Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

(sorry so long for me to respond - was at the Detroit regional watching some great matches)

Kris-

You are simply wrong whe you assume that our competition parts get modified after ship. They don't. If a part gets modified it is no longer a competition part and on our team it doesn't get used during any competition.

Simply having the part on the practice robot is totally within the letter and spirit of the rules.

At Ypsi we had a student totally rebuild a circuit board because the wires were not wrapped after ship - she never got to see one of our lame practices. We resoldered some PWM cables to a switch in a case where the ONLY thing that was not pre-ship was the SOLDER. We follow the rules and it seems our competitors think we follow the rules (thanks for the kind words Andy).

As to the "appearances" complaint, I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are letting the lawyers win when you start nitpicking about appearances in a case where someone has actually followed the rules. FIRST has so many instances where the thing that keeps us within the rules is our own conscience - my guess is they WANT to trust us and want us to trust each other. Its part of the FIRST culture isn't it?

Ken

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

[quote=Katie Reynolds]Can you imagine how thick the manual would be if FIRST outlined every single situation, so as to make the rules perfectly, black and white, no questions about it clear? My printer wouldn't be able to handle it!!! :yikes: [quote]

Dean and Co. have been railing against lawyers for a long time, and this idea of shortening the manual and declaring that "words mean what they mean" is a good one. Unfortunately we aren't mind readers and in some cases FIRST hasn't done a great job of making the intention of a particular ruling clear. My interpretation might be different from the judges interpretation which might be different from the authors intention. This problem is only compounded by the number of rule changes during the season. For example, when I read the rule saying that tape can't be used as a fastener, I interpret that to mean that you can't wrap tape around your wheels as a traction device, but at UTC the judges suggested that we do this. The problem is that unless the rules say WHY we're not supposed to use tape as a fastener I don't know how to apply that rule. Dave seems to think that FIRSTs intentions are obvious, but Dave is the one having the intentions in the first place, for those of us just reading through the document they clearly aren't. I don't think its fair for FIRST to expect us to understand their intentions if those intentions aren't articulated precisely. What's so terrible about saying "To keep the challenge fair for everyone we give every team an equal amount of time, unfortunately, since we can't schedule 26 regionals on the same weekend some teams will have more time to work after the regional than others, since it would defeat the entire purpose of having a six-week build schedule teams cannot use the time between the ship date and the regional to work on the robot, the exceptions to this rule are x, y, and z because of the following reasons." The rules don't read like this at all. Dave, lawyers don't talk about simple ideas and they don't make simple arguments, they have to use words in weird ways sometimes because the language doesn't necessarily fit the ideas. Its like talking about "offense" and "defense" in this years game, the words don't really apply to this competition so you have to spell out what you mean by them before you use them or you'll cause confusion. FIRST doesn't do simple ideas either, there's a reasoning behind the rules that needs to be spelled out because nothing in FIRST is "intuitively obvious".

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

In my humble (rookie) opinion, the parts rules in conjunction with the six-week build; the autonomous mode; and raising the bar have put rookie and novice teams at a severe disadvantage. They put even the experienced teams in the uncomfortable position of looking for ways to skirt the rules as an alternative to failing to make the show. Worse yet, they turn crunch time into a gut wrenching experience. This was supposed to be fun; it could have been better.

I see no way, nor need, for FIRST to draft a set of Draconian rules on the accounting of replacement parts. On the contrary, I think they should eliminate what they now have. Let us evolve and put the best we can muster on the field. Why make a team feel like criminals for not knowing that what they’ve seen was not what has been dictated? Why make them throw away many weeks of effort for the sake of some under observed, unenforceable, and unobtainable principle?

I can envision the parking lots across the street filling with trailers containing the practice robots, assemblies, and other items that we’re not allowed to “bring to the event.” Is that what we want?

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

They are not draconian they are suprsingly simple. It's only those looking to beat the rules that create an eviroment in their mind that they somehow don't understand them and can circumvent them.

The rules in a nut shell:
1. If you didn't ship it, you can't bring it. Unless you have the EXACT same part on your robot.
2. Any team manafactured part you do bring must be as dissasembled as possible.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Not wanting to get into a debate - but I did not say what they have is Draconian - meant only that I fear they will become that way.

Another point: It is impossible to create "EXACT" same parts. Thus, if taken literally, no replacment parts can pass the test.

So, all of this has us playing lawyer, which is not my idea of a good time!

