Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams

[Cory]

A Q&A was posted as a spinoff from the ramps thread to clarify whether it would be legal to give other teams fabricated parts/assemblies that were 1) bagged with the giving team's robot at a previous event 2) brought into the event as part of the giving team's witholding allowance, or 3) fabricated at the event by the giving team.

That Q&A has been answered and seems to set a dangerous precedent that is contrary to FIRST's goals.

Things that are now seemingly illegal:

• Providing a battery to another team with leads installed (maybe not...the rules state that such assemblies do not have to be part of a witholding allowance and can be made prior to the start of the 6 week build season...but there is no specific exemption that says they do not count as ASSEMBLIES made by a giving team, per the Q&A response).
  
• Loaning an assembled COTS transmission to another team (versaplanetary, AM planetary, toughbox, etc)
  
• Loaning any motor with leads soldered to it or terminals attached to integral leads
  
• Loaning a speed controller with terminals attached to the output side
  
• Loaning a speed controller which has had the leads shortened
  
• Loaning any COTS item that has been modified (gear, sprocket, spacer, etc)
  
• Loaning a pneumatic cylinder with fittings attached
  
• Any part fabricated solely by the FIRST provided machine shop at the event (yeah, that sounds alarmist, but that Q&A specifically states that any fabricated part at the event that goes on their ROBOT must be fabricated by that team)
  
• Any part made by a giving team that brings portable drill presses/bandsaws/sanders/lathes/mills in their pit

That's just the list of things I could think of in about a minute. I'm sure there's countless other things you could add to it. Examples from previous years would include premade bumper segments for use by teams with non-compliant bumpers, or as Karthik has pointed out, making bumpers entirely for another team at the event.

It seems really hard to believe FIRST actually wants to be as harsh as they have indicated they will be. The easy answer is "stop lawyering the rules, clearly FIRST doesn't want to ban teams from loaning out the reasonable things listed above", but unfortunately the blanket statement as applied in the Q&A ruling makes that necessary.

Last year Team 1678 had an inbounder assist device they worked to modify many partners with to increase their ability to contribute to an alliance. They were widely (and rightfully) hailed for helping teams be competitive on the field. Other teams loaned spare shot blockers to their third partners in eliminations. In 2013 teams loaned out full court shooter blockers. There are plenty of other examples of teams loaning assemblies or fabricated parts to their partners (who can later become their opponents) going back to the beginning of FIRST.

I can understand if FIRST wanted to avoid a situation where a third partner on an eliminations alliance is asked to sit in a corner with a ramp tethered to them...but the answer they gave seems far too draconian and will only serve to further widen the gap between struggling teams and high performing teams. At the same time, FIRST also should not have created a game which basically encourages two high performing teams to either turn their third partner into a paperweight or take them off the field entirely.

[notmattlythgoe]

The easy answer is "stop lawyering the rules..."

This, this, and so much more this. All it does is lead to a very confusing and super strict ruleset.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

This, this, and so much more this. All it does is lead to a very confusing and super strict ruleset.

So do you intend to lend any of the items I've listed to other teams? If so, please explain how you feel your team will not be breaking the rules, as written?

[Thad House]

This could get ugly real quick. That seems like a catch all that has much higher implementations then FIRST expected.

Also, the thing about lawyering the rules is that it kind of has to be done, especially with the way Q&A likes to answer. If they would give straightforward answers, maybe there would be less lawyering.

[Libby K]

The best stories that come out of FIRST events are teams helping each other succeed. Looks (from this Q&A) like FIRST wants to squash that?! I don't like this one at all. Teams that, as Cory said, were previously hailed for being so helpful are now risking getting in trouble for their incredible work within their community.

I really, sincerely hope they revisit the intent behind this wording.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

This, this, and so much more this. All it does is lead to a very confusing and super strict ruleset.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

This is something we've done for years. Encouraging well-established and -funded teams to help struggling teams has been called out as the point of, among other things: the alliance system, the serpentine draft, and the chairman's award. It's not "lawyering" to wonder if this is what FRC wants us to stop.

Maybe this goes hand in hand with a game that makes it hard for an alliance's merely mobile third member to contribute meaningfully? If a robot that doesn't move is more valuable than one that does, are the established teams off the hook?

