Poll - Legalities
 

Thsi poll is to find out what people think of following rules. Be honest please.

Re: Pol - Legalities
 

Not all rules are popular or even fair, at times but they are necessary and they maintain order. Yes there are people who do not play by the rules and are able to get away with it. Repeatedly at times. That doesn't make it right.That it apparently gives cause to other to break the rules just makes it all the more wrong. And as the saying goes:what goes around comes around. You may get away with it today. You may get away with it tomorrow. You may even get away with it next week but your day will come when you won't and you will be made to regret it. Just ask Floyd Landis is he found cheating prosperous.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I don't like the options for this pole.

It's okay to break rules if I'm being picked on? Where did that come from?

According to this pole, there are only 3 situations in which rules can be broken and it be okay - thinking it's completely okay 100% of the time, breaking them when being picked on, or just that we as FIRSTers shouldn't ever break rules.

I'm going to say this again - we've all broken the rules at one point and another in our lives. There are many, many exteremes and this poll cannot possibly capture all of the situations.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

The only time that I have intentionally broken a rule was when I had no way to comply with it. This rule was the one at IRI that said that those who played in the mentor round had to be 25. As a college team who was competing, we did not have enough mentors over the age of 25 to compete, thus the 19 year old who started and had run the team for 2 years participated. Past that, we do our best to abide by the rules

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Picked on could mean many things that is why I used it. Prices too high, no money, can't get part, don't live near video store, need to get some where fast, why am I being restricted, and many many more excuses. I am a black and white type guy that, yes I do wrong, believes that there should only be 2 answers but I tried to expand it a bit for others.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I have to agree with both sides of this poll. I have broken small rules but I also think that breaking those rules is not right. Sometimes you can't help when you break the rules, it just has to be done. Are you going to be late to work? Will it help you to go 4 more miles over the speed limit to get there on time and save your job for another day? In that case, I would speed. I need the job, I don't want to get into trouble. 4 mph over the speed limit in IL is not warrant enough to give a speeding ticket. Now, bringing a pop into a convention (the reason this poll was made) is a little thing, too. It isn't like the company would be losing much money, if any at all. I wouldn't buy the drink there to begin with. So if I bring one in, there isn't much of a difference than me having my own and not buying theirs and me just not buying theirs. It's not illegal to do this. I can't get into any serious trouble and it doesn't hurt anyone. I do think, however, that if everyone does this it wouldn't be right. As I'm older and more responsible, I wouldn't do this. But it's absurd to charge an arm and a leg for a drink.

That's my reasoning. $0.02... whatever you want to call it. opinion.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Rules are only silly records on paper...

Just because there is a "rule" saying that you must or mustn't do something does not justify doing it.

A good example is slavery. There was a time when slavery was legal. But was it moral? Just because it was legal didn't make it right.

I believe that everybody knows what is right and wrong, and that you should obey all rules that are "right" (or moral).

It was pretty clear that slavery was immoral, and as a result it was eventually abolished.

Luckily most of today's rules are moral. But you should still not blindly follow things just because somebody says they are "rules."

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I have to agree, I can't answer the poll as written.

There are rules that need to be held as absolute (murder, for example), rules that should not be heeded at all, and there are rules that should be broken if there is a genuine purpose behind it that can not be solved through other means. (Consider the young boy who drove a stolen school bus full of evacuees from New Orleans to Houston following Hurricane Katrina.)

That's my view on things.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

You're not serious are you?
So let's say the ramming in the loading zone for the 2005 game Triple play does not have to be justified because it's just a written rule that can be arbitrarily followed by the participants at their own discretion if they deem it stupid or unfair? Never mind that it's truest intention was to make it safe for the human player to go out and load the robot without the risk of being injured by flying robot parts due to contact.
Rules are rules. You can debate them. You can apply to have them changed but you certainly should not just ignore them because you don't agree with them. That's just irresponsible and is totally against the principles of FIRST.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

If I remember history correctly, the United States was founded on the grounds that people have the right to certain freedoms not otherwise granted under what was then the law.

