Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering
Hi folks,
Let's tone this down a bit.
As pointed out above, the teams that saw an opportunity to withold a lightweight robot and possibly do so within the rules, asked for clarification in the Q&A, just as they were supposed to.
The question that was asked was very clear. The answer, unfortunately, was not. Based on the "what goes in the witholding allowance is up to you" answer, I honestly thought that it was okay to bring a lightweight robot to the competition with you... and I thought it was a really good answer.
So I have empathy for the teams who honestly believed that this was the intent of the answer. I know I did! The tradeoff of a light weight robot for increased build time struck me as a fair and reasonable engineering decision for a team to make.
I also have empathy for FIRST and the GDC, who attempt to answer questions quickly, and in the best interests of all involved with FIRST. Looking back, I am sure they wish they had included the "but you must ship a robot" clarification with the first Q&A response on the topic.
While it appears to me that FIRST has, in deed, if not in word, reversed the Feb. 16 Q&A response, I can also see how... from another persepective... their answers are logically consistant, even if the inital answer was somewhat ambiguous.
What is doubly unfortunate is that this issue revolves around the witholding limit, which is a great rule, and the increase in the witholding limit to compensate for the many teams that lost time to snow during build season. Making it triply unfortunate, of course, is the timing.
I hope that teams affected by this ruling are able to ship some significant part of their robot, then rebuild a duplicate of the shipped parts so that they can continue to make their robot better while complying with the rules of the game.
Jason
|
Thank you for your comment Jason. I'm glad that some people realized we were up front and clear about our intentions and wanted to ensure we were behaving under the principles of GP. I can understand why some people seem to be upset with us (you know who you are) and see our questions as a means of undermining the competition or trying to subversively gain an advantage. I simply don't see our behaviour as falling into that category. If you don't question a process, it cannot be improved. If you are not up front with your intentions then it can be considered subversive and/or contravening GP. I have seen many an example of this in past competitions but don't begrudge the fact. If I begrudge anything, it's how so darn hard it is to come up with the $ to participate and then compete against teams with tens of thousands of $ in their budget... especially those Board funded teams... but that's just petty jealousy on my part.
I would like to take this time to thank the GDC for considering our request and providing, at last, a very clear response in the latest team update. We are truly respectful and grateful for the time and efforts they put into this endeavour... and having to put up with some emotional participants
... but this simply represents the passion with which people take on this task... and that passion is a good thing.
Finally, as a low budget team ($6000 this year, starting with a $3000 deficit because we attended two competitions last year), we are compelled to specialize and innovate to make our robot sufficiently competitive to be attractive in the final "draft". We feel like we're the "Bad News Bears" pulling out all the stops in this competition. We also take our sponsorship seriously to the point of putting out our best effort with THEIR money. This includes looking at the rules and maximizing our potential LEGALLY AND UNDER THE SPIRIT OF GRACIOUS PROFESSIONALISM. I'm impressed when the team reads the documentation and the rules in detail (something I try to hammer into them), then comes up with a strategy which should legally assist the team to maximize it's potential. It is then decided to put the question out to see if it is a legitimate strategy under the provisions of FIRST. The original question was indeed concerning the original limit and not the 65 lb. limit. I must admit, I find it disheartening when some people feel we are trying subvert the contest or create controversy. I plea to them for some understanding.
'nuff said