![]() |
Concerning Whistleblowing
There was a thread recently discussing what should happen when teams fail the size and/or weight requirements during re-inspection. I'd like to start up a related discussion on the act of whistleblowing.
A few times over the course of my years in FIRST, I've seen teams with illegal mechanisms, materials, etc. at competitions. At one of the regionals I've been to this year, I've seen a team (on a Friday, and therefore after inspection) whose bumpers were notched out at the bottom to facilitate ramp climbing. I wasn't sure what to do at the time. I didn't want to call them out on it and be thought of as ungracious, especially if the result of my action would mean the difference between losing and winning a match against the team in question. I ended up not doing anything about the illegal bumpers, apart from making sure that team wasn't on our list of potential alliance picks, in case someone else were to make an issue of it during eliminations. I should mention that it's not my intention at all to call the inspection system into question here; it would be impossible for all the inspectors to have the six-weeks-plus experience of the rules that FIRST team members have, and so a few mistakes will inevitably be made. So here are my questions:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Well I would probably only decide to call them out on it if the rule breaking was something that would give them an unfair advantage over teams that were following all the rules. Of course, I would bring any potential rule breakage to the attention of the team so they can fix it before they get too close to finals inspection and someone does call them on it. I think that's the most GP thing to do.
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
i think that you have to call them out on it. If i was breaking the rules accidentally i would want to know so i dont have a problem with it down the road. and if they knew then you should tell a inspector because breaking the rules is certiantly NOT GP
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
At SoCal I was an inspector. I saw a team using the plastic gearbox parts from the 2003 (and 2004?) kit of parts. These parts were custom made for FIRST back then, were not manufactured by the team during the build season, and were not COTS parts available to everyone by a legitamate vendor. I didn't inspect this particular robot but I saw it while passing by. I didn't call them on it because it would have ruined their whole shooter if they had to remove those pieces. It wasn't giving them any unfair advantage or presenting any unsafe condition. While the the rules should be followed strictly, I believed that the team would leave the event with a more positive attitude and the spectators and alliance partners would have a more positive experience seeing this robot shoot rather than see it aimlessly drive around. I don't want to scrap anybody's mechanism that they've worked hard for. Team pay good money to have a good time at that event and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. So, in this situation, I kept my mouth shut. But there was one team running Fisher Price motors on 20 gauge wire, and another team with 5 small CIMs, and I couldn't let that slide.
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Also, anyone who fills their air system with an offboard compressor is familiar with "the spike rule," which they told us about at our first regional, and several inspectors have agreed is kind of pointless. Since it was in no way unsafe or advantageous, they let us use our air compressor system without having a Spike in the system, as the rules declare. They recognized that the system we had designed was completely safe and the addition of a Spike would only add a degree of unreliability. When we had some downtime, we were able install a spike in the system, but if they had required it to pass inspection we would have had a major hassle on our hands.
In short, a little bit of discretion on the part of inspectors is a good thing. Strict adherence to some rules isn't always feasible, and if it doesn't cause any harm, what's the harm in it? |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Yep, we faced the off-board air and spike dilema. It is a silly rule. And how are you supposed to use a Spike without at RC? At Phoenix and LA, they let us do it without a Spike.
Another issue is chain guards. They didn't require them at Phoenix but did at LA. I know for a fact we passed without one and ran matches without one as did at least one other team. But everyone had one by the end of the competition. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
All of us were given the rules and the same time and are expected to follow them. The rules concerning the bumpers were pretty specific. I've heard that cheating in school has become rampant. Is this also carrying over into FIRST? If so, I think enforcement of the rules is in order and to do this the officials need to be informed. I think this is no different than if you fail to inform the police that you've seen a bank robbery. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Had that team been informed of their violation, it could have ruined not only their event but their future. While I was there to uphold the rules, I was not there to ruin anyone's day. Besides, it wasn't like they had a Briggs Lawnmower engine on there. Also, I believe the evidence that is was a non issue is the fact that I am the only one who brought it up. Teams should be proud of themselves for following the rules, not angry at other teams who don't. That is their problem, not ours.
