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

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

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

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

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

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

Next topic: Cannolis and water games...

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

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

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

I respect this. Thanks Frank.

Dr. Joe J.

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

This is a big win for #teamcheesecake

And when cheesecake wins, everybody wins.

Thanks Frank!

-Mike

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

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

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

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

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

#FrankforPresident #FrankAnswers

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

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

No! I demand peak absurdity!

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

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

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

#CoryForGDCChair2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it looks like I thoroughly underestimated the GDC's thinking process. Again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

~the Q&A

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

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

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

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

WOW. :eek:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teams....Go have fun!

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

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

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

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

¹ Like cheesecake, of course.

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

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

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

You guys made me hungry for cheesecake tonight!

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

Thanks as well, thought it was an interesting discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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