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Ok. This thread was started to discuss teams bringing practice bots to competitions and using them during their practice matches, and/or swapping out upgraded parts on the practice bot for those on their competing robot. The point of the thread was to figure out a way to better enforce, or make the rules about spare parts clearer.

And now it's turned into a debate not being able to fabricate "exact parts", cause the only "exact" part is the original? Wow.

There are plenty of other threads about wanting more time, changing/eliminating FIRST rules, etc etc. If you've got something to say that doesn't 'go' with this thread, find a better fit or start a new one. Please.

Oh, for those confused on the exact parts point, you can make a COPY of the part on the robot. Meaning all the dimensions, materials, etc. etc. are the same. The replacement parts don't have to be the EXACT SAME part, but a REPLICA of that part. :rolleyes:

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

I can say without reservation that we have never been uncomfortable in choosing between skirting the rules or shipping a robot that wasn't competitive. Our team has had up and down years, and more times than I like to admit we've fielded a robot that would move and do little else, because we didn't get it built, tested or debugged in time. Never did we consider starting fab early, using parts from previous robots, cointinuing after the build season - I'd quit the team if that happened. At that point it becomes about the robot and winning and not about promoting engineering as an honorable profession.

This thread has been a good discussion for the right reasons - what do other teams (the FIRST family, not just the FIRST organization) consider the interpretation of the spare parts rules, practice robot rules, etc. so we can all try to apply the same standard to our decisions. Not so we can manipulate them to get an unfair advantage, but rather so we DON'T get an unfair advantage over other teams. I think these forums are like going to mediation rather than to court - if we all come to agreement or at least consensus we don't need FIRST or the lawyers to rule. We police it ourselves.

For those who don't remember, the old rules allowed building functionally equivalent replacement parts to be built in the 4 days after each regional - the big debate then was "what is functionally equivalent?" One year we built a new lift out of a different material, and took it straight to the judges to see if we could use it; if they said no, we were prepared to accept that even though it would have had a major impact to us. I think everyone should weigh all the options available to them for building spares (it's too late to do anything about shipping them at this point), and be willing to accept the decision of the judges at each competition if confronted.

Jack, there is no doubt Rookies are at a disadvantage - that's true anywhere; I would hope my experience counts for something at work. But noone goes into this competition thinking "hey, I think I'll build a crappy robot" - it's usually just a matter of available resources to get things done. I try to encourage every team who shows up, find something positive to say, both new and old teams. Everyone should feel proud of participating.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

The bottom line is that FIRST is about Gracious Professionalism.

FIRST is about having fun, building robots, and pushing engineering into the mainstream community. Gracious Professionalism is about being fair to other teams, following the rules, and being helpful to the other teams who may be at a disadvantage.

If a team breaks the rules, they really don't deserve to be a part of FIRST, but with gracious professionalism, if someone slaps you, turn the other cheek.

FIRST could spend half of its money being a rules disciplinarian, but FIRST is about inspiring students, not building a police state.

But I do believe teams should get penalized if it is discovered they are in the practice of this. FIRST of all (heh heh), they should get no award, and the team leaders/sponsors should get a letter from FIRST telling them that their team cheated. In addition, they should be disqualified. In addition, other FIRST teams should be encouraged to report this action, because FIRST is about Gracious Professionalism, and breaking rules simply ISN'T Graciously Professional.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

This rule seems to be on the edge of "grey area". I mean there is so much going on in the pits at one time, that there is no way to accuratly know what each and every team is doing during the day.
This is how rules get broken, by not enough supervision...It's the same as any other sport. In soccer, you could get tripped, and the ref's wouldnt spot it. in football, a guy could hold you and the ref's wouldnt be able to tell.
Now i know this is a hard rule to adhere to every minute by FIRST, BUT i think that they could do a better job in promoting it. If you have ever been to/watched a NASCAR race, and when the drivers bring their cars down pit road, they are under constant supervision. there is always a NASCAR offical within 10 feet of a car on pit road. even when the car goes behind the wall in the garage area, there is still a official within 10 feet of the car as it's being worked on.
now, my "idea" is that first should get volunteers to piggyback teams. have one representative per "block". a block would consist of six pit stalls. that way there is always someone keeping track as to what is going on, and so "name calling, finger pointing, and whatnot" keeps from happening.
I think the rule is great, however teams will do anything to win, and that's terrible. Winning gets you knowhere in life, in your job you will always be looked down upon, never be the "big guy", and you will never win at being greedy.

so, lets try and take a step back, re-evaluate ourselves, and ask ourselves..."do we really want to promote a monopoly to our future buisness leaders?"