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
I'll vote for bringing the situation to the team's attention and offering to help them rectify it. It's entirely possible they're just clueless and in need of some guidance. After that, it's a much tougher choice, of course. I'd probably ask the inspectors to look at a team again if it came down to it. Of course, one of our students asked a ref at GLR to talk with a team that had bumpers falling off because they were attached with wood screws. He just got shrugged off and sent on his way.
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
If they know of it I would just remind them and wait and see what happens. If nothing happens talk to a lead mentor on your team so that they can discuss it with them, and then if it is still a problem bring the rule to one of the inspectors and all them to handle it. But try to avoid bringing the inspectors back into. I just feel this way because almost everyone doesn't want to have to be re-inspected and it is a lot easier just to talk to the team quickly about it. Just my 2 cents. Tim |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
Professionalism. On FIRST teams and in my career as an engineer, I take the position that the people I deal with are professionals. This means they know what they are doing, they are qualified to perform their tasks, and they have earned the right to be in that position. It would be extreemly un-professional for me to second guess another persons skills, ability, knowledge and especially their motives unless I am absolutely certain that they have made a serious error, or they are doing something dangerous to themselves or others. For FIRST teams, this means the students and mentors on all teams are automatically granted the status of professionals in FIRST related things, equal to me, and should be respected accordingly. Grace. This word deals with how we handle errors and mistakes. The opposite of grace is punishment, rejection, and public humilation. If no one made any mistakes then grace would not be needed. Grace is applied when you know someone else has made a mistake but you DONT hold their feet to the fire. We have been tasked to interact with each other with both the P and the G. A simple way of combining the two is to give the other person the benefit of doubt. Are you absolutely sure that team did not buy those gears from a COTS source? Are you certain you understand all the aspects of the rule you think another team appears to be violating? If you are going to confront another team it should only be over matters of a very serious nature. In my career I have confronted managers and project leaders when I thought actions being taken might be illegal, or might expose the company to liabilities that we could not handle. Confrontation is a valuable tool, but it should only be used when absolutely needed. Without GP FIRST could easily degrade into a contest involving the exchange of various body fluids. I would rather err on the side of Grace then to see FIRST come to the point where we have FIRST-Dads beating each other up in the stands because one driver rammed another robot just a little to hard, or teams showing up for regionals with lawyers. As an engineer there are times when I review and critique other peoples work : design reviews, job interviews, performance reviews. Even at these events we never judge the person, we judge the work only. If you are a FIRST inspector, a judge, or a ref then you should hold each team to the standards that FIRST has established. If you are not an inspector, a judge, or a ref then you are NOT an inspector, a judge or a ref, unless another team asks for your opinion or assistance. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Okaaaay...
To get back on topic I have whistleblown in the past. At a regional on Thursday I took a look at all the robots as I'm inclined to do at all regionals. I saw two issues at 20 feet from the robots that I thought were obvious. I went and asked if these robots had been inspected and was told they had. I then asked the inspector to look at something on each robot and showed him a line item in the robot section of the handbook that applied to the obvious problems I saw. One team was using a motor that we hadn't gotten in the kit that year. The other was using too many of a motor. I didn't have a problem with saying this to anyone because we all get the same rules and parts at the begining of the season. Doing what these teams did was flagrantly violating rules. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
OK, I feel the need to jump in here.
When ever an inspector notices something out of the ordinary whether during final inspection or during match play, it is important to bring it to the lead inspector. In most cases, the lead working with the head refereee will come to a decision on the best way to handle it. Referees on the field have brought things to my attention at every event I have worked. Inspectors cannot find everything, myself included. As to the "silly" rules, I don't believe there are any. Would I do things differently, perhaps. The rule book puts some constraints on your robot design to give you added "real world problems" to challenge you, your robot and your drivers. Is it possible for a robot team to intentionally break the rules, of course, it is human nature. Team mentors need to keep their teams on track and within the rules, that is their solemn duty in this organization. Throughout life we need to ask ourselves the hard questions, if we don't answer honestly, where will we be? The same holds true here. When faced with "I can do this and no one will know" the answer better be "NO, I can't!". It is not teaching the students on your team or other teams the correct way to live their lives. Sanddrag, I truly believe that if you had brought it to the Lead Inpsector, they would have been able to help the team become compliant and play in some manner. I have been astounded at how many teams read through the manual but miss so much, this year in particular. Adhesive use is another manner, the people at the top don't want teams to become lazy and use tape. Using electrical tape for team numbers is acceptable and has been for years, hence the 3/4" stroke, the same size as tape. Finally, FIRST has gone out of their way to provide a variety of documentation to help teams get through inspection, the current documents are at Rev E for robot inspection. Every team should have their students go through this checklist before bringing the robot for inspection. It is unfortunate but teams may still pass at one event and be called out at another event for the same device. Expect the inspections at Championship to be more thorough than the regionals. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
This is a VERY good ethical question to pose...
