Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Concerning Whistleblowing (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45963)

Pat Fairbank 27-03-2006 22:13

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:
  • Would you blow the whistle on a team who had gotten through inspection but was still violating the rules, either advertently or inadvertently?
  • Would you only blow the whistle under certain circumstances, such as letting it slide during qualifications, but calling the team out if you came up against them in the eliminations?
  • If not, would you regret not having done so if the team in question went on to defeat you and win the event?
  • Alternately, if you were to confront the team directly about it instead of approaching the inspectors or the referees, how would you go about doing so?
  • Where gracious professionalism is concerned, is it a greater wrong to tattle on another team and potentially bring shame upon both teams, or to let the rule-breaking slide?

Chriszuma 27-03-2006 22:36

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.

jagman2882 27-03-2006 22:48

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

sanddrag 27-03-2006 22:49

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.

Chriszuma 27-03-2006 22:59

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?

sanddrag 27-03-2006 23:03

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.

TimCraig 27-03-2006 23:21

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank
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.

Would looking the other way while someone breaks the rules be considered "gracious"?

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.

ChuckDickerson 27-03-2006 23:25

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
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.

I beg to differ. FRC is not completely fair, it isn't meant to be, and it never will be, however, all teams are given the exact same rules, exact same KoP, and the exact same challenge in an effort to make things as fair as possible across all teams. For a team to knowingly or inadvertently use ANY part that violates the rules, in this case an illegal gearbox from 2004, definitely IS giving them and unfair advantage over all of the other teams who either followed the rules or are newer teams who didn't have the 2004 gearbox available to use. If a team isn't following the rules it is not only unfair to the other teams but it is doing the team breaking the rules a disservice. If the team is KNOWINGLY breaking the rules then the mentors are truly doing the students a disservice by allowing it to continue and therefor rewarding cheating. If a team doesn't know they are breaking the rules then, well, they should have read ALL of the rules more closely like all of the other teams did that aren't breaking the rules. Either way, it is the duty of everyone (students, mentors, and inspectors) to uphold the rules as best as they can. If a team is observed breaking the rules they should be politely informed and given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to correct the problem. If they refuse they should not be allowed to compete until the situation is resolved. In this case, the team that used the 2004 gearbox should have read the rules like the rest of the teams that followed them. The shooter was illegal and should have been removed if it couldn't be redesigned to not use the illegal gearbox.

sanddrag 27-03-2006 23:32

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.

TimCraig 27-03-2006 23:33

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriszuma
Strict adherence to some rules isn't always feasible, and if it doesn't cause any harm, what's the harm in it?

I consider a number of rules that FIRST has to be unnecessary or even silly. And when we've questioned them to FIRST, we've been told that's the way it is. One case in point, using double sided tape to fasten the robot numbers and logos on the polycarbonate sides. Why using adhesive Velcro is "superior" I have no idea but we do it to avoid having to argue with the inspectors. Yet every year I see robots using tape to hold on their numbers or even making their numbers out of tape. So next year I should just ignore the rule and if anyone calls me on it tell them they're being silly?

Kevin Sevcik 27-03-2006 23:56

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.

ChuckDickerson 27-03-2006 23:57

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
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.

Ruin is a rather strong word. FIRST is about more than winning a robotics competition. I would hope that the particular infration in question was not done intentionally. Who can say if this would actually have ruined their competition or not? I am always impressed with the resoursefulness of FIRST teams in the heat of competition. Maybe they could have rechanneled their creativity in a different direction. Maybe other teams could have jumped in and helped them with legal spare parts and come up with a more effective design?


Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
Also, I believe the evidence that is was a non issue is the fact that I am the only one who brought it up.

Maybe you were the only one to notice, maybe not. If others noticed and didn't say anything either then the whole level of competition just lowered a notch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
Teams should be proud of themselves for following the rules, not angry at other teams who don't.

Agreed 100%

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
That is their problem, not ours.

I do not want to start a flame war here or anything so let's just leave this alone and agree to disagree. I will say this, FIRST is a microcosm of the real World. We all need to work together to solve these problems not pass them off to someone else.

Tim Delles 28-03-2006 00:12

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank
So here are my questions:[list
[*]Would you blow the whistle on a team who had gotten through inspection but was still violating the rules, either advertently or inadvertently?[*]Would you only blow the whistle under certain circumstances, such as letting it slide during qualifications, but calling the team out if you came up against them in the eliminations?[*]If not, would you regret not having done so if the team in question went on to defeat you and win the event?[*]Alternately, if you were to confront the team directly about it instead of approaching the inspectors or the referees, how would you go about doing so?[*]Where gracious professionalism is concerned, is it a greater wrong to tattle on another team and potentially bring shame upon both teams, or to let the rule-breaking slide?[/list]

Well the very first thing I do is to go up and discuss this with them. Because if they do not know that it is illegal then they should be informed of it, and I am very sure that any team would fix the problem.

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

KenWittlief 28-03-2006 00:54

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Delles
Well the very first thing I do is to go up and discuss this with them. Because if they do not know that it is illegal then they should be informed of it, and I am very sure that any team would fix the problem.

If this were any other event or sport I would agree with this statement. My understanding of gracious professionalism forces me to think otherwise for two reasons:

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.

Chriszuma 28-03-2006 01:05

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TimCraig
I consider a number of rules that FIRST has to be unnecessary or even silly. And when we've questioned them to FIRST, we've been told that's the way it is. One case in point, using double sided tape to fasten the robot numbers and logos on the polycarbonate sides. Why using adhesive Velcro is "superior" I have no idea but we do it to avoid having to argue with the inspectors. Yet every year I see robots using tape to hold on their numbers or even making their numbers out of tape. So next year I should just ignore the rule and if anyone calls me on it tell them they're being silly?

Clearly these things need to go on a case-by-case basis. I agree that rules are rules (even if only on the purely logical standpoint that 1==1). As such, every effort needs to be taken to ensure that all teams follow them. In the case of the air compressor spike, it would have been a major detriment, and an executive decision was made to let it slide for the time being, based on the intentions of the rule and the situation. However, if the case involves using tape decorations, then it really isn't causing a large problem to make the team replace it with something more appropriate.
Quote:

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.
I disagree. You don't have to make a confrontation out of this. You can simply talk to the other team and ask them if they knew about rule R07 or whichever they appear to be breaking. That seems much more gracious than saying "not my problem."
Quote:

Without GP FIRST could easily degrade into a contest involving the exchange of various body fluids.
Um, exaggerate much?

KenWittlief 28-03-2006 01:08

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriszuma
Um, exaggerate much?

where was it this last year, some kids dad beat another kids father to death at a HS hockey game?

Chriszuma 28-03-2006 01:12

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief
where was it this last year, some kids dad beat another kids father to death at a HS hockey game?

I agree that Gracious Professionalism is important in keeping the competition civilized, but bodily fluids? Come on.

ahecht 28-03-2006 01:28

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriszuma
Quote:

Without GP FIRST could easily degrade into a contest involving the exchange of various body fluids.
Um, exaggerate much?

I think what Ken was referring to here was a "p---ing contest", not an actual exchange of body fluids.

Peter Matteson 28-03-2006 07:57

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.

Al Skierkiewicz 28-03-2006 08:05

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.

Swan217 28-03-2006 08:10

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.

Jack Jones 28-03-2006 08:27

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
...Referees on the field have brought things to my attention at every event I have worked...

In Milwaukee, for example, I brought it to Al's attention that team XXX had electrical tape wrapped around the radio connection to about half way onto the transmitter. He questioned them as to why they were using the tape for its mechanical properties. They replied they were trying to stop static interference. He pointed out that the tape would do them no good, and suggested instead that they move the transmitter from against a Fisher Price motor.

The moral is: You are doing everyone a favor when you ask the lead inspector to check something out of the ordinary.

GaryVoshol 28-03-2006 08:35

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.

LauraN 28-03-2006 10:16

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.)

KenWittlief 28-03-2006 10:56

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd
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.

I had no idea that rule violations are so rampant at FIRST events. You have completely changed my mind about this.

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!

Peter Matteson 28-03-2006 11:17

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief
I had no idea that rule violations are so rampant at FIRST events. You have completely changed my mind about this.

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!

My point was more that I wanted to know if they passed inspection, because I was going to say something to them about it. Then the head inspector realized why I was asking and took it upon himself to speak to the teams.

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.

KenWittlief 28-03-2006 11:37

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd
My point was more that I wanted to know if they passed inspection, because I was going to say something to them about it. Then the head inspector realized why I was asking and took it upon himself to speak to the teams.

\

ok, that is reasonable. Your other post sounded like you were the self-appointed final inspector, and I was getting a little freaked out! :^)

sanddrag 28-03-2006 11:38

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.

Richard Wallace 28-03-2006 11:55

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
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.

<R22> allows use of components from previous robots IF they satisfy all of the other materials/parts rules for 2006.

The 2003-04 KOP gearbox plastic frames do not satisfy <R41> because they are neither generally available from suppliers nor fabricated by the team.

sanddrag 28-03-2006 11:58

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard
<R22> allows use of components from previous robots IF they satisfy all of the other materials/parts rules for 2006.

