[Tim Delles]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Hey, many of the rules can seem almost arbitrary and incompatible with the way some FIRST teams operate.

The "fix-it window" rule is a good example: last year you were allowed two 5-hour periods in which to upgrade, make spare parts or work on software. For some teams, that highly-constrained work period just couldn't work. If, during weekdays, the mentors couldn't show up until after 6 pm and the school or facility where you built the robot required you to leave by 9pm, you basically lost 40% of your fix-it window those days. FIRST could make it easier (and dare I say, more "fair") by allowing teams to have three "fix-it window" sessions with no more than 10 hours cumulative permitted. Under last year's rule, that wasn't an option.

Would you consider a team that worked 3 hours on two weeknights and four hours on Saturday to be taking unfair advantage of other teams? Could YOUR team rationalize this as meeting the spirit of the "fix-it window intent"? (I'm not saying that I know of teams that did this; we certainly didn't.)

As part of the FIRST community, we have the right (actually, the duty) to suggest that the FIRST rules have enough flexibilty to accommodate teams constraints without unduly penalizing them. Why put teams at a disadvantage via somewhat arbitrary rules intended to "level" the playing field?

Honor code is a great thing, but if some of the least enforceable rules seem arbitrarily over-constrained, the temptation to "skirt" them can drive teams down the path to rationalize their deviations from those rules. Once you start down that path, other rules can become victimized as well. I don't think that's where we want to go...

Mr. Brinza,

That is an excellent point and i back you completely on this. Even for our team it seemed diffucult to organize everything and everyone for 2 - 5 hour sessions. It would be nice to see FIRST allow 3 days with no more than 10 total hours.

Great thinking