Hmm, If it were me, I think I'd talk to the team and mention it to them that they are breaking the rules. If they shrug it off or ignore me, then I wouldn't feel bad blowing the whistle to the head inspector. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
The moral is: You are doing everyone a favor when you ask the lead inspector to check something out of the ordinary. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Volunteering at GLR and Detroit, I saw a variety of ways that inspection was handled. Please don't think this is criticism. It is impossible for any inspector to completely memorize all the rules. Some things inevitably get overlooked. Weight and size are easy to measure. It takes a long time for a complete inspection to verify no illegal parts and safety. I think the inspectors do an admirable job - one I have absolutely no ability or desire to try.
Two items were the new things this year - bumpers and flag holders. Partway through the build season Q&A made a ruling that we couldn't swiss-cheese the flag holder tube, and in an update we were told because some teams might take it too far. Also every tube had to have a bottom cap even if it wasn't needed to keep the flag in the tube. Our robot was called for not having a bottom cap - because the tube rested on a horizontal frame cross-member that just happened to be at the correct height. We stuck a cap on it. Later I saw a robot with a tube without any cap (maybe it fell off post-inspection, I don't know) so that the flagpole went completely through the tube until the flag material caught on top. I saw side bumpers that had the lower corners cut at an angle - no doubt to facilitate getting on the ramp. As far as I know, it was allowed to compete that way. However at Detroit, one robot was pulled aside to have the bumper height measured. The front bumper was mounted too high (outside the 2.5" to 8.5" bumper zone) and they had to correct it. I can understand the frustration of teams that meet the rules, seeing teams that "get away" with things. Does it matter, does it give an advantage? In the case of mis-shaped bumpers I'd say it does, because the team is operating outside the established parameters in order to accomplish a game task. In the case of a tube without an end cap, it gives no advantage, but if it causes the flag to not be displayed properly, it does matter. In the case of extra motors, there obviously is an operational advantage. In the case of incorrect wiring, there is a safety issue. We shouldn't be about pointing out things to inspectors "just because" we see they are wrong. The inspectors correctly don't play the "gotcha" game; neither should we. If we see an obvious safety issue, we should point it out to the team in a non-threatening manner; if they don't correct it then we should approach an inspector. I don't know how to handle the safe but outside rules issues. We're not to be tattle-tales. But teams that made compromises in order to abide by the rules should not be disadvantaged when other teams do not make those same compromises. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Hmmm....this is clearly a tricky question.
I think rule number one here should be this: if I ever decide to take action because I feel a team has broken the rules, I would always bring it to the team's attention first, before involving inspectors. This goes back to what Ken said- respect is an important part of GP, and if I were on the receiving end of this, I would much rather have another team approach me (in a friendly way!) and bring the subject to my attention, rather than have an inspector come back after approving the robot because he/she received some "anonymous tip." This is FIRST, not America's Most Wanted. We're not out to get each other, we're here to help each other learn. When should you mention a rules concern that you have? When safety is an issue, always. Otherwise, I guess it's up to you. Look at the example sanddrag gave us: suppose you're in that situation. You see a team that has illegal parts completely wound up in one of the most important components of their robot. Let's give the team the benefit of the doubt for a minute and say that just didn't read the rules carefully enough. You "blow the whistle" on them and they have to dismantle half of their robot. Maybe they are amazingly creative and they come up with something else on the fly- great. But maybe not. Now they have a drivetrain to put on the field. They can still compete but all those students who worked for hours upon hours and were really proud of the design are just a little heartbroken ...has anything good really come of that situation? =/ I don't know. Now, if the team in question had done all of this on purpose, knowing that they were cheating...I suppose this would become a different question, assuming that we had any way of reading minds. Now we're in really sticky territory. But suppose we know for a fact that this team was cheating. No matter how cool we think it is, FIRST still exists in the real world. Which means that some FIRSTers will cheat, and the fact that they are FIRSTers doesn't make the cheating any less uncool. Cheaters still need to be forced to follow the rules, no matter how much positive bias we have towards them just because they happen to be FIRST nuts too. :D Every situation has to be taken separately. Should the first team have read the rules more carefully? Absolutely. But there's a big difference between screwing up and blatantly cheating, and there should also be a difference in how we treat each case. (Even though it should always be with GP.) |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