`Greg

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Greg,
I think you are misguided on several accounts.

Do you really believe we should put a "baby sitter" on every single team to make sure they follow the rules? FIRST has always been primarily on the "honor system". The volunteer requirements to "spy" on each team would be incredible. Besides, I'd like to believe that every team is profesional enough to follow the rules, and be positive role models for their students. Those that don't... probably aren't in this for the right reasons.

Do we really want a police-state?
Big Brother is watching 229?

Also, I don't understand your points about winning. What are you saying? Winning gets you nowhere in life?

I'm of the opinion that (while staying within the rules) one should try their hardest to win. The competition is what drives people to be better. What drives us to innovate, and to come back each year stronger than ever.

John

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

"Winning gets you knowhere in life, in your job you will always be looked down upon, never be the "big guy", and you will never win at being greedy."

I wish this were true...

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

John, I think that I worded what i was trying to say wrong. All i meant was have more supervision so it doesnt happen, so rules are enforced. I dont want it to be percieved as being a babysitter, but someone who can keep tabs on what is happening.

and on the winning part, i was just agreeing with Mr. Dillard from the earlier post he did.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Whether I agree with it or not (which I won't get into)....to be honest, I don't think its logistically possible to have that many extra volunteers.

Assuming a 40 team regional, you would need 7 extra volunteers for three days. Multiply that by 26 regionals, and you have 182 extra volunteers necessary.

Plus, at the Championship, with 281 teams, you would need 47 extra volunteers for three days (that's rather creepy, if you ask me :)).

Look at it this way...at some regionals, this could be somewhat plausible (esp the ones that are funded by major companies)...but even at other regionals and especially at Nationals, those volunteers are really hard to find. I mean, if it takes Aidan to put a post on Delphi because FIRST can't find crowd control volunteers for Nationals, then we're already hurting for National volunteers.

My suggestion to fix this? FIRST should ally with an airline and/or hotel to provide discounts to these volunteers to get them to schlep all the way down there. If Nationals was in NH, we wouldn't have such a problem with this - because the large volunteer base is already established...and no offense to GA, but it's just not at the level to NH in concentrated FIRST non-team support (please correct me if I'm wrong in this statement, GA!). Thus, the majority of people that are traveling to GA are helping out their teams - not paying hundreds of dollars to work for free for a couple of days (though I have done that before - and it's fun! I'd recommend it to anyone).

But that last paragraph was rather OT. :D Anyway, whether it is right or not to watchdog teams, logistically it is a major challenge. Thus, the most efficient way to do this would be to trust your fellow FIRSTer.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Jessica, i know what an undertaking that would be, but i do think FIRST-ers should be able to follow the rules...i hope

Golf not NASCAR
 

I would rather hope that FIRST continues to rely on GP (honesty and honor) to self regulate. The only sport this can be compared to is golf. Golf has even more rules than FIRST and the participants are expected to use an honor system to abide by them.

I just wish FIRST would learn from the golf ruling bodies about defining rules that cannot be misinterpreted - but that is for another thread.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

It was actually kind of sad inspecting last weekend at one of the regionals. We stopped 6 different teams that were trying to bring in entire arm assemblies fully assembled (We are talking 3 axis of motion BIG assemblies here). AND, they were all totally upset with us for not letting them into the venue in that condition (They had to go to the parking lot and take them apart). These 6 were only the ones that were blatently obvious, we also saw other teams pulling out smaller assemblies out of book-bags and plastic crates that they had brought in. I really expected less teams to push the rules as hard as they did.

My own opinion is that the rule is not good for the competition, especially for teams that are in multiple events. There should be some way for you to repair parts that are damaged in the events legally. The onsite machine shops are great for certain parts of the robot, but a CNC's piece that is fairly complex like some of the arm pieces on the robots would be very difficult to make at an event with the current rules. I would hate for this type of ruling to limit the design and build such that they stick to off the shelf clone robots instead of creating and machining ingenious mechanisms that may get damaged and require repairs.

But that's just my opinion....

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Here's what I want to know, what about things that get damaged during a regional. I realize that we are supposed to design hardy robots, but there are somethings which occur which are un-avoidable (i.e. another robot breaking your lexan covering and ripping your control panal to shreads).