[Mr. Van]

Glad this thread got started. It seems clear to me that the intent of the rule clarification (which is what Q&A is supposed to be) is to prevent teams from building game solutions that are simply passed on to teams in order to specifically help the "giving" team.

The worst case example of this would be a "giving" team providing a mechanism to a team for a match and then taking that component back after that match so that it could be provided to the next alliance partner of the "giving" team.

If a team is helping other teams in general - in such a way that the "giving" team is not benefiting any more than any other at the event, I don't think there would be any specific problem. Helping a team build bumpers should still be fine. So should helping a team build a mechanism that they use going forward.

If a team is bringing a mechanism with the intent of only giving it to their alliance partner (or any other specific team) then there is a problem - for a host of reasons.

If you've brought a ramp (or any other mechanism) and are going to make it available to another team - it must be available to ALL teams.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

If a team is bringing a mechanism with the intent of only giving it to their alliance partner (or any other specific team) then there is a problem - for a host of reasons.

Please go on.

[Chris is me]

In an attempt to limit a really small, specific set of behaviors, FIRST has effectively made it illegal to help other teams with mechanisms. I get it, FIRST doesn't want it to be okay for Team B to bring in 20 pounds of parts that were always intended to be used by Team A (already at max withholding). But this is just the worst way to go about it. Cory's concerns are valid and completely accurate. Saying "inspectors are rational" and "people will apply common sense" isn't good enough. I'm not ready to bet my season on that. We need clear rules that err on the side of letting the teams play.

Chasing and distilling rulings to have such a remarkably narrow focus, because of small edge cases (practice robots in your trailer, teams trying to cheat the withholding allowance) is just hurting the teams that DO follow the rules. The cheaters are going to cheat regardless of what the rule is, but now on top of penalizing any team that has ever forgotten a robot part when initially unloading, they're penalizing *any team seeking help from another team at competition*. I know the GDC has a tough job, and I understand how frustrating these edge cases must be, but these rulings hurt all of us in an ultimately futile attempt to stop the very few.

One thing to add, with the minibot example - FIRST *made an award* for lending out fabricated assemblies to other teams in 2011, and now it's illegal. Not just "technically illegal" - clearly, unambiguously illegal. Think about that for a minute.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

In an attempt to limit a really small, specific set of behaviors, FIRST has effectively made it illegal to help other teams with mechanisms. I get it, FIRST doesn't want it to be okay for Team B to bring in 20 pounds of parts that were always intended to be used by Team A (already at max withholding). But this is just the worst way to go about it. Cory's concerns are valid and completely accurate. Saying "inspectors are rational" and "people will apply common sense" isn't good enough. I'm not ready to bet my season on that. We need clear rules that err on the side of letting the teams play.

Chasing and distilling rulings to have such a remarkably narrow focus, because of small edge cases (practice robots in your trailer, teams trying to cheat the withholding allowance) is just hurting the teams that DO follow the rules. The cheaters are going to cheat regardless of what the rule is, but now on top of penalizing any team that has ever forgotten a robot part when initially unloading, they're penalizing *any team seeking help from another team at competition*. I know the GDC has a tough job, and I understand how frustrating these edge cases must be, but these rulings hurt all of us in an ultimately futile attempt to stop the very few.

If they were wanting to change it, I wish they would have changed it to something specifying a maximum weight excluding items that are generally considered "COTS" parts (Batteries, motors, motor controllers, etc.). Say, for example, 5 pounds that can be given to any one team. It's heavy enough that full assemblies like gearboxes can be shared, but there aren't too many assemblies that are that light to be of strategic advantage if shared [I will be proven wrong by this]. But something along those lines.

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

If they were wanting to change it, I wish they would have changed it to something specifying a maximum weight excluding items that are generally considered "COTS" parts (Batteries, motors, motor controllers, etc.). Say, for example, 5 pounds that can be given to any one team. It's heavy enough that full assemblies like gearboxes can be shared, but there aren't too many assemblies that are that light to be of strategic advantage if shared [I will be proven wrong by this]. But something along those lines.

Oh I can do alot with 5 lbs. Its easily possible to build a can grabber or a ramp under 5 lbs, if you exclude COTS parts.

