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

That's awesome. Loopholes FTW.

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

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

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

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

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

My two favorite quotes from the Q/A Response:

and

...what?

Two new potential strategies:

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

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

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

-Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

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

Who is to say what is a meaningful role?

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

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

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

Please go on.

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

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

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

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

In 2013, it was Full court shooter blockers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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