Im thinking now that each team should appoint students and mentors to be unofficial final inspectors, to discreetly check out every other robot at the event to make sure that no team is getting away with anything (all three days). And Im thinking FIRST should hire certified professional engineers to be inspectors. The amateur inspectors clearly are not catching all the violations. I shutter to think what would happen to this program if a team won the championship, and they had illegal parts on their robot, and the media got wind of it! Massive lawsuits! |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
I thought that using motors that were not in the kit and twice the number of a motor in the kit was pretty obvious. I had also heard other people commenting on the problems because they were quite obvious to many people with several years experience. At some point it one of us had to ask the question, did they pass inspection that way? Both teams made the necessary changes and competed. I don't want to get the into the crazy lawyering scenarios that this can cause. We all get the same rules and KOP. Why do some teams not read them? BTW One team quite clearly mixed up parts from a previous year with the new kit and the swap out for the correct motor took 5 min. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
ok, that is reasonable. Your other post sounded like you were the self-appointed final inspector, and I was getting a little freaked out! :^) |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Concerning the team I thought had broken the rules by using 2003 or 2004 gearbox components, it would appear that it is indeed legal by R22. My mistake.
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
The 2003-04 KOP gearbox plastic frames do not satisfy <R41> because they are neither generally available from suppliers nor fabricated by the team. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Personally, I would approach the team about it, and point it out to them. I would only then approach a referee/inspector about it if they did not fix the issue AND it was a safety violation and/or clearly an illegal feature that gives their robot an unfair advantage (such as using illegal motors, or potentially damaging robot features).
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
<R22> Individual COMPONENTS from robots entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2006 robots IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition. <R24> Individual COMPONENTS retrieved from previous robots and used on 2006 robots must have their undepreciated cost included in the 2006 robot cost accounting, and applied to the overall cost limits. The only thing that makes these parts illegal is the fact they are not currently available as COTS items. At least I don't think they are. They were at one time available as spares. They might still be available, in which case they are legal parts. They were certainly COTS items when they were originally obtained. Knowing the way our parts storage area gets around week 4 of build. It would be entirely possible for somebody to get confused about which year a part was from. In addition, a team might not be aware that the parts are no longer available and therefore no longer COTS, especially if there is no institutional memory as to where the parts came from. Not saying it's right, just understandable. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
My concern is that any non-compliance gives the offending team a potential advantage -- the non-compliance generally saves weight or size or time or cost, or makes a robot function more effective, or worst of all lets the team avoid thinking just a little bit harder to find a rules-compliant solution.
As Woody keeps repeating, FIRST wants us to think until it hurts. Non-compliant robots almost always got that way because someone didn't think hard enough. Of course, sometimes the rules themselves are poorly constructed -- such rules usually disappear next season after someone has had time to think harder. Maybe we should only avoid whistleblowing over poorly constructed rules? But then who should decide which rules need changing and therefore which ones we can choose to ignore? Oh, yes, that would be the GDC! So there are no silly rules, no rules that we can just choose to ignore. The only sensible course is to try to follow them all. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
At Annapolis team 293 found ourselves in picking position after Friday. During the scouting meeting Friday night we discussed concerns about two robots' compliance with <R32>. Both were on our list of teams we thought we might pick, so we made it a point to look at each team's robot the next morning (conducting our own inspection), and we asked one of the teams to make sure with the inspectors that their robot did not violate <R32>. Even though we believed their robot did not violate the rules, it was still important for us (and them) to know they were not going to get disqualified in an elimination match should some time finger them for the percieved (possibly nonexistent) rule violation. We learned this lesson (at the expense of another team) in Trenton.
At Trenton during the elimination rounds, we in good faith challenged a team on their main battery, which was obviously not from the kit of parts. The ref disqualified their battery, and forced them to use the kit battery instead. Turns out we were probably wrong: Quote:
A side note: There is a fundamental difference between the roles of referee and inspector. The referee makes irreversible, binding decisions, i.e. his word is "final" and even if you have a irrefutable argument that one of his calls was wrong. This is not unreasonable, because a ref must quickly make decisions even where he is not fully informed of the facts on the field (i.e. he doesn't get to use instant replay). Because the head ref must make these irreversible "final" calls, he should know and understand these rules (those in "The Game") more thoroughly than 99.99% of the coaches, drivers, human players, scouts, mentors, judges and spectators in the arena. If an inspector refuses to pass your robot, but then you show him that because of rule X your robot should be permitted, I have a hunch the inspector will listen to your argument. If you have a good point, he will probably pass your robot. You see, the people who will be the most well-versed on the rules of "The Robot" are necessarily those who built a robot according to those rules. Unless an inspector either took a especially active role in building a robot or participated in making the rules himself, he will likely know less about these rules and their nuances, interpretations, and applications than the members on each team that worked for six weeks to build a robot consistent with all of those rules. If a ref is wrong on a call on the field, there is no recourse, but if an inspector is wrong in one of his decisions, there is. This is why a robot that has passed inspection can be declared illegal on the playing field before a match. You even have a place arguing the decision of a referee on an interpretation of "The Robot", but you must have a copy of the rules on hand and be able to explain why your robot upholds them in order to successfully make your case. If the team whose battery we had challenged had ready a copy of rule <R51>, then the head ref would have allowed their batteries. Back on the subject of whistleblowing, FIRST has written a rule on what you should do should you suspect a team is in violation of the robot rules: Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
This is something that depends on the situation. If they haven't passed inspection, try the team first. If they can show you something in the rules that permits the item in question, let the inspectors handle it. If they have (and they made a big modification recently), talk to the inspectors and make sure they have been reinspected.
An example: in AZ, during practice rounds, I saw a rookie robot glowing green--the exact green of the field lights. I was pretty sure they hadn't been inspected yet, so about half an hour later I went over and suggested they a) turn the lights off during the matches or b) take the lights off completely, and explained why. (I also volunteered to show them the rule if they wanted to see it.) They chose the second option. Whatever you do, do it in graciously professional manner. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
My point was that most Lead Inspectors are not newcomers or people who have not built a robot. In fact they are either on a team or have served as inspector in the past. Yes, we do not catch everything but we do know the best way to handle a problem when it arises and on particulalrly difficult problems will consult with the head ref, First Tech Advisor, or even make a call to FIRST when needed. Lead inspectors are trained and participate in a conference call once each week during the season to discuss past issues and new rulings. There is a variety of training douments for all inspectors and a KOP to show major components to inspectors in training. We depend on the eyes of the refs, field people, FTA, and other team members to point out what may have been missed and they walk the pits to catch whatever might have fallen through the cracks. Eric, thanks for the GP when approaching the team about lights. If the refs hadn't said something to them the inspector would have caught it as it is a specific question on the inspection form. It is very easy when you are looking over a robot when a team has asked for assistance to say "Did you check that with the inspector? I seem to think it might be a violation." However, in some situations, a team may take offense to such an approach and that is why it is better handled by the inspection team working with the head ref. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Oh, you should go to an inspector.
We were team XXX with the tape on the radio. We were getting wicked static build up on the robot, and our radio waqs dropping out. So we taped up the exposed metal as a test. Didn't do much. We moved the radio, and it worked better. We shipped the robot with the tape on. Did all of GLR with the blue tape. Part way through Wisconson Al asked us what it was for, the students told him static prevention (which is why it was put on, even if it didn't work.) But we had no issues taking it off. No biggie. It's all good. But I say tell an inspector. WHY? Because the students will listen to an inspector. They are an inspector. Our student's wouldn't do something wrong on purpose. They thought it was legal. If someone random just came up and said they had to change, the students would probably ignore them. An inspector is right. If people started changing based on random peoples input, next thing you will know is that people will be telling teams they only got 2 small CIM motors, and they can only use 2. |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
I never did hear back. Did moving the modem fix the problem? |
Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:50. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi