May we all strive to break no rules in 2005,
Lucien

IMDWalrus

07-01-2005, 15:47

Wow, it seems that this thread is spreading into so many different directions that I don't really know which issue to respond to.

Agreed, especially since I haven't been posting on CD lately. That said, the one question that bothers me the most:

What constitutes an ethical violation?

As we've seen in YMTC threads and many of the posts here, whether or not something wrong was done depends heavily on your point of view and the circumstances. Because of that, the levels of punishment being suggested for different acts varies accordingly.

In fact, I'm starting to think that having any kind of punishment at all may not be a good idea.

Let's look at my team for an example. Team 818 has prided itself on playing by the rules in FIRST. We've never begun our work on designing or building the robot until after kickoff. We don't take parts out of competitions to work on them. We've never, ever done anything to gain an unfair advantage or to harm the chances of another team to the best of my knowledge.

BUT...

Last year, we ended up running behind schedule. By the time my programming group got the finished robot, we had less than a week before the ship date and no autonomous. We knew that there was going to be no way to finish it with the real robot.

What we did instead was we made a "fake robot," if you will. It was a chassis with wheels, motors for the wheels, and weights piled on top to simulate the weight of the actual robot. This "robot" was used so we could finish our autonomous code. We did complete the code in time for our first competition; however, the motors on the actual robot had a different balance than did the practice ones. We didn't switch the motors. Instead, we redid the code and fought with it for three days to finally get it working.

There's nothing in FIRST's rulebook that forbids building a second robot for practicing, or that says that we can't work on our code after the robot has shipped. I don't think that what we did was even remotely wrong, and I'd hope that most in the FIRST community would agree.

Still...did working on our code violate the build season period even though we didn't have any part of the actual robot to do it with? Was building the frame wrong because not every team has the resources to do that? Let's say we were punished for doing this - would the punishment be the same as it would be for a team who builds two identical robots, one solely for practicing (as I know some teams in our area do)? Should it be?

And how do we know what acts are "worse" than others? Is taking a part home from competition to work on it as bad as working on it before the kickoff or after the ship date?

I think that my thoughts are starting to border on a form of existentialism, and I'm not entirely sure how I'd respond to any given incident. All that I've realized is that there isn't any one right way to look at problems such as the ones discussed here.

The best solution may be to have the community judge itself. If something happens at a regional, say, why not let the mentors of the other attending teams decide what punishment is best? How about a "commisioner review" system like the ones in place in sports, where someone in FIRST (Dave?) reviews the situation and chooses a fitting consequence?

There isn't an easy answer to this question, or even a "best" one. If FIRST is to continue to thrive and - more importantly - stick to its ideals, we'll need to find some way to solve the problem.

Steve W

07-01-2005, 21:34

You can build as many practice robots as you like. You are allowed by last years rules to keep your controller to do programming. I see nothing that your team did that was wrong.

indieFan

07-01-2005, 22:38

Here are my thoughts:

1. Penalties should be given out if it can be determined someone did something unethical. However, I do not like the idea of penalizing an entire team for something that was most likely the decision of one to a few people. My personal preference would be to see the person(s) involved get banned based on the severity of his (their) actions. A smaller issue would warrant banishment for the rest of the day, a larger one would be banishment for the rest of the competition and the next to be attended. These people would be put on probation for the rest of the competition season and possibly the following year based on the severity of the actions. Something that was completely egregious would warrant banishment from all competitions for the rest of the competition, as well as being banished from participating in any way with any team during the following year.

2. This would be enforced (based on guidelines put that FIRST puts out) by the top five people at a regional. I'm thinking along the lines of the regional director, the head ref, the head inspector, volunteer coordinator, etc. If any one among the five was associated with a team that was involved in the infraction, he could step down if he felt there would be a conflict of interest.

3. One of the big questions is determining who has committed a violation. There are rumors at every competition about one thing or another. I have a hard time believing that if I've heard a rumor that the top people at a competition haven't heard it before me. Therefore, it would be up to the discretion of the top five whether to investigate it or not. (Think of this working like the Supreme Court. The Court gets a brief about a particular case and then decides whether to hear it or not.)

4. The critical question, as at least one person already pointed out, is: What is unethical? FIRST would have to come up with its own guidelines as to what it believes the answer is within the context of FIRST.

5. The above is my ideal. Is it possible to do? Yes. Is it likely? No.

indieFan

Jeff Rodriguez

07-01-2005, 23:00

I don't think that there should be penalties for off-the-field events.

Example using last years game:
I'm om a rookie team with 5 students and a teacher. For six weeks we didn't sleep and never stopped working on our robot. On the ship date, we finally got our drive-train working. We were unable to add the retractable wings we designed. We have all the pieces, but they take at least an entire day to put together.
We can only afford to travel to our local regional. It's our only chance to make it nationals and we would have to do some fast fund-raising if we did.
We show up at our regional with our wings assembled. They only need to be secured to the frame and wired. We attach them and compete.

Should we be penalized for building after ship?
If yes, I fear the competitions will turn into taddle-tale competitions. Teams will report everything they can find about a team, in hopes to gain an advantage.

I don't think there should be any penalties. I think everyone should just have to trust everyone else.

Sorry if I'm bringing back old points.

Jay5780

07-01-2005, 23:19

For non-team units:
b) Prevent the person(s) from doing more harm.
c) Contact a teacher or other leader of the team, and make sure they know about it. Teams have handbooks, districts have behavior codes. I believe that 99% of the time, one will deal with the person(s). Assuming that everyone concerned is satisfied, move on.
d) If this person happens to be in that 1%, sit them in the stands and have a responsible adult keep an eye on them. They stay there except for food, bathroom, and going home/to the hotel.

This made me think back to the 1998 Manchester Regional when a member of a team (that will remain nameless) was using a laser pointer to shine in drivers eyes. I believe the situation was handled like this: A team affected notified officials who spoke with that persons team leader who in turn spoke with said student and found the laser pointer on his person. I believe the person was removed from the building be his team.

This shows that when notified the team will handle things internally.

suneel112

07-01-2005, 23:56

I agree with that, that most teams are ethically good and will work to solve a bad problem if they are notified. However, for teams that aren't, there should be penalties. The penalties shouldn't be too harsh or severe, but they shouldn't be a slap-on-the-wrist. A few options are public humiliation ("and team abcd wins....the poor sportsmanship award" or "the cheater award", with background music selected by Dave Lavery at will), although I wouldn't use that too often. Another option is to fine a team (like $1000 to $2000 per offense, and increasing fines each time) for something moderately serious. To take humiliation to the extreme, FIRST can also contact the sponsor of the team, and they will usually give some type of penalties (unless the main sponsor is a student who discovered 2 tons of gold in their backyard).
As for the battery case, I am sure that a more serious (criminal???) charge can be levied against the team, since it is very dangerous to do that to a lead-acid battery. I am certain that there are laws against the ill usage of a battery, and the violating team can (and should) be prosecuted (The penalties may be worse under the Patriot Act :yikes: ).
But generally, the first step is to notify the team of the problem. If it is not an immediate threat to the lives of others, the problem should be told to all of the team's mentors, and they will mostly do the right thing. If not, then fining may be the only answer.