Later on in history, the Civil Rights movement was an open disregard for what were the rules of the time.

In the majority of cases, the rules are important and should be followed, but there are a few cases where the rules are only in place to benefit a few, and breaking them does no real harm, or can even be a good thing for the greater good.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

This poll made me think of this. :D

Some examples from my home state:

* Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

*You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at
least two cows.

*One must obtain a permit from the city to throw hay in a cesspool.

*It is illegal to own a green or smelly animal hide.

*Bowling on the sidewalk is illegal.

*Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine.

*No one may annoy a lizard in a city park.

And so on..... (lol)

And yes, I realize that some of the laws are not accurate.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

There are times when rules must be broken, and times that it won't matter if they are. Have you ever crossed the street outside of a designated crosswalk? I'm sure that everyone has, but that doesn't mean anything. It's still against the law. does that mean that it is unconditionally wrong to Jay-walk? No.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

But if you get hit by a car while doing so do you have the right to sue or even complain?

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I am of the belief that as a FIRSTer, rules are set in place for a reason. They have been carefully processed and thought about before being implemented.
There is also a system in place to question the rules, asking for further explanation or consideration. Regarding FIRST, I believe in following the rules and in mentoring students in FIRST to not only follow the rules but to respect the rules and the people of FIRST who have carefully thought about, developed, and implemented them.

Regarding rules and laws in general, I follow them. Society grows and develops with each generation, changing laws and rules as we go. I pay attention, I participate, I vote.

Jane

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Exactly. The rule was created to protect people. Not do them harm, or give certain people unfair advantages. It is therefore a perfectly reasonable law and should be followed.

If you want another example, take file sharing. File sharing used to be legal. But was it moral? You were essentially stealing things, which you should never do.


It all depends on how obvious the rules are. Some of the "dumb rules" I gave examples of are probably completely reasonable. They were enacted to solve a problem. Such as local kids tormenting endangered lizards in a nearby park. But to us they sound crazy.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

No, I don't have the right to sue, but that doesn't matter because I only cross the road when no cars are coming. In that instance, it was O.K. to jay walk. THERE ARE NO UNCONDITIONALLY CORRECT LAWS.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

File sharing also came with inherited risks of virus while "reputable" vendors would not do so because destroying a customer's computer would cut down return business by significant amount. There is a give and take on anything you do.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I've seen people who have walked straight out into the road when cars were coming. I've heard one guy tell his friend "It's OK. He'll stop or else we'll own him."
Or you're kids will if you don't survive the impact.
There is one unconditionally correct law. It's called the law of physics.
Such as two objects cannot occupy a space At the same time.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. no Governmental Law, I took for granted that nobody would take that wrong.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I think that we're debating something much bigger than breaking rules. We're essentially trying to debate the very essence of what is right and what is wrong. We're going to have some very different opinions on that and I don't think a general resolution can really be reached.

My opinion is that you should do the right thing. What you think the right thing is will be different for everyone, since again, "the right thing" could be defined as a lot of things for a lot of reasons. One thing I do try to do everyday though, even if it is small, is to "Do a Good Turn Daily." Yes, that is the Scout Slogan, and it's a pretty easy and basic thing to do. If everyone did one good thing for someone else, the world would be a pretty friendly place.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Are there really endangered lizards in the U.S.? I just think of lizards as things from a completely different part of the world, because I never see them here in PA...

anyway. Laws apply wherever and whenever they should (as defined by themselves and other laws). If there's some special case that warrants an exception, that will be determined by a judge--but you can still be arrested for jaywalking and you still probably won't win a lawsuit if you're hit by a car. The law isn't necessarily unconditionally correct, but it does unconditionally apply.

I admit that I'm the kind of person who would question and challenge rules or statements I'm given, but I recognize that even if a law is unreasonable it still has to be honored to "maintain order."

Back to the poll...I agree that I should never break a rule as a FIRSTer, as a member of my team, as a leader, and as a student. Breaking rules is wrong. Once in a while it happens anyway, and when I do break a rule, I usually willingly take the risk of suffering consequences. Nonetheless, it's never OK.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I think that he's thinking on a bigger scale than FIRST. A blanket statement that all rules must be followed ignores, for example, the obvious moral dilemma encountered by the many who despised slavery, and wanted to facilitate the escape of slaves. Should they have merely lobbied to change the rules, to the exclusion of all illegal activity (e.g. participation in the Underground Railroad)? Would that have been the morally upstanding thing to do? And how were they supposed to weigh the morality of their options, when the effects of legal, peaceful lobbying on an unsympathetic government were anything but assured—what if years of protest came to nothing, and as a result of taking the strictly legal path, thousands lived those years in slavery because nobody came to their aid?

Consider that morals are not absolute and universal, except in the twisted imaginings of religious fanatics and totalitarians. While our society (as in, Western civilization) is founded upon some important principles, they are expressed with varying fervour and effect wherever you go.

Now, if we step back into the world of FIRST, rather than the world in general, I think that the practice of following rules becomes a little clearer. In life in general, we have the nebulous idea of a social contract to force us to abide by the rules. Our options for "taking our ball, and going home" are very limited in real life—we can't easily declare part of western New York to be a No-Rules Zone, and therefore exempt ourselves from society's judgment. But in FIRST, we're participating because we want to. I can't say that it's unreasonable to presume that we have given (at the very least) implied consent to be bound by the rules set forth by FIRST, and enforced by its officials. If we don't like them, and can't abide by following them, we can take our ball and go home. But doing that doesn't make for good sport. And furthermore, in FIRST, there is a reasonably reliable way to effect change, if the reasons behind it are good enough.

As for the poll? Well, unsurprisingly, I think that it's an inadequate way to summarize one of the big questions of philosophy. Especially when indiviuals' motivations for their answers (and similarly, their actions) are not simple in the slightest. One look at Kohlberg, and you'll see what I mean.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Without considering the morality of creating and breaking rules, I wanted to point out that there are considerable figures of history that are known and admired precisely because they broke the rules. Surely, we'd not condemn as immoral folks like Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gandhi, Samuel Adams or Martin Luther King, Jr., would we?

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Of course the world is flat. It is because we say it is, and that makes it true.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

What does that have to do with the price of tea in CHina?

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

That is ture.
Without King I would never even to be able to participate in FIRST.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Those people are known for using civil disobedience. I believe that Gandhi (I remember reading something about this, but I don't know what; could have been Martin Luther King Jr.) wrote that civil disobedience is only acceptable when used against unjust laws. An "unjust law" would be defined as something that takes away someone's right(s), while the people at loss don't have the voice to change the law or speak against it. Gandhi and Martin Luther King didn't fight against laws simply because they disliked them.

So I would reconsider what I originally said about that people should never challenge a law.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

To suggest breaking rules can be broken down to a poll is very narrow minded. My main problem is not if rules are ment to be broken or even if they should, but this poll. The poll is lopsided and biased. Lets discuss and not break down people and single them out.

I break some rules and I love it, not for the thrill, but for the fact it progresses what others and I know.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I'm pretty sure it was Ghandi. And it applies to oppression. It comes close to the argument at hand, and could possibly be the argument at hand. In that case, it has been discussed.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

We all know that we can build better robots with more motors, better pneumatics and more weight. Does this mean that it is OK to break the rules to progress these areas?

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Before I contribute one of my monster posts to this thread, I have a question for Steve.

Does your poll apply for ALL rules (including the laws of our country)? Or does it just apply to the rules within FIRST?

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Steve W, are you trying to make roboticsguy1988 feel guilty about smuggling in a pack of Mountain Dew into an arena?

