Originally Posted by The other Gabe (Post 1554744)

whether or not it is within the rules, it would be neither gracious nor professional to imply that their robot was worthless by giving them a completely different one

it would also be a poor allocation of your pit space and resources, IMO

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1554762)

Basic chassis with bumpers plus minimum electronics, motors, & drives is approaching $2000. That is a lot of cheese cake. Would you let them keep it?

Originally Posted by Okeegan55 (Post 1554767)

Wouldnt the robot have to fit inside the 30Ib of extra parts restriction?

Originally Posted by Okeegan55 (Post 1554767)

Wouldnt the robot have to fit inside the 30Ib of extra parts restriction?

Originally Posted by The other Gabe (Post 1554744)

whether or not it is within the rules, it would be neither gracious nor professional to imply that their robot was worthless by giving them a completely different one

it would also be a poor allocation of your pit space and resources, IMO

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes (Post 1554772)

If you had a gameboy advance, and I gave you a 3DS, am I implying that your gameboy advance is worthless?

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes (Post 1554772)

If you had a gameboy advance, and I gave you a 3DS, am I implying that your gameboy advance is worthless?

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1554801)

I can't believe this is still a discussion...

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU (Post 1554771)

We plan to build it from scratch at the event... Also, not with the kitbot

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU (Post 1554741)

Hello CD. I was thinking about it with a friend, and we consider building an entire robot at an event to give away as cheesecake to our 3rd alliance member. This seems entirely within the rules. The robot would be able to drive around. Is it too far? How would you feel competing with a robot you did not build? Opinions?

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird (Post 1554834)

Also if you haven't alreayd made and tested the robot how do you know its worth replacing a robot on an alliance?

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1554801)

I can't believe this is still a discussion...

Originally Posted by The other Gabe (Post 1554744)

whether or not it is within the rules, it would be neither gracious nor professional to imply that their robot was worthless by giving them a completely different one

it would also be a poor allocation of your pit space and resources, IMO

Originally Posted by GreyingJay (Post 1554798)

If you baked a pie to bring to a potluck and I gave you a cheesecake and told you to bring that instead, am I not implying that your baking skills are undesired?

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU (Post 1554836)

I can't know that. I believe it's worth the try

Originally Posted by jwfoss (Post 1554909)

I would advocate that if you think you have the time and are willing to put the effort into building a second robot at an event for a potential alliance partner, your time would be better spent helping those teams at the event that need it most. Raising the floor will give you more options come alliance selection time, and improve the event for everyone.

Originally Posted by Ginger Power (Post 1554849)

It's going to be one of those annual threads like the mentor build vs. Student build, Regionals vs. Districts, and Mentor vs. Student Drive coaches. Unsurprisingly, all of those topics have been discussed in the last 3 days.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1554912)

Why not borrow a team shirt from the team you drafted and have your back-up driver drive the bot you built for them, as well? The drafted team still get to win, right?

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1554927)

But hey, what do I know about cheesecaking? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1554934)

I have interpreted this line (and others like it) to implicitly mean "we've been cheesecaked, we liked it, therefor it MUST be good and ALL teams should like it." Can you tell me if I have interpreted that incorrectly? If so, can you clarify what you mean by it?

Originally Posted by GreyingJay (Post 1554968)

"We were picked by team XYZ but it turns out all they wanted was something they could attach their ABC to. We didn't even get to use our own" - not awesome. Not GP. Good for the cheesecaking team but not exactly morale boosting for the receiving team.

Originally Posted by The other Gabe (Post 1554744)

whether or not it is within the rules, it would be neither gracious nor professional to imply that their robot was worthless by giving them a completely different one

it would also be a poor allocation of your pit space and resources, IMO

Originally Posted by CJ_Elliott (Post 1554923)

I think conversation comes down to some people think that it would be fine or don't care and some do care. Personally, I think it should be between the teams to decide whether or not to take the cheesecake bot. IMO everyone that isn't those teams should mind their own, if you are against having your team change robots then don't. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by taaha_alidrisi (Post 1554981)

But the question comes to fairness as if you were competing in a regional elimination rounds and the other alliance you're competing with has a cheesecake robot for their 3rd robot member... Hence, shouldn't you care if it affects you closely (and it does as the main post by 3360 goes to the Montreal Regional like the team I'm in 3386).

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU (Post 1554982)

Since it may affect you and your team, mind if I ask how you would feel playing finals against such an alliance, and not winning because of that?

