[gblake]

Originally Posted by ManicMechanic

As long as there is a generalized understanding in the FVC community that "public" means that posting pictures of other teams' robots is common practice and "fair game", it would be reasonable to do this.

No - Correct conclusion - Wrong reason.

As long as a robot is displayed in public it is reasonable to do this. Common sense tells us this. By what authority would anyone or any entity assert that sharing images or descriptions of objects displayed in public is unreasonable.

Originally Posted by ManicMechanic

In FLL, few teams post pictures of their own robots, let alone other robots, not because it's illegal, but because it's not "commonly done."

So... where is the empirical data to back up this assertion, I can think of several other reasons why published pictures of FLL robots might have been uncommon in the past. How many FLL communities have been examined in order to gather enough data to test the hypothesis you are advancing? Can you really defend this statement with anything other than your personal opinion and/or anecdotes?

Originally Posted by ManicMechanic

FVC is not FLL, but it's not FRC, either, and we in a newly emerging FVC community have the opportunity to determine what will become "common practice."

Common Practice is irrelevant, unless we want to use the "tyranny of the majority" to interfere with the smooth running of teams that 100% abide by all the FVC rules and tournament guidelines. Tread very cautiously here. I definitely prefer Constitutional Republics to pure Democracies.

Originally Posted by ManicMechanic

However, if posting pictures of other teams' robots is considered common and acceptable, it then should be acceptable for a team to use whatever legal means possible to safeguard its design if it chooses to, such as "saving" certain strategies for later tournaments or keeping the robot covered when it's off the field.

It simply doesn't matter if it is "considered" common and acceptable. It IS legal right now according to the documents that govern FVC. Therefore it IS acceptable already and shall be until those published rules and guidelines perhaps change. No one's (and no community's) permission is needed. This is the proverbial other side of the coin.

Originally Posted by ManicMechanic

Teams that employ these strategies or choose not to post pictures should not be considered "unsporting", but merely operating within the confines of the rules.

See above, on what basis would anyone form any other opinion?

Originally Posted by ManicMechanic

Of course, those teams that graciously share despite the knowledge that others may and will copy their designs are especially to be commended.

We certainly agree here. None of us stand alone. The ideas we are recycling stretch back beyond Pythagoras. If we don't think we owe far more than we "own"; then we are not as clever as we think.

Originally Posted by sovierr

Well, it seems the last few posts may have danced around the main issue:
Several FVC teams come with FRC experience, while several come with FLL experience (and some formed with no prior experience). The teams with no experience have no idea what the culture is. We need to forge a new culture for FVC.

"The culture" you speak of is a very, very evanescent thing. Like a fractal, the more closely you examine it, the more fractured and convoluted it becomes. And, it is also only barely relevant in this conversation.

The mushy, amorphous notion of a culture is not something to hang your hat upon here. Just look up through this entire thread, then look at threads covering similar (gracious professionalism-ish) topics. You will find many common lines of thinking among the handfuls of folks who like writing messages in discussion threads; but you will also find enough well-reasoned dissenting opinions to blow out of the water any notion of a homogeneous FIRST "culture" that knows the correct answers to all questions of this ilk.

What we need to guide us in this specific case is a framework of FVC rules and guidelines published by the proper authority, a dictionary that includes the definition of the word "public", and the unleashed creativity of thousands of students and mentors.

Originally Posted by sovierr

If we continue to have open ended build seasons, I understand and respect the desire for secrecy.

Even if we don't have open-ended build seasons I understand the desire for secrecy. Furthermore, I respect it until the secret is revealed. However, once the secret item is made public by its owner; then it is, by definition, no longer secret. Anyone who disagrees should get their dictionary out.

Originally Posted by sovierr

I also know that when we tweak something on our robot, it may take a day or two to find the optimal conditions before it is working well. A major overhaul takes a great deal of time before it would work. I can't imagine a team scrapping a robot and starting from scratch now.

Even if a team does attempt to clone an FVC robot at the "last minute"; first refer one more time to the definition of public. Then...

I say more power to them. It they can catch up with the results of weeks of refining and tuning the mechanical and software parts of design; and can beat the original machine's team at strategy and driving on the field; and can do all of that in a few hours using just a photo or two, or a video; then I bow to the masters!

Blake