Yeah, I understand what you are saying about how if you break a rule, you shouldn't be announcing it on Chief Delphi, where authorities around where you live can check to see if you have done anything wrong.

I think there is a bit of biased judgement here. Not too long ago this thread was up and everyone could see it. Tytus is clearly breaking a rule that's far more dangerous than kids smuggling Mt. Dew into a convention center, and then posting it on Chief Delphi. Sure, he wasn't intending to post a picture of him doing 85 MPH, but it's still there.

Tytus is a mentor
roboticsguy1988 is, or recently was, a student. (If I am not mistaken. I'm judging his age based on the "1988" on the end of his username)

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I believe that is up to the individual to decide. I have been charged with placing a biased poll and that is not my intent. I would just like a cross section of views (and stands) on peoples thoughts. The questionnaire does not post names so that people can be honest without others condemning them. Interpret and vote as you feel led.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

As for Tytus and his post, a great many people already had mentioned the fact of his breaking the law and showing it. I did not post as I had nothing more to add.

As for Roboticsguy1988, we have had a few PM's going back and forth and I believe that we are cool. If he wishes to share that is OK with me. I did not post to make him feel bad about "smuggling in a pack of Mountain Dew into an arena" but rather to bring up the fact that we should not be breaking rules.

I will expand a bit on our discussions. It seems that there was no rule about no soda. By the thread title it was perceived that the soda was "smuggled" in which only would be done if not legal. The fact was that the title was to attract attention to the picture not to flaunt a wrong. Both he and I have learned from this exchange and I know that I have benefited from it.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Tytus was a student when he posted it.
It's no excuse and Tytus has even apologized for careless mistakes he has made that had caused him grievous injury (the awful potato gun incident).
I have learned with kids is that they are prone to bad decisions (thus the need for rules) and as mentors we have to steer them in the right direction so they don't have disaster befall upon them or post their mistakes on CD.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Alright, I understand your views.

It seemed to me that you were trying to "make him feel guilty" by creating a poll about legal matters and such. I had a similar situation involving FIRST, but it's not like we were breaking any rules or anything, still I avoided posting it on Chief Delphi due to matters similar to this one. People assuming I broke the law, and thus leading to some huge discussion about stuff that doesn't matter.

I'm just going to stop talking because I've already added more to an discussion I don't think is necessary.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I dont really think I can honestly answer this poll either. While I do try my best in most cases to follow rules & laws, I cant say I always do. Usually it isnt out of blatant disregard for rules, but out of common sense & moral judgement like most have mentioned in this post. We broke a venue rule this year because we didnt want to have to pay $15 per kid for enough water to keep the drive team from dehydrating and passing out. We broke the venue rule of bringing food in because our pit crew had to work until 8pm and they closed the food stand at 4pm. We knew the rules and broke them. I knew the rules and allowed my team to break them, so I dont feel that I can pass judgement that all other FIRSTers should NOT break rules. Personally, I dont think it has to do with getting caught. For me, its safety. I know that my drive team cant afford to pay for the $3/bottle venue water for the whole day, I know that my pit crew is too dedicated to leave the venue to go eat when we really need to get something done. They are self sacrificing and I refuse to let them obtain physical harm because of it, nor am I going to let the whole team down to force "mothering" onto them.

Funny thing is, I would never let my team break a FIRST competition rule. I am able to see the point behind all of the rules, and none of the FIRST rules will cause physical harm to my team. I dont let them work outside the windows, I wont encourage them to ram another team if a judge isnt looking, I wont let them add weight after they have passed inspection (without reweighing). But FIRST is a game, it isnt real life, a rule in the FIRST game isnt going to make one of my team members pass out.

As for rules/laws in general I end up with the same aspect as venue rules. Do I go 5 miles over the speed limit? Yeah, I feel safe driving at that speed. Do I go 50 miles over? No... its definitely NOT safe to do that. Do I use a handsfree device? 95% of the time yes, have I not been able to find it and picked up my phone? Yes if Im in a place where it wont cause me to get in an accident. Did I do things in HS & College that werent legal? Yes, but I did it with safety in mind. Does that make it right? No. But can I preach that others should still uphold in that case? I dont feel I should. I dont like the "do as I say not as I do" statement. Would I tell a kid never to get in a car with someone who has been drinking? Heck yes... that isnt a law, but its common sense & safety. Do I have a Stop DWI magnet on my car? Yes, because I feel it is unsafe. Again, I dont say that its right for me to break any laws or rules, but Im going to live my life by judgement and common sense.

I realize the team forums are a place we can question rules, but it seems that there are some rules that they wont answer about. For example, how is it safer to have a team lug 100lb toolboxes down steep stairs into a venue instead of letting them go into the loading dock? How can a venue ban food, but then close their foodcourts 4 hours before the close of the venue? How can a venue not allow teams to bring in water bottles so they can charge $3 per pop? We actually did ask FIRST officials to give us permission to bring food in when our pit crew was starving, but it took them over 40 minutes to give us approval (I had already sent parents out to get food by then). I think honestly the answers are that FIRST has gotten too big and too corporate to have control over these things. Insurance and venue restrictions kick in. When they could hold it in a HS gym, no one cared where teams loaded in as long as they were safe about it, no one cared if they brought in water bottles or food, as long as they picked up after themselves.

I guess in close, I wish I could say that FIRSTers should always uphold rules, but I feel more that they should always act morally. If we raise them right, they will have a conscience, and if they go by that, they will do what is right. I want my kids to think for themselves, and if that causes them to break a rule every once in a while, then I know they are human, and I will forgive them for it.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

If anyone's beliefs truly violate "the rules" then they will break those rules without question. For example, a person who goes back in time to kill Hitler would likely be sent to prison, maybe for life, but his or her beliefs were obviously strong enough for them to handle the consequences. As far as getting away with breaking the rules goes, nobody escapes justice. Perhaps if you're "feeling picked on" this can be related to a violation of one's moral grounds.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Rules/laws are contracts between those in authority and those under control. They are created to make life more predictable. Nothing more, nothing less.

Explination:
Following them is a choice, if you "break the rules" on something, just know that you had better be careful because if something goes wrong you are fully responsible for the consiquences if something goes wrong. Breaking rules not wrong, but very foolish in many cases. When you work "outside the rules" you are pretty much putting yourself into the hands of whatever authority figure happens to be in charge, and whatever they are feeling at the moment.

Before they came up with the ideas of laws, rulers did whatever they wanted, and people did whatever they wanted. If the people crossed the rulers or his wishes, they were subject to whatever he felt like doing. This generally worked out ok, except for the cases in which people were put to death because they annoyed the rulers.

When you break rules, you are reverting to a more primitave system of control. In some situations this is fine, many don't care, in others this can be very dangerous. The degree in which you break the rules will also entail the degree of the freedom those dealing with you have in assigning the consiquences. When you are working outside the rules, punishment can also be outside the rules.

Some rules are meant to be broken, just today you've probibly violated a few dozen obscure laws and regulations written down somewhere. (Like Hachiban VIII was saying about a law about annoying lizzards in a park). And all that means is that you are leaving more of your personal freedom in the hands and feelings of those that created those laws. In most cases, they just don't care. But if there is some city cop who is hell-bent on avenging those annoyed lizzards, be careful because he's got the full weight of the law behind him.

Morality:
As for the moral comparisons with breaking rules against murder and such. Those go along a similar thread, but you've got to establish a lot of things with morality and such before you can discuss that. Morality is inexplicably tied in with religion and discussions of God, and is difficult to discuss without going there. It is a very important part of this arguement. But is a very very long post, which I'm not sure I'd like to delve into.

Your guy's choice whether or not to take the thread in that direction.

Conclusion:
Rules/laws are merely contracts between those under control and those in authority. Breaking those rules/laws, places you into a more primative system of emotions and whims of those in control. Which can be ok, but can also be very foolish.


Following the rules is a choice, not a moral obligation.




BTW: Within the context of FIRST, games are only fun so long as everyone follows the rules, so I fully advocate for the full enforcement of clearly written rules to the tiniest detail. Within the context of venue rules and choices, (no internet???!!!), I don't have nearly the same respect for arbitrary regulations.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I absolutely absolutely absolutely HATE that statement and how it can be used by people for unethical activites. Rules exist for a reason. They are created with a purpose. You may or may not agree to that purpose. This gives people two choices: Knowingly abide by the rule or willfully break it. If you break it, then fess up and take responsiblity for your consequences.

One could make this into a philosophical arguement along the lines of if a tree fell in the forest, does it make a sound. Regardless of if you believe in a higher power such as god or retrubution for your actions, the simple fact is that YOU know it happened: the tree has fallen. Such a statement is about avoiding consequences and your right, people are going to not get caught. You are still guilty of the deed. To me the deed, the action, the intent, the modivation are all far more important than the consequence for they measure the type of person you are.

Show some back bone, display maturity and own up to your actions. All ways always remember that those actions will have the direct influence on others, even if they never become aware of it. Do I bend, break, or not stand for the rules every moment of life? Of course not. Yet that does not matter, nor is it hypocritical, because it is the idea (and living true to that ideal) that matters. For me personally, it is also a issue of personal honor which is something that seems soarly lacking in this modern age.

A friend of mine argued with me what is the point in being honorable conciously knowing that the other person will not be so: that is puts you at the disadvanage and for it you will lose. Well I'm sorrying, if winning is that important to you then that is your problem. Losing with dignity is not losing, at least in my mind. There are more important things than winning such as being a better person for that is winning at life. And yes, I feel this applies at all levels be it the small day to day rules or life and death situations.

There was an example I glossed over about Slavery and the Civil Rights Movement. There are and were morally unethical rules on the books. Those people choose to break the rules !and accept the conquences for them! in order to promote social and political change. The point was to break the rules and get caught so that people would have to deal with issues at hand. Dr. Kings freely accepted resposiblity for his actions which latter resulted in one of his greatest papers coming from jail. The movement was not about shirking responsiblity, it was about awareness in a peaceful fashion.

So after such a long rant, I'm sure the question that needs to be answered is do I speed? Yes, abslutely on a near day to day basis. However, I drive with control and feel as though no ones life is in danger. I am willfully breaking the law to make my life easier. Its a very selfish thing to do. Nor have I been caught. The important difference that I am trying to make clear is that when I am caught, I am not going to haggle with the police officer. I'll take my ticket, pay my fine, and do it with a semismile for these are the results that ultimately I have chosen for myself.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I gotta play devils advocate on this one.

If you break the rules, and nobody can tell / you dont get caught, then what difference does it make?

We are talking about rules that were created by humans - I am also a human with an equal capacity for discernment and intelligence. The people who wrote/created the rule used their best judgement at the time. When I am in a situation where following the rule is a problem, I may have specific information, or be in situation they did not consider.

To put it another way, Jesus said "The Sabboth was made for man, man was not made for the Sabboth". Rules exist for our benefit, in general situations. When a situation arises where that same rule is going to do more harm than good, then we are intelligent beings, we should do the right thing based on our knowledge and assessment of the situation

not based on what someone wrote on a piece of paper at some point the past.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Those who'd rather read than post may enjoy the classic, ancient take on the timeless question, "what is justice?"

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Many have posted that it OK as long as you feel it is and are willing to pay the penalty. Some said that they would never break a FIRST rule. What makes the difference between a FIRST rule and any other? If it is because it's a game then doesn't that make it less important than real life? If you become good at breaking some rules, won't it be easier to break others? Does the fact that you are knowingly willing to break rules have a negative impact on those that we are trying to change?