Say for instance, you have a hook which gets bent during the matches. dlavery would tend to say that you need to build a new one at the next regional, not in between, even if the second hook was identical (same design, same material, same construction method). Fair enough. So our team has figured out a way to make a new hook, which can be built in the pit, without a mill. However, this new hook (which we will make on thursday) would not be the same as the origional hook, because we will not have a mill. So, either we build a replacement at the regional which is different, or we build an identical hook in the intervening time. Finally, as the hook is a solid piece of metal, could we bring a new one in anyway.

Another example of what was mentioned earlier about rules which are "understood" by older teams, but are not necesserily widely known, was the time-out in the elimination matches. I was completely unawares of the fact that each alliance got a time out, and even older teams seemed unsure of the exact peramaters. Our alliance mates, Chief Delphi (47) thought that you could only use the time-out in the finals, while Cheesy Poofs called their's in the quarter-finals. I do appreciate FIRST trying to simplify the rules, nobody likes dictionary sized rule books. But there are some "legacy" rules which really ought to be included for newer teams.

On that note, if anyone can think of any other un-spoken rules which it might behove a team to know could you please post them.

~Christopher

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

I think this example is how our team dealt with the "Spare Parts" rule.

Our robot was shipped with a 2x ball grabber. At Sacramento, we realized that it did not have enough torque to successfully lift the ball consistantly and that it was too difficult to operate. We took a hacksaw and removed the entire arm.

We put the remaining robot into the box for Silicon Valley.

At home, we worked on a design to modify the arm to be able to hang.
In order to comply with the rules, we avoided any part that required welding or complex machining/manufacturing. When we drove into Silicon Valley that morning, we brought a tiny portable drill press and a lot of raw material, almost straight out of the store, with only a couple aluminum plates actualy cut to size (since we couldn't do these with a chopsaw, too inaccurate). At the competition, on Thursday, we spent a whole 8 out of our 10 hours working on the arm, while others worked on the program and such, drilling parts with our drill, and cutting the aluminum tube extrusion down to size. We had to set up our pulleys and Fisher-Price motor-powered winch, all parts bought straight out of a store and unmodified.

Clearly, these raw materials were not spare parts, as they were unique and fully intended to create a new mechanism. However, they were store-bought and unmodified until Thursday. But I don't feel that bringing raw, store-bought materials is in conflict with the rule as stated, and that it seems most people on this thread would agree.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

I think that you could argue that either one of these scenarios, although not ideal, would be acceptable.

First of all, you can build whatever you want at a competition as long as it is from 100% raw material. You might catch some flack if it is an all-new system that you suddenly thought of (or worse, copied). But if you are trying your best to create a similar part with identical functionality, I don't think many people would be opposed to that.

As for the other situation, this one may be a little less accepted but I still don't think it would be an absolute problem. Most of the discussion about the bringing of identical, post-six week parts centers around the idea of teams bringing entire replacement systems in a box and merely turning a few wrenches to suddenly have entire spare robot chunks sitting around. You want to make one identical piece for a part that has already broken, which shouldn't be a major deal.

Anyway, just keep a team's honest intent in mind when making judgment of their actions. If you are going to bring parts in or build at the competition, all I ask is that you are prepared to explain yourself and defend your decision. Nobody wants to hound you as long as you are professional about it. In any case, people just need to make aware their specific situations and try and help others understand.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

The time-out rule was not un-spoken. If you read the rulebook, in section 7-The Tournament, it is clearly explained in rule <T02>:

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

After some consideration, a ski trip, and the Lone Star Regional, I think I'm ready to dive back in....

I apologize for impugning you and your team, Ken. That was not what I was trying to do. I realize that you do follow the letter and spirit of the rules as they are now written.

The point I was trying to make is not that teams are breaking the rules (which we can't do much about), but that the rules are structured so as to be meaningless (they are, as the title of the thread says, broken). What is the difference between having a spare robot in the arena and having it in the back of a truck in a parking lot? How does it make sense that one would be legal and the other illegal?

This follows both the letter and the spirit of the law. But it also proves that the letter of the law is really stupid. What sense does it make to have a component that was built legally, then modified after ship, to have to be de-modified and then re-modified at the competition? It's ridiculous.

