To tether or not to tether, that is ....
 

I personally believe that rules should not be changed after robots have shipped, unless it turns out that it would be to the greater good to make the change. In other words, it is destructive in a sense to make rules and then change them at a point where others can't take advantage of the new rules. Under what circumstances would it be a good thing to do this?

Possibly under the current circumstances. The designers of the FIRST Robotics contest, as I think Woodie said at the kickoff, are always wondering how things will turn out. In other sports, the rules can be continually refined as the game is the same each year. That doesn't work for an engineering challenge. Therefore the creators of the FIRST game have a tough job.

So what could justify changing the rules on tethers as was done. I believe that the designers of the game didn't anticipate how static (unmoving) the game often becomes this year. We want a game that not only excites the participants, but also appeals to spectators and makes them want to participate themselves, thus expanding the game and achieving the mission of FIRST.

The game this year often settles into a big pushing match in the center of the arena. I would venture to say that those who crafted the game would have made the balls on the field worth more points if they had it to do over again. Creating the contest is, in a way, an engineering project in itself. And just as all of us find that we don't always get our robots right on the first try, so I am sure it is with the contest itself.

When it comes to those watching this year's game, I believe that tethers add to the game especially when a bunch of robots are sitting there pushing on each other and hardly moving sometimes. Further, I haven't observed many problems caused by tethers, to other robots. The bottom line is, the tether rules were not in the best interest of the contest, and the contest as it was, is sometimes a bit boring to watch for those who haven't built one of the robots themselves. And that is not good for FIRST, for our sponsors or for us as FIRST teams. So the rule was changed which is tough. It is tough on our team. We would like to have a tether. However I applaud FIRST for having the guts to do the right thing at a time when it was likely to draw some wrath. I am sure they will be doing their best to avoid similar situations in the future.

I want this contest to succeed, to grow, and to help change the way education in this country is carried out. (Quite frankly, it is usually quite boring because students are not getting to use what they are learning...and by the way, I'm a teacher.) Those who run FIRST are privy to data that I might not be, with regards to things like the funding of the events and achieving FIRST's overall goals. I don't have all the data they have. But one thing I do know: they are some of the best people I have come across in my life. So I know that they won't hurt me unless there is a good reason. I consider that the good reason was probably some of the things I mentioned above, but it is entirely possible there are other factors also.

Yes our team might be at a competitive disadvantage this year because of the last minute change. However I support this organization in it's decision. I know it wasn't made on a whim, and I know they will attempt to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

As a rookie, I have personally had one of the best experiences of my life in this contest. I consider every robot I have seen to be a moving art form-a mechanical sculpture, and I love admire every one of them. I have never seen a bunch of people get together and compete with such an enthusiastic sharing of help and caring for each other. If 60 football teams got together, there would be fights all over the place. It would be hell on wheels.

Thank you FIRST, for bringing a wonderful experience into my life.

Hm...now if I could just figure out how to extend a tape measure using our ball roller. Hey! Any ideas for me?

Doug Hogg
Team 980
http://home.pacbell.net/pinewood/Our_Robot.html

Doug,

All good points and I thank you for making them.
And yet...
The teams benefiting from this are not representative to "the greater good" I suspect less than 10% (Any one else feel free to also pull a number out of thin air to argue with me :-) )
I don't honestly believe the rules changed for such lofty goals.
I don't think the TVability of the game was the reason.

(Side note, if the balls were worth more then the goal grabbing would be even mor e intense. I think balls simply in the home zone should have counted without the location in the goal being the important part. but it was still a good game)

I am left with a bad taste in my mouth when I wonder how the rule was changed. The engineers from FIRST use both Woodie's and Dean's name to get us to accept it as OK. But I suspect (and the following comment belongs in the rumor mill and not here. I have ZERO knowledge of the actual decision process) there was pressure from *somewhere* to change the rule. The only real people with a vested interest in a change were individual teams.
I don't want to dwell on that line of thought.

Its a bad precedent to set. It started when they changed how we were allowed to interact with the goals so late in the build cycle.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. So did I. My fourth year. I want it to grow , live long and prosper. If they pull this again next year I think some of us will look to other ways to achieve the same goals.

-I loved your comment about 60 football teams in one setting.

Have fun all

Darth Vader has left the building....
 

Eric,
As (maybe) the final word on this, since I posted it, I'd like to reply specifically to a couple of particularly ugly hints you have made in several posts and reiterated in your last post. This:
Whether or not you (or anyone else who is angry about this) believes that what we posted was the truth, is up to you. To think that we would invoke Dean's or Woodie's name as a get out of jail free card to cover up an internal screwup is laughable. If we really didn't give a siht, why would we even bother to post it, and try to explain it, and fess up? C'mon, isn't this a little ridiculous? We took the time to come out here and post the truth. Now that we've done that, you're speculating that there are ulterior motives? Please.

And this...
Your suspicion is right. It does belong in the rumor mill. It belongs in the trash bin. FIRST does not and will never change rules that affect everyone to benefit select teams. The very concept of it is completely ridiculous to anyone who really understands what FIRST is about. And the 25 paid staff and the hundreds of volunteers that we ask for help to make the events happen would rightfully be deeply insulted by the accusation.

Looking for the FOX News, flash at 11, inside scoop on what happened? Ok, it's right here. Ready?

We made a mistake. We're human. We have human, local, *volunteer* referees and judges that don't always follow step A through ZZ in complete and exact sequence from the Manifesto of FIRST HQ in Manchester. We occasionally have (gasp) incomplete communications. We have leaders like Woodie who give us guidance and help us do the right thing. Some teams had already built tethered robots - the ones that read and understood the "it's the referee's decision" post. So we let them deploy. Yeah, we should have checked with Woodie way before then. We know that.

We made a couple of mistakes this year. We knew it when they happened, we know it now. We've heard it. We're gonna hear more about it. We've got a bad taste in our mouths.

If the pattern follows, there will still be "I don't buy it" posts. Your choice, but anyone who feels that way just doesn't really get FIRST.

Sorry for the personal tone of this post, but many of us here at FIRST take these insulting, baseless accusations pretty personally. We don't miss dinners with our families throughout the year creating something for people to participate in where we can invent ways to mess some teams up.

FRCops and crew.

Thanks for the reply. I hesitated putting my thoughts into electrons. Kinda sorry I did, but not now. I feel better that you had such a strong response to my thoughts. It makes me feel its all worth while.

I know you guys are human. I honestly think we all know that. I also applaude you for posting on ChiefDelphi to begin with (I had responded to the original yahoo post but the group was not accepting new posts, at least from me)

I also hope this ends this particular segment of the contest.

For anyone that knows me will tell you how much I love this contest. I am basing my next teaching position on the schools ability and desire to support a FIRST team.

This year was 99.98% what it has always been for me. I made great freinds, realized new potentials and found new failure mechanisms I didn't know existed.
The .02% will fade and be lost.

If its needed please accept my apologies if you feel I crossed a line. I tried to phrase my actual concerns (at that time) to indicate I didn't believe them but in conversation they had come up.

Again the obvious emotion in your response tells me I could not have been more off base. I know you guys work hard. I don't envy the mountains of problems you deal with YEAR round while I just have a team to sweat with for a few months.

And again I actually LIKE the ruling on tethers, honest. It was simply a timing issue :-)

So hoping we can be friends again...

As one of the other strong posters in this thread I too am sorry for all of us if we got out of line. We are all volunteers trying to make the most with what we have and we (FIRST teams) are all very competitive sometimes too competitive.

This thread seems like it has been beaten to death.

Then let the old dog lie.