Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

Dear Chief Delphi Community,

Re-reading the rule book, I came across the following rule in the 2006 Manual, Section Five:

This rule seems to be saying that you can't copy-paste sections of old code into your new robot's brain. My first question is, is that the way everyone else sees it? What do you think this rule means?

My second question is this: what constitutes violation of the spirit of the rule versus the letter of the rule, and is such a violation acceptable to *you*? It seems to me that you could follow the letter of this rule while easily sidestepping the spirit. In general, is it acceptable to dodge around a rule you simply don't like?

Thanks for your input,
Paul Dennis
Team 1719

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

Well.

My team has used the same PID algorithm two years in a row. But, it was pretty much a standard one we got out of a book anyway. All the implementation and the gains were different, but that was still the same. I don't see this as violating the rules because the only way around it would be to intentionally changing the algorithm just so we can use it.

Also, code that we used from someone else may have been used twice. I think we may have unintentionally violated this rule with Kevin W's code, but I'm not sure if that counts.


Really, in most situations it wouldn't even be possible to simply copy and paste previous years' code.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

I don't see how it should be seen as acceptable for anyone to "bend" the rules, even if you do "get away with it".

Following the rules goes hand in hand with GP, so the answer seems pretty simple to me.

New year = all new code.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

This rule is written with no possible way to enforce it, so technical legal obligation are meaningless in this argument.

It seems that the spirit of the rule is to encourage learning and development by writing fresh software every year instead of having one good programmer write code that you can pretty much use every year.


My answer to the last question of "is it acceptable to dodge a rule you simply dont like" is yes. I do believe that too many people are into the cult of FIRST rather than the actual issue of the things they are supposed to teach, i.e. technical expertise, programming expertise, or actual robotics. Following this type of rule to the letter represents being too caught up with the organization of FIRST and not necessarily what it teaches.

Rule violations will always happen, unitentional and intentional. Things break, changes in the pit almost always leave with some type of violations, and some teams have to knowingly use a diffent gauge wire when they only have 3 minutes to fix it, but that not the point. The point of this program is not to pay incredible attention and respect the infallibility of FIRST, but to learn from it. When people are too caught up in the cult of FIRST, I feel that we miss the important parts of the program as in the actual robotics part of it.




Anyway, that was kind of off topic, but it is the observations of a person who was always into the team and into the robotics, but never really a huge fan of the FIRST cult.

p.s. I always copy and paste lines of code. Its quite annoying to have to write entire drive algorithms over again when you have the same drive train.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

"Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are."
-Franklin D. Roosevelt

The rules aren't always right. Respect the intent, not the letter. Etc. etc.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

I see this as saying you can't copy paste entire control systems from a previous year, not a section (since copying a section and then adding new stuff to it would be classified as "altering" it in my opinion).

If you were to say using any previous year's code was against the rules, that would mean you really couldn't even use past years as reference, since you would invariably end up having at least 1 line in common with it. I think they just want you to figure out how the program works from the past and add your own style to it, rather than importing whole files for drivetrain, arm control, etc.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

I thought cut and paste programing was a standard practice. Just let the lawyers haggle over the Intellectual Property stuff.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

I can agree with that one. Software engineering isnt exactly the same thing as hardware engineering. I also think its kind of hard to use the exact same code for every years robot so the rule is self surviving. Although, if you're talking about simply mapping inputs to ports which is even done in the default code, copying and pasting isnt really a big deal.

I think the rule is geared towards more complex software. Maybe a personal software for camera? I don't know. The rule doesnt entirely make sense right now but maybe it will in the future.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

I think the rule is terrible, and the reasoning given for its creation is nice to listen to, but reaches a flawed conclusion.

:rolleyes:

Tangent about rules: the worst thing (in my opinion) about rules that have to be followed is the effect they have when they steer you to the edge of a cliff, and then tell you that you have to jump off. Absolutely painful to endure. This software reuse rule isn't that bad, but with all the bad rules being enforced in my daily life, this tangent was a must-take for me.

If you have old useful code that you will have to rewrite from scratch, then please be careful! Its really easy to make a mistake..