[hrench]

Originally Posted by Thad House

Oh I can do alot with 5 lbs. Its easily possible to build a can grabber or a ramp under 5 lbs, if you exclude COTS parts.

Our can-grabber was under 4 lbs fully built.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by NotInControl

in 2011 it was minibots. I can't even count how many minibots teams were using that they had no hand in fabricating.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

One thing to add, with the minibot example - FIRST *made an award* for lending out fabricated assemblies to other teams in 2011, and now it's illegal. Not just "technically illegal" - clearly, unambiguously illegal. Think about that for a minute.

Do keep in mind the intent of the minibots in 2011. It was expressively permitted, and awarded, to share minibots in LogoMotion. Woodie made comments about a "minibot economy." Beyond that, minibots were not necessarily even meant to be built by FRC teams. Tetrix parts were required for a reason, and they stressed that minibots were about integrating FRC and FTC together during kickoff.

The minibot was very much a distinct item from the rest of the robot in 2011. It wasn't simply an "assembly."

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Do keep in mind the intent of the minibots in 2011. It was expressively permitted, and awarded, to share minibots in LogoMotion. Woodie made comments about a "minibot economy." Beyond that, minibots were not necessarily even meant to be built by FRC teams. Tetrix parts were required for a reason, and they stressed that minibots were about integrating FRC and FTC together during kickoff.

The minibot was very much a distinct item from the rest of the robot in 2011. It wasn't simply an "assembly."

I think this example is really the crux of the issue. The GDC had an intent in 2011, and they designed the game to make it strategically beneficial to teams to execute on that intent. Or...they thought they did. I don't know how common trading minibots or collaborating with FTC was elsewhere, but it was certainly a universal truth that fewer Tetrix parts meant higher scores. The ability to clone also left the top tier teams who'd done all the R&D with a very bad taste in their mouth (and way less money in their wallets).

This year, the bad taste is coming from the 'boat anchor' robots for other team's ramps. I'm not arguing that this is or isn't inspirational or GP or in the spirit of FIRST: what a team gets out of that experience must be very much its own. (And related to hopefully well-meaning but functionally unregulatable Alliance professionalism.) But if the GDC wanted to avoid this, they shouldn't've made a game that had, from the start, clearly, painfully, obviously, 'here, we'll even make it easier to get four extra points if you take them off the field'-style diminishing returns for a 2nd pick of a dual powerhouse alliance.

Now that the GDC has set the game design--and I don't even really blame them for not foreseeing this if they didn't--stop with the over-legislating. (2013 G27 anyone?) This is a community concern now. And FIRST HQ has fostered a good one, in my humble opinion. Let the game play. You will make mistakes in life that you can't save people from. Luck be with you if this turns out to be the worst of them.

[Mr. Lim]

My reading of this Q&A is pretty straightforward:

They want the team associated with the robot to be the ones primarily working on the robot - not any other team.

They want teams to be able to help each other, but not build entire mechanisms for another team.

I think this is fair and 100% within my interpretation of what FRC is about.

Why this thread even exists is because it's nearly impossible to come up with a rule that distinguishes between helping another team vs building an entire mechanism for them. I don't envy the GDC/Q&A responders, because I couldn't come up with a ruling that effectively distinguishes between the two myself.

But, I believe in the spirit of this response, and intend to respect it.

In hindsight, I'll be the first to admit that we broke this rule at GTRC. Our tote-based ramp was constructed from COTS materials at the event, but it was designed, constructed and tested only by members of our team. Because the ramp had to be completed and tested before alliance selections began, we wouldn't have known who our 3rd alliance partner was in order to involve them.

However, I honestly believe it would have been a better experience for everyone if teams who included the ramp as part of their robot were also the ones who constructed it. Now we're being asked to ensure that this happens, and I think that's pretty reasonable.

Does this ruling eliminate the possibility of ramps entirely?

No. But you have to go about the process differently now. Release your ramp designs publicly, and see if there are any teams who are willing to construct them. Truthfully, this is probably what we should have done at GTRC, and had we done so, I think it would've been a pretty awesome experience. It's too bad our ramp didn't come together until Saturday late morning, but I guess we'll have another chance to do it right in Hawai'i next weekend.