If you know me then you know that I have a few slight flaws (please no comments). You will also know that I fight hard to get rules changed if I do not believe in them. I do however at some point concede to the "Law Makers" and play under those rules. I have enjoyed the input so far. I may not agree but that is OK too. That is one of the great things about FIRSTers and CDers. We can discuss, debate and still remain friends.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Yes, the outside world affects what happens in this organization, but the game is much simpler than real life. The manual for our game is long, but the manual for the game of life is infinitely longer, and infinitely diverse between people and cultures. Though FIRST and the real world are comparable, they are not identical.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

A game's rules are artificial. To a large extent, the game only works if the rules are followed. Because nobody can think of all possible ways someone might cheat, not all rule-breaking has defined consequences. If one breaks a rule in some games, the game itself fails, and everyone loses.

Real life has natural rules which automatically enforce natural consequences. Legislated rules have legal consequences. That makes a big difference.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Ken, all rules are in the interest of someone. It just seems that if they are not in "my best interest" then they can be discarded.

To be truthful I am a bit surprised by some of the answers especially mentors. We are suppose to be setting examples and yet we are condoning breaking rules. Can a mentor honestly expect a student to hear them say we must follow FIRST's rules but it is OK to break a venues (which is also a FIRST rule). It just seems to be an opposing dilemma.

I read a saying once that said something like this. If I can't live up to the standards I lower them so I don't feel guilty.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

With all due respect, I as a student disagree. My mentors are role models for me not because they blindly follow rules, but because they teach me to think them through. One mentor said a few posts ago that she breaks the rule so that her students stay just a bit healthier. That mentors care about us that much, it means a lot: it shows us that we are valued as friends, not just as students.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Steve,
Personally, I look at every rule just as I do every persons actions. I try very hard to see the reasoning behind it. To me, FIRST rules make sense, they are for safety, for the excitement of the game, to keep the playing field level amongst all teams.

I even understand that venues need to make money to survive, and that FIRST has no control over this. I understand the "no bringing food in" rule, because they need to make money. Its capitalism at its finest. Most of us know that a hot dog, a roll, and a napkin doesnt cost $4.50. But its the law of supply and demand. If they have the only supply, they can charge whatever the demand will support. BUT, when the rule is made, and no thought is given to the fact that the building is open 4 hours later than they are, the reason for the rule falls away. Now it is just a rule for a rule's sake. Its not because people arent allowed to eat in the venue, 4 hours ago, they were eating in the venue. Boston had the same rule, but they were open as long as we were there, so I sent my team outside to eat if they had a problem paying the price. In FLR I tried to get "permission" from FIRST, but it was still a rule I was breaking.

This is just one example. I dont break many rules on purpose, but as I have said before, I try and use common sense. But in the end I am human, and I am going to watch out for my team. To me, they come above any consequences I would have to endure. Fine me $1000, if that means my team has food and water while they are doing something they love, so be it.

For those that answer "we are FIRSTers, we should never break rules", have you never in your life broken a rule? Or will you just not admit it in front of your team, your students, or the CD community?

And Im really sorry to dissappoint, but Im human, not a god, I am not going to pretend I am perfect, but I do have a brain with which I try to reason.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

Yes, they can. If anything, I would only look up to that mentor more for thinking things through and realizing how much money would be saved by not wasting it and planning ahead. A mentor that saves me time and money and gives me the best experience possible is a great mentor.

Exactly. In my opinion, it's common sense not to pay that much money for food that you could get a lot cheaper somewhere else. If that means you have to break a rule to do it, then so be it. We're not all autonomous robots who are preprogrammed to always follow rules blindly regardless of what they are.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I agree with Kim.

I think myself as a mentor I hold a tier based system for what rules I’d like to follow. Whether I follow or break a rule depends upon a choice that I make after weighing the options on my tier based value system.

For instance, I have never violated a FIRT rule that would give my team a competitive advantage out on the field. That means no extra weight, no extra time, no onboard super computers, etc. However, if someone on my team was bringing food or drink into the venue I would look the other way.

Like Kim, I have real problems with the venues that have certain food and drink policies. The Manchester Regional- I can’t stand it. Nothing frosts me more than being told I can’t bring food and drink into a facility when they don’t have food and drink available. Drinking from the water fountain is not an alternative; I might as well drink from the toilet in the bathroom. Those of us with germ phobias prefer reasonable options. The Boston Regional had a vendor always open selling drinks and pre-made sandwiches. I thought that was great.

Sometimes in Boston I will run red lights. Not because I enjoy breaking the law. If an ambulance is trying to rush someone to the hospital and the only way he is making it through the intersection is if I run the red light. Should I decrease the person’s likelihood of survival because I don’t want to break the law? No way.

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

There are many people who get through life by taking advantage of other people. They know they are doing this, it is the path they have chosen.

Telling me I have to allow them to take advantage of me, because they 'have a rule' or 'its our policy' carries as much weight with me as 'because I said so'.

We pride our selves on freedom, independance and self reliance. If someone else creates a situation where they hold all the cards, the game is rigged from the start. They are not playing fair, why would I be required to go along with it?

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

You always have the option of not going or eating outside of the venue. Do you realize that if all teams planning on going to an event refused to sign up till the issue was dealt with then something might happen. As long as teams continue to go then FIRST will have no reason or data to back up claims.

I was just wondering how many of those complaining of high prices still go to the theatre or sporting event and pay the same prices (or higher)?

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

I think you've touched on one of the great conundrums of life. Most of us are very good at following the rules of the "game" no matter what game it is. Football, FIRST, chess, monopoly... if you don't follow the rules, you are called a cheat.

But in the game of life (real life, not the board game) we are ingrained with the need to push the limits of what is permitted. How many times is a toddler told NO! for doing the same action over and over? As we grow we learn when it is ok to bend the rules and when it is not. When is a lie a "little white lie" and when is it a "big fat lie"? Aren't they both lies? Why is sarcasm ok, when for the most part it is actually just plain old lying? My children were actually told by the driver's ed teachers how much they could speed without getting caught. Does that make it ok to speed? It's all so confusing.

And then suddenly we are adults and in FIRST get this magical title of "Mentor." Do we suddenly become better people? Do we now have all the answers? I think most mentors are hooked on FIRST because they can share some of their expertise with the next generation. I doubt that FIRST would have very many mentors if "Moral Compass" was substituted for the title of "Mentor." I think we get it that we need to be role models in general, but as humans, to me the most important part of being a role model is being able to apologize for screwing up.

I like the idea of GP for this reason, it reminds us of the human factor, that we are all trying to find a way to get along, to compete fairly, to achieve common goals...to make our grandmothers proud!

Re: Poll - Legalities
 

This is spilling into the thread that was split off - these venues that FIRST uses for 9am to ~7PM 3 day events are normally used for 2.5 hr basketball games or other short duration programs.

I like hot dogs - I have no problem nibbling on a $4 hot dog for a snack between meals every once in a while, if I have 3 decent meals and the rest of my day I can follow my normal eating habits

but if I am 'stuck' in a building for 10 hours a day, 3 days in a row, then typical conscession stand food doenst cut it - not even close.

When I goto a movie I have no sense of guilt whatsoever if I walk in with a bag of M&Ms in my pocket - or not. Its a 90 minute movie - no big deal.

But I know I can buy a pound of M&Ms at Wegmans for $2.50, or I can buy a 1 oz bag of M&Ms at a regional for $1 - and Im going to be there for 3 days....

Hmmmmm....... 6.4 times the price per pound at the event... what to do, what to do?