I think that the reason "the lawyers" have gotten such a bad image (apart from Dave Lavery's famous post) is because (of the unfair stereotype that) they don't care about appearances of wrongdoing, and therefore don't appear to care about right and wrong, and focus entirely on the written law and its many unpluggable loopholes.

I'm not sure about the other regionals, but at the Lone Star regional last weekend, all robots in the elimination rounds were weighed before every elim match. This was, according to our head inspector, because during some random re-inspections, robots at other regionals had been found to have gained as much as 4-5 pounds since their initial inspection. The reason I bring it up is not to say that we're all crooks and need constant supervision to be kept in line, but to show that the culture of trust and sportsmanship is slipping. There are hundreds of new FIRST teams every year, and it will be a battle to make sure that every participant on every one of them knows that the rules are something we take seriously. We don't look the other way when a rule is bent or broken, even for established teams.

In order to accomplish that, we need to limit (in the rules) what can be brought to the competition to raw materials and OTS parts. Everything else either comes in the crate or stays at home.

/An edit - excerpts from codes of ethics
The IEEE code of ethics includes:
[We agree] to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible...

The NSPE code of ethics includes:
Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

What stops them? The little 'Inspected' sticker that you get exactly ONE of :) Brilliant idea, assuming that it's sticky enough that you can't remove it without the tearing being obvious.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Thank you, Rob, I stand corrected.
~Christopher

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Don't even get me started on that.
At Buckeye, our team had a chain-driven drive train consisting of 45 tooth plastic sprockets. We couldn't use the steel ones we had because they were about 8 pounds heavier. But the plastic sprockets kept braking. we ran out, and ended up using the steel ones. We had 1 match before the inspectors weighed us. 5 pounds over weight. We ended up taking of the compressor to make weight. This about crippled our arm, the height/angle was powered by pnuematics!

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

So you actually ran one match with a 135 pound robot? And you still think that it's no big deal? The weight limit, more than anything else, defines the robots that we build. It is a very important rule. Some might say it's the most important robot rule.

If you didn't have the weight to put the steel sprockets on, you should have taken something else off. Weight is the ultimate bogey.

It really sucks that you had to use plastic sprockets, but there is no way I'm going to feel sorry that you had to dump your compressor.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Speed holes, man :)

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

The Machine Shop was able to get the steel 45 sprockets down to 16oz from almost 30 The Plastic sprockets were 6.4 oz And later when I did the Density calculation (with the help of a web caculator) I found that 16 oz of steel volume wise is the same as 5.5 oz of Aluminum. Sooo, next time any sprocket over about 20 teeth in #35 chain will be Aluminum. Am working with inventor and the Autodesk mechinical now. Just need to get started sooner next year. BTW it was all my fualt for the over wight, The bot strated with steel sprockets and pillow blocks and had to loose them as things got added. With Steel spockets on we never had any issues with chain. I know better now and won't put the team or First in that situation again.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

You haven't seen the bot.
The frame is fiberglass (we work in a wood shop). And we barely had time to change the sprockets, much less swiss-cheese them. but just about everything else was. We fixed that at West MI.

By the way: the arm was it. No bin, no opening side flaps, nothing. We just put a valve on the tank and plugged it in until the match. I'm not saying that we have a disregard for the rules. Our original bot was in weight, but we ran out of sprockets. We made every effort to remain in the rules, however the circumstances were out of our control at that point. Maybe unfairly, you'll say not. We tried our best, but aparently that was not enough.
Maybe you have no heart, maybe you're arrogant, and maybe your right. Maybe some of all 3. In any case, I'm not caring what you say. Maybe we should have forfeited the next match and swiss-cheesed them. I DON'T CARE AT THIS POINT! So what if our bot was crippled? Maybe you were the guy across the field. I'm not caring about you at this point. Any response you make at this point I WILL IGNORE.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

That is exactly what you should have done. No question. You gotta do what you gotta do to play by the rules. Playing overweight is flat-out unacceptable.
By the way, we had to remove our compressor, too. It sure is harder, but we get by.


I agree, there is nothing wrong with using aluminum sprockets as long as there are enough teeth engaged (i.e. big enough and enough chain wrap). Our arm has a 60 tooth hubless aluminum sprocket that we got from a snowmobile parts distributor out in California. We even drilled holes in that! If has got to be the coolest thing on our robot.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Swiss cheeze it is, BTW all of our sprockes have a 180 deg wrap, Was trying to not have one wheel chain fail kill the whole side of the bot. Hope to get the aluminum done and make the Kettering event in the fall, use this as a recrutment tool to get more students on the team and give them a pre main event experiance.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Isn't making identical, post-six week parts a blatant violation of the rules(<R09>)? Isn't the ONLY legal way to repair this robot is to build the replacement at the competition. I'm very confused ... and probably wrong too.

