Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxboy
EricH, While it seems that going to the head ref could have yielded the same result, I think its just as likely that the ref (along with the FTA) may have chosen to hear the student out and see a demonstration.
|
It's just as likely, yes. But what you missed is this:
By the time the student has told the ref, who has told the FTA, you have the following chain:
1) Mentor thinks there may have been a DoS attack. (or other issue)
2) Mentor tells student to tell the ref that there may have been a DoS attack.
3) Student tells ref that there may have been a DoS attack, and the FTA may want to know about it.
4) Ref tells FTA (if the FTA isn't already there listening).
That's a minimum of twice removed, on a suspicion. The FTA is going crazy trying to figure out what's going on--and remember, all eyes are on the FTA and his crew (normally they blend into the background, or are supposed to). And, remember, there's an alert that is supposed to catch DoS attacks and it
hasn't gone off.
If I'm the FTA, I'm likely to go, "Tell your mentor that there wasn't one detected and we're trying to get to the bottom of this" and get back to trying to get to the bottom of the problem. It won't be until the second match at least that I look at it and go "Hey, there might be something to what that kid was saying his mentor thought. Now what team was he on again?"
Now, if the student was there and said, "We think someone tampered with a robot during a match by this process, which you might not be able to detect", the FTA would be a whole lot more likely to take action, because a) they now have an idea that their detectors aren't working and b) they have something concrete that they can look for if the logs haven't disappeared yet. But that whole thing involves a mentor explaining the process to a student, which takes time.