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

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

That Q&A has been answered and seems to set a dangerous precedent that is contrary to FIRST's goals.

Things that are now seemingly illegal:

• Providing a battery to another team with leads installed (maybe not...the rules state that such assemblies do not have to be part of a witholding allowance and can be made prior to the start of the 6 week build season...but there is no specific exemption that says they do not count as ASSEMBLIES made by a giving team, per the Q&A response).
  
• Loaning an assembled COTS transmission to another team (versaplanetary, AM planetary, toughbox, etc)
  
• Loaning any motor with leads soldered to it or terminals attached to integral leads
  
• Loaning a speed controller with terminals attached to the output side
  
• Loaning a speed controller which has had the leads shortened
  
• Loaning any COTS item that has been modified (gear, sprocket, spacer, etc)
  
• Loaning a pneumatic cylinder with fittings attached
  
• Any part fabricated solely by the FIRST provided machine shop at the event (yeah, that sounds alarmist, but that Q&A specifically states that any fabricated part at the event that goes on their ROBOT must be fabricated by that team)
  
• Any part made by a giving team that brings portable drill presses/bandsaws/sanders/lathes/mills in their pit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see you point but it is a little alarmist.

• Batteries are not part of the robot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly stated that you can help teams at events, no big surprise - this is something we actively encourage just to get everyone on the field and moving!
This makes sense, and I hope everyone recognizes that this has always been the case.
This might be where you have a problem with the answer. What they're saying here is that my team can't build something, hand it to your team and say "put this on your robot so you can now do X." It's easy to take that to extremes... But combined with the previous statement about helping teams it's clear that it shouldn't be taken to extremes. I can help you by giving you a COTS part, even if there may have been a slight modification or two (like attaching connectors, assembling a gearbox in the standard, intended way, etc). In that case I'm not building anything, I'm giving you a COTS part that may be slightly used. But I can't build a ramp and give it to you to attach to your robot. I can't give you a specially designed winch to use to lift totes. That's going way, WAY beyond helping by supplying a few COTS pieces.

Reinspection is a well known aspect of competition, even if teams sometimes forget about it.
Please note that, per this year's rules (for batteries) and last year's (for bumpers), batteries and bumpers are not part of the robot. That exempts them from a lot of rules, like being included in the withholding allowance or needing to be constructed after kickoff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Brando

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.

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

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

*citation needed

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

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

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

Our can-grabber was under 4 lbs fully built.

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

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

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

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

This is a very interesting problem. Q440 reversed some long standing precedents about what it meant to be a robot, and now this Q&A reverses precedents about how we can help other teams.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reading of this Q&A is pretty straightforward:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this ruling eliminate the possibility of ramps entirely?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why? I don't get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for any misunderstanding!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

What happens then?

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


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

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

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

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

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

First off, I want to salute us all here because I love that this community is able to talk through difficult issues without things getting nasty. At least in this corner of the internet, we've managed to keep Godwin's Law at bay.

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

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

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

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

Calling 'em how I see 'em.

Dr. Joe J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Mike

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

When has that not been the case?

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I guess that's true.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Joe J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*And FIRST/GDC listened to it

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody ever said you had to like it.

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

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

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

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

Brandon from 125 mentioned on GameSense S02E03 (check around minute 42) that they internally referred to assisting other teams with mechanism modification or addition as "Cheesecaking".

But why cheesecakes, you may ask?

Because everybody LOVES cheesecakes.

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

Common, who doesn't love cheesecake?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheesecake? Yes, Cheesecake.

-Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Jon's post is a reasonable interpretation of the Q&A. He is a LRI & has been an LRI at worlds. If you have a question at your competition on how the rule is interpreted ask your LRI. Have your robot reinspected (required by 2015 rules) making sure the added components & source are documented.

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

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

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

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

IMHO.

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

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

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

Perhaps the GDC is lactose intolerant.

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

You're a fantastic human being.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if you served some too? ;)

-Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this.

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

Wow... This is quite the emotional thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, your comment here:

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

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

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

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

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

#teamcheesecake

-Mike

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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