(Please allow me to get on my soap box ... thank you)
As for a major deal, please just swing by team 118's pit on Thursday as six students try to rebuild an arm because ours was destroyed at the LSR. It would have been nice to go home and build a couple of identical parts but, as we interpret them, it is a violation of the rules. Honestly, 118 is about 6 hours in a machine shop away from having an awesome 'bot but we will be scrambling to make the elimination rounds because we refuse to skirt ANY rules. Finally, it has been very disheartening to learn this year that mentors are putting winning over teaching students good ethics.
(OUCH ... I twisted my ankle getting off my soap box ... I deserved it :) )

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Yeah, you could be right. <R09> is worded in a misleading manner. It says "During the six week period following kickoff you may fabricate spare parts..." I guess they are saying you have to make everything before the ship date (identical or not) but you don't have to ship everything, as long as the parts you do bring are duplicates. In that sense, <R09> is kind of a weird rule. You would think that because they mentioned "exact replacements" and "no assemblies", that they would be talking about the period all the way up to competition. But apparently they are not, so I wouldn't assume that. It is a little vague, so my advice to every team would be just don't do it. When it comes to interpreting the rules, I would just play it safe and don't do anything suspicious.

Thanks for pointing that out, Natchez.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

I think there are three main problems that lead to teams breaking these rules:

1) Teams do not understand the rules.
2) Inspectors do not understand the rules.
3) Teams understand, yet bend the rules because they know #2 is true.

I think #1 is a valid excuse for teams in their rookie year, or teams in their second year who are not as established as others. For these teams the six weeks build schedule is very stressful, and they may not even think about checking the rules on certain things. THIS IS WHY MENTORING TEAMS IS SO IMPORTANT! I personally don't care if we play against a rookie team who is 2 pounds overweight because they had to add a bracket or something to their machine to get it to work. FIRST is meant to inspire and teach. If the members of that team have a working machine that year and learn from their mistakes the next time around, FIRST has had a positive impact on them.

In the case of #2, there is little that can be done. Many inspectors are volunteers who have never before seen some of the kit components. They have no idea what certain rules are, and are only trained to look for certain safety violations. On thursday night at BAE we were looking over scouting photos and noticed that one team powered part of their machine using 2 seat motors. Inspectors do not catch these things because they don't have experience with many of the rules. IF YOU WANT TO HELP THIS SITUATION, VOLUNTEER TO BE AN INSPECTOR AT A REGIONAL! I noticed at UTC that there was a huge gap in knowlege about the rules between certain inspectors. Colleen from team 190 has lots of experience at FIRST, knows the rules, and was an excellent inspector. I am sure that many of you could also be.

#3...These are the teams that simply don't get it. They have no idea what FIRST is really about. They are also the teams that probably most need our help, because FIRST is not having the effect on them that it should. It is tough to do, but we need to ask these teams to comply with the rules in order to maintain the integrity of the rules. FIRST is based on friendship, fellowship, trust, and grcious professionalism. These teams have no idea what those words mean. We can help them by showing them what the rules are, and if they are receptive, suggesting ways they can complete their tasks within the rules.

After analyzing this situation, it is clear that this can only get better by more people being publicly involved. Mentor a team, volunteer at an event, talk to teams about potential rules violations before they become a problem. FIRST is a community, and we are it's citizens. If we want it to be a better place, we need to be more involved.

Have a wonderful time in Atlanta!

Rob

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Alright... this might sound ridiculous but here me out guys.

There is a sweater at Abercrombie that is just totally awesome. I want it so bad, but it's $50 and I just don't have the money.

There are 2 reponses: A. Legally obtain the sweater. B. Steal it.

I'd like to hope that the people in FIRST are the group A type. They want to play by the rules.

A person in groub B is willing to take the gamble that they will get away with their crime.
In my hometown of Enfield, CT, shoplifters are dealth with in two ways, depending on your age. If you're under 18, the police scare you and then embarass you in front of your parents. If you're over 18, you're arrested, and embarassed publicly in the newspaper.