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

Your answer reminds me of what an acquaintance said when asked what was his definition of a cult: "A cult is any religious group I don't like." :)

I see a serious problem with your answer, however. When people "dodge" a rule they "simply don't like," the results are often damaging to society. Political scandals, felonies, skyrocketing teen pregnancy rates, automobile fatalities--these are often consequences of people breaking rules they "simply don't like." Calling the party that sets the rules a "cult" (or any other label) does not justify breaking the rules--particularly if you participate in that group voluntarily. The only ethical grounds for deliberately breaking a rule is when the rule violates a higher standard.

People with long experience in FIRST know that sometimes the rules could be more clearly written, and there is often room for interpretation. But breaking rules merely for personal convenience is more than a failure in exercising Gracious Professionalism--it is an attitude that can lead to anarchy, a society in chaos.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

Karen,

There's a difference between breaking a rule that you see as simply an inconvenience and breaking a rule that you know you shouldn't break. For example, we all know it's wrong to steal from people - massive violation of this rule would result in the anarchy you describe. But how would breaking this rule lead to anarchy?

Confused

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

Would you like to review your answer now that you see it in print? There is no way it is acceptable to violate a rule you don't like or that you don't believe. This one isn't even that hard to implement. Just retype... One thing all team members must understand is that the rule book is what draws us all together by making us follow the same path. When we accomplish great things by following the same rules as everyone else we show everyone that it is possible. If you don't like the rules then consider them a false set of real world constraints, like gravity. By avoiding the rules you are telling your students it is acceptable to violate any rule they don't like. There is no 'almost right' in this question, there is no 'it's alright if I don't like it' to this question. And there is no 'if no one knows then it's alright' to this question. A violation of the rules is a violation.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

FIRST is not just about robotics. I believe that it has a higher standard. Gracious Professionalism is just part of it. There have been many threads about following rules. I will state again here that a rule is a rule. It is meant to be followed. It is there for a reason. It can be changed if the powers that be deem that you have a valid point. It is wrong to intentionally break a rule. It is a violation even if it is not intentional. If you break rules then you must live with the consequences.

It is also your responsibility to pay attention to all of the details. If you don't in the real world then you won't last long. As for people being caught up in the "cult" of FIRST, that is not a bad thing. Being caught up on ones self and putting them self above all others is.

I am glad to see that you admit breaking the rules. This will make it easier for the inspectors to find those who intentionally break the rules.

Is it a good rule? Probably not but it is still a rule. It holds the same intent and validity as only 4 CIM motors.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

Note to 2007 inspectors: Be on the lookout for Poof Ball shooting robots! ;)

Seriously, we need to follow the rules – even this one – in order to show respect and fair play toward the competition. If we succeeded in breaking a rule and later succeed in wining a match or three, then what have we won? None of us should want to cheat our way to hollow victory. It is way better, win or loose, to have played fair.

Acting up about this rule isn’t like the Founding Fathers tossing tea into Boston Harbor, or Rosa Parks sitting where she pleased. This is not about tyranny or oppression; it’s about honesty and fair play. Feel free to speak up against it, but respect us all enough to follow it.

Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?
 

Do you really think that simply re-typing the code would satisfy the rule? If so, that's fine. I respect your interpretation of the rule; I'm just looking for some clarification. How would re-typing the same thing be better than copy-paste?

If the rule book is really what draws us together, then FIRST is a sad organization indeed. Thankfully, I don't believe that our FIRST credo and over one-thousand teams can be summed up into one hundred pages of rules, from non-functional decoration to pneumatics. Is it possible you meant something different from this and I'm reading too much into what you said?

To all those who are saying that following this rule constitutes fair play (and there seem to be quite a few such people), imagine a rule saying that before every meeting, teams must do the chicken dance. Would you still make a "fair play" argument? I suppose that there's some time gained or lost in not doing/doing the chicken dance (as there is in re-using old code directly or re-typing it, as Al S suggests), but is this really what the rule is about?

What do you guys see as the purpose of this rule, and what would be the purpose of a violation? Many people seem to think the intent of a violation is to cheat to get a leg up on hard-working teams following the rule. Is this the case?

Still confused,
Paul Dennis
Team 1719