View Single Post
  #96   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-03-2015, 11:29
jee7s jee7s is offline
Texan FIRSTer, ex-frc2789, ex-frc41
AKA: Jeffrey Erickson
FRC #6357
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Dripping Springs, TX
Posts: 319
jee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond reputejee7s has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
If you were on the GDC and had to answer the question, how would you answer it in order to allow teams to help each other but not do something like taking a second pick, handing them a ramp on a string, and saying "your going to add this now"? How do you, in a short and concise way, draw a line between what is acceptable and what isn't, while staying consistent with R1 and requiring that the robot be built by the team?

At some point, you have to rely on your trained key volunteers to interpret the rules correctly. There are many examples of rules we could list where some level of interpretation comes into play.
Personally, I'd answer it in the opposite way from how GDC answered it. I would not have been as draconian as they are. Probably, I would say that the initial inspection needs to be the robot in the bag plus the withholding allowance, but in the interest of fostering teamwork at the event, teams can collaborate on modifications at the event. This idea of strapping a substantial mechanism onto a partner robot isn't new. It's happened a bunch of times. One that stands out in my mind was Gatorzilla's frisbee dumper, which they attached to their second pick in elims in 2013. I had no qualms about that. Frankly, I thought it was a sound strategy to make a stronger alliance and better that alliance's chances at victory.

And, I'm not saying that interpretation is inappropriate. It's when "interpretation" goes beyond simply "what is the rule and how do I apply it to this situation" that I have a problem with. Respectfully, I feel that your interpretation exceeds those boundaries.

I read the text of the response to Q461 and come to the conclusion that, in perhaps an oversimplified sense, teams can't help other teams with any non-COTS item. So, as has been pointed out, that spare gear that a team broached, that miscut gusset, that shaft trimmed to length, speed controller with terminals attached, etc are all disallowed as a result of Q461. Period.

So, your comment here:

Quote:
I can help you by giving you a COTS part, even if there may have been a slight modification or two (like attaching connectors, assembling a gearbox in the standard, intended way, etc). In that case I'm not building anything, I'm giving you a COTS part that may be slightly used.
Is in direct opposition with GDC's answer of "no" in response to a team giving a component to another team that was brought into the event as part of the withholding allowance. The part you describe cannot be a COTS part since it has been modified from the COTS state. Ergo, that part must have been part of the giving team's withholding allowance (not COTS, not a raw material, therefore it must be a fabricated item). Making this exception for a "slight modification" is nowhere in the rules and goes beyond "interpretation" and into "rewriting". Very respectfully submitted, my humble opinion.
__________________

2013 Alamo Regional Woodie Flowers Finalist Award Winner
2012 Texas Robot Roundup Volunteer of the Year
Texas Robot Roundup Planning Committee, 2012-present
FRC 6357 Mentor, 2016-
FRC 2789 Mentor, 2009-2016 -- 2 Golds, 2 Silvers, 8 Regional Elimination Appearances

FRC 41 Mentor 2007-2009
FLL Mentor 2006
FRC 619 Mentor 2002
FRC 41 Student 1998-2000

Last edited by jee7s : 17-03-2015 at 11:31.
Reply With Quote