Unfortunately, in the FIRST community there isn't a serious way to deal with violations of the rules. We have to be more pro-active in how we deal with violations. I think this thread has shown, that violations of the rules occur much more often than we could have imagined.

So I think we need some serious penalties. Not serious enough to cause someone to leave FIRST, but serious enough that they are embarassed.
Just as the sweater stealer in my hometown, we should publicly announce when a team breaks the rules.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Mike,

No we shouldn't. This is the harsher of crimes. The FIRST teams are like the juveniles. They should be dealt with out of public. Approach the team. If they don't change their ways you go to FIRST official aka the police. And they will let the public know if needed. We shouldn't announce publicly against any team like that.

It would be horrible. Most people wouldn't actually approach the other team and just complain public about them here without the evidence and that could get ugly really quick. There would be a lot of false accusations because some teams have more resources or work harder than others. It would put a black mark on the whole competition. I can just imagine a member of a team that has a grudge against a team that did well accusing them of breaking rules. Not pretty. Not needed. Deal with this the correct way, privately and through FIRST. Don't become the vigilante.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Please forgive me if I blaspheme, but I detect a religious mindset here; the religion of FIRST. Perhaps the day will come when the rules are boiled down to just ten pearls of common sense. The spare parts rule could read as follows:

4. Remember the Sabbath by keeping it holy. Six weeks you shall labor and do all your work, but the days until the first event and those between are the Sabbath to the FIRST. On them you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your engineer or engineerette, nor your Bridgeport, nor the teacher within your gates. For six weeks the righteous moved the heavens and the earth. Therefore, the FIRST blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.


Don’t get me wrong. There should be rules. Concrete ones such as the weight and size constraints. Vague ideologies such <R09> will only lead to the creation of sinners, and to the saints who police them.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue the normal avenues for dealing with violations. I'm saying that there are some violations that should be announced, for instance if you are caught overweight.

The problem with the current system is that it is completely reactive. Teams know if they are caught breaking a rule, it won't matter, they'll be told to fix it and thats that. What good are rules that have no reprocussions for breaking them? If my parents raised me with the mindset we use in FIRST for rules, I would probably would have been a juvenile delinquit.

You are assuming everyone in the world acts graciously and professionally, and that's just not the case.

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

Wow, I really hope you are still following this thread because.. I'm sorry. I saw your robot get weighed after your match. I was shocked & a little upset. When you indicate that you tried, I believe you. There are so many ways you could have delt with this. I understand your want to compete & use your robot as it is intended to be used but, this competition isn't about YOU. We are a comminity and when one of us goes astray, we all go astray.

Our first year (2000) we made lexan hooks that snaped in a match. We replaced them with aluminum and played in our next match. After that match we went & got ourselves reweighed. We weren't asked to we wanted to. We were slightly over weight, we then took off another component, our arms. Nobody told us to do so, nobody asked us to do so. We knew it was the right thing to do.

I am mostly concerned about the way you feel about what happened. Nobody is looking at you and saying "your what's wrong with FIRST." Were saying "how can we help you do what you want to do?" FIRST is about learning & competing but is also about having fun & doing whats right. THere were 60+ other teams at Buckeye, I know I would have been willing to help you. Just ask.

BTW: I don't remember if we won or lost the match we played overweight in, that was 5 years ago. I just know how we flet like we had done the wrong thing & had to make it right. & we did.

I think i just torn my MCL getting off my soapbox. Ouch

Re: "Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken
 

First of all I'm not assuming. I'm expecting them to act graciously and professionally. I know this isn't always the case and I know sometime this is the case and doesn't appear to be the case. Engineering is a ethical field. In many cases peoples safety is affected if engineers aren't ethical. I expect the engineers to instill this in their students and be proactive on their own teams. I know as the main rules expert on my team last year I expected being within the rules a must.

I'm not saying anything wrong with what your saying to do except for who is going to do it.

You came off in your previous message like the teams should let everyone know if a team was breaking a rule. That isn't the correct path and can have many negative consequences.

FIRST makes announcements like this in matches and can make these announcement during competition after bringing it to the attention of FIRST officials. "Team xxxx was overweight in match xxx and therefore is disqualified." Not userxxx writing, "You know team xxxx was overweight in match xxx and they won. That not fair" If you get into the last part we're all in trouble.

I imagine most people would realize they had broken the rules and then accept the forfeit. At least I would. I guess maybe not everyone is gracious and professional but give them the chance (idealist statement).