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1554984)

Not sure why it's still being ignored, but dtengineering already explained why an 100% "cheesecaked" robot is illegal.

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi (Post 1554975)

Any time I've selected a team, their role is always discussed prior to selection and roles are always agreed upon. Most teams have enough mutual respect to discuss these things.

What boosts morale for one team versus what might boost yours don't have to be the same...

Originally Posted by GreyingJay (Post 1555025)

Let's just say "I have a friend" whose team was selected by another team for the sole purpose of (massively) cheesecaking their robot, that these plans were not discussed in advance and came as a complete surprise to the receiving team, and that the entire experience was frustrating, demoralizing and even humiliating for the team being cheesecaked.

Originally Posted by GreyingJay (Post 1554968)

To me it comes down to the mindset of the receiving team. Did they want cheesecake? Did they expect cheesecake?

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur (Post 1555055)

For me, it's more about inspiring the receiving team.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1554984)

Not sure why it's still being ignored, but dtengineering already explained why an 100% "cheesecaked" robot is illegal.

Originally Posted by bobby5150 (Post 1555072)

While that could be circumvented by having the receiving team involved in the production, 5.5.2 states that:



Now if the one robot entered is significantly modified instead of replaced, that would likely satisfy this.

Originally Posted by Nuwanda (Post 1555073)

The situation on Curie with 1114 last year was difficult to watch.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1555065)

What about the inspiration of the teams not picked? The other alliances? The spectators?

The impact of actions such as this shouldn't be solely evaluated based on the team receiving the "cheesecake."

Originally Posted by cj3958 (Post 1554874)

Clearly someone wasn't at champs last year... Or wasn't paying attention to 1114's pit...

Originally Posted by GreyingJay (Post 1555077)

That was a very interesting example because in that case clearly 900 was willing to do it, and there was a lot of notoriety over this particular case, but I think it backfired on them in the end. There were a number of matches where only two robots came out to play. Presumably 900 was busy being cheesecaked at the time. The alliance ended up losing a semifinal by only a few points. Had a third robot been out stacking, even if they had only managed to stack a few totes, I believe that would have been enough to up the average alliance score high enough that they would have won.

And we never got to see the harpoons in action :(

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1555070)

Ethics and rules aside...

ain't nobody got time for that.

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1555081)

Sorry to correct but 1923 was the third robot (1114 and 148 being the first two) and they were out playing. The loss on Einstein had little to do with our (900's) cheesecaking.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur (Post 1555078)

Would you rather I don't inspire that team?

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1554934)

I have interpreted this line (and others like it) to implicitly mean "we've been cheesecaked, we liked it, therefor it MUST be good and ALL teams should like it." Can you tell me if I have interpreted that incorrectly? If so, can you clarify what you mean by it?

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1554937)

I meant that I had derailed the thread slightly and was trying to put the train back on track but you can take my post however you'd like to.

Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 1555042)

It is for this that the word "no" was invented.

"Hi, new partners! We selected you so that we can strip off your upper mechanical and add this stuff that we made!"
"No."
"...but we'll probably win if we do that!"
"No."
"...but that's the whole reason why we selected you!"
"Then you should have gotten us on-board with that before selecting us."
"Sorry, our bad. But you're okay with this so we can win, right?"
"No."

Originally Posted by mentos54 (Post 1555098)

Also, consider what this does to the receiving team's reputation, both inside and outside the team.
I mention this because last year, my current team's robot was cheesecaked with a major mechanism by a powerhouse team. We went on to win the event with them.
However, the members of my team who talk about winning that competition have found themselves shamed by new members because "they didn't build the robot that won, they borrowed it". I honestly believe that major cheesecaking is almost never beneficial in the long run, and your resources would be better spent finding a team which is close to what you need and helping them perfect their bot. If your needed partner is nothing close to what any of forty teams have, you're strategizing wrong.

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1555099)

The salt is palpable.

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1555099)

Honestly I think we should spend more time combining different controversial topics into SUPER Controversial topics, such as:
- If we ended bag and tag, would teams cheesecake more or less?
- Is student-built cheesecake better or worse than mentor-built cheesecake?
- Can a team competing in one World Championship cheesecake a team in a second World Championship?
- Can a mentor who mentors both the cheesecaking team and the cheesecaked team replace the student coach on the cheesecaked team?
- If you yell "Cheesecake" while transporting the cheesecaked robot through the pits, does it make the pits safer and/or the cheesecake better?
- Can teams later cheesecake the cheesecaked robot at the district championship, and again at Nationals?

#WeBrokeTheGame?

Originally Posted by GreyingJay (Post 1555096)

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

Still never got to see those harpoons :(

Originally Posted by RoboChair (Post 1555113)

Still never got to see those harpoons go against our M.A.D. cheesecake strategy. Happy we won without it, sad we didn't get to use it. If you thought our can grabbers were scary, the cheesecake tether grabbers were 30-40% faster.

That scenario will live on in my dreams. Thank you 5012 for giving me the mental image of fighting a full on millisecond war of power against teams 900 and 1114's harpoons with our tethered can grabbers and 118's bolt on can grabbers.

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog (Post 1554807)

However, there was a point at Lake Superior where a few teams got together in case a rookie team did not have one ready to go. Luckily for all involved - the rookie team showed up with a robot that was nearly ready to go. That being stated, the robot DID need some major work - and kudos to FRC 93 and FRC 1816 the team was ready to go at the end of the day on Thursday.

Originally Posted by CJ_Elliott (Post 1555115)

Excuse me good sir, but why haven't I seen/heard of these?

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1555117)

Which didn't you see, 900s harpoons, or 1678's remote can grabbers. There's video on CD of both of these.

Originally Posted by GreyingJay (Post 1555025)

Let's just say "I have a friend" whose team was selected by another team for the sole purpose of (massively) cheesecaking their robot, that these plans were not discussed in advance and came as a complete surprise to the receiving team, and that the entire experience was frustrating, demoralizing and even humiliating for the team being cheesecaked.

All I'm saying is, as you have said, if all teams involved are open about their intentions and agree to it, then it's fine -- but if it isn't open and discussed prior to selection, then it's not fine at all.

Originally Posted by BenBernard (Post 1555085)

What bothers me about this thread is how far from "gracious professionalism" some writers seem willing to stray in their pursuit of "winning at all costs."

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1555097)

I would rather you consider the totality of the actions, rather than just the impacts on one team. I already posted similar thoughts on this back in April, during the previous round of cheesecake debate.
https://crbewebappdev.dt.navy.mil/CR....php?id=366878

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur (Post 1555133)

I believe I have considered the totality of this action.

I have not "cheesecaked" another's robot, nor has my robot ever been "cheesecaked". That being said, if it inspired my (or another's) team then why wouldn't I do so? and why would I be upset if it was used against me?

Remember, FIRSTs mission is to inspire, not to win on the field.

BTW, Sean your link is unreachable.

Originally Posted by CJ_Elliott (Post 1555115)

Excuse me good sir, but why haven't I seen/heard of these?

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1555298)

Wasn't the whole point of the 1114/900 harpoons to negate any tugs of war? Simply to grab the cans with a hook that could not be removed, rendering them essentially unusable for both alliances?

Originally Posted by JohnM (Post 1555301)

I might be wrong, it's been a long time since seeing that contraption, but I thought their robot collapsed on itself to pull them away, maybe same goal.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery in that other thread

First off, the positives your listing are also teams talking about how they feel.

Secondly, the unfortunate reality is that when the source of inspiration comes from working closely with an elite team and/or deep runs in the eliminations, unfortunately that's a zero sum equation. For each team that was picked to cheesecake, a team was left off an elimination alliance. In many cases that team was a very capable team that had a competitive season, but was left off in favor of a bot that presented a better blank slate to add parts to. In other words, they were left off for a less capable team. It's pretty easy to see how being passed over for a less capable team could be disappointing. Disappointment can very well lead to a lack of inspiration.

Does the the benefit of the cheesecaking team outweigh the disappointment of the teams passed over in alliance selection? It's certainly not an easy call to make, but it's not one that should be written off as some trivial matter that can be summed up by air quotes and sarcastic titles.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1555298)

Wasn't the whole point of the 1114/900 harpoons to negate any tugs of war? Simply to grab the cans with a hook that could not be removed, rendering them essentially unusable for both alliances?

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1555321)

Sean, at the risk of causing you to go into a rage (and I hope you don't because you seem like a nice fella)... I don't understand your analysis of the problem. Alliance selections work in mysterious ways. I have seen teams choose numbers at random from people in the audience shouting them as well as teams pick rookie teams who had barely functional robots because they wanted to share the experience.

Let us forget robot modifications for a moment and then let me ask you this. If a team were to choose a less capable alliance partner instead of a more capable team then is that inspirational? What about choosing a team not based on scouting data but based on purely the fact that you like their pants, is that ok? (Go #TeamCrazyPants) What about choosing a team because the mentors know each other really well? What about because the students know each other really well? What about because they paid you to choose them?

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1555321)

Now let's add robot modifications back in. What about choosing a team with a known bad drivetrain that they have to repair before eliminations and you offered to help them or lend them parts? What about choosing a team based on the fact that they are going to put a giant goal blocking sheet on their robot instead of choosing another offensive capable robot because defense suits your strategy?

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1555321)

Just spitballing but perhaps instead of alliance selections we could move to a process by which the serpentine draft just auto assigns teams based on qualification rankings instead of allowing a team's feelings and perception to come into play. Except that qualification rankings could be attributed to match luck. We've all seen some post-turtles turn up in the top 8 at events. So we should probably get rid of qualification matches and then we can judge robots purely on if they can accomplish the tasks that a team built them for. We don't even need events for that, we can all just sit in our labs and build robots in isolation and take videos of them completing the tasks.... Cheesecaking isn't the only slippery slope around here.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1555364)

None of that is particularly relevant to this discussion. Nobody here is claiming that alliance selection is perfect. There are plenty of shortcomings in many facets of FRC, alliance selection included. However, claiming that because a system has other potential flaws means you should embrace a contentious aspect is not sound logic. I don't have to pick a bad option* just because there are even worse options. Strive to optimize the situation, rather than perpetuating the flaws.

*Do not interpret this to mean I'm definitely declaring that cheesecaking is a bad option. I'm just illustrating my logic.


The drivetrain scenario is cheesecaking (albeit, offering parts solely on the condition that a team will be on your alliance may not leave the best taste in many people's mouths).
The second scenario is picking based off of strategy. I'm not advocating we take the ability to select strategically out of the hands of alliance captains. I'm not advocating we take any selection choices out of the hands of alliance captains.

I'll try to word my point slightly differently, in the hopes it is better communicated.

When people cite the inspirational value of cheesecaking, they're almost always talking about the team receiving the cheesecake. They talk about the inspirational value of winning (which has also shown up in many other threads). They talk about the inspirational value of getting to work closely with powerhouse teams as alliance partners. They talk about the inspirational value of collaborating together to improve a robot. When all parties are on the same page, that can be some real value.

However, the benefit of one team is not the total utility of the move. That one team may have been very inspired, but that doesn't mean other parties were not disillusioned by the same circumstances. The cheesecaked team was granted an opportunity, but (barring a 24 team event) another team was left out in order for that team to have that opportunity. In the case of a large and highly competitive event (such as a championship subdivision), the teams left out are highly capable teams already. Seeing a highly competitive (by any metric) team left on the sidelines in favor of a "blank slate" is something that would obviously raise questions and mixed emotions. Not simply for the teams excluded, but for parents, VIPs, sponsors, and others who may not be familiar with the esoteric practices of FRC.

I'm not arguing that cheesecake is automatically bad. I'm not arguing that cheesecake is automatically good. I'm stating that there are factors that should be considered, beyond how the teams receiving the cheesecake feel. They are not the sole parties impact by the act of cheesecaking. Like it or not, some of the peculiar things that happen in FRC might not appeal to the grandmothers in the audience.

Based on the comments in this thread and many of those preceding, you know firsthand that there are plenty of those out there who did not get the same takeaway from your partnership with 1114 as you did. Some of that is based hearsay or factual inaccuracies. You can do your best to communicate the real story, but you're never going to reach everyone. Further still, there are those who know what happened and still don't like it. These are people who are ultimately aiming for the same culture change, and their opinions of the situation do matter, even if they were not directly involved.

To me, cheesecaking is obviously a grey area.


I have no idea what this statement is in response to. Nothing in my posts in this thread or the previous thread stated anything regarding the validity of qualification rankings. Nor were any of my positions "slippery slopes." As stated, my position was pointing out that the totality should be considered, not simply the one team that (in some cases) benefits positively. My position, as stated, was that the benefits of cheesecaking and being an alliance partner are (unfortunately) zero-sum. Neither of those are arguing that cheesecaking is a slippery slope, but rather they're challenging the logic being used here. Nor am I even claiming to have all the answers (and the post you quoted from the other thread makes that very clear).

Originally Posted by marshall (Post 1555413)

I think the competitive nature of FRC and the rules both enable and encourage "cheesecaking".