The 2003-04 KOP gearbox plastic frames do not satisfy <R41> because they are neither generally available from suppliers nor fabricated by the team.

Thank you. That's the basis I was originally going off of but just couldn't find.

Peter Matteson 28-03-2006 12:57

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief
\

ok, that is reasonable. Your other post sounded like you were the self-appointed final inspector, and I was getting a little freaked out! :^)

Wow, I just realized that first post didn't read how I intended. I ment when I look around at other robots its a kind of geek out to see how they do what they do. I'm more interested in talking with the teams about the why and how. I also like to chat with the CD posters I get to meet in person. During the course of this if I notice something I ask about it. Conversely I expect the same from other people at the events. I didn't want to make it sound like I was looking for rules violations.

Lil' Lavery 28-03-2006 16:36

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).

ChrisH 28-03-2006 16:59

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
Thank you. That's the basis I was originally going off of but just couldn't find.

The rules explicitly permit recycling of parts from previous year's robots as can be seen in rules R22 and R24 which I 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.

Richard Wallace 28-03-2006 17:02

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.

Richard Wallace 28-03-2006 17:11

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisH
... 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.

No, they weren't. They were direct (identical) replacements for KOP items when they were originally obtained, and therefore subject to KOP quantity limits when used in years for which they were included in the KOP. They are not KOP items now. And they have not become COTS items, either.

sw293 28-03-2006 17:16

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:

<R51> The only legal main source of electrical energy on the robot is the 12VDC non-spillable lead acid battery provided in the Kit of Parts. That 12V battery is the Exide type EX18-12. The ES18-12 battery, purchased through your local Exide supplier as a spare, is identical and may also be used.
Likewise, inspectors make mistakes during inspection. Sometimes they overlook things. Sometimes they make a mistake because they don't fully know and understand the rules, just as our drivers did when they challenged the other team's batteries, and just as the ref did when he said they couldn't use the batteries.

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:

<R107> ...If you observe that another team’s robot may be in violation of the robot rules, please approach FIRST officials to review the matter in question. This is an area where “Gracious Professionalism” is very important."
Team 293 didn't adhere to this rule literally when we approached the team we had a concern about in Annapolis. But FIRST also has the following to say about the robot rules:
Quote:

When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than a lawyer's interpretation. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule.
It does not take a genius to understand the reasoning behind of R107: "This is an area where “Gracious Professionalism” is very important." In Annapolis we certainly thought it more in the interest of gracious professionalism to approach the team with our concerns, so they could bring the issue up with inspectors prepared. In Trenton, we brought our (misplaced) concerns about a team's batteries to a FIRST official, forcing a quick, unprepared decision--a decision that turned out to be wrong. If you have concerns about a team's robot, whenever you are in a position to do it politely you should bring it to the attention of that team first.

EricH 28-03-2006 19:50

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.

Al Skierkiewicz 29-03-2006 07:40

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sw293
Likewise, inspectors make mistakes during inspection. Sometimes they overlook things. Sometimes they make a mistake because they don't fully know and understand the rules, just as our drivers did when they challenged the other team's batteries, and just as the ref did when he said they couldn't use the batteries.
A side note: There is a fundamental difference between the roles of referee and inspector.

Bill,
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.

Not2B 29-03-2006 12:00

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.

sw293 29-03-2006 18:21

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not2B
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.

Going to an inspector might have been the best course of action in your case, but in general, I disagree. I am sure both our team and the other team involved will tell you that the manner in which we handled our concerns in Annapolis made the situation better than it would have been had we gotten an inspector involved. We saw on a couple of robots in Annapolis what we thought might be illegal parts (specifically wheels), so we decided on Friday night to read the rules more carefully instead of impulsively taking an uneducated accusation to an inspector. We concluded that both teams should pass inspection. However, looking to avoid a situation like the one in Trenton where we incorrectly but successfully objected to a team's non-kit batteries before an elimination match, we decided to bring our concerns to the team early the next morning. They recieved us and our concerns well (thanks in large part to our position on the leaderboard at the time). We suggested they make sure the inspectors agreed with our ultimate assessment that the wheels were allowed and we gave them a copy of the relevant rule to support their case. I repeat: If you have concerns about a team's robot, whenever you are in a position to do it politely you should bring it to the attention of that team first.

Al Skierkiewicz 29-03-2006 18:56

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not2B
Oh, you should go to an inspector.
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.

Brian,
I never did hear back. Did moving the modem fix the problem?

pathew100 04-04-2006 00:27

Re: Concerning Whistleblowing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
Brian,
I never did hear back. Did moving the modem fix the problem?

I'd have to ask the software team but I think it helped reduce the amount of data packets that were resent